pages
186 rows where page = 22
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: body
date (date) 186 ✖
- 2005-02-28 1
- 2005-05-17 1
- 2005-06-07 1
- 2005-06-13 1
- 2005-06-27 1
- 2005-07-19 1
- 2005-08-16 1
- 2005-12-06 1
- 2006-06-20 1
- 2006-09-05 1
- 2006-09-19 1
- 2006-10-17 1
- 2006-11-13 1
- 2006-11-21 1
- 2006-12-05 1
- 2007-01-02 1
- 2007-01-16 1
- 2007-03-26 1
- 2007-04-17 1
- 2007-05-15 1
- 2007-06-05 1
- 2007-06-19 1
- 2007-07-17 1
- 2007-08-07 1
- 2007-09-11 1
- 2007-11-06 1
- 2007-11-20 1
- 2007-12-04 1
- 2008-01-15 1
- 2008-02-19 1
- 2008-03-18 1
- 2008-05-06 1
- 2008-06-03 1
- 2008-06-17 1
- 2008-06-23 1
- 2008-07-01 1
- 2008-07-15 1
- 2008-08-19 1
- 2008-10-07 1
- 2008-10-21 1
- 2008-12-02 1
- 2009-01-06 1
- 2009-02-03 1
- 2009-02-07 1
- 2009-03-03 1
- 2009-10-20 1
- 2009-11-03 1
- 2009-11-17 1
- 2010-02-16 1
- 2010-03-16 1
- 2010-04-06 1
- 2010-04-20 1
- 2010-05-04 1
- 2010-05-18 1
- 2010-06-01 1
- 2010-06-15 1
- 2010-07-20 1
- 2010-07-27 1
- 2010-09-07 1
- 2011-02-15 1
- 2012-03-12 1
- 2012-05-15 1
- 2012-06-19 1
- 2013-04-02 1
- 2013-04-16 1
- 2013-07-23 1
- 2014-07-15 1
- 2014-12-02 1
- 2015-01-20 1
- 2015-01-21 1
- 2015-02-02 1
- 2015-02-17 1
- 2015-05-05 1
- 2015-09-15 1
- 2015-10-20 1
- 2015-11-04 1
- 2015-12-15 1
- 2016-01-05 1
- 2016-02-02 1
- 2016-02-16 1
- 2016-03-01 1
- 2016-06-21 1
- 2016-07-05 1
- 2016-09-20 1
- 2016-10-18 1
- 2016-11-01 1
- 2016-12-06 1
- 2016-12-14 1
- 2017-04-07 1
- 2017-04-12 1
- 2017-04-18 1
- 2017-05-16 1
- 2017-06-06 1
- 2017-06-20 1
- 2017-07-05 1
- 2017-07-18 1
- 2017-09-05 1
- 2017-10-03 1
- 2017-10-17 1
- 2017-11-07 1
- 2017-12-05 1
- 2017-12-14 1
- 2017-12-19 1
- 2018-01-16 1
- 2018-02-06 1
- 2018-02-14 1
- 2018-02-15 1
- 2018-03-06 1
- 2018-04-17 1
- 2018-05-09 1
- 2018-05-15 1
- 2018-06-05 1
- 2018-06-19 1
- 2018-07-10 1
- 2018-07-11 1
- 2018-07-24 1
- 2018-09-04 1
- 2018-10-16 1
- 2018-11-28 1
- 2019-01-29 1
- 2019-02-05 1
- 2019-03-13 1
- 2019-03-19 1
- 2019-04-02 1
- 2019-04-16 1
- 2019-05-07 1
- 2019-07-02 1
- 2019-07-16 1
- 2019-09-03 1
- 2019-09-12 1
- 2019-10-15 1
- 2019-11-19 1
- 2019-12-18 1
- 2020-02-04 1
- 2020-02-18 1
- 2020-03-03 1
- 2020-04-07 1
- 2020-04-21 1
- 2020-05-05 1
- 2020-05-19 1
- 2020-05-20 1
- 2020-06-02 1
- 2020-06-16 1
- 2020-07-07 1
- 2020-07-14 1
- 2020-07-21 1
- 2020-07-25 1
- 2020-09-01 1
- 2020-09-15 1
- 2020-10-06 1
- 2020-10-20 1
- 2020-11-17 1
- 2021-01-05 1
- 2021-01-19 1
- 2021-02-02 1
- 2021-03-01 1
- 2021-03-11 1
- 2021-03-16 1
- 2021-03-30 1
- 2021-04-05 1
- 2021-04-20 1
- 2021-05-04 1
- 2021-05-18 1
- 2021-06-01 1
- 2021-06-15 1
- 2021-07-06 1
- 2021-07-19 1
- 2021-07-20 1
- 2021-09-07 1
- 2021-09-21 1
- 2021-10-05 1
- 2021-10-19 1
- 2021-11-02 1
- 2021-11-16 1
- 2021-11-30 1
- 2021-12-07 1
- 2021-12-21 1
- 2022-01-04 1
- 2022-01-18 1
- 2022-02-01 1
- 2022-02-15 1
- 2022-03-01 1
- 2022-04-05 1
- 2022-04-19 1
- 2022-05-03 1
- 2022-05-17 1
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 22 | The Acting City Manager stated an across the board cut was not implemented; some departments have been hit more heavily than others ; the cuts were based upon a judgment he conveyed to departments based on his understanding of the Council's service delivery priorities; cuts were made in departments with the ability to provide the level of service that the Council has indicated should continue. Mayor Johnson stated the Council has expressed that across the board cuts are not the correct approach; the proposed budget is a good attempt to reflect the Council's priorities. Councilmember Daysog stated that he was not opposed to implementing a one-day furlough instead of eliminating actual positions; the proposed budget does not trigger the need for one-day furloughs ; the trigger would have been met if more positions were being cut. The Acting City Manager noted four positions are being eliminated. Councilmember Daysog stated if a number of police officers and fire fighters were being eliminated, considering options would have been necessary. Mayor Johnson stated the proposed budget is a solution for next year, not a long-term solution; the Council will have to decide whether positions remaining vacant should be eliminated or funded at some point. Councilmember deHaan stated staff and service levels for the last five or ten years should be reviewed to determine where the belt needs to be tightened or where positions should be added. Mayor Johnson suggested staffing levels for the last seven years be reviewed. The Acting City Manager responded said information would be provided. Councilmember Matarrese stated the public should know the impact of eliminating four positions; Council needs to understand impacts to evaluate whether the Council's priorities are being met prior to voting. The Acting City Manager inquired whether Council would like a short impact statement from each department head. Councilmember Matarrese responded only for the four departments Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 May 17, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-07 | 22 | Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that cutting a position that generates revenue may need to be re-thought the City needs to be business friendly. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City uses contract assistance when there are surges in the workload and whether the costs would be covered by the fees, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative. louncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the cut of the Planning Services Manager would slow down the permit and plan review process, to which the Building Official responded that there would be a slow down in plan review with a ripple effect on advanced planning projects. Councilmember Matarrese stated the cut is not large enough to justify the slow down; the costs incurred due to the cut would be far greater than the savings. Mayor Johnson inquired about the possibility of utilizing outside consultants. The Acting City Manager responded that surges and decreases in activity make it difficult to maintain even staffing levels; outside consultants are used to staff up for surges and are paid for by the applicant. Mayor Johnson stated that staffing should not be leveled to meet the peak demand. The Acting City Manager stated that the new Planning and Building Director could determine the right amount of staffing to handle the workload. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned with the intermediate and smaller projects whose proponents and owners do not have the ability to absorb the delay; doing work without permits might be encouraged and cause a deterioration of the housing stock across the City; the City should be mindful in trying to save a small amount of money and paying a large price in the future. Councilmember deHaan inquired what the status was for establishing a one-stop permit center and whether it was within the budget. The Building Official responded that staff is working with the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 7 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-19 | 22 | with setting an amount to cover the interim period and bringing the authority to hire outside counsel to the City Council, without limitation on dollar amounts. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should not be a special meeting for $3,000 if the City Attorney needs to hire a transactional attorney or if there is a tax question that comes up through the Finance Department. Mayor Johnson concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that if a dollar amount were not set, the Council would be involved in a $3,000 decision to hire a tax attorney. Mayor Johnson stated Council could discuss a dollar limit; if the Council had known about hiring Linda Tripoli to give an opinion on vehicle allowance, Council might have paid more attention to the issue; the Council should know who is working for the City, what people are being hired to do and why; that she does not have problem with a limit if the issue is minor. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that, if the Council wants to know who is being hired, the question comes down to timing; inquired how quickly the Council should be informed after legal counsel is hired; stated there is a proposal for quarterly financial reports on the cost of outside counsel, including who the outside counsel is for each matter. Mayor Johnson stated in a lot of cases the Council could give approval before outside counsel is hired; a lot of the hiring does not need to be immediate; regular Council meetings are twice a month; the City Attorney can hire someone and bring the matter to Council for approval at the next meeting in cases when there is not time; the Council does not want to have special meetings all the time; that she does not like the system that is in place now; the Charter states that the Council consents to the hiring of outside counsel; Council is currently consenting to hiring over $800,000 worth of outside counsel through a line item budget allocation; the Council needs to exercise more oversight Council can discuss the level of consent that should be set; it is a change from… | CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2005-08-16 | 22 | The Development Services Director responded the wall would be built on the property line; that she does not have the answer since the structural piece has not been completed; a process has been started to provide artists with an opportunity to prepare an attachable mural. Councilmember deHaan stated that the flat wall on the historical theater has treatment and movement; although the theater cannot be replicated, movement can be done. Councilmember Matarrese stated the picture shows a wall with four ins and outs. The Development Services Director stated there is some articulation. The Business Development Division Manager stated that the picture presented would not be the final design; the City has a public art policy; the Public Arts Commission received five proposals from local artists to create a design based on the adopted policy. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of accepting the appeal. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's motion was to reverse the decision of the Planning Board. Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. THE MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore, Councilmember Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he looked at the Planning Board's decision and the findings on both the Use Permit and Design Review; he has difficulty with the subjectivity of what is harmonious in design experts have discussed vertical and horizontal elements; there are constraints with mimicking the historic theater; the project is a good attempt to meet the goals to use the historic theater for first run movies and provide parking in an unobtrusive wayi inquired whether the Council could attach conditions. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated the conditions that he would like to see included in the motion to uphold the Planning Board's decision Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 August 16, … | CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 22 | The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 8 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-20 | 22 | The Finance Director responded the forecasted revenue would not be met; stated staff would come back to Council mid-year and recommend a reduction in the forecasted revenues. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a large portion of the restricted reserves is for the new Clubhouse, to which the Finance Director responded the net assets are the physical assets. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what was the net unrestricted balance, to which the Finance Director responded the net unrestricted balance is cash. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated there is a downward trend. The Finance Director stated the downward trend is one of the motivating reasons for fee discussion. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the golf climate has changed. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated golf is declining nationwide; the City cannot just raise fees to address the issue; people will go to other golf courses if fees are raised. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a decline in playing golf on dry days could indicate that the golf industry is changing. The Finance Director stated the Golf General Manager is reviewing a lot of alternatives to generate revenues. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether part of the revenue increase is the Return on Investment (ROI) change. The Finance Director responded the ROI is revenue in the General Fund and increases the Golf Department's expenditures. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated 15% of the reserves have dropped in the last five years; negative flows could occur two years out. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 8 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 20, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-05 | 22 | evaluated; ADC sends a letter stating what is needed from the applicants, such as W-2's checking account information, etc. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether an applicant's status is checked and re-evaluated at the end of the process, to which the Development Services Director responded the bank would re-evaluate the status. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the entire process could take six months. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative; stated the process includes workshops. Commissioner deHaan stated an applicant's status could change within six months; inquired whether applicants are informed that wages should include overtime. The Development Services Director responded the application requests gross earnings ; stated overtime is a calculation of gross earnings. Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting. Proponents (In favor of appeal) : M. Daniele Adams, Social Security Administration Isha Brown, Alameda; Jesusita Rutledge, Appellant Duane Rutledge, Appellant; Hannah Israel, Appellant's dependant and Jon Spangler, Alameda. Opponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Belinda Racklin, Alameda Development Corporation. There being no further speakers, Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Chair Johnson stated that she appreciates all speaker comments; the Rutledge's acted in good faith throughout the application process; rules need to be followed; rules become arbitrary without consistency; overtime rules are applied in court every day; the Rutledge's were given an opportunity to have the employer [Social Security Administration] provide information stating that overtime would not be allowed; said information was not received. Commissioner Daysog concurred with Chair Johnson; stated the income methodology was fair; ADC's and City staff's job is to find information; the Rutledge's income exceeds the maximum threshold for a family of four; the City needs to be fair to other families going through the processi urged the Rutledge's to stick with the Special Meeti… | CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-19 | 22 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 19, 2006- - 7:27 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:50 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chai: Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve the amended contract with Architectural Resources Group [paragraph no. 06-056CIC], and the recommendation to approve the amended contract with Komorous-Towey Architects [paragraph no. 06-057CIC] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ] ( *06-055CIC) Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission held on September 5, 2006. Approved. (06-056CIC) Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount by $19,860 to provide additional Construction Administration Services for the rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater. David Kirwin, Alameda, stated additional money should not be spent on the theater project until there is a final outcome on the lawsuit; commented other agenda items. Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification that the $19,860 Alameda Theater rehabilitation increase and the $5,000 Civic Center Parking Garage increase were within the theater budget, not part of the contingency. The Redevelopment Manager responded additional soft costs were expected; $277,000 was included in the July 26, 2006 budget for said costs; the contingency would not be used to fund the amended Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Counci… | CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 22 | disperse the traffic. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City could live with Policy No. 1, or whether the policy would need to be modified. The City Engineer responded impacts could be reviewed through the environmental review and the wording could be changed at that time, or mitigations could be addressed. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the process would be consistent with the Transportation Commission. The Transportation Commission Chair responded in the affirmative stated the intent is to give direction ahead of time so that the EIR'S do not have mitigations that do not make sense; The Transportation Commission and Planning Board would have discussions and Council would be able to make decisions based upon the traffic data by next June or July. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Council wanted to give some direction on Policy No. 7. Mayor Johnson responded work needs to be done on Policy No. 7's language and would be done through the environmental impact analysis. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether further clarification and expansion would be requested for Policy No. 7. Mayor Johnson responded all policies, not only Policy No. 7; reviewing the impacts of all seven policies is good; information on the policies' impacts is not available. Councilmember Matarrese stated if Council approves doing the study, testing could be done by running the policies through the new model if Council approves doing the study, which only is possible if the $100,000 in Measure B funds is appropriated. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of expeditiously moving forward with the appropriation so that the polices can be tested and bringing back the policies as rapidly as possible, through the Transportation Commission and Planning Board, so that Council can receive the benefit of the recommendation from the two Boards. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the policies are being accepted as a draft or Council is adopting the policies. Mayor Johnson responded money would be allocated to move forward Regular Meeti… | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2006-11-21 | 22 | Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the outline of the public input process would return following the NWSP adoption; there should be a commitment to enter into an ENA if the developer satisfies the public input meetings. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated said commitment cannot be made now; the ENA would come back for consideration; the ouncil/Commission should not commit to entering into an agreement if the developer completes various steps; the Council/Commission might decide an ENA is not appropriate when the matter returns it is not the appropriate time to consider the ENA; after the proposed meetings is the correct time to consider an ENA, but the Council/Commission is not committing to approval. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the process allows for reaching the correct point to consider an ENA. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the process allows consideration [of an ENA] however, he is not sure an ENA is necessaryi he does not know whether the 6.7 acres [of Tidelands property] kicks in the need for an ENA. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated said discussion would occur when the ENA returns; the City would have the benefit of the NWSP, additional public input and board/commission deliberation at said time. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion with the modifications. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated although he would like an understanding that the City would enter into an ENA, he is satisfied that there is a process in place once the NWSP is adopted. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the steps that the City expects the applicant to complete would lead to consideration of an ENA; however, the City is not committing to enter into an ENA upon completion of said steps; the process is normal; the City does not commit to an agreement with a developer when all the City has is a concept. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the normal process is the developer comes forward with a concept, which is reviewed for consistencies with applicable plans; the plan is presented… | CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2006-12-05 | 22 | Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated some Tinker Avenue/Wilver "Willie" Stargell extension issues may arise; a certain amount of lag time is possible; she would not like to get into a situation where the City is strapped with a $425,000 cap and is locked into a Transportation Management Plan (TMP ) ; alternative plans are needed. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired how retail impact concerns would be addressed. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the entitlement process is part of putting the project together; stated a retail impact analysis was prepared; the DDA requires that the retail tenanting strategy be consistent with the analysis and address leakage the leakage is identified in the study; Catellus is required to put together a retail leasing strategy and to meet with staff to discuss meeting the leasing strategy on a quarterly basis. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated Exhibit C of the DDA refers to public benefits; the bullet points seem to address project intentions inquired whether the public benefits are not action statements. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative stated the community benefits are identified in conjunction with the statement of overriding considerations; project community benefits are listed in exchange for the statement of overriding considerations. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he does not see a statement regarding how the project could jumpstart the beautification process around the Webster Street Tube area. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired who owned the Webster Street Tube area, to which Councilmember/Authority Member/Commission Daysog responded CalTrans. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated Catellus would meet quarterly with staff to discuss whether the tenanting strategy is on target; inquired what would happen if the tenanting strategy was not on target; stated experience has shown that situations may occur wh… | CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 22 | Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated the Transportation Commission is working on developing standards for evaluating and creating TDM Program plans; he hopes that the TDM Program is a limited necessity in terms of public policy; the water shuttle is the most expensive part of getting the TDM Program underway for Alameda Landing; the water shuttle should not depend solely on transportation funding. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember deHaan requested further clarification on Tinker Avenue extension; stated a three-tier process is written into the agreement. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the agreement would come back to Council before Options 2 and 3 are considered. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the developer is 100% responsible for funding and constructing Tinker Avenue extension; several things could happen that would preclude Tinker Avenue from happening one would be securing the required permit from CalTrans; continued progress is being made with CalTrans; the City needs to acquire land from the Peralta Community College District. staff is meeting with the District regarding the desire to acquire the right-of-way the DDA provides an opportunity to toll the declaration of infeasibility for ninety days while being considered by the Council if the City or Catellus are not successful in negotiating an acquisition from the District; the developer's obligation is triggered to explore an alternative to Tinker Avenue if Tinker Avenue is declared infeasible. the DDA provides that the TDM Program budget can be adjusted such that there is an augmentation to the TDM Program activity during the feasibility period for the alternative; a Tinker Avenue payment would go to augment the TDM Program over the long term if the CEQA process is determined to be infeasible. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Tinker Avenue element would be close to a $21 milli… | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 22 | The Development Manager stated said item was in the bid form as a deduct alternative; the cast in place walls are $80,000 less. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the concrete appearance would be the same, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether $150,000 of the reserves would be used, leaving approximately $300,000. The Development Manager responded approximately $140,000 of the reserves would be used when small cost savings are taken into consideration stated approximately $275,000 would remain. Mayor Johnson inquired whether items could be added back in if more contingency was not used, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Commissioner deHaan stated the Cineplex went through value engineering; inquired whether architectural items were taken away. The Development Manager responded value engineering was considered when the bid was received from Overaa Construction because the original price was higher; stated very little value-engineered changes are anticipated for the Cineplex. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the removed items have an impact on the Cineplex. The Development Manager responded the design changes are minor ; stated the Planning and Building Director would determine whether the changes constitute substantial changes to design review. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Planning and Building Director would review the changes, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the project is on schedule since Cineplex funding is not in place. The Development Manager responded milestones and schedules are noted on Attachment 2; stated the theater and garage are on schedule; the developer hopes to be finished with the Cineplex by the end of the year; the final Cineplex schedule would be presented to Council once the General Contractor is on board and construction starts. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2007-04-17 | 22 | explore good solutions for the northern façade of the parking structure. Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT (07-015) - There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:30 p.m. in a moment of silence for the Virginia Tech massacre victims and with sympathy to the families and community. Respectfully submitted, Lana Stoker Acting Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 4 April 17, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2007-05-15 | 22 | urged approval of the staff recommendations; stated perhaps $150,000 should be allocated for the ceiling to provide additional flexibility. Chair Johnson inquired whether $100,000 is sufficient, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner deHaan inquired what is being done with the Fox Theater, to which the Development Services Director responded it would be used for educational purposes. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendations with direction that as much restoration work be done as possible in the historic theater so that the project does not end with money left in the contingency budget. Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 12:18 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 4 May 15, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-05 | 22 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JUNE 5, 2007- - -6:40 p.m. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (07-246) Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations : All City Bargaining Units. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council reached a tentative agreement with the Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn bargaining unit; Council also received a briefing on Alameda Police Officers Association issues, and the Executive Management group. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council June 5, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-19 | 22 | School District. The City Manager stated the Museum allocation was identified in the budget every year; it is important to have an agreement for the terms and conditions. Mayor Johnson called the speakers. (Opponents (Not in favor of a 10% Museum rent subsidy cut) : George Gunn, Alameda; Nancy Anderson, Alameda; Nancy Hird, Alameda; Nancy Gordon, Alameda; Diane Coler-Dark; Alameda Museum; Philip A. Grauean, Alameda; Donna Grauem, Alameda; Chuck Millar, Alameda Museum; Birgitt Evans, Alameda; Robbie Dileo, Alameda; Christopher Buckley, Alameda; Ross Dileo, Alameda; Adam Hohun, Alameda. Mayor Johnson inquired how much revenue is collected through donations. Ms. Coler-Dark stated donations vary; home tours generate $8,000 to $12,000; the gift shop is successful. Ms. Dileo stated revenue is collected through estate sales. Mayor Johnson inquired how much money is received from donations. Ms. Coler-Dark responded the amount of donations vary greatly stated an endowment was received from the Stafford family; extra money is placed in Certificates of Deposits; the principle will be used to pay for the rent increase. Mayor Johnson inquired how much money is received in donations on an average or annually basis. Ms. Dileo responded some years donations amount to $4,000, other years $12,000. Vice Mayor Tam inquired how donations are solicited. Ms. Coler-Dark responded members walk the neighborhoods and leave flyers on porches stated a massive membership drive has been directed to past members. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Board Members are required to make contributions over time. Ms. Coler-Dark responded Board Members make significant Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 11 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 19, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2007-07-17 | 22 | Historical Theater tenant improvements should start in early November The Redevelopment Management stated tenant improvements include screens, seats, audio-visual and projection equipment, concession casework, ticket booth equipment, automatic ticket machines, and signage. Commissioner deHaan stated said improvements should be completed by January; inquired whether the Cineplex schedule could be accelerated. The Redevelopment Manager responded the City does not have control over the Contract stated work is on schedule; staff is confident that all work will be completed by March 2008. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Operation and Management Plan is clear. The Redevelopment Manager responded a detailed budget would be presented on August 7; stated staff feels that the budget is realistic; staff will have a better understanding of costs once proposals are received. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether staff is solidified on the fee structure. The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a fifty-cent per-hour rate is recommended, which is the same as street parking. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the contractor would be responsible for fee collection and hours of operation. The Redevelopment Manager responded the contractor would be responsible for revenue collection; stated staff recommends that the Police Department be responsible for enforcement. Commissioner deHaan stated that he hopes that the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) would provide support to keep the area clean. The Redevelopment Manager stated the parking management company should perform daily trash pick up. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 July 17, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2007-08-07 | 22 | Commissioner Matarrese suggested that revenue for a second elevator be kept in mind. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Commissioner Gilmore - 1. ] ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 11:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting 6 Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission August 7, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-11 | 22 | City Budget: Top General Fund Revenues, FY 2006-2007 Property Tax 14% Sales Tax 18% 45% Property Transfer Tax Utility Users Tax 12% 11% Motor Vehicle In Lieu Tax Percentage equals percentage of top five revenues 13 Top Five G.F. Revenues Trend ($ Millions) $22.3 $25 $20 $8.4 Property Tax $15 $5.4 Utility Users Tax $10 $5.7 Sales Tax $5 $6.7 Property Transfer Tax $0 Motor Vehicle In Lieu Tax 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Est Plan 2007 2008 14 7 | CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-06 | 22 | Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired how many parking spaces are needed for the Housing Authority office. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded two parcels are involved; stated one parcel would add an additional twenty to twenty-two parking spaces fourteen parking spaces would be needed on the eastern portion. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the equation would change to 0.6 parking spaces per tenant. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded the parking space would increase to 0.7 and would be less than the 0.75 required in the City ordinance. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated seniors are staying in the workforce longer dynamics have changed. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether some Housing Authority vehicles are parked off site. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded said vehicles are all parked on site; stated some vehicles are locked inside the garage; others are parked behind the gate in a secured area. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the preference is to avoid taking away any green area for parking; inquired whether Housing Authority vehicles could be parked off site. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded the fenced area behind the gate is a secured area and is used for ingress and egress for maintenance vehicles. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether additional spaces would be added for Housing Authority vehicles, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the negative. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether trees would be removed, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether similar, mature trees would be replanted, to which the Housing Authority Executive Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Housing 4 Authority Board of Commissioners November 6, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-20 | 22 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 20, 2007- - - -7:25 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (07-048) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project. The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Tam stated that BikeLink elockers are a wonderful asset BikeLink cards are $20; rates are three to five cents per hour; inquired how long it would take to use up the $20 card. The Redevelopment Manager responded usage would determine how long the card would last. stated BikeLink is a non-profit organization; the $20 card helps cover administrative costs and provides upfront money for services. Trish Spencer, Alameda Parent Teacher Association Council President, stated that she was did not know about the winebar at the Theater; the winebar changes the type of theater being offered; Burgermister will have a full liquor license; the high school has an open campusi Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) has regulations regarding establishments that have liquor licenses within 600 feet of a high school; the issue should have been shared with the community; there should be disclosure if the mezzanine provides alcohol. Leo Baldaramos, Alameda, read an email that he sent to the School Board President regarding the winebar at the Theater; stated he is concerned about the distance [of the winebar ] from the school. MINUTES (07-049) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on November 6, 2007. Approved. Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 1 November 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2007-12-04 | 22 | Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what the district would cover. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the district would be comprised of the properties from Alameda Landing to Alameda Point. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be an assessment fund to maintain the wharf. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the assessment fund would be from the Municipal Utilities District, covers more than the wharf, and includes other City services. Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. George Phillips, Alameda Boys and Girls Club, urged approval and expedition. Christopher Buckley, Alameda, encouraged the developer to keep both warehouses. Roberta Rockwell, Alameda East Bay Miracle League, stated that she supports the Alameda Landing Project. Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, stated he thought that the May 29 plan was great; he was distressed when the September amendment came before the Planning Board and the western portion of the wharf and a major structure were removed; he thinks that there may be ways of saving and repairing the pier over time. Mario Mariani, Alameda, stated he supports the changes. Don Lindsey, Alameda, encouraged moving forward with the project. There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the buildings would be demolished or deconstructed and reused. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the buildings would be a combination of deconstruction and potential demolition; stated the existing DDA does not obligate the developer to maintain the warehouses the Planning Board added a Condition of Approval which states that prior to making a decision about the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 8 and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission December 4, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2008-01-15 | 22 | to get around the issue. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether people park at the bus stops between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a . m. The Supervising Civil Engineer responded feedback did not indicate any substantial concern other than the previously mentioned Bay Street location; stated review showed ample on-street parking. Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on Mr. Edward's situation. The Program Specialist II stated plans are to relocate the bus stop; the bus stop would be moved up 50 feet. Mayor Johnson requested that staff explore the matter with Mr. Edwards. Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON-AGENDA (08-033) Patrick Lynch, Alameda, stated that the property owner adjacent to his home is in default of deed restrictions for a landscape installation and maintenance agreement. COUNCIL REFERRALS (08-034) Consideration of developing a transit hub on the land between Marina Village Drive and the entrance to the Posey Tube in order to address congestion in the Tubes. The Supervising Engineer gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $1.3 million estimate would be for the parking lot, to which the Supervising engineer responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the proposed area is the only available land for a park-and-ride on the West End; he would like to have the matter moved up on the priority list $1.3 is a flea bite of money considering all of the congestion management money spent to do freeway repair and maintenance that does not relieve congestion on I-880 and I-580; one way to reduce tube congestion is to get people out of single occupancy vehicles. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 January 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2008-02-19 | 22 | timeline on the budget. The City Manager/Executive Director responded potential revenue sources will be reviewed and presented at a workshop discussion in March or April stated each department's budget is being reviewed; information needs to be gathered on property tax issues; there could be additional impacts. louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the City is not at the point of considering a moratorium on spending yet. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the issue becomes a push pull situation regarding not filling positions; public safety overtime costs are expected to be $350,000; the work still needs to be done and the public needs to be provided with safety comfort; recognizing the obligation to protect the health and safety of residents is important. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he hopes that the City does not get to that point [moratorium on spending] . Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the public needs to understand the situation; the City cannot run on a deficit budget the situation is going to be longer term; choices are to increase revenues or determine what services are affordable; she wishes that there were more people here tonight ; the budget needs to be balanced by $4 million in the next four months; the community will have serious choices to make. Councilmember/Board ember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether a single-year budget could be done, to which the Finance Director responded a budget and a plan are done; the second year would not be adopted until next June. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the real focus has been the General Fund; two-thirds of the budget is not being discussed tonight; redevelopment and transportation funds could be impacted. The Finance Director stated redevelopment funds could be impacted if assessed values decline due to the County Appeals Board grants appeals, which lead to less tax increment for r… | CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2008-03-18 | 22 | Commissioner deHaan stated the theater needs to open to maximize use of the parking structure; inquired when the street will reopen. The Redevelopment Manager responded when construction is completed. MINUTES (08-16) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission Meetings held on February 6, 2008. Approved. Commissioner Tam moved approval of the minutes. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEM (08-17) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Executive Director/Chief Executive Officer to execute an Owner Participation Agreement Between the Community Improvement Commission, Housing Authority and Resources for Community Development for the development of Shinsei Gardens Apartments on certain real property on a portion of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center. The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation. Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner/Board Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Community Improvement Commission and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners March 18, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2008-05-06 | 22 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC), , AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) MEETING TUESDAY- - -MAY 6, 2008 - - -7:25 P. M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:58 p.m. Commissioner Torrey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Commissioner Torrey and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 6. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6. [ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ] ( *08-172CC/*08-21CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on April 15, 2008. Approved. ( *08-22CIC) Recommendation to approve a fourth amendment to the Contract with Associated Right of Way Services, Inc. adding $10,000 to the budget for a total Contract amount of $85,000 to provide consulting services for the Stargell Avenue Extension Project. Accepted. *08-23CIC) Resolution No. 08-153, "Authorizing the Executive Director to Convey and Accept Various Easements for the Development of Shinsei Gardens Apartments at 401 Wilver "Willie" Stargell and to Facilitate Utility Infrastructure on Adjacent CIC Property. " Adopted; (*08-23A CIC) Resolution No. 08-154, "Authorizing the Executive Director to Convey by Quitclaim Deed, 2,420 Square Feet at the Former Fleet Industrial Supply Center Site for the Storm Water Pump Station to the City of Alameda. Adopted; (HABOC) Resolution No. 800, "Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to Convey and Accept Various Easements for the Development Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 1 Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners May 6, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-03 | 22 | (08-02 - APFA) Adoption of Resolution Approving, Authorizing and Directing Preparation and Execution of Certain Lease Financing Documents and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. Continued. The Finance Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the cost of refinancing. The Finance Director responded the cost of the additional debt service over the new life of the issue is $594,658.75. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the cost of issuance, to which the Finance Director responded $150,000. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the total cost would be $150,000 plus $594,000. The Finance Director responded the $150,000 is included in the $594,000. Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese inquired whether $150,000 would be spent to save $203,000, extend the debt a couple years, and pay approximately $600,000 in interest. The Finance Director responded $600,000 would be spent over fifteen years in order to get the first year savings of approximately $600,000. Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated that he has a hard time borrowing money and encumbering two extra years on someone in the future. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the proposed refinancing would cost the City money. The Finance Director stated cash would be saved now and would be paid over the next fifteen years. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether refinancing would cost $594,000. The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated approximately $600,000 would be saved in interest. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she would not call it a savings Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 8 Financing Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting June 3, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-17 | 22 | Chief responded $200,000 to $300,000. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that numbers are needed regarding hiring seven firefighters versus overtime ; overtime should be reduced since nine new firefighters were hired; specific numbers are needed. louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated replacement vehicles could be deferred; additional replacements will be needed next year; inquired whether take home vehicle costs have been discussed, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative. Mayor/Chain Johnson stated the vehicle replacement policy needs to come back for discussion. The City Manager/Executive Director stated the vehicle replacement policy was changed; only a limited number of safety related vehicles were identified for replacement. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is being proposed for vehicle replacement next year. The City Manager/Executive Director responded $717,750, which includes some vehicles carried forward from the current fiscal year. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that vehicles should not be replaced until the matter is brought back to Council; shortfalls could be covered by taking less out of department budgets. Councilmember/Boaró Member/Commissioner deHaan stated discussions are needed regarding deferring an engine or command vehicle replacement; a fall back position is needed. Mayor/Chail Johnson stated $200,000 is proposed to be spent in one year for a Fire Department command vehicle, Division Chiefs' and Deputy Chief vehicles. The City Manager/Executive Director stated said vehicles met the criteria last year. The Fire Chief stated delivering service in the streets takes people, good tools, and training. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the issue will be revisited many times for many reasons ; mechanical Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 12 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-01 | 22 | (08-298) Written Communication from the League of California Cities requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the League's 2008 Annual Conference. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of Vice Mayor Tam being the City's representative and Councilmember deHaan as being alternate. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote Ayes Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese and Tam - 3. Absent : Councilmember Gilmore and Mayor Johnson- 2. [Note: Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Gilmore were away from the dais for the motion. ] (08-299) Councilmember Matarrese stated the budget was approved on June 17, 2008; requested an Off Agenda Report summarizing where the City is starting in terms of number of employees, impacts of the approved budget, and a comparison between the current and previous budget. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Vice-Mayor Tam adjourned the Regular Meeting at 12:43 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 July 1, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-15 | 22 | *** (08-40) - Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Chair Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents (In favor of the staff recommendation) : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) (provided handout) ; Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) ; Patty Jacobs, Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA) . There being no further speakers, Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Chair Johnson inquired why is PSBA's Landscape and Lighting assessment reduced. Mr. Ratto responded the assessment was not utilized for a number of years and resulted in a surplus, which has run out PSBA was going to request a 100% increase in the Landscape and Lighting assessment; property owners are not in support of an additional fee since the passing of Measure H. Chair Johnson inquired how much PSBA spends on marking and promotion, to which Mr. Ratto responded approximately $90,000. Chair Johnson inquired whether PSBA pays the electric bill [for the streets ] through the Landscape and Lighting assessment, to which Mr. Ratto responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tam stated that Landscape and Lighting assessment income is reduced from $69,850 to $57,417; the Business Improvement Area (BIA) income is reduced from $102,317 to $83,000; PSBA income is reduced from $147,755 to $121,500; and the grant fund amount would be increased from $108,020 to $111,446. Mr. Ratto stated PSBA leaves a $20,000 cushion when event budgeting is prepared just in case something happens most of the $20,000 goes back into the promotion budget. Following Ms. Moehring's comments, Chair Johnson inquired how much WABA spends on marketing and promotion, to which Ms. Moehring responded $71,000. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 3 July 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2008-08-19 | 22 | Agreement to ensure that SunCal remains the Master Developer ; SunCal has been straight forward with the City; appropriate protections need to be in place to protect the community and retain SunCal unless a mutual decision is made that the project would not work or would not be feasible; a commitment was made to SunCal, not to a third party. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the purpose of the ENA is to drive the City to a Development Agreement with SunCal as the selected developer. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation including a provision stating that the City could terminate the ENA if SunCal is terminated for reasons other than illegal activity or other malfeasance; the timeline being capped to take out some of the flexibility for an automatic extension; milestones being adjusted to meet the current progress and state of the project; and the matter being brought back for public review. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested that the motion include language for material cause for termination. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese agreed to amend the motion. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan requested clarification regarding the timeline. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the timeline should be capped to take away the automatic extension flexibility in the current ENA; staff would come back with a proposal. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired who was the original financial partner. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal anticipated self-financing the ENA period; stated SunCal identified the need to bring on a financial partner sooner given the real estate market. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Lehman Brothers has an investment in the project. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Lehman Brothers has some holdings within D.E. Shaw; D.E. Shaw is a $40-$50 Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 5 Reuse and Redevelopment Auth… | CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-07 | 22 | tax revenue. The City Manager stated the League of California Cities could be asked to explore the matter; opposition would come from cities benefiting from the revenue. Mayor Johnson stated fewer cities have larger dealerships ; efforts should be made to advocate for reallocation [of tax revenue] Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 3 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting October 7, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-21 | 22 | Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated a real number is needed, not a number driven by an accounting standard. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the $300,000 in the Golf due from ARRA fund would be repaid, to which the Interim Finance Director responded staff would look into the matter. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired the amount in the ARRA fund balance. The Interim Finance Director responded in the aggregate, fund balance is $10.3 million. The City Manager stated staff would get back to Council because there are differences between the amount and the cash flow. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the [ARRA] fund owes money to the General Fund and Golf, to which the Interim Finance Director responded staff would look into the matter. The Assistant City Manager stated some of the commitments are pretty poorly documented. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City needs to do a better job [of documenting commitments]. The Interim Finance Director stated the [ARRA] funds might not be available due to obligations in a Disposition and Development Agreement or something else; the numbers would be broken down more clearly; continued the presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested an explanation of the Workers' Compensation fund. The Interim Finance Director stated the fund has been set up to include the potential liability similar to Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) . The City Attorney stated both federal law and the City's participation in a workers' compensation risk pool require that the City show the actuarial loss reserve; the number is very high and represents the worst case scenario; the City has to have the funds, rather than just show the number on paper; the funds are held in Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 5 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 21, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2008-12-02 | 22 | unknown; projects need to be ready to go in 120 days the Public Works Department is gathering information on projects that would be ready to roll within the 120 day period; everyone is collecting lists to prove the case of needing money. Councilmember deHaan stated there will be first, second, and third waves; staff cannot give up. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $108 million price tag on the former Base could be put on the list. The Assistant City Manager responded opportunities could include Alameda Landing. Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda Point remediation projects have been designed and have not been funded in the past; the projects would generate jobs. (08-526) - Councilmember deHaan stated the theater projection union has not settled that the matter could be placed on Council Referral. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting 22 Alameda City Council December 2, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2009-01-06 | 22 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY - -JANUARY 6, 2009- - -6:00 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 6:15 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (09-01 - CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property 1435 Webster Street Negotiating parties : Community Improvement Commission and Farrar Family Trust; Under negotiation: Price and terms. (09-001 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: Two. (09-002 CC) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City Manager. Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Real Property, the Commission provided negotiating direction to its Real Property Negotiators; regarding Anticipated Litigation, direction was provided to Legal Counsel regarding litigation strategy on two separate matters of anticipated litigation. *** Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint Meeting at 11:43 p.m. *** Mayor Johnson announced that regarding the Performance Evaluation, Council reviewed the City Manager's performance; direction was provided to the City Manager. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission January 6, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2009-02-03 | 22 | the second floor theatre seating. Chair Johnson stated the Façade Grant Program is one of the most important things the City does, especially for small businesses; the Buena Vista Avenue and Park Street electrical project will affect all of Park Street and became an issue when the Market Place was established. Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether underground projects cannot be taken from Alameda Municipal Power's (AMP , s) undergrounding efforts. The Development Services Director responded the City has a list of priority underground projects; stated the City needs to partner with AMP and the Redevelopment Agency to perform multiple economic efforts. Speaker : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association. Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation in the following amounts : $450,000 for water repairs $150,000 for electrical upgrades and $200,000 for the Façade Grant Program for a total of $800,000 Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEMS (09-06 CIC) Recommendation consider an amendment to the Lease Agreement of 2315 Central Avenue between the CIC of the City of Alameda, Lessor, and Alameda Wine Company, LLC, Tenant. The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation. Speakers Karen Ulrich, Alameda Wine Company owner; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Jim Foster, Alameda. Chair Johnson stated operating hours were outlined in the lease because the Commission did not want dead zones near the theatre ; the business plan does not seem to be fully implemented the owner needs to determine whether she can run her business in a way that complies with the lease requirements; otherwise, the owner should consider moving to another location. Commissioner Gilmore concurred with Chair Johnson; stated the Commission considered many potential tenants for the space and had Special Joint Meeting Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 2 and Community Improvement Commission February 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2009-02-07 | 22 | Mayor Johnson stated debt should not be incurred without determining how to pay for it. Councilmember Matarrese stated $8. 8 million is not a true figure money is being spent that is not being assessed; the only two payment choices are to cut services or take the amount from the fund balance; that he would not support options to defer or borrow to pay for it [deficit]. Mayor Johnson stated a policy needs to be in place that the City cannot accumulate debt or negative fund balances that are not being paid; inquired how many years the deficit has been in place. The Interim Finance Director responded that she does not know off the top of her head. Mayor Johnson requested that Council receive the breakdown [ amount owed] for each department. Councilmember Matarrese stated the only course is to zero out the amount against the General Fund balance. The Interim Finance Director stated staff suggests working within the funds to cover half of the deficit and create a repayment plan. Vice Mayor deHaan requested that providing Council with the breakdown be added to the issue bin. Mayor Johnson inquired whether money in current department budgets could be used to start paying the workers' compensation deficit, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether more debt is being incurred this year, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $2 million [deficit in workers' compensation] was spent. The City Attorney provided an explanation of workers' compensation charges. Mayor Johnson noted the $2 million debt is in addition to the money that has to be set aside in the event all claims have to be paid. The City Manager gave a presentation on the ISF and the staff suggestion on how to resolve the deficit. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 22 February 7, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2009-03-03 | 22 | ADJOURNMENT (09-11) - There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:17 a.m. in memory of former Police Officer Robert Davey, Jr. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 4 March 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2009-10-20 | 22 | The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether waiving development standards are done to make the project financially feasible. The Planning Services Manager responded financial feasibility is for concessions and incentives; stated waivers allow the project to be developed on the site; a waiver might be needed to get a reduction in a side yard setback. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether an applicant would need to come forward publicly with a pro forma, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether more information could be requested if there are questions. The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the City would need to prove the case if it seems that incentives or concessions are not necessary to make a project financially feasible. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a defined process. The Planning Services Manager responded the process is similar to other development applications; stated staff would review the pro forma and evaluate whether the requested concession would be necessary to make the project financially feasible. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a public appeal process. The City Attorney responded any discretionary decision on a development standard could be appealed to the Planning Board or Council; stated the provision is not in the proposed ordinance but is the general law of the City. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there would be a noticing process. The City Attorney responded a noticing process has not been built into the proposed ordinance. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated concessions and waivers would not happen every day; inquired whether all applications for a density bonus or waiver would go to the Planning Board rather than Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2009-11-03 | 22 | Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether staff has looked into the opportunity of purchasing the property for the Housing Authority. The Economic Development Director responded that she is not sure whether the Housing Authority reviewed the matter; stated the operator is very responsible. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated oversight is needed to ensure that the property does not get into trouble again; funding could be better utilized from the Housing Authority. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan second the motion. Under discussion, the Economic Development Director stated staff collaborated with the Housing Authority on what would be the best way to work on the project. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Resources for Community Development manages other projects in the City and does a very good job; concurred with Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese's suggestion included in the motion. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam commended staff for the creative restructuring ; stated the project is the only resource the City has for the disabled. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (09-454 CC) Recommendation to Accept Public Streets Within Bayport Alameda, Approve a Lease for the Use of the Community Building and a Reciprocal Easement Agreement Per the Joint Use Agreement Between the Alameda Unified School District and the City, and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute and Authorize Execution of Documents for Completion of Bayport Alameda Project Obligations and (09-50 CIC) Recommendation to Approve Quit Claim Deeds Conveying the Public Streets and Bayport Park and Storm Treatment Pond Properties from the Community Improvement Commission to the City, Approve an Access and Maintenance Easement from the Community Improvement Commission to the City for Segments of the Storm Drain System, Adopt the Bayport Project Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010, and Authorize Execution of Documents for Completion of Bayport Alameda Project Obligations. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council… | CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2009-11-17 | 22 | The Interim City Manager stated staff would come back at the December 15 Council meeting; each Councilmember should submit someone to nominate for appointment. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (09-473) - Dave Duffin, Alameda, submitted a video; discussed recent filming activities in the City. ( (09-474) Nancy Rogers, Protect the Point Committee, requested the letter assigned to the SunCal Initiative be changed. Mayor Johnson stated the City is working on changing the letter. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (09-475) - Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Commission on Disability Issues, Housing Commission, and Youth Advisory Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Ethel Warren for the Commission on Disability Issues; Clifton J. Smith for the Housing Commission; and Samantha J. Chin for the Youth Advisory Commission. ADJOURNMENT (09-476) There being no further business, Mayer Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting in memory of Dr. Alan Mitchell at 12:26 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 November 17, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2010-02-16 | 22 | choose to make SunCal's documents open to the public; SunCal would have to agree to do so, which would be done by amending the ENA. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a similar request was made six months ago; inquired whether the matter is part of the public record. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded that she would have to check the record; the Council/Board/Commission would have to make a motion to discuss the matter if it was addressed in closed session. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated SunCal would have to agree to an ENA amendment to be more transparent; inquired whether SunCal's letter from last October would not have been sufficient and an ENA amendment would have been required. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she believes the letter proposed choosing item by item what would become public record, which is not the same as lifting the confidentiality provision altogether. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what lifting confidentiality would look like; questioned whether negotiations between staff and SunCal would be done in public. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the confidentiality provision in the ENA has to do with the documents; stated assuming SunCal agrees, the documents would become public record and it would be appropriate to talk about what is in the documents. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether documents are the pro forma, business plan, etc., to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the reason it [lifting confidentiality restrictions] is so important is the City could not divulge what was in the $200 million cap. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she is still confused--the agenda item is to consider requests for ENA extension and retraction of the Notice of Default; SunCal has withdrawn both requests; inquired if there is a way to take action aside from what was noticed on the … | CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2010-03-16 | 22 | The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated there would be no reason to make any changes until a final decision is made; all pieces of the puzzle need to fit. Mr. Sullwold stated negotiating a license with Alameda Junior Golf would not take 180 days; discussing negotiations with Kemper can be done after fitting the Mif Albright course in the puzzle. Ms. Sullwold stated Council needs to ask the people who made pledges whether they are willing to come forward with pledges without a contract. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a timeline could be established to review the full analysis. The Interim City Manager responded that she understands the plan; stated non-profit negotiations will go faster than the number crunching for the 36 holes; the uses cannot be competing and need to dovetail into each other; insurance, indemnification, etc. for the non-profit have not been resolved yet; a decision cannot be made in a vacuum. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a certain amount of negotiations could be made upfront for both parties without finalizing with Kemper within 60 days. The Interim City Manager responded a business term sheet could be developed within 90 to 120 days to deal with questions in the original motion in terms of cost, numbers, and the analysis, but the final document [agreement] could not be completed; 90 to 120 days is reasonable for a term sheet for both sides to see if pieces fit; legal documents could be drafted if Council blesses the business terms which would take another 90 days. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether preferences should be discussed at this time. | CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2010-04-06 | 22 | Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether having a SunCal representative present to answer questions makes sense. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded SunCal [representatives] can speak, if they want to. Speaker: Philip Tribuzio, Alameda, submitted letter. In response to Mr. Tribuzio's comments, Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the Interim City Manager/ Executive Director should be able to give an update on the City's efforts regarding America's Cup at the next Council meeting. ORAL REPORTS (ARRA) Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of March 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the March 4 RAB meeting, including on- going remediation efforts: The Building 5 storm drain sewer lines leading up to the sea plane lagoon are being removed; the infrastructure did not match the drawings; radioactive sediments were found in a number of storm drains beyond the drains that are being removed; the Navy is opening up a new Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA). Ground water contamination clean up is being done under Building 5 using soil vapor extraction. The RAB had a long discussion about a benzene naphthalene plume under the Marina Village housing that is being remediated. He did not attend the April meeting, but would attend the May meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 5 Community Improvement Commission April 6, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2010-04-20 | 22 | The Economic Development Director responded the language would automatically change the requirements for Alameda Landing based upon any subsequent code modifications the City would make. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION (10-181 CC/ARRA/10-21 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal The Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided a handout and gave a brief presentation. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested expansion on the Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) gas system issue. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated currently, ARRA owns the Alameda Point gas system; PG&E operates and maintains the gas system; the operating agreement expired years ago; PG&E is still meeting all [agreement] obligations; ARRA has options to either enter into an operating agreement to pay PG&E a certain amount annually or convey the system to PG&E; preliminary discussion have been held; operating costs could be included in the rates if PG&E owns the system, which would eliminate ARRA operation and maintenance costs. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would scope the [modified Optional Entitlement Application (OEA)] project or the density bonus option, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded both. In response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding the public scoping session the Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Planning Board meeting would have staff and EIR consultant presentations and public comment. The Planning Services Manager stated the purpose of the scoping session is to provide an opportunity for the public to identify issues to be addressed in the EIR, which has not been written yet. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the public session would be significa… | CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2010-05-04 | 22 | Mr. Brown responded SunCal has a meeting tomorrow with the traffic engineer and planners; stated the proposal is to provide a new ferry location at the center of the community to provide additional transit services both inside and outside of Alameda; that he does not have the full scope at this time. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is Mr. Brown's position with SunCal. Mr. Brown responded that he has been with SunCal for twelve years; stated his title is Regional President; that he is responsible for the entitlement, development, and construction of a large number of various master plan communities; that he has supervised thirty or forty projects. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is concerned that SunCal is pursuing something similar to Measure B. Mr. Brown stated SunCal does large, complicated projects; that he has been added to the team to help augment SunCal's professional staff. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan requested that Mr. Brown describe SunCal's team. Mr. Brown stated Nick Costas is a Planner; Amy Freilich is a Land Use Attorney and has been heavily involved in large scale entitlement projects; that his background is in engineering and law and he has been in the business for over thirty years; Frank Faye is the Chief Operating Officer; David Soyca is part of the team; Dale Strickland and Tri Chan are Underwriters. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the team is spending one hundred percent of their time on the project except for Ms. Freilich and Mr. Faye. Mr. Brown responded everyone works on multiple projects; stated no one is fully devoted to one project except for Mr. Costas. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired who is working on transportation planning, to which Mr. Brown responded that he does not know. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested that information be provided; stated people are very concerned about the transportation plan. The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated Jim Daisa with Kimley-Horn is working on … | CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2010-05-18 | 22 | developed at Alameda Point will have some impact on the rest of the island; the question is what does the rest of Alameda get for developing Alameda Point; Council insists on fiscal neutrality but public benefits would be provided for the rest of Alameda; public benefits are the carrot for the rest of Alameda and need to be funded; having systems in place to mitigate traffic burdens is a really difficult job but is important to nail down. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Navy has not been at its peak for decades; in the past, there was more tolerance for Navy traffic; traffic created by development would not have much tolerance. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated more square footage is being requested than for Measure B; Marina Village is 60% vacant; available office space is not being utilized; the original Community Reuse Plan was for blue collar job generation to backfill jobs lost; that he is concerned that 60 days from now a decision will need to be made; he is uncomfortable with decisions made; SunCal could not satisfy the needs of unions, schools, historical element, and community in general; today, SunCal is kinder and gentler; however, everyone is identical except for one person; SunCal went into bankruptcy because of Lehman Brothers; SunCal is having the same problems with D.E. Shaw; that he is not comfortable with the financial aspect of signing into a partnership; he does not want to be involved in a legal suit or bankruptcy; that he was concerned with picking up D.E. Shaw but could not convey what was brought to the table because everything was confidential; the City has been in a three year process; the City went into a five year process with APCP; the City decided to finance a PDC after two and a half years; people can sort out what they liked and disliked about Measure B but Measure B was still defeated. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted… | CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-01 | 22 | Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she does not recall PDC information on the WRT Solomon Transportation Study; inquired whether 1,700 homes would generate revenue to pay for transit solutions. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan responded the issue is extremely questionable; stated more public amenities would be needed for more homes. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she thought the whole concept is to have people bike or walk to neighborhood amenities. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a transit oriented plan was used in the community use plan; the transit oriented community in the community use plan and the PDC were almost parallel; nothing has changed; building more homes is not the answer to transit solutions; Treasure Island is the king of less auto usage; Treasure Island residents use 1.8 autos per home. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what assumptions were made with respect to the ferry; stated the Alameda Point ferry terminal seems to be doing well and has an over 40% fare box recovery ratio. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan responded Oakland contributes more of the ridership than Alameda; Oakland would lose its ferry service if the ferry was moved to the lagoon; inquired what is Oakland's fare box recovery ratio. The Public Works Director responded the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service fare box recovery ratio is approximately 58%; stated the Oakland connection helps Alameda mid day because of Oakland excursion riders; staff has a meeting on Thursday with the Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA); WETA is wondering what will happen to the fare box recovery ratio and whether the ferry service would be viable if it is bifurcated from the Oakland connection and located at the seaplane lagoon. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the northeast corner lagoon location is a concern; the vessel would have to traverse the whole lagoon, which would take five minutes; the PDC relocated the f… | CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 22 | not have a cap on expenditure limits but has a cap on contribution limits; Hayward has a voluntary expenditure limit; Hayward's ordinance has a $50,000 expenditure cap; enforcement is one of political peer pressure rather than violation of civil penalties; Pleasanton has an expenditure limit tied to a dollar amount per registered voter with an escalator for inflation. Councilmember Matarrese stated everyone would point at the violator but there would be no civil penalty. The City Attorney stated the ordinance addresses what the City can do; the only thing missing is a voluntary agreement for a candidate to limit expenditures; a public financing matching fund would need to be created for enforcement. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the agreement would be enforceable with a public financing matching fund. The City Attorney stated enforcement would be not getting the match. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she supports the idea of campaign finance reform; the City should have a good ordinance, but this ordinance is not it; the ordinance has been rushed, is politically motivated, and has not had the proper public debate; the ordinance has not gone to the Sunshine Task Force or League of Women Voters; the League of California Cities has a resource on campaign finance which the Council has not reviewed; this ordinance is unfair; if someone decides to self fund the race there is no provision to give an escalator to anyone else so that the playing field would be level; there is no escalator for inflation; the ordinance is politically motivated because there seems to be a rush to get the ordinance in place before the November election; several candidates have already announced that they are running and have raised money; rules would be changed in the middle of the campaign cycle; candidates who file in July would be bound by a set of rules that people who got in early were not bound by; there is no provision saying that a candidate cannot transfer money into a campaign account for another race; if the ordinance passes in … | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-20 | 22 | Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam requested clarification on SunCal's intent and interpretation. Mr. Brown stated the form is complicated and is based on a prior DDA; staff has a misunderstanding of many elements; SunCal's intent is to continue a process with the City to get to a final public hearing; the document could be modified through the process; completion bonds, subdivision bonds, cash collateral, firm financing commitments, capital stack of debt, equity, all come together to deliver financial security at the close of every escrow so that the property could be acquired and fully developed; the financing plan is contained in the document; the financial plan cannot identify the loaning bank two years in the future; the financial plan shows how much cash would be coming from equity and debt to acquire and make infrastructure improvements; SunCal has provided the best estimate at this time; figures may be different down the road; the estimate is a good faith, solid estimate today; the scheduled performance states that the horizontal development would be completed within a specified time, that all residential land would be transferred to builders within a specified timeframe, and that vertical builders, who would build residential and commercial buildings, would all build within five years of the time the property is acquired; all schedules build and tee off one another in case of a delay or acceleration; SunCal cannot predict unexpected events that would change the schedule; the penalty for not achieving the schedule would be that SunCal would not have the right to proceed on the project; SunCal feels that providing for force majeure is fair. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated it is difficult to give policy direction on the fly on a document that she has not seen based upon interpretations that seem different for each party. The Public Works Director stated that infrastructure costs have not been agreed upon; the transportation plan is not detailed and is more of a transportation con… | CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-27 | 22 | not to reduce staffing absent circumstances beyond control; that she does not know what the State will do with some of the issues; she thinks revenues are very solid and will stay firm; the City is in a no growth period until 2014. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated federal government projections are 9.5% unemployment until 2014. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated California is at 14.6% unemployment; the Bay Area is particularly high; continued the presentation. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated contingency plans need to be in place. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated finding ways to protect services is important; sometimes the easiest things to cut what some people believe are nonessential services that are quality of life services; staff is trying to come up with strategic ways, such as working with consortiums to do non-profit, school opportunities, and outsourcing non-core services so that existing employees can be redeployed someplace else like filling a position in another department; the process is of managing resources is constant. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated an item on tonight's agenda is a project that would bring revenue and jobs to the City; the leasing program at the former Naval base and the Alameda Point plan will help with the revenue stream so that the City can stay steady; the proposed budget looks good and reflects maintaining a plan that is well thought out, is tight, and is very conservative; a way needs to be found to strengthen the revenue stream so that the City can stay steady when the economic experiences deepens. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated new revenues are not included in the projections, which are conservative; the City has projects coming forward that are generating jobs in the dead economy; staff has had to revisit some things because generating jobs and property tax makes sense right now; the situation is a give and take. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Mr. Hausman had some questions [regarding … | CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2010-09-07 | 22 | instead of ship operations; that he would like to look at the matter and flush out the $376,000 relocation study. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the proposed use could be compatible with residential. Commissioner deHaan inquired what options have been reviewed for the Alaska Packers Building. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the Tidelands Trust limits uses to maritime, visitor, retail, and restaurants. Chair Johnson stated the Alaska Packers Building should be considered in the plans for the site. The Interim Executive Director stated a parallel track could be initiated with the ENA; staff could come back with two proposals. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the relocation study should be done at the same time also. Mr. McKinley stated Warmington Residential gave the City $100,000 to build a new facility when property was swapped. Commissioner Gilmore stated that she is intrigued with the proposal, which should be reviewed; she would be more comfortable seeing more information on the Alaska Packers Building before acting on an ENA; she would hate to get into a situation where one problem is solved by moving the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter and revitalizing the property only to cause difficulty for the Alaska Packers Building, which is a City asset with restricted uses because of the Tidelands Trust; the upkeep [Alaska Packers Building] would fall on the City by not allowing a developer to develop the project in a financially feasible manner. Commissioner deHaan stated looking at the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter construction costs is important; funding streams need to be known; the worst thing would be to get half way through the process and not have funding; that he would like to have the matter flushed out. Chair Johnson stated that she agrees with Commissioner deHaan; the purpose of bringing the matter before the Commission tonight is to start looking at the issues. Commissioner Matarrese stated that he has no problem with starting… | CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2011-02-15 | 22 | matter of months. Commissioner deHaan stated Catellus has been involved in the Emeryville and Fremont Target stores; inquired where the other store mentioned would be located, to which Mr. Marshall responded New Jersey. In response to Commissioner deHaan's comments regarding handling the DDA separately, Mr. Marshall stated Catellus has a very limited timeline to meet the initial phase obligation; coming with a list of egregious DDA amendments would be foolish; a protracted DDA negotiation is not in Catellus's schedule. Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation, with stipulations that the DDA amendments would be presented to the Commission in the next few months and concerns about the City's outstanding money [spent on the hospital fire and Stargell improvements] would be part of the [DDA amendment] discussions. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. * * Mayor Chair Gilmore called a recess to hold the regular meeting at 9:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:24 p.m. *** CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor/Chair Gilmore announced that the Contract [paragraph no. 11-018 ARRA] was withdrawn from the agenda. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*11-092 CC/11-017 ARRA/11-010 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA, and CIC Meeting Held on January 25, 2011; and the Special Joint City Council, ARRA, CIC, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting Held on February 1,2011. Approved. (11-018 ARRA) Recommendation to Award Contract for the Alameda Point Resource Team to Perkins + Will in the Amount of $200,000 for Land Use Planning Consulting Services. Not heard. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 7 Community Improvement Commissio… | CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2012-05-15 | 22 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY-MAY - 15, 2012- -6:58 P.M. Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:14 p.m. Vice Mayor Bonta led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (12-223) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, urged Council to review the campaign finance ordinance; submitted information. (12-224) Kurt Peterson, Alameda, made brief comments. AGENDA ITEM (12-225) Resolution No. 14673, "Amending Resolution No. 14637 to Move the June 5, 2012 Regular City Council Meeting to June 6, 2012 due to the Special Election. Adopted. Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Gilmore announced that the regular meeting would be adjourned in memory of Police Officer Dave Ellis and U.S. Army Sergeant Tom Fogerty; and discussed lowering flags. There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 15, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2012-06-19 | 22 | the pipes do not meet standards. Mr. Lopes responded staff told him everything would have to be replaced, which he does not believe; inspection will pass once the valves are installed. Mayor Gilmore stated the motion includes that there will be a complete inspection of the gas lines, including the valves and material composition of the lines. Mr. Lopes stated a couple of spots would be uncovered to check the material, depth and test pressure. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, the City Attorney responded not unless the Councilmember declares bias. Vice Mayor Bonta stated that he does not believe he technically has a conflict, he just did so out of an abundance of caution. The City Attorney stated the rule of necessity allows for a drawing to be held to make a quorum; Vice Mayor Bonta does not appear to have a true conflict. Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Tam expressed they do not have a true conflict either. Vice Mayor Bonta and Councilmember Tam voluntarily recused themselves and left the dais. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the County required payment of a prior assessment due to the property transfer, to which Mr. Cederborg responded in the affirmative; stated the amount is $7,800. Council discussed whether or not the amount could be the School District parcel tax. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the amount is not being disputed, to which Mr. Cederborg responded the property owner has worked in good faith and citations have continued to accrue. Councilmember Johnson stated health and safety concerns are greater for commercial space. * (12-328) Councilmember Johnson moved approval of considering the next three ordinances [paragraph nos. 12-329, 12-330, and 12-331 after 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 June 19, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2013-04-02 | 22 | Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Memorandum of Understanding by and between the United States of America, Acting by and through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of Alameda for Funding of the Predator Management Plan. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Tam moved approval of the Memorandum of Agreement by and between the United States of America, Acting by and through the Department of Veterans Affairs and the City of Alameda for Implementing Lighting Measures for the Protection of the Endangered Least Tern. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (13-145) The City Manager announced an upcoming special budget meeting on the City's first two-year budget; encouraged anyone interested to attend; announced a Commercial Broker event to showcase real estate and development opportunities in Alameda; stated the Navy has confirmed that $10 million will be allocated to the continuing environmental cleanup of Alameda Point; the Navy has already spent $480 million and the City is very glad to receive an allocation this fiscal year. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (13-146) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Mayor Gilmore nominated Joy Pratt for reappointment to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. (13-147) Councilmember Chen encouraged people to listen to a talk show that he and a San Leandro Councilmember would be participating in on April 3rd. (13-148) Mayor Gilmore stated the City is actively working with the School District to provide cost effective feasible solutions to the pools; a joint subcommittee of the City and School Board met last week and received a proposal from City staff with cost Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 April 2, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2013-04-16 | 22 | Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 5 to the Community Improvement Commission April 16, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2013-07-23 | 22 | Councilmember Daysog stated the Fire Department held community meetings about the different Emergency Operations Center (EOC) possibilities; inquired what the cost would be and whether $3 million would cover costs. The City Manager responded the EOC would cost around $2.8 million; the City owns the land, which is adjacent to Fire Station 3. Councilmember Daysog inquired how much a new Fire Station [3] would cost, to which the City Manager responded the most recent estimate is $6.5 to $7 million; stated staff is working on reducing the figure. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is a specific revenue source, to which the City Manager responded in the negative; stated having the site prepared when the EOC is done would help the project; the City would achieve some economies of scale. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the approach is sensible; the EOC price tag sounds good; the library bond estimate was $15 per $100,000 of assessed value; the rate dropped significantly by the time the City went out to market; people pay $8.50 per $100,000 instead; refinancing provides a savings; a lower tax bill would be appreciated in the current economy. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of providing direction on the two issues [refunding the 2002 City Hall Project Certificates of Participation and 2003 General Obligation Bonds]. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the motion includes the $3 million cash out. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative; stated $3 million would be cashed out to cover the cost of the EOC and the tax payers would still receive a little break, which does not happen often. Councilmember Chen inquired whether the two [2002 Certificates of Participation and 2003 General Obligation Bonds] represent the only outstanding debt, to which the Finance Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Chen inquired why the same is not being done for other bonds, to which Councilmember Tam responded the City has already done so. The Finance Director stated a financial advisor reviewed all of the … | CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2014-07-15 | 22 | comments to me over the past year that indicate that he does not like my home daycare business. He also has said that he wants market rate rent for my unit. However, it is also noteworthy to mention that in the entire time I've lived here, he has not made any improvements and there are a number of problems. Such as, dry-rotted front porch and steps, dry-rot fence, chipping house paint, hole in my ceiling and water damage due to upstairs leak, leaking roof and mold. Neighbor across hall just had rent increased $ 500.00 a month. I will be next but can't afford it & can't find safe space for cheaper so I will leave East Bay. Afraid of spike increase when my lease is up. Pet rules are changing and I have a working relationship w/ dogs. I am concerned about increasing pet rent. Being Evicted because of Renovation As units become filled, mgmt feels it can raise rents (supply and demand) to 'what the mrkt will bear' I lived previously on San Jose Avenue in a townhouse where my rent was raised $100.00 a month yearly from $950.00 to $1800.00 with no repairs done. Now where I live nothing is repaired cleaned up, or fixed yet landlord is taking another increase. I pay 50 percent of my monthly income to rent. Although I receive rental assistance from the Housing Authority, the owners seem to be feel like they can increase the rent as much as they want. The housing authority doesn't advocate against this - their attitude is either pay the increase or move. The reason I am on housing is because of low-income so picking up and moving is not financially an option. We need someone who can help fight for our rights. I think they are going to do major repair on my unit but won't give me any information. Something funny is happening at my apartment. I live in a Victorian house split into 4 units. Upstairs one unit became vacant the other was not. The owners gave the non-vacant unit resident (who has lived here 10 years) a month and half to move claiming his son was going to take the apartment. A month after that he put a sign on my … | CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2014-12-02 | 22 | Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the motion would eliminate the 31 very-low, low income affordable housing units, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated the motion follows the logic of traffic and transit. The motion FAILED for lack of second. Councilmember Tam moved approval of reducing the number of maximum units to 380 from 414. The City Planner listed the amendments: 1) Page 29, language should be: "not later than 36 months"; 2) Page 31 Phasing Approval section, add a new sentence: "Within six months of Master Plan approval, the Planning Board shall hold a public hearing to review progress on project implementation including, but not limited to, Wind River property acquisition for Clement Avenue Extension, first neighborhood parking study scope of work, and affordable housing development."; and 3) Page 31 Phasing Approval section, add new sentence, "Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall fund a dedicated building inspector with experience with large-scale historic rehabilitation and residential adaptive reuse construction projects; inspector shall work directly under the supervision and direction of the Chief Building Official.' Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance adopting the Del Monte Warehouse Master Plan and Density Bonus with the amendments listed by the City Planner and restricting the housing to 380 units. Councilmember Chen seconded the motion; stated that he supports the 8 to 9% reduction in housing units. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstentions: Councilmember Daysog - 1. Councilmember Daysog moved to introduction of the Del Monte DA ordinance with amendment to page 9 changing the language from "Planning Board approved TDM program" to "City Council approved TDM program". In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Planner stated the TDM was approved by the Planning Board on November 11th and would have… | CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-01-20.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2015-01-20 | 22 | CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (15-059) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Study to Review Suggestions to Provide Relief for Traffic on Island Drive. (Councilmember Oddie) (Continued to January 21, 2015) (15-060) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Consultant Study to Determine the Feasibility for a Wetland Mitigation Bank at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Oddie) (Continued to January 21, 2015) (15-061) Consider Directing Staff to Install Flashing Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs at Two Locations: 1) Maitland Drive and Mecartney Road, and 2) Mecartney Road and Belmont Place. (Councilmember Oddie) (Continued to January 21, 2015) (15-062) Consider Directing Staff to Collaborate with East Bay Regional Park District on Acquisition and Expansion of Crab Cove. (Councilmember Matarrese) (Continued to January 21, 2015) (15-063) Consider Directing Staff to Create a Comprehensive Transit/Traffic Strategic Plan and Implementation Tool. (Councilmember Daysog) (Continued to January 21, 2015) (15-064) Consider Directing Staff to Initiate Steps in Preparing a Structurally Sustainable General Fund Budget. (Councilmember Matarrese) (Continued to January 21, ,2015) (15-065) Consider Directing Staff to Re-establish the Economic Development Commission. (Councilmember Matarrese) (Continued to January 21, 2015) COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (15-066) Designation of a Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California Cities. (Continued to January 21, 2015) Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 January 20, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-01-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2015-01-21 | 22 | representative and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft as the alternate. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Daysog stated he would make sure to maintain the relationship the way that Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft worked with former Councilmember Tam. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM (15-078) Discuss City Council Rules and Procedures for City Council Meetings and the Possibility of Holding a Future City Hall Open House. (Mayor Spencer) Mayor Spencer gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Sunshine Ordinance would be discussed tonight; stated if three meetings in a row go past 11:00 p.m., Council must add extra meetings for the rest of the year; Council may want to think about economy of time. Mayor Spencer stated staff tried to come up with all the different resolutions and ordinances and the Brown Act which support the Council meeting workings; she wants to discuss actually making the agenda. Councilmember Oddie inquired about the open house. Mayor Spencer responded that she does not believe Council has to vote on the matter. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned why the matter did not come as a Council Referral because she is just hearing about it now and does not have information and the public does not know what is being discussed or have any background; stated that she would like to discuss whether all members of the City Council should have to go through the Council Referral process. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he had a similar concern about not having any detail on the matter; agendas are full; an open house should be done at the appropriate time, which would probably mean a workshop; inquired whether the intent is to have the Council make a recommendation on the matter tonight; stated in order to direct staff to do something, staff needs Council direction. Mayor Spencer stated her intent is to allow Council to have an open discussion if people have ideas about how to work together. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she recentl… | CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2015-02-17 | 22 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY - 17, 2015- -6:59 P.M. Mayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Mike McDonough led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Agency Members Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor/Chair Spencer - -5. Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Consent Calendar (15-109 CC/15-004 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting Held on October 21, 2014 and January 20, 2015. Approved. Vice Mayor/Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the January 20, 2015 Minutes. Councilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice votes - 5. Councilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the October 21, 2014 minutes. Councilmember/Agency Member Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Agency Members Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor/Chair Spencer - 4. Abstention: Vice Mayor/Agency Member Matarrese - 1. Agenda Items (15-110 CC) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period Ending December 31, 2014 Collected During the Period July 1, 2014 to September 30, 2014. The Supervising Accountant gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember/Agency Member Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission February 17, 2015 1 | CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-05-05.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2015-05-05 | 22 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - MAY 5, 2015- -6:00 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5. [Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:11 p.m.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (15-287) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Case Name: Navarro V. City of Alameda, et al.; United States District Court, Northern District, San Francisco; Case No. 3:14-cv-01954 JD Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer announced that direction was given to staff. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 5, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-05-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-09-15.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2015-09-15 | 22 | Mayor Spencer- 1. *** Mayor Spencer called a recess at 12:15 a.m. and reconvened at 12:21 a.m. *** CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (15-562) Consider Directing the Interim City Manager to Draft a Policy or Strategy to Increase the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Above the Current Rate of 10%, with a Portion, or All, of Revenues Attributable to the Rate Above the Original 10% Dedicated to Specified Visitor-Serving Activities. (Councilmember Daysog) Councilmember Daysog gave a brief Power Point presentation. Stated creating a new tourism industry would be a way to grow the City's economy, which is a tremendous opportunity; stated other Bay Area cities have been moving forward: Karen Bey, Alameda. Mayor Spencer inquired how an increase in the TOT would be approved. The Interim City Manager responded a TOT increase requires a vote of the people and would need to go on the ballot. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the TOT would require a two-thirds vote if it is designated to a special fund; if Council wants to direct staff, the Interim City Manager could come back with recommendations. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of following the recommendation of the referral and for the Interim City Manager to come back with a strategy to increase the TOT. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would be okay if the recommendation returns with a different percentage. Mayor Spencer stated more help is needed cleaning up streets and maintenance after visitor serving events; inquired how the additional funds from the tax would be applied to a specific position. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 September 15, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-09-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2015-10-20 | 22 | the site location indicated; screening; 1 year revisit, including number of truck trips. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the use is fitted for zoning, keeps jobs in Alameda and provides potential for additional jobs. Councilmember Oddie stated it is good to get the industrial use out of Spirits Alley and place it where the ships and tidelands industrial use is more appropriate. Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not see the containers as fitting the vision along the waterfront. The Chief Operations Officer-Alameda Point stated staff feels the use is good; it is in a tidelands area that does not have a lot of use potential; Matson is willing to pay market value; the use is restricted and there is less potential for demand; the building has been vacant for 21/2 years and needs a $500,000 roof; Matson is putting $4,000,000 into the building; removing a previous tenant cost the City over $1,000,000; Matson would put significant dollars of investment into a building that is falling apart. Mayor Spencer inquired about the current lease term. The Economic Development Division Manager responded Matson is a subtenant to West Coast Novelty, who terminated their lease, the sublease will terminate at the end of the year. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Matson is looking for a new lease. The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative; stated Matson is a maritime use and the new site is a maritime building; other interest in the building passed when they found out how much they would have to invest; the City has tried to lease building for 21/2 years; Matson needed a new building. Mayor Spencer inquired if a 5 year lease is possible. The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the negative; stating the entire agreement would have to be renegotiated; Matson has to finance the improvements. Mayor Spencer inquired how much the improvements would be. The Economic Development Division Manager responded the roof is $500,000 and Matson plans to put $4,000,00… | CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2015-11-04 | 22 | 502 Mayor Spencer inquired whether new fees being charged to tenants could be included, to which the City Attorney responded additional fees passed onto the tenant would be considered part of rent. Councilmember Daysog stated there should be a moratorium on fees; discussed the cap amount. The City Attorney stated the definition of rent would include extra fees. Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is a consensus for the moratorium to have an 8% cap. Councilmember Oddie noted tenants could still use the RRAC process during the moratorium; stated that he would support a 0% or 8% cap. Mayor Spencer and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the 8% cap. The City Attorney inquired whether the cap would be cumulative for the past 12 months, the majority of the Council concurred. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding what would return to Council for consideration, the Community Development Director stated staff would expand the RRAC ordinance to include a mandatory appearance at the RRAC for rent increases over 8% and a separate ordinance to address just cause eviction and relocation assistance. Councilmember Daysog clarified staff would present two scenarios: one with rent stabilization and one without. The Community Development Director agreed that staff would provide an alternative that is binding. Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff supports expanding the role of RRAC to mediate no cause evictions, to which the Community Development Director responded in the negative. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated staff would return with two scenarios to address rising rents: enhanced, landlord- initiated mediation at the RRAC for increases 8% or higher and the alternative would be arbitration. A majority of the Council expressed support. The City Attorney noted non-binding enhanced mediation would not be rent control. The Community Development Director stated arbitration would kick in only if mediation Special Meeting Alameda City Council Novem… | CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2015-12-15 | 22 | 532 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER - 15, 2015- -4:30 P.M. AND FRIDAY- - - DECEMBER - 18, 2015- -8:30 A.M. On December 15, 2015, Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5. [Note: Councilmembers Matarrese and Oddie arrived at 4:31 p.m.; and Mayor Spencer was absent when the meeting was continued to December 18, 2015] Absent: None. Public Comment Submitted information; discussed the potential lawsuit regarding the proposed hotel at 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway; urged Council to rescind its vote: Pat Lamborn, Alameda. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (15-721) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring (Government Code Section 54957); Title/description of position to be filled: City Manager [Continued to December 18, 2015] (15-722) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of cases: Two (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action) (15-723) Conference with Conference With Labor Negotiators (54957.6); City Negotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam; Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and Alameda Management and Confidential Employees Association; (MCEA) Under Negotiation: Salaries and terms of employment. Not heard. Following the December 15, 2015 Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer announced that regarding Appointment/Hiring, the Council matter was continued to December 18, 2015 at 8:30 a.m.; regarding Anticipated Litigation, direction was given to staff regarding one case and Council received a briefing on one case; and regarding Labor, Council received a briefing. At 8:38 a.m. on December 18, 2015, Vice Mayor Mata… | CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2016-01-05 | 22 | The Community Development Director stated having a threshold is contrary to the idea of mediation. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether an arbitrator needs to have criteria and standard guidelines, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. The Assistant City Attorney stated there would be similar guidelines for the RRAC as well; evidentiary support at the arbitration would be much more detailed than the informal RRAC mediation process. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Council is closer to some type of consensus. Councilmember Daysog responded that he believes Council is closer to consensus, especially regarding arbitration; noted that he confirmed Mr. McConnell was indicating binding arbitration. The Community Development Director stated staff could run through the list of items which seem to have consensus. The Council expressed support for doing so. The Community Development Director stated for dealing with excessive rent increases, Council would like to work with a modified version of Ordinance 1; a mediation process would be first; then, a binding arbitration piece would follow for eligible units, which are multi-family units built before February 1, 1995. The Interim City Manager suggested there be a vote on the recommendation. Mayor Spencer inquired whether mediation means the RRAC process, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated the next step would be the matter could go to binding arbitration. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Ordinance 1 or Ordinance 2 would be enhanced or modified regarding rent, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated there is not consensus on the percentage, whether it would be 8%, 5% or CPI. The Community Development Director stated staff heard there is a willingness to have a 5% increase be the trigger point. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified the trigger point would be an increases more Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 … | CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2016-02-02 | 22 | Stated rent control is unfair for small mom and pop landlords: Margaret Tong, Landlord. Stated rent control is not fair to landlords, it favors the tenants: Mimi Rohr. Urged Council to look elsewhere for solutions; stated landlords have a lot of expenses: Lejla, Landlord. Stated he does not evict rent paying tenants; he is opposed to rent control: Daniel Lee, Bay Area Homeowners Network (BAHN). Councilmember Daysog left the dais at 12:36 a.m. and returned at 12:38 a.m. *** Stated that she opposes rent control; landlords have a lot of expenses; she does work on her property to keep costs down: Susan Gao, BAHN. Stated his tenant makes more money than he does; urged Council to consider all of the elements, not just the tenants: Stephen Shi, Landlord. Stated tenants are fearful of speaking to the RRAC for fear of retaliation; urged Council to use a semi-private mediation process instead of RRAC: Jeff Cambra, Alameda. Stated mom and pop landlords will be the most impacted from the ordinance; property values would go down from the ordinance; relocation assistance should be means tested: Karen Bey, Alameda. Stated data collection needs to be for all types of units: John Klein, ARC. Stated rent control creates tension with landlords and tenants: Rita Hui, Landlord. Urged Council to put a cap on rent increases; stated 65% of the Bay Area CPI is acceptable: Maria Dominguez, ARC. Provided and read a handout which provided stories of four renters: Denny, Jillian, Maria and Seana: Monty Heying. Urged Council to give exemptions only to owner occupied parcels: Brian McGuire, Alameda. The Community Development Director stated there was a question regarding whether Council wanted to offer one year leases to in place tenants, which is staff's recommendation. Councilmember Daysog inquired if the requirement is done in other cities, to which the Community Development Director responded several cities, including Palo Alto and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 February 2, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2016-02-16 | 22 | The Assistant City Attorney stated the form that is going to be developed will state that the information is confidential according to Evidence Code Section 1040 and Government Code Section 6255 on the grounds that the privacy interest outweighing the public right to disclosure. Mayor Spencer inquired if a challenge could be lost, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated if a challenge is lost, the information will be made public; she would rather not have the information because she does not want to disclose it. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the requirement is a protection for the tenant and is a way to verify requirements put in place. Mayor Spencer stated the new tenant can find out the prior rent since it is public information and can file a complaint if they are being charged over the 5% increase; having information on a vacating tenant would be okay, but not on an incoming tenant. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney suggested the amount of the rent for the new tenant be required. Mayor Spencer stated the new tenant would know the cost of the new rent; they would need the amount of the prior rent to compare if their rent increase is exorbitant. The Community Development Director stated the City needs to request the landlord to certify the amount of the new rent to know that they are not charging more than a 5% increase; the City could just request information on the amount of the rent increase at the time of the notice and the rent they propose to charge the new tenant. Mayor Spencer stated the new tenant could always check the information and file a complaint if the increase exceeds 5%. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why is there more expectation of privacy for a tenant than a homeowner or property owner. Mayor Spencer stated a property owner can put their property in a trust or take steps to protect themselves; there should be a way to protect tenants with privacy issues. The Community Development Director state… | CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-01 | 22 | Councilmember Daysog amended the motion to exempt owners of up to two residential units, and only two units, in Alameda, from the requirement to pay relocation assistance in the specific instance of family move-in. The proposed amendment to the ordinance failed due to a lack of second. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Matarrese - 1. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the urgency ordinance extending within the City of Alameda a temporary (an additional 22 days) moratorium on rent increases for certain residential rental properties and on evictions from all residential rental properties except for just cause. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired how could Council ensure the moratorium covers the period in the event the ordinance is suspended due to a referendum. The Community Development Director responded another urgency ordinance extending the time frame could be brought back. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated a special meeting to consider an urgency ordinance could be scheduled if necessary. The Assistant City Attorney stated if an effort of a referendum is under way, an urgency ordinance would be brought back right away to avoid a gap. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (16-116) Catherine Pauling, Alameda Renters Coalition, stated that she is concerned the City is under-collecting the fees from rental property businesses. COUNCIL REFERRALS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-06-21.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2016-06-21 | 22 | ceremonial head of the City are missing; the ordinance is the implementing document, so the Charter does not have to be interpreted in the event of an emergency. The City Manager stated an Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) and update on the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is coming to Council soon; tonight's issue is a model developed by the State and has options for public consideration; a lot of different issues will be addressed when the EOP is brought back. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated most of the Council agrees that the Disaster Council is a body that reports through the City Manager back to the Council; she would like to get the ordinance passed first, then address any clarifications about the Charter; she does not understand why the Disaster Council has to have the additional language as proposed by Councilmember Daysog. Councilmember Oddie stated he hopes that the plan which comes before the Council will be consistent with the Charter and would encompass everything discussed tonight. *** (16-313) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3. Noes: Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Spencer - 2. The City Attorney stated the ordinance does not just discuss the role of the Disaster Council, it also discusses the role of the Director of Emergency Services, which may be a little confusing; clarified the Disaster Council is made up of the group of people which Council appoints to make recommendations to the Council to adopt policy; the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services and is the actual implementer in the event of an emergency; the Disaster Council has no role in declaring an emergency; the Charter states the same regarding the role of the Disaster Council, which is a planning and pre-disaster preparedness group. Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not think the ordinance is … | CityCouncil/2016-06-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2016-07-05 | 22 | (16-343) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Three-Year Lease with Kai Concepts, LLC, a California limited liability company, for Building 168, Suite 300, located at 1651 Viking Street. [In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301( (c) - Existing Facilities.] Introduced. The Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (16-344) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Ten Year Lease with One Five-Year Extension Option with La Costa Pacifica Inc. dba Urban Legend Cellars (ULC) for Building 25, Unit 300 Located at 1951 Monarch Street at Alameda Point. [In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c - Existing Facilities]. [Requires Four Affirmative Votes]. The Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Spencer stated that she would support the lease. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the proximity of the client would help accelerate recognition that the area will be a future park; the 15-year lease is worth it; he is ready to move forward. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated ULC is investing a lot of capital to bring the space to the necessary specifications; meeting ULC half way to amortize their investment is a good way to attract businesses; she would be happy to have the business at Alameda Point. Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (16-345) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a First Amendment to a Lease and Authorizing the … | CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2016-09-20 | 22 | In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Base Reuse Director stated only 44 of the very low and low units are needed to meet the minimum low requirement; Vice Mayor Matarrese is stating he would like all 67 units to count towards said project and every future project has to provide 30%. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether infrastructure costs would also be covered, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the transitional commercial uses can help provide jobs for the residents in the area; encouraged staff to ensure the Alameda Point Main Street neighborhood is inviting to the public. Councilmember Daysog stated the City needs to get a handle on the vision for Main Street neighborhood; Council needs to decide about the 425 units; the ideas need to be discussed as part of the development. Councilmember Oddie stated that he likes the phasing; the people that live at the Alameda Point Collaborative need to be prioritized and taken care of; urged moving forward with the Collaborative; he likes Vice Mayor Matarrese's suggestion to require future developments to have 30%; he supports the phasing plan. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated affordable housing provider costs come in higher dealing with old military base infrastructure costs are come in higher. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the 200 units count as affordable. The Base Reuse Director responded in the negative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the units do not count because they are already existing, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated the project looks like 58% or 60% affordable compared to 40% market; but 200 units do not count towards the numbers, but they are affordable; the units do not count towards the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) affordable numbers. The Assistant Community Development Director stated there will always be a struggle to meet Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) affordable housing obligations; an… | CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2016-10-18 | 22 | Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is more information regarding the restaurant. Responded there is currently no information regarding the restaurant; stated there is a space of approximately 2,000 square feet and they would like to accommodate as many people as possible in the space; there is clean up legislation that needs to take place before plans could made: Lance Winters, St. George Spirits. The Assistant Community Development Director stated the owners were looking at a specific type of restaurant for the facility. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council could weigh in on the change in the legislation. The Assistant Community Development Director responded that Mr. Winters has been working with local legislators to resolve the issue. Stated St. George Spirits is happy to be at Alameda Point; thanked staff and the Council for their work and allowing them the opportunity: Lance Winters, St. George Spirits. Mayor Spencer requested including a section that would allow Council to support the change in legislation; stated that she intends to submit a letter to the legislators. Councilmember Oddie stated legislators are out of session; the matter will not be introduced until December or January. Mayor Spencer stated that she does not have authority until she receives authorization from Council. Councilmember Oddie stated there is nothing to support currently. Mayor Spencer stated eventually there will be something to support. Councilmember Oddie stated at that time there would be a report from the lobbyists on which bills the Council wants to support. Mayor Spencer stated she would like to encourage the project to happen. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance approving the lease of Building 21 with St. George Spirits for: (1) a ten-year term with one five-year extension option; (2) an option to purchase the property for $8 million (or $7.9 million if a restaurant is constructed within 2 years of lease commencement); and (3) an authorization for the City Manager to execute documents nece… | CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2016-11-01 | 22 | Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City affirms the vision it has in place through a contract with Catellus Development. The City Manager inquired whether the Council wants two separate study sessions or to review the developments all together. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like legal input because of Councilmember Oddie's comments; she does not want to give input prematurely. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated his referral does not discuss specific projects; his referral discusses mixed-use zoning and initiates a revision of the mixed-use zoning designation and related implementation policies to take into account the definition of mixed use and provide sufficient guidance to new development in areas previously zoned or used exclusively for commercial purposes; it also accommodates adjacent tidelands and shoreline uses to establish portions of commercial use to allow residential use to increase jobs in areas zoned for mixed use; the referral is very generic, but may provide some developers with guidance; he would like to make sure there is not a residential development on a previously commercialed zoning area and does not want to interfere with an existing application. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is okay with dividing up the study sessions; stated there is an objective that needs to be met by putting different uses on different lots. Mayor Spencer stated zoning needs to be flexible. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated all that is currently being decided is whether to address the matters as one big workshop or three different study sessions. Councilmember Oddie suggested looking at the housing element and what the projects may or may not do. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would prefer not to blend the Bayport-Alameda Landing Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and the mixed-use zoning together; Bayport-Alameda Landing is project specific and needs its own workshop; mixed-use zoning is a policy question; he wants something that addresses preserving jobs and existing commercial, whi… | CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-12-06.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2016-12-06 | 22 | Mayor Spencer stated there was a special SSHRB meeting on November 29th; she did not want to have a gap in the vacancy because the Board is busy with a lot of work. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the SSHRB will be meeting between December 20th and January 3rd. The City Clerk responded that she is not aware of the SSHRB schedule. Councilmember Oddie stated he is unsure there would be a gap. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 December 6, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2017-04-07 | 22 | resolution as matters have to be placed on the agenda; eliminating the RRAC would streamline the process; money spent on staffing and training the RRAC could be directed elsewhere; the situation was simpler when the RRAC was first formed; a more sophisticated, effective response is needed. Councilmember Matarrese stated the suggestion is something to think about; he would like an outside party to evaluate the system, especially because of the success of so many cases being resolved by mediation; mediation cannot be done at the RRAC. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion; mediation only works when both parties are committed to reaching a settlement; mediation needs to be voluntary; she would like to review the option of having the mediator outside of the system and not a Housing Authority employee; having outside mediators and Hearing Officers would add legitimacy and would untangle the Housing Authority and City Attorney staff. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella would like the mediators instead of the RRAC, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded that she would like to see the costs and understand what the proposal would look like for increases under 5%; some of the most contentious cases before the RRAC have been increases under 5%; different options should be reviewed depending on costs and the recommendation of the outside party conducting the evaluation. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella supports having a mediator prior to or instead of cases going to RRAC, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded that she would consider both; stated there could be three things to consider: 1) whether a mediator should be hired by the Housing Authority or contracted out, 2) whether the RRAC should be eliminated, or 3) whether certain cases should go to a Hearing Officer instead of the RRAC. Councilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with suggestion to have an outside evaluation; when the ordinance was adopted, he proposed to have the RRAC as the appellate board for the… | CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2017-04-18 | 22 | Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the way things have been done is not yielding the results hoped for; staff has to come close to a workable format in order to move items forward. Vice Mayor Vella stated Council is willing to take a first step and be cognizant of a timeline. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of revising the City Council referral form to include priority and urgency, as well as distinguish whether or not the referral is asking for Council action; [the tracking form] is to include the dates when the referral was brought, when Council took action, and a general timeline for all items. Councilmembers Oddie seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (17-265) The City Manager announced the hands across Alameda and Coastal Clean Up at Crab Cove as part of Earth Day. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (17-266) Consider Adopting a "Bird-Safe Buildings" Ordinance. (Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Oddie) [Not heard March 21 or April 4, 2017] Council agreed to address the two bird safe building referrals together. Vice Mayor Vella made brief comments regarding the referral. Councilmember Matarrese stated the purpose of the referral is to establish an ordinance that people have to follow to make buildings bird safe. Stated that she chose to live in Alameda because of its wildlife friendly reputation; urged Council to adopt a bird safe ordinance: Marjorie Powell, Alameda. Stated it is time for Alameda to establish a bird safe ordinance; urged Council to adopt the referral: Linda Carloni, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve (FAWR). Stated that she strongly endorses a bird safe ordinance; an ordinance establishes Alameda's credentials as a bird safe city and would encourage other cities to do the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 April 18, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2017-05-16 | 22 | units they are not subject to the rent control provisions. The Community Development Director stated accessory dwellings are covered by the ordinance; inquired whether Mayor Spencer is requesting accessory dwellings not be subject to rent control but still be under the eviction protections. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would be hesitant to add the exemption; she would like staff to review the implications of adding said provision. Mayor Spencer requested if clarification could be added regarding fixed-term leases and the tenant leaving voluntarily; inquired whether language needs to be added about tenants leaving voluntarily not being entitled to relocation benefits. The Assistant City Attorney responded at the end of the first fixed-term lease, the tenant would not be entitled to relocation fees. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified the question is regarding if the tenant were to leave voluntarily. The Assistant City Attorney responded that the end of a lease the tenant leaves, no notice is required at the end of a lease. The Community Development Director responded that relocation benefits are for no fault evictions, owner move in or withdrawing from the rental market or if a tenant enters into a subsequent fixed-term lease and that lease ended. The City Attorney stated the question is if the tenant decides to leave, not the landlord making the tenant leave. The Community Development Director responded in the event that the tenant decides to leave, they are not being terminated. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to add language to clarify if a tenant laves voluntarily, relocation benefits are not needed. Council and staff concurred. Mayor Spencer inquired whether a landlord has to pay relocation benefits in the event of a natural disaster. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated in the event of a governmental order to vacate, relocation benefits need to be paid to a tenant; staff is requesting to have the language remain until staff can return with new lang… | CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2017-06-06 | 22 | amendments are a burden on small landlords: Eric Grunseth. Following brief comment regarding responding to speakers, the City Attorney noted Vice Mayor Vella is not a landlord. Stated the only amendment in the ordinance is changing no cause eviction to just cause evictions; due to Council making amendments to the ordinance, tenants can feel secure in their homes: Erik Strimling, Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC). Stated there are too many changes to the rent ordinance; there is no need for radical rent control; the amendments to the ordinance will shrink the rental market in Alameda: Marilyn Schumacher, Alameda. Stated the citizens of Alameda already voted for Measure L1; urged Council to leave the ordinance as is: Valerie Ruma, Alameda. Stated the citizens of Alameda voted overwhelmingly for Measure L1; just cause evictions will make it difficult for landlords to evict problem tenants; urged Council to not change the ordinance until all the data is in: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda. Stated the elected officials are ignoring the vote of the people; her rental units are below market value; urged Council to not change the ordinance: Nancy Hird, Alameda. Urged Council to pass the just cause evictions; stated Alameda has racially coded rhetoric; many of the mailers during the election referred to M1 supporters as criminals: Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda. Mayor Spencer called a recess at 10:52 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:57 p.m. (17-357) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. Urged Council to make the program fee an even number; requested the changes be made in a slow manner to allow landlords to keep their properties: Janet Gibson, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 June 6, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-06-20.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2017-06-20 | 22 | Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which requires four votes, so it FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 2. *** Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she wants to hear what staff proposes regarding the straws on request ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese stated the referral is important because of the local action plan; staff should to create a straws on request ordinance broader than just straws, including disposable food ware and highlighting straws, taking into account the Council comments. Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff's comments would be regarding the straws on request referral, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. The Deputy Public Works Director stated staff is in support of the referral; there will be outreach and education to 80 or more local businesses to rethink packaging; he will return to Council in December with a climate action plan for Council to choose which policies to move forward with. Mayor Spencer stated she does not want to wait until December; she would like to direct staff to interpret the current ordinance to include straws. The Deputy Public Works Director inquired what timeline Mayor Spencer is requesting. Mayor Spencer responded September; stated that she would like staff to separate the climate action plan and move forward with a straws on request ordinance sooner. The Deputy Public Works Director stated the Santa Cruz ordinance is not a straws on request ordinance, it addresses using a different material. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff can reinterpret the existing ordinance or if new language has to be done; stated if the language has to be changed, inquired what the time frame is for changing the language. The Deputy Public Works Director stated Santa Cruz has a polystyrene ordinance similar to the City of Alameda ordinance; they Santa Cruz's Public Works Department issued a rule that was approved by its County Board of Supervisors, maki… | CityCouncil/2017-06-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2017-07-05 | 22 | Mr. Dorfman responded that he is confident the developer will receive the financing. Councilmember Oddie inquired by what date. Mr. Dorfman responded the developer is still in negotiations. Mayor Spencer inquired if the financing is for all three phases. Mr. Dorfman responded the financing is for Phase 1. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the developer can obtain financing for Phase 2. Mr. Dorfman responded that he is confident financing for Phase 2 residential components will be obtained; stated Mr. Ernst can speak to the commercial components. Mayor Spencer inquired about financing for Phase 3. Joe Ernst, APP, stated that he has financing partners; developing the amenities and commercial will create interest. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst is confident APP will have financing for Phase 2, including the commercial. Mr. Ernst responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst is willing to guarantee that they will have financing. Mr. Ernst responded there are no guarantees in the business. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst will have financing for Phase 3. Mr. Ernst responded that he is confident the financing will be raised. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst will bond that he can get financing. Mr. Ernst responded there is nothing to bond. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst can assure the City that the complete project will be built. Mr. Ernst responded that his word and reputation are the assurance. Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is any tool that can be offered to the City to guarantee that Phase 3 will be built. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 July 5, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2017-07-18 | 22 | Stated establishing a different type of tenant will take time; putting a restaurant in the location would take up more parking spaces at night: Rich Krinks, Alameda. Stated Park Street has changed and the business does not belong at the location; the fact that the conditions were not met for the UP should result in revocation; urged Council to deny the Big O' Tires UP: Louie Montes. Stated that he was hired by the Garfinkle family to provide photographs of the parking conditions at different times over a two week period, three days a week, four times a day; he is available to answer questions: Al Wright, Alameda. Stated his business was told to look for another location; the business is not in compliance with the City's General Plan; it is unfair to Big Discount Tire Pros to allow Big O' Tires to set up shop in the location; Big Discount Tire Pros will have a franchisee running the shop and problems will continue: Guido Bertoli, Big Discount Tire Pros. Stated the location is not viable for the tire business; Big Discount Tire Pros has been looking for another location for years and has finally secured a site: Gary Voss, Big Discount Tire Pros. Stated the parking is atrocious; continuing UP is counterintuitive: Jason Tipsis, Alameda. Stated the location is not appropriate for a tire store; a major corporation should not be saying the UP is not clear so it is entitled to do what it wants: Alan Pryor, Alameda Progressives. Robert Lane, Attorney for Appellant, gave a presentation. The City Attorney stated now is the time for Council to ask questions, deliberate and make a decision. Mayor Spencer inquired who will be operating the store on a daily basis. Mr. O'Neill responded an experienced, existing franchisee will be operating the store. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. O'Neill has a specific franchisee in mind. Mr. O'Neill responded in the affirmative; stated Big O' Tires would own the property and sublease it to the franchisee with very specific language about compliance with the UP. Mayor Spencer inquired what … | CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2017-09-05 | 22 | 386 3180. Mayor Spencer seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired if the two groups come to an agreement to put something on the ballot would be permissible. The City Attorney responded she will have to get back to Council on the answer. The City Clerk stated Elections Code Section 9241 states: "the ordinance shall not again be enacted by the legislative body for a period of one year,' which might allow the Council could put the matter on the ballot. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is anything the City could do to assist the tenants at 470 Central Avenue. The City Attorney responded no cause eviction entitles tenants to relocation benefits, which is the case in some instances at 470 Central Avenue; there have been some for cause eviction notices at 470 Central Avenue where the landlord claims breach of the lease; it is not within the purview of the City to determine the accuracy of those claims; the Housing Authority does monitor that the landlord is conducting business properly according to Ordinance 3148. *** (17-516) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the two encroachment ordinances [paragraph no. 17-519]. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion which FAILED by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer. Mayor Spencer moved approval of hearing the balance of the agenda, minus the WiFi referral [paragraph no. 17-522]. . Councilmember Matarrese stated he will second the motion only if it is amended to not hear both referrals. Mayor Spencer accepted the friendly amendment to the motion. On the call for the question, the motion FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3. Mayor Spencer moved approval of hearing the resolutions of appointment and the two Regular Meetin… | CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2017-10-03 | 22 | (Councilmember Oddie) Councilmember Oddie made brief comments regarding the referral. Mayor Spencer inquired when staff plans to report back. The City Manager responded staff will discuss preliminary data at the WETA meeting; the matter will go to the Transportation Commission in November and return to Council in December. Mayor Spencer inquired whether representatives from other agencies will be present, to which the City Manager responded WETA and AC Transit will be present. Mayor Spencer inquired why Councilmember Oddie requested a workshop instead of a regular agenda item. Councilmember Oddie responded that he requested a workshop to have a regular dialogue instead of having speakers only have 3 minutes to speak and Council not engage with the speakers. The City Manager stated the workshop would be a special meeting. Mayor Spencer inquired when the workshop would take place. Councilmember Oddie responded that he has no preference. The City Manager stated the workshop is scheduled for the first meeting in December. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would like the workshop to occur prior to the regular Council meeting, to which Councilmember Oddie responded a lot of people cannot make a 6:00 p.m. meeting. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the regular City Council meeting could be recessed to allow the back and forth dialogue, then return to the regular meeting. The City Clerk expressed concern with having to juggle the meetings with other agencies involved. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the workshop could occur in between the regular City Council meeting, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. The City Attorney stated conducting the meeting in said manner would be messy. Councilmember Matarrese stated the workshop should be a Saturday meeting; he would also like to address the rest of the north shore development issues with WETA and BCDC and the water taxis at the same meeting. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 October 3, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2017-10-17 | 22 | Alameda City Council October 17, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2017-11-07 | 22 | Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated local ownership is not clearly defined. The City Attorney stated that the provision can be changed in the RFP process. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is an assumption made that local ownership is a criteria; she would like a reputable business with a track record; she does not believe there is agreement on the criteria. The Community Development Director stated the ordinance puts the regulatory framework in place; staff will prepare an RFP process that is consistent with the regulatory framework. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Subsection h does not belong in the ordinance. The Community Development Director stated the community benefit language can be removed from the ordinance and transferred to the resolution. Mayor Spencer inquired whether there would be no reference to local hire or local ownership in the ordinance. The Community Development Director responded the local hire and local ownership policy can be added to the Where As clauses. Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support anything which does not support local hire; inquired whether the onsite operations manager and the onsite community relations staff can be the same person, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated the language should in the ordinance should specifically state that; inquired whether the nuisance abatement language regarding graffiti is required by State law, to which the Community Development Director responded in the negative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether other businesses have the same clause. The Assistant City Attorney responded he will look into it. Mayor Spencer inquired whether every business has to remove graffiti within 72 hours. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the deadline is 72 hours from the day the business receives a notice of violation from the City. Mayor Spencer stated enforcement is critical; one industry should not be treated differently from another; requested clarification o… | CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-12-05.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2017-12-05 | 22 | Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is available online if the public or Council has a request. The AMP General Manager responded under the Energy Review section online, there is a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section that is fairly detailed. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Council could request information that AMP has relied on to help inform Council's policies decisions which are within the Council's jurisdiction. The AMP General Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the PUB has done anything about the concerns regarding multi-family buildings. The AMP General Manager responded AMP does not differentiate between multi-family buildings and single family homes. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the information used to make the PUB decisions be shared. Vice Mayor Vella inquired how the public could contact PUB members. The AMP General Manager responded anything that comes in goes to the individual PUB members. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the PUB members can be set up with City emails, to which the AMP General Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer suggested AMP find out which other cities have a moratorium; inquired whether AMP has discussed a moratorium or the health concerns. The AMP General Manager responded not to his knowledge. Mayor Spencer stated a petition can be started by the public regarding the matter; inquired whether something can be added to the Smart Meters to reduce the risk. The AMP General Manager responded that he can look into the request. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to hear about anything that can reduce the exposure. (17-741) Consider Creating a Police and Crime Citizens Oversight Advisory Committee. (Mayor Spencer) Mayor Spencer made brief comments regarding the referral. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 December 5, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-12-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-12-19.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2017-12-19 | 22 | Councilmember Oddie inquired who has jurisdiction over the land. The Assistant City Attorney responded the State has already transferred the property in trust to the City. Councilmember Oddie inquired if Council votes no can the concerns from Council be addressed by the developer and the developer return with a revised proposal. Mayor Spencer stated that she does not support the matter returning to the Planning Board; she supports having a workshop with the developer to discuss the issues. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he will vote no on the current DA before Council; he supports negotiating other terms. Councilmember Oddie stated the binary choice is which project will go forward since the developer is entitled to build the housing by State law; expressed concern over the other housing project not being completed years later; stated that he would like to analyze the project to ensure the costs will be covered; he is prepared to support the EIR. The City Manager requested direction from Council for the item to return with the financial analysis to allow for the swap to happen. The City Attorney stated the Council should vote and the developer can determine how they want to proceed. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Council could return to discuss the concerns instead of voting no. Mayor Spencer stated the City Attorney requested a vote from Council. The City Attorney stated the developer has already signed a document that is before Council; if the document is rejected, the developer is not preclude from returning with a different proposal. Vice Mayor Vella inquired if Council votes no, could the developer return with the same proposal just with more information or does it have to be an entirely new proposal. The City Attorney responded said decision would be up to the developer. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution accepting the EIR as presented in the staff report. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezz… | CityCouncil/2017-12-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2018-01-16 | 22 | The City Attorney responded there is a laundry list of fixes for Ordinance 3180 to make the program work better; stated staff will come back to Council with suggested changes. Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is the legal basis for the matter returning to Council if Ordinance 3180 has been rescinded. The City Attorney responded Ordinance 3180 did not address the establishment of the fee itself, which was done by resolution. Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification on the fixes to Ordinance 3180 that will return to Council. The City Manager responded staff will return to Council after the year [from the referendum] is up. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff is saying there will be two presentations from staff and the one in the spring is relative to an audit. The City Manager responded the one is spring is the Nexus study. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the other presentation will not be until a year from the date the ordinance was rescinded. The City Attorney responded that she is unaware of the timing but she envisioned all the items returning at the same time. Mayor Spencer stated the items go outside the scope of the referral. Councilmember Oddie stated dredging is outside the scope of piers and yet dredging was discussed. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2. Noes: Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Spencer and - 2. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1. Mayor Spencer moved approval of the referral. Vice Mayor Vella second the motion with a friendly amendment that Council direct staff to provide clarification on what can and cannot be done. The City Attorney stated that she answered the question; the fee can be collected. Vice Mayor Vella stated Ordinance 3180 clarified administration of the fee. The City Attorney stated Vice Mayor Vella is correct; but the clarification is not in play; staff would return to Council after the year mark. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 January 16, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2018-02-06 | 22 | Vice Mayor Vella called the question. Mayor Spencer requested the motion be repeated, to which the City Clerk repeated Vice Mayor Vella's motion. The Assistant City Attorney stated Vice Mayor Vella could adopt his statement as the motion. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of having the City Attorney's office work with The City Manager stated staff would come back with a draft for Council consideration before it goes out. Vice Mayor Vella continued the motion of a draft potential RFP or RFQ and a draft policy that would be reviewed by Council prior to its issuance. Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion is similar to the prior motion, but the Council will be working against what is being prepared by the City Attorney and the Police Chief so Council will not be free forming, which is going against what has been prepared off of the comments tonight; seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Vella stated it is a new motion and new second and she withdraws the previous motion. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion includes some direction to have additional public input other than agendizing the draft RFP to the Council, such as a town hall. Vice Mayor Vella stated, as part of the process, the matter is going to have to be agendized, which means the public will be noticed; there will be another meeting on the matter for the public to come and comment; prior to the meeting, the public could reach out to the City Attorney's office, the Police Department and Councilmembers, which she would encourage as part of the transparent process, to add comments or concerns. Councilmember Oddie stated the public should be sure to talk to Councilmembers if they have concerns. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5 CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (18-075) The City Manager provided an update on the North Housing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 February 6, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2018-03-06 | 22 | on the panel. Mayor Spencer stated members of the public participate on interview panels, such as for the Fire Chief; inquired how that can be done in this instance. The City Manager requested clarification on Mayor Spencer's request. Mayor Spencer stated members of the public are used in other instances. The City Attorney stated if Council appoints panel members, it triggers the requirements, such as the Brown Act and Form 700s. Mayor Spencer inquired what the requirement would be if each Councilmember selected one person to be on the panel. The City Attorney responded the Sunshine Ordinance would need to be followed. Mayor Spencer inquired whether people can apply and have staff choose five different panelists, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. The City Manager stated Council can provide input on specific backgrounds desired. Mayor Spencer inquired whether different professionals or different areas in the industry can be chosen, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated when the City Manager interviewing was done, each Councilmember appointed two people to a panel and that was not done in public. The City Clerk noted the panel in City Manager process was selected in closed session. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the process for cannabis can be done in closed session. The City Attorney stated hiring of an employee can be done in closed session; an RFP process for a license or a permit is not allowable in closed session. Councilmember Oddie stated that he concurs with Vice Mayor Vella about having a rubric; stated people need to understand what is expected and how they will be judged; suggested a more diverse and broad base interview panel; stated the questions should be the same for everyone to not reward the person with the best lawyer, flashiest presenter or best consultant; 50 points for the interview is too much when 60 points is needed to move forward; he would like to see bonus points for Fire safety, a Police Department evaluation on security… | CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-04-17.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2018-04-17 | 22 | The Assistant Community Development Director inquired whether Council would like staff to make edits to the ordinance for the truck transportation. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is more concerned about tying up the building for four years; there may be more interest since Site A is moving forward; he does not want the lease to be an impediment for a job generation or an innovative business in the space; inquired about the termination notice. The City Attorney responded the City would have to give the tenant at least six months to leave. The Assistant Community Development Director clarified the tenant could stay for a minimum of two years. The Acting Assistant City Manager stated the lease would not interfere with the opportunity if a better tenant comes along. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would recommend a provision to examine the truck logs and make a prohibition for trucks leaving during a certain time. Mr. Anderson stated it is tough for him to make a decision right now; he and his company will work with the City on whatever is needed to approve the lease. Vice Mayor Vella stated it seems arbitrary to limit or prohibit the time of travel; the City could work with the tenant on a different route and give flexibility; prohibiting the trucks would stymy BART progress; suggested having a check-in and staff come back to Council if there is other interest. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding teamsters, Vice Mayor Vella clarified the union structure; stated specific locals have separate leadership. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she cannot, in good conscious, impact Alameda commuters; she would be amenable to have the trucks come in, but not go out during the commute hours, and to structure the work to go behind the commute traffic; she is mindful of the need to backfill revenue. Mr. Anderson stated the business does not gain anything by having trucks stuck in traffic; they would not schedule drivers to just sit in traffic; Public Works reviewed the traffic routes, City staff… | CityCouncil/2018-04-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-05-15.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2018-05-15 | 22 | Expressed his support for Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Oddie standing up for what they believe in: Doyle Saylor, Alameda. Stated that she supports mediation and releasing the tape: Catherine Bierwith, Alameda. Expressed support for Councilmembers Vella and Oddie; outlined their accomplishments: Laura Woodard, Alameda Renters Coalition. Stated that he finds the City Manager's actions unacceptable, specifically the recording of a private meeting; urged the City to find new leadership: David Mitchell, Alameda. Discussed the rent issue; stated Councilmembers stood up for housing rights; expressed support for Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Oddie; stated the City Manager needs to be removed from her position: Lester Dixon, Alameda. Mayor Spencer announced the City Manager has not requested a public session and has waived her right to a public session. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (18-270) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section 54956.8); Property: Northwest Territories, Alameda Point; City Negotiators: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam, Acting City Manager and Jennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse & Transportation Planning; Potential Tenant: East Bay Regional Park District; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment. Not heard. (18-271) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivisions (d) (2) and (e) (1) of Government Code Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action). Not heard. (18-272) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Public Employee Dismissal/Release; Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957; Employee/Position: Jill Keimach, City Manager (18-273) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivisions (d)(2) and e(2) of California Government Code Section 54956.9 relating to the allegations made in City Manager Jill Keimach's October 2, 2017 lette… | CityCouncil/2018-05-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2018-06-05 | 22 | The Community Development Director inquired whether the Council would rather wait until the end of year to make a decision about the rent registry prior to spending money on a survey. Councilmember Matarrese stated a survey is good, but a database is needed; the City should get statistically valid information now. Councilmember Oddie concurred. Mayor Spencer stated the information is not a registry. The Community Development Director stated a portion of the $160,000 retained would be used on the survey. The City Attorney stated the ordinance does not need to be amended to do the survey. Councilmember Oddie stated the survey information might inform staff about the type of desired database. The Community Development Director noted staff would work with the stakeholders to craft the survey. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated direction should be given to staff to return with options for dealing with landlords who are not paying the program fee, including considering a modification to the ordinance after November. Mayor Spencer requested the first motion be repeated. The Community Development Director stated the first motion was that City not write off the 19% of folks who have not paid, which means that after the FY 2018-19 billings go out, Finance may follow up with a third notice for FY 2017-18; staff would continue the effort; currently, the ordinance does not include imposing penalties. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the matter is coming to Council on the 19th, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the resolution for FY 2018-19 includes delinquencies. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is recommending going beyond to look at how the City would collect outstanding fees; penalties can be piled o… | CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-06-19.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2018-06-19 | 22 | The Acting City Manager stated that she would like to make sure there is a consensus; the task includes coming back with ways to pay for a Fire Marshall and addressing the non-sworn issue. Councilmember Matarrese stated said direction was given at the workshop; the Fire Chief presented an ask with a promise that there would be money behind it and it was insufficient. In response to the Acting City Manager's inquiry regarding the non-sworn issue, Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue could be left to the Chief's imagination; using non-sworn is cheaper and could fit in the budget. Councilmember Oddie stated he would not support that. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there should be follow up with Chief on projected revenue sources funding the position in perpetuity by the revenue sources; regarding the sworn/non-sworn issue, the Chief should decide how he wants to allocate his resources; there is a lot of value in having a balanced budget right now; if the position is funded by the revenue increases, she is ready to support, but it is premature at this time. The Finance Director continued the presentation. Mayor Spencer stated annual activity expenses are higher than projected revenues by $8,000. The Finance Director stated expenditures continue to grow; revenues are growing as well, but just not at the same pace. Mayor Spencer inquired whether reserves are being used to cover the $8,000, to which the Finance Director stated the $8,000 will be drawn down. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Acting City Manager stated the negative $8,000 is the difference between revenues and expenditures and does not affect reserves. Mayor Spencer stated that she wants to underscore the projected budget shows expenses are more than projected revenues. The Acting City Manager stated $8,000 is next to nothing in a $100 million budget; the budget does not include future development in Site A or the Northern Waterfront; many things can be done to make sure by 2021 the City does not have a deficit of $5 million; the City ne… | CityCouncil/2018-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2018-07-10 | 22 | Expressed concern over distractions from project opponents; stated the project will improve Alameda: Philip James, Alameda. Urged support of the project; stated everyone has communicated well to create a plan that will work for the community: Eric Gantos, Hot Rod Shop. Expressed support for the project and the Bay Trail along the waterfront; state the housing will pay for the needed infrastructure: Joann Martin, Hot Rod Shop. Stated that he was an early supporter of the project, which gives a lot back to Alameda: David Wilhite, Alameda Marina. Urged Council to approve the Master Plan; stated that she is really impressed by the process and community input: Vicki Sedlack, Alameda. Discussed the benefits of infill projects: Sara Sieloff, Center for Creative Land Recycling. Expressed her appreciation for creating a community for all; discussed the waterlife program: Sarah Kaplan, American Waterlife Association. Discussed his paddle board business; expressed support for the great water access the project will provide; urged approval: Mike Wong, Mike's Paddle. Discussed the inclusion of the boatyard and dockyard, which is innovative; strongly encouraged support: Paul Kaplan. Stated the community has worked together to make a much better project; SAWW recommends that the City oversee an independent property management firm: Maggie Sabovich, Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association, SAWW. Stated dry storage for 60 boats is inadequate; outlined his experience over the last 40 years: Paul Muller, Oakland Submitted information; stated a boatyard operator is needed; rental units should be affordable; discussed parking; suggested having a fee for vacant properties: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda Citizens Task Force. Showed a photo; discussed needed infrastructure improvements and modern boat repair services: Paul Houtz, Alameda Marina. Urged Council to support the project, which will provide jobs, housing and waterfront access; discussed traffic: Lars Hanson, Alameda Expressed concern over the EIR; questioned whether everyone read the E… | CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );