pages
72 rows where page = 28
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: body
date (date) 72 ✖
- 2005-05-17 1
- 2005-06-07 1
- 2005-07-19 1
- 2005-08-16 1
- 2006-06-20 1
- 2006-09-05 1
- 2006-10-17 1
- 2006-12-05 1
- 2007-01-02 1
- 2007-06-19 1
- 2007-12-04 1
- 2008-01-15 1
- 2008-06-03 1
- 2008-06-17 1
- 2008-10-07 1
- 2009-02-07 1
- 2009-10-20 1
- 2010-03-16 1
- 2010-04-20 1
- 2010-06-01 1
- 2010-06-15 1
- 2010-07-20 1
- 2010-07-27 1
- 2011-02-15 1
- 2014-07-15 1
- 2015-01-21 1
- 2015-02-02 1
- 2015-10-20 1
- 2016-01-05 1
- 2016-02-02 1
- 2016-02-16 1
- 2016-11-01 1
- 2017-04-12 1
- 2017-04-18 1
- 2017-06-06 1
- 2017-07-05 1
- 2017-07-18 1
- 2017-11-07 1
- 2018-02-15 1
- 2018-03-06 1
- 2018-04-17 1
- 2018-05-09 1
- 2018-06-05 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
- 2019-03-13 1
- 2019-03-19 1
- 2019-05-07 1
- 2019-07-16 1
- 2019-09-12 1
- 2019-12-18 1
- 2020-03-03 1
- 2020-05-05 1
- 2020-05-19 1
- 2020-06-02 1
- 2020-07-21 1
- 2021-03-11 1
- 2021-03-16 1
- 2021-05-04 1
- 2021-06-15 1
- 2021-07-06 1
- 2021-07-20 1
- 2021-09-07 1
- 2021-09-21 1
- 2021-10-19 1
- 2021-11-16 1
- 2022-02-01 1
- 2022-05-03 1
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 28 | steady funding stream; providing a large amount of money one time would not work; a plan should be established. Councilmember Daysog stated use of the General Fund reserve should be considered. Mayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Daysog. Mayor Johnson stated the City is actually losing money and should be spending the money [ on infrastructure] if money is sitting in the General Fund reserve while a huge debt is being incurred; there needs to be a plan to ensure the City does not end up in the same situation in 10 years. Councilmember Daysog stated the General Fund reserve is at the current level because money was borrowed from infrastructure maintenance. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (05-249) - Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated City staff is handling the budget situation excellently; PSBA would be happy to identify resources to help the City purchase in Alameda; that he would enlist other business associations to partner with the City to ensure the City purchases as much as possible in Alameda; thanked Council for showing the courage and persistence to proceed with the Theatre project. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05-250) Councilmember deHaan stated Council approved going forward with the purchase of a vehicle tonight [paragraph no. 05- 233] ; there is not a Ford dealership in Alameda, encouraged staff to consider Chevrolet. The Acting City Manager stated the Animal Control vehicle could be a Ford or equivalent. (05-251) Councilmember deHaan stated at one point, CalTrans was going to upgrade the lighting in the tube; requested a report on the matter. (05-252) Councilmember deHaan thanked staff for staying for the budget discussion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 May 17, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-07 | 28 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 13 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-19 | 28 | be made if desired. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that prior to today, the City Attorney's office had a budget that the Council approved by a line item; the City Attorney had utter discretion to spend the money any way she saw fit; the Council is trying to be more cognizant of its Charter responsibilities to provide oversight of spending said money having gone from over $500,000 of discretionary spending to the limit of $35,000 is a more than a prudent place to begin; the amount is not set in stone; nothing prevents the Council from putting a policy in place, seeing how it works and making changes if needed; unless there are more specific recommendations the policy is a good place to get started because it provides what the Council is trying to move towards. Councilmember deHaan stated that he has no problem with it; the Council still has the oversight; future changes could be made. Mayor Johnson inquired whether approval should be via a resolution. The City Attorney stated Council should adopt via motion, so it is a formal Council action in terms of direction. Mayor Johnson inquired whether any changes need to be made. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a way to put the proposal in terms of the Charter responsibility, which is not City Council oversight of outside legal counsel expense, but is City Council rules of empowering the City Attorney to engage outside counsel. The City Attorney responded the motion could be that this is the rule of empowering the City Attorney under [Charter Section] 8-5. Mayor Johnson inquired whether this is a policy. The City Attorney responded it is a rule; it is a direction. Mayor Johnson inquired why the action could not be done by resolution. The City Attorney responded a resolution could be brought back. Mayor Johnson stated a resolution would be clearer; the issue of Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) also needs to be brought back to the Council; the Council needs to discuss approving counsel for AP&T and should consider delegating authority to the Public Utilities Bo… | CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2005-08-16 | 28 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -7:35 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 2:40 a.m., August 17, 2005. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the DDA [paragraph no. 05-042] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ] ( Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting, and the Special CIC Meeting of August 2, 2005. Approved. (*05-041) Recommendation to approve a Contract with Cooper Pugeda Management, Inc. ./The Allen Group, LLC for Construction Management Services for rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater Project and proposed Civic Center Parking Garage for $1,114,436. Accepted. (05-042) Resolution No. 05-138, "Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) by and Between the Community Improvement Commission and Catellus Limited Operating Partnership (Developer) Which Would Extend the Expiration Term by One Year From June 2007 to June 2008 in Order to Allow the Developer to Explore a Change from Commercial Office/Research and Development Land to a Mixed-Use Retail/Residential Land Use at the Former U.S. Navy Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Property. Adopted. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether adoption of the resolution Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 1 August 16, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-20 | 28 | stated the Administrative Analyst position would provide a lot of bang for the buck; the person would provide the ADA Transition Plan oversight, risk management services, and safety services. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated there is an advantage to having the position in the City Attorney's office because of internal audit functions; Option 3 provides advantages. Mayor/Chair Johnson suggested filling the Risk Management Analyst position and holding off on hiring another attorney to see how one City Attorney and two staff attorneys work; stated the City needs to provide legal services in the most efficient way possible. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City Attorney's office has been working with three attorneys over the last several months and the situation has been an issue. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether teaching safety should be handled through Human Resources; further inquired who is taking care of workers compensation. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded Risk Management handles workers compensation. louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the City Attorney/Legal Counsel's latitude is very limited. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated she hired an attorney to start July 5. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated looking into hiring an additional attorney might be appropriate. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of hiring another staff attorney. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese clarified that the motion is to have the staffing level of the City Attorney and three staff attorneys; the Risk Management Analyst position would be held in abeyance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 14 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 20, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-05 | 28 | Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's were given ample time to make the best and strongest case possible and failed to do so; the CIC is opening a can of worms; other applicants could get letters from non-decision makers. encouraged Commissioners to reconsider and approve the staff recommendation Commissioner Gilmore stated the appeal would be denied if the Rutledge's do not provide documentation from a person in authority at the Social Security Administration. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Noes Commissioner Daysog - 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 9 September 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 28 | Mayor Johnson suggested that Mr. Schmidt discuss the matter with staff. (06-524) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, inquired why the Maitland Avenue and Harbor Bay Parkway corner parcel was moved; further inquired why the parcel was sold below market value and did not remain open green space. Mayor Johnson suggested that Ms. Lipow submit the questions to staff. The City Manager stated a staff report would be provided to Ms. Lipow also. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (06-525) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated money was allocated for a feasibility study and fire station acquisition during the last budget processi inquired whether the study been initiated. The City Manager stated said information would be provided to Council. (06-526) Councilmember Daysog requested an update on the Economic Development Strategic Plan survey. (06-527) Councilmember deHaan requested that the financial strategic planning tool be scheduled for discussion. ADJOURNMENT ( 06 - 528 ) Mayor Johnson announced that the November 7, 2006 Regular City Council Meeting would be adjourned to Tuesday, November 14, 2006 due to the November 7, 2006 General Municipal Election. There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting 11:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lana Stoker Acting City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 October 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2006-12-05 | 28 | Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether Council certification would approve the recommended mitigations throughout the SEIR. The Supervising Planner responded the findings resolution includes the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which outlines Catellus' commitments that the City would monitor; there is a commitment to evaluate widening Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether widening Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street would need to be done in two years. The Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated the 2025 impact is tied to what happens at Alameda Point. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated it is important to ensure that there is no institutional habit to widen Webster Street and Ralph Appezzato Parkway. The Supervising Planner stated the Mitigation Monitoring Program states that Catellus has committed a fair share contribution; the City would continue to evaluate the matter many of the 2025 mitigations impacts are a result of adding Alameda Point on top of Alameda Landing. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Chinatown agreement would impact Alameda Landing, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the Chinatown agreement would have no impact at this time. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the Chinatown agreement is exempt all together. Counci Lmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he hopes that the water and land shuttles are adequate. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated criteria needs to be established to determines whether or not the water and land shuttles should go forward at the end of the first year ; otherwise, alternatives would need to be reviewed. The Supervising Planner stated opportunities would be available to shift funds if no one is riding the water shuttle and the buses are Special Joint Meeting Alame… | CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 28 | Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a way to accelerate getting to the $425,000. Mr. Marshall responded the acceleration would need to be introduced as the project proceeds with the TDM Program; stated the right outcome would be to not accelerate to $425,000 in advance of the project build-out level; some portions of the project might not come online for some time; five years from now the CPI inflator is going to be a significant component; inquired whether Council was suggesting to increase the $425,000 by CPI and also add another 15%. Mayor Johnson responded Council is trying to put something into the deal to help accomplish the goals. The Supervising Planner stated the 15% augmentation is for a shorter period of time. Mr. Marshall stated $13 million would be contributed to the TDM Program over a thirty-year time span based upon the $425,000 per year uninflated cost. Councilmember deHaan stated the Harbor Bay development had a requirement to subsidize the ferry service at $100,000 the City has put a lot of money back into the project; hopefully, everything will be successful; the measuring device is the real concern; the day-one concept should not be lost. Councilmember Matarrese stated one alternative to accelerate getting to the $425,000 is to go with the CPI in year five if criteria are not met and the project is successful; it would make sense in year five because Alameda Point may be closer to being developed and becoming a contribution; the delta between year five and ten becomes more important than waiting X number of years to get to the $425,000. Councilmember deHaan stated transportation problems need to be mitigated. Mayor Johnson stated options should be listed regardless if an option is not preferred so that staff can bring back the ordinance. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated one suggested option was a 15% increase on where the budget stands at year five; the 15% is on a pro rata basis and is a slight variation of a straight up 15% and would work better for the City financ… | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-19 | 28 | the business plan include reviewing the location issue and that the plan be for a two-year cycle. Councilmember Matarrese clarified that the agreement details should include all the liabilities and necessary City requirements ; the business plan details should look at the horizon of the lifespan details of the current location as well as future location. Mr. Gunn stated the Museum Board is willing to look at any proposed location. Mayor Johnson stated the City will help, but the Museum needs to plan for the future. Mr. Gunn stated the Museum is not allowed to have the building [Carnegie Building]. Mayor Johnson inquired how much money the Museum has for a new site. Ms. Dileo responded over $100,000. Councilmember Matarrese stated there is a motion on the floor regarding going forward with the agreement with the Museum. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of staff reviewing the Public Arts Fund and its applicability to a fund that would total $50,000 and would be available through a grant process for Cultural Art activities in the City. Councilmember Gilmore stated a caveat to the motion would be to ensure that the grant process is on a two-year cycle; requested that staff review the Meyer House issue. Mayor Johnson stated Council would like to have the money available soon; she would hope to be in a position of assessing applications in three months. Councilmember deHaan seconded motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Gilmore stated staff has been given direction to review the Meyers House issue; she does not want the issue Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 17 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 19, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2007-12-04 | 28 | The Finance Director responded $2.2 million is from Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) and is scheduled to be repaid in 2009; the remainder is all redevelopment agency loans. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Public Safety equates to approximately 60% of the budget and 30% of the staffing; the out years obligation is concerning; Public Safety retirement funds are escalating. The Finance Director stated the actuarial evaluation was received in October from the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) ; the City's contribution rate for Public Safety is remaining very close to 30% and is not increasing or decreasing significantly. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the dollar amount increases because of salary increases. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether immediate action is necessary to the extent of hiring freezes, etc. The Finance Director responded department heads have been requested to restrain spending; stated discretionary spending should be postponed. The City Manager/Executive Director stated department heads have been advised that a minimum of 1.5% needs to be saved; the budget is reviewed at weekly meetings; more changes may be necessary mid- year. louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that out years are a real concern; different plans will need to be developed; requested elaboration on Proposition 1A. The Finance Director stated the report includes an excellent description of Proposition 1A; the Governor has to declare that there is a severe State fiscal hardship the State can temporarily suspend Proposition 1A basic protection of property tax; the Legislature has to agree by a two-thirds vote; a separate statute must be adopted that requires the State to repay local governments in three years and can be done only twice in ten years. Councilmember/Boaró Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he has heard about a 25% cut a 10% cut would be disastrous at a State level. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated one way to build up the General Fun… | CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2008-01-15 | 28 | Industrial Park, what is not going on with the Marina Village commercial area, and what is going on with planning Alameda Point; job replacement was one of the mandates of the former Base closure; 14,000 civilian jobs were lost when the Navy closed. Commissioner deHaan stated 5,500 civilian jobs were lost. the military totaled approximately 11,000. Commissioner Matarrese stated that he would like to see a road map outlining what will be done; Alameda Point is important as a place to generate jobs as well as Marina Village and the Harbor Bay industrial area; there is a good handle on retail; an important objective is to have jobs that reduce the number of commuters leaving the Island; directed that the EDC flush out the how to of accomplishing what strategy one. Commissioner deHaan stated that Harbor Bay has had great successi a plateau has been reached on retail expressed kudos to the EDC . Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with direction to emphasize resources on implementing strategy one. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion with the caveat that a plaza is well overdue in the Park Street area. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 3 January 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-03 | 28 | Vice Mayor/Chair/Authority Member Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor/Authority Member Tam stated that she appreciates the fact that there will be a challenge to define what it means to live within means. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: uncilmembers/Authority Members deHaan, Gilmore, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 4. Noes Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese. Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated that criteria needs to be set for when money is borrowed to balance the budget. Mayor/Chair/ Johnson requested that a policy regarding borrowing money be brought back. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Alameda Public Financing Authority The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 14 Financing Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting June 3, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-17 | 28 | approximately $700,000; the Golf Course cash reserve is $1.1 million; the Golf Course would still be able to cover the shortfall for this year without the rebate. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the 2004-2005 ROI for the Golf Course and AP&T was to be for a short period of time. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the proposal is to rebate both the ROI and surcharge, to which the City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is the surcharge. The City Manager/Executive Director responded $171,960. stated $99,040 is the ROI revenue. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how long the surcharge has been in place, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded since 1991. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated intending to fund Fire Department overtime needs to be done with the realization of buying more time in hopes that revenue enhancement ideas pass in the fall; another plan needs to be in place if the revenues do not pass. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he would support additional time being gained on the back of Golf. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that everything is being put on a fast track; the top priority is public safety. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the $300,000 is not going to buy enough time past the fall; having the extra $271,000 would provide the comfort needed not to rotate a fire truck out of service. The City Manager/Executive Director stated $271,000 revenues would be taken from the Golf Course and added to the General Fund. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that three years ago he stated that the Golf Course was on a death spiral ; Alameda Point is placing the City in another situation of eroding the General Fund; lease revenues needs to be increased as much as Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 18 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commi… | CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-07 | 28 | Chair Johnson asked for a fundamental explanation of the ENA and DDA, for the benefit of the public. Ms. Potter explained that the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) is a predevelopment period with SunCal, with a term that runs through July 20, 2010. During this period, the City works in partnership with SunCal to get to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) stage. The DDA is a critical document negotiated during the ENA period and is an acquisition agreement - what you're paying for the land, what you'll be developing on the property, etc. If we don't have a negotiated DDA by July 20, 2010, then we go our separate ways. Member Gilmore asked for an explanation of the Navy still owning the property, and the clause regarding Navy negotiations. Ms. Potter stated that it is true that one of the riskiest issues about the Alameda Point property is that any developer we work with is not negotiating with the Property owner, which is the Navy. One of the key milestones being converted to a mandatory milestone under the 2nd amendment is the conveyance term sheet, our agreement with the Navy on the land purchase price, how the property will be conveyed to the ARRA, and ultimately to the developer. This term sheet is due July 31, 2009. If we don't come to an agreement with the Navy, SunCal is in default under the agreement of the ENA and we move to plan B. Chair Johnson asked whether the July 31, 2009 deadline is that a realistic time frame for the Navy. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, stated that the date was what the Navy indicated they're willing to entertain in terms of negotiating with us on a deal with SunCal, and that they're not moving further past July 2009. Chair Johnson asked if we are expecting any changes in the Navy' approach on the project after election. She hopes for a new outlook on base reuse from Federal Government and recommended we have flexibility in that milestone. Mr. Brandt explained that certainly, if we're making great progress, and if the Navy wants to extend beyond July 09,… | CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2009-02-07 | 28 | Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a formula could be applied that would use some of the gain to pay the incremental [OPEB] increase. The Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the maximum amount of capital would be obtained in the first five years in spite of the difficult economic situation; if the economy recovers in five year, there might be additional options. Mayor Johnson inquired what interest rates were used, to which the Interim Finance Director responded since the bond would be taxable, the variable coupon rate would have a range of 3.5 to 4% for the first five to six years and go to 7.2% 30 years from now numbers would be obtained if Council is comfortable with the concept. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding future OPEB payments, the Interim Finance Director listed the payment amounts. The Interim Finance Director continued her presentation. Councilmember Matarrese stated interest earned on the savings should be calculated. The Interim Finance Director continued her presentation. The City Attorney gave a brief explanation of the validation action. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the idea has been presented to the City Treasurer and FSC . The Interim Finance Director responded in the negative; stated that she talked to the City Treasurer about leveraging debt; a presentation has not been made to the FSC, but doing so would not be a problem. Councilmember Matarrese stated the FSC is considering a debt vehicle as one options. Mayor Johnson stated the City Treasurer had to leave, but could not comment since he had not seen the details; the matter should be discussed with the City Treasurer and he could bring it to the FSC. In response to Mayor Johnson's request, the Interim Finance Director provided a breakdown of the annual payment structure. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 28 February 7, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2009-10-20 | 28 | inquired whether a provision could be made for City identified historical structures. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded a provision has been suggested; stated the problem is inconsistency with State law; State law only recognizes buildings on the State register; adding a historical provision could be challenged. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether variations could be allowed since the State invites local governments to develop ordinances. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded cities only have discretion to determine whether or not to count its own inclusionary housing requirements toward a developer's count of units. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the State's intent is to protect historic structures; inquired whether the City using its own historic interpretation would meet the intent of State law. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded that she would like to agree with said interpretation. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated staff has heard a number of comments; an updated draft should come back to Council. The Planning Services Manager stated staff would develop some type of process that requires an applicant to come before the City for initial approval for concessions, incentives, and waivers; staff will incorporate the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society suggestions in the revised ordinance. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated commercial areas do not have the same concerns; residential areas should be reviewed differently. The Planning Services Manager stated staff will develop a draft that compares caps in residential areas versus no caps in commercial areas; a developer could still request a waiver to no caps. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she does no see anything in State law that permits a cap, but will speak to Mr. Buckley regarding the matter. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam requested clarification of reducing the inclusionary unit requirement from 25% to 15% in all Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and … | CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2010-03-16 | 28 | The Planning Services Manager responded the Collins project requested a density bonus; stated a Measure A compliant plan was submitted and was denied; a second submittal was a Measure A compliant plan and included more units than allowed under Measure A because it would be eligible for certain [density bonus] waivers, which is not what SunCal submitted. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether staff has worked with SunCal since the OEA was submitted on March 14 to determine whether there is a way to be in compliance rather than providing a brand new submittal. The Planning Services Manager responded staff cannot process a non Measure A project; stated an initiative is the only way to get the project approved; staff has met with SunCal many times and has explained the deficiency in the submittal; the Notice of Default is specific regarding some of the deficiencies; the current Density Bonus Ordinance is a bonus above either the Zoning or General Plan designation for the site. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the SunCal submittal does not include a density bonus application. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether SunCal has the opportunity to submit a density bonus application, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded SunCal has been advised that they would need to submit a base project that is Measure A compliant and then submit a density bonus application that is consistent with the Density Bonus Ordinance. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired who makes the determination on whether the Density Bonus Ordinance is applied appropriately. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded an interdepartmental team would review the matter. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the matter would come to the Council/Board/Commission at any time, to which the Interim City Manager/ Interim Executive Director responded the process is administrative. Speakers: Janet Gibson, Alameda; Andeas Cluv… | CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2010-04-20 | 28 | State law; to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative; stated the 15% versus 25% inclusionary housing issue is not in State law, is a separate issue and was a separate modification. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he understands Mr. Faye is saying SunCal would have acted differently and not put Measure B on the ballot had the City enacted the ordinance earlier; nothing is different; the same outcome is possible today as six months ago without the ordinance; that he has a hard with taking that as a real answer. Mr. Faye stated that he tries to give real answers; the adoption by the City of the ability to modify the Charter through Council action versus an election of the people is very different than isolating and focusing on the density bonus provisions; it is very interesting for the City Attorney/Legal Counsel to point out that density bonus provisions have been in State law for a long time, which is correct; the ability to implement that was limited in Alameda by the City Charter; until the middle of December, the Municipal Code was not modified to comply with State law to allow for modifications to the City Charter to accomplish the density bonus provisions in State law relevant to Measure A. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that is where there is a fundamental disagreement on the interpretation and application of State law. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the City's density bonus did not modify Measure A; only a vote of the citizens can modify Measure A; Council does not have the authority to make an amendment or modification to Measure A; the density bonus ordinance simply implements existing State law and creates the opportunity for a developer entitled to a density bonus to place or site additional market rate units that comprise the bonus; Council has to grant a waiver if the developer shows that it is necessary to waive the multi-family restriction under Measure A in order to fit the development, including the new market rate units, on the site. May… | CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-01 | 28 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA) MEETING TUESDAY--JUNE 1, 2010- 7:02 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:56 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Board Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. Agenda Item (10-02) Resolution No. 10-19, "Amending Resolution 92-1 Setting Regular Meeting Dates for Authority Meetings." Adopted. The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services gave a brief presentation. Board Member deHaan moved adoption of the resolution. Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion with an amendment to add July 7 and September 8, 2010 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority dates to the list of regular meeting dates. On the call for the question, the vote carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority June 1, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 28 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- -JUNE 15, 2010- -5:00 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 5:15 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (10-271 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. (10-272 CC) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title: City Attorney. (10-273 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation [paragraph no. 10-271], Council received a briefing from its Legal Counsel; no action was taken; regarding City Attorney, Council directed the City Attorney to bring back her goals and objectives by the second meeting in September, 2010; no action was taken; and regarding Anticipated Litigation [paragraph no. 10-273], Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel regarding a matter of potential litigation; no action was taken. *** Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 1:30 a.m. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (10-274 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. (10-275 CC/10-42 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: 1590 and 1616 Fortmann Way; Negotiating Parties: Warmington Homes, City of Alameda and CIC; Under Negotiations: Price and terms. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission June 15, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-20 | 28 | eligibility of being listed in the National Registry; doing nothing is not a good option; the issue is not really about SunCal in her mind; that she thinks of this as an EIR that should look at the bookends of a project; the EIR should look at doing nothing and doing the ultimate, which is the MOEA being considered this evening; that she thinks the EIR needs to analyze the full range of impacts, and then decide whether the City can afford to pay for the impacts and whether there is some threshold with respect to profit sharing; that she thinks the EIR is the most open, transparent, and fair process, which is what she is trying to underscore in terms of transparency and openness when it comes to communications with the community; she will be abstaining from the vote for said reasons. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that the transit plan is one of the most important things to her; everyone would suffer with an unsuccessful transit plan; that she is intrigued by the transit plan and she would like to see an EIR go forward and evaluate the transit plan and impacts; that she has problems with the financials; Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) wanted a 25% IRR; that she voted down the 25% IRR because 25% seemed high and was something that the City and developer should have gone back to the drawing board to flush out before going down the path to a DDA; the financial assurances and IRR give her pause. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated in addition to traffic, another concern is the Albuquerque bankruptcy and how the City would protect itself from becoming another Albuquerque; that he does not think the City can protect itself; questioned whether the City wants to do business with a land investor; that he would like the process to be open and get the best deal for Alameda; the Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners have a lot of experience and can do better. On the call for the question, the motion carried by a roll call vote: Councilmembers Gilmore: Aye; Matarrese: A… | CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-27 | 28 | Councilmember Tam stated the Subcommittee process eight months; the Subcommittee consulted with all departments; the issues [proposed tonight] did not come up; the proposed amendments have not gone through a fully transparent process and with a meaningful opportunity for public input; that she has not had a full briefing on the implications of the Seal Beach issue [noted by Mr. Weaver]. The City Attorney stated that she could provide a briefing; in addition, Mr. Wiley, the City's Labor Attorney, is also here to provide input. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she appreciates the City Attorney's foresight in having Labor Counsel available for a briefing, which does not solve her biggest issue; the Subcommittee went through an exhaustive process to the point of polling different departments to see if anything else should be added; that she does not think the issue should be taken lightly; the public needs to have the opportunity to ask questions and be educated; amending the Charter should not be rushed; 2008 was the first time that the Charter was amended; amending the Charter without having the same process the first time around is not good public policy. The Interim City Manager stated that she addressed the proposed Public Utilities Board (PUB) amendment in the past. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see the proposed PUB amendment go forward because of the inherent conflict of interest; people have time to discuss the issue between now and November; the PUB item is the simplest one. Councilmember Tam stated that she disagrees that the PUB issue is simple. Councilmember Gilmore inquired why the City Manager was put on the PUB; further inquired why the City Manager would be a PUB member if not a voting member. The Interim City Manager responded the Alameda Municipal Power General Manager thought that having the City Manager be an ex-officio would be helpful; stated that she is not aware of any instance where the City Manager has voted; the Charter is a living, breathing document; the opportunit… | CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf |
CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2011-02-15 | 28 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.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 13 Community Improvement Commission February 15, 2001 | CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2014-07-15 | 28 | that money is the bottom line for Alameda owners, rather than diversity. I am concerned that I will end up on the street. There have got to be some housing alternatives in this day and age. I saw the low cost studios on Park Ave and Central, but seriously, studios? Maybe for the young, but not the majority. This seems like a sad attempt to pad affordable housing numbers. It's been ridiculous now for many years at the XXX apartments! A 6% increase one year, 5% the next, back up to 6% last year, and 6% again this year. We've gone to the Alameda Housing/Rental Board 3 different times up against the property manager and XXX, all to no avail. EVEN THOUGH the Board has "strongly recommended" against these increases, especially since we've lived here since 1997, AND since certain concessions made by the manager made weren't fulfilled. The property isn't the oldest in town, but still could use some major improvements and upgrades without the tenants paying through the nose for them! We are S00000000 sick of hearing, "Well, you SHOULD be paying us much more for your apartment/floor plan/view!" after all these years, this is very frustrating, rude, and even disrespectful. We've seen this place go so far downhill that it was only approximately 25% occupied at one time in this 450-unit property! Pet rules/acceptance has come and gone, and is back on at this time. Our barbecue grills have been removed and tenants are only allowed to have the equivalent of a camp sized propane stove on patios/balconys. Plants were asked to be removed, but the new (only part-time, by the way) manager is a bit more lenient. Oh boy, the list goes on, but we feel it is all reflective in the amount of rent we ALL pay here, even with constant parking garage and car breakins, thefts and internal burglaries does all this justify the rental increases and poor treatment we get in return? We think not. "My friend looked to get a place here last week. She was quoted $1,969/mo + pet rent for a year in a JUNIOR one bedroom---not even a one bedroom! She look… | CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2015-01-21 | 28 | There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:25 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 28 January 21, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2015-10-20 | 28 | Mayor Spencer nominated Jennifer Linton and Anto Aghapekian for appointment to the CDI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:28 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 October 20, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2016-01-05 | 28 | The Community Development Director stated that she is going off the list regarding additional requirements and is going to skip the grounds for eviction and relocation assistance because maybe the monetary penalties and enforcement can be solved; inquired whether there is Council consensus to support monetary penalties and enforcement of the ordinance. Mayor Spencer and Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated said matter will be figured out when the ordinance comes back. The Community Development Director inquired whether or not there is support for a sunset provision. Mayor Spencer responded that she wants annual review. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated annual review is fine; that he is not sure there is a need for the ordinance to include a sunset clause. Mayor Spencer stated a sunset clause is not needed if there is annual review. Councilmember Oddie stated an annual review is fine, but he likes the idea of a sunset in case there are unintended consequences. Mayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Oddie's suggestion. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft also concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated new territory is being charted. Mayor Spencer stated three members are in support of annual review and a sunset clause. The Community Development Director stated the ordinance will include an annual review and sunset clause; staff is setting aside the recommendations regarding the fee, fee study and appropriation of funds; that she would move on to tackling eviction protections; Ordinance 1 allows for no cause evictions, but is structured to dis- incentivize doing so solely to increase rents because the maximum rent increase is capped for the new tenant and landlords are required to pay relocation benefits. Mayor Spencer stated Council has not included a cap and is requiring going to the RRAC instead. The Community Development Director stated Council could create a cap on the increase for the next tenant as a separate item. Mayor Spencer stated the landlord representative indicated there is alr… | CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2016-02-02 | 28 | property owners with 4 or fewer units. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated it would depend on the circumstance; he would like to see evictions within the scope of the RRAC so that people have recourse. Councilmember Daysog stated anyone who owns a fourplex runs the risk of doing a no cause eviction. The Community Development Director stated the number of no cause evictions would be capped annually; the idea is to not do a lot of no cause evictions as a way to get rid of tenants and not require a CIP. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a four or sixplex landlord could remove a person to move in a family member and still do another no cause eviction. The Community Development Director responded a family member is a no fault eviction not a no cause eviction; stated staff is requesting direction strictly on a no cause evictions not no fault. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are examples of other cities that have this process. The Community Development Director stated this is new territory. Councilmember Oddie stated he is fine with the staff recommendation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she objects to having any exceptions; all tenants should be protected; she agrees with staff recommendation. Mayor Spencer stated that she supports staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog inquired if any other city has incorporated this. The Community Development Director responded that in cities with rent stabilization no cause evictions are not allowed. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is an added protection. The Community Development Director requested clarification from Council on whether there should be an exemption for mom and pop landlords; stated if so, mom and pop landlords need to be defined. Mayor Spencer inquired if, legally, the City could require landlords to grant additional time to tenants for the buyout, based on how long the tenant has lived in the unit, unless the landlord and tenant agree. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 February 2, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2016-02-16 | 28 | data to know if it becomes an issue. Mayor Spencer inquired if the language will state that tenants have to leave on a certain date, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's proposal as long as the end result is something that is enforceable. The Community Development Director responded that the document will have the strongest possible language that is legally permissible. Mayor Spencer inquired whether on the language regarding the housing provider's failure to provide, which is Section 6-58.180, shall render the housing provider liable to actual and punitive damages. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the first year of the program, the City needs to exercise discretion over enforcement and how quick penalties are to assessed; inquired about Section 6-58.17.C. Mayor Spencer responded the whole section is being stricken because a program fee has not been discussed. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded allowing a grace period the first year that the program goes into effect seems reasonable; read from the ordinance and listed several of the fine amounts. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Section 6-58.180 should read may, not shall. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded it should remain shall; stated the wording is standard; the first fine could be suspended in the first year if there are no other violations. Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff could do so. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded Council could direct staff to apply some discretion. Mayor Spencer inquired whether doing so could be done without changing the ordinance; stated the word "therefor" in Section 6-58.185 for should read just "for"; she agrees with staff's recommendation with striking the word therefor and using discretion in the first year. Councilmember Oddie suggested enforcement take effect in six months. The Assistant City Attorney stated the reality is there will be a learning curve and staff is not out to cite people the first time there is a slight… | CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2016-11-01 | 28 | friendly amendment to include the matter in the priority setting work session. Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the negative; stated direction should be given now. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the priority setting work session is a way to get away from so many Council referrals and deal with significant items. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the matter is time critical. Mayor Spencer seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice votes: Councilmember Daysog, Vice Mayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1. (16-579) Consider Directing Staff to Review Enacting a Minimum Wage Increase in Alameda. (Mayor Spencer) Refer to the first referral on inclusionary housing [paragraph no. 16-573 for City Manager comments on all the referrals. Mayor Spencer moved approval of directing staff to review enacting a minimum wage increase in Alameda. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the minimum wage increase matter should be addressed at the priority setting work session. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned with small mom and pop shops; he would like said matter included in the discussion. Councilmember Oddie stated the matter should be addressed at the priority setting work session; there could be other models to look at from other cities. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. (16-580) Consider Updated Regulation and Potential Taxation of Commercial Cannabis Activities. (Councilmember Oddie) Refer to the first referral on Inclusionary Housing [paragraph no. 16-573 for City Manager comments on all the referrals. Alex Zalell, spoke before the Council referrals were heard. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 1, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2017-04-18 | 28 | Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 April 18, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2017-06-06 | 28 | Department and Information Technology Department." Adopted; (17-368B CC) Amend the Pension Rate Stabilization Program and Other Post- Employment Benefits Funding Policy; and (17-368C CC) Direct the City Manager or Designee to Deposit $6,043,000 of Committed General Fund - Fund Balance Plus Amounts Authorized by Council in Current and Future Budgets into the Public Agencies Retirement Services (PARS) Post-Employment Benefits Trust to Use for Prefunding of Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Obligations. The City Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella inquired whether some employee groups pay a portion of health care premiums, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella inquired whether any elected officials pay a portion of their health care premium, to which the City Manager responded in the negative. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired why the presentation shows $61,000 for the homeless assistance; the prior meeting indicated the amount is $120,000. The City Manager responded half of the funding comes from a grant that the Police Department is contributing to homeless assistance. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether the total will be the $120,000, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether any money is being set aside to purchase the Union Pacific remnant parcels. The Finance Director responded the purchase is not in the current budget. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired what the remnant parcels would be used for, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded part of Jean Sweeney Open Space Park is owned by Union Pacific; stated full buildout and access would require the purchase of said parcels. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether other money is available to purchase the land. The Recreation and Parks Director responded staff will be looking for grant money; stated there is no current money available to purchase said parcels. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether staff can explain … | CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2017-07-05 | 28 | business; urged Council to allow cannabis in Alameda, which will allow for jobs and tax money: Melody Montgomery, Alameda. Stated that she would like to ensure residents have access to medicine on the Island; she is concerned that the timeline will not streamline the process and will go beyond January 2018: Sharon Golden, Alameda Island Cannabis Community (AICC). Urged Council to allow the referral to go through; stated three benefits are: sales tax, employment for community members and reducing traffic: Rich Moskowitz, Alameda. Urged Council to allow the referral to go through; stated Alamedans should have safe access to cannabis on the Island: Amber Lopez, Alameda Safe Cannabis Access (ASCA). Urged Council to support the cannabis referral and entrepreneurs in Alameda: Abel Hebtegeorgis, Alameda. Urged Council to support residency requirements or preferences for cannabis business owners; stated allowing onsite consumption would discourage consumption on the streets: Mark Hersman, AICC. Stated Alameda's cannabis business goes to Oakland and Berkeley; staying on the Island will help the community: Tim Anderson, Alameda. Stated that he lost his aunt to cancer and cannabis helped her quality of life; there is cannabis access everywhere except Alameda; urged Council to not be behind San Leandro: Ryan Agabao, ASCA. Stated cannabis can have a medical benefit; he supports the referral: Andrew Huntoon, Alameda. Stated cannabis can help a range of illnesses; urged Council to lift the cannabis ban in Alameda: Juliet Lockwood, Alameda. Stated that she uses cannabis to heal her ailments; cannabis will give Alameda financial stability: Doretha McPhatter, AICC. Stated that she has not personally used cannabis in any form; her husband is a pancreatic cancer survivor and she attributes that to cannabis; urged Council to allow the referral to go through: Terri Golden, Alameda. Councilmember Oddie requested clarification on the timeline regarding when the item can return to Council The City Manager responded the item would return … | CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2017-07-18 | 28 | SACIC and Catellus; Catellus has the right to purchase the land if certain agreements are met pursuant to the DDA. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the land is City property. The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the land is owned by the SACIC, which is a public entity. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the land is owned by the public. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated Catellus owns a small piece of the property. Mayor Spencer inquired how much of the land Catellus owns. The Community Development Director responded 1.5 acres. Urged Council to support the project; stated Regional Measure 3 will bring desperately needed support for ferry service; he supports the proposed use: Bobby Winston, Bay Crossings. Stated that she supports the project, but has concerns about the amount of single family homes; Alameda needs more workforce housing: Angela Hockabout, Alameda Home Team. Mayor Spencer requested clarification on the percentage of single family homes. The Assistant Community Development Director responded 30% would be single family homes. Stated that she met with Catellus and staff regarding an alternate proposal to include senior housing; Alameda is in need of senior housing: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda Citizens Taskforce. Stated more discussion should occur regarding what is needed on the waterfront: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda. Stated Alameda needs affordable housing: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. Stated there is a critical need for housing; the project will create jobs: Patricia Young, Alameda Home Team. Stated the project is a solution and a game changer for the maritime industry; the project provides for housing and transportation on and off the Island: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2017-11-07 | 28 | delivery of a substantial amount of cash is prohibited. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council is okay with leaving the language as is, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella agreed. The Community Development Director inquired whether Council would like to strike the word food, to which Council responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the cannabis ordinance with the amendments. Mayor Spencer seconded the motion which carried by the following voice votes: Ayes: Councilmember Oddie, Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2. The Community Development Director stated Council needs to vote on the authorization to do the fee study. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of authorizing staff to conduct the fee study. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. *** (17-671) The City Manager stated staff cannot address the pension item at the next meeting; inquired whether Council would be willing to hear the matter tonight. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would agree to hearing the pension item. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the pension item. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion which carried with the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. *** *** (17-672) Motion Spencer called a recess at 2:17 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:24 a.m. (17-673) Recommendation to Receive an Update on Pension Cost Savings Strategies and Invest General Fund Reserves Committed to Unfunded Pension Liabilities. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 November 7, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2018-03-06 | 28 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- MARCH 6, 2018- -600 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 5. Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (18-106) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: Northwest Territories, Alameda Point; City Negotiator: Jill Keimach, 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. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that direction was given to staff. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenpda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 6, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-04-17.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2018-04-17 | 28 | for another mechanism to de-incentivize companies who profit on data collection: Brian Hofer, Oakland Privacy. Stated that if Alameda truly wants to be a Sanctuary City, it cannot have contracts with companies that target vulnerable communities who are concerned about their data; urged Council to pass the ordinance: Sameena Usman, Council on American-Islamic Relations. Stated the heart and people of Alameda, the inclusiveness and diversity is the real reason why her group supports the Sanctuary City; urged Council to oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and approve the ordinance: Cheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives. Urged Council to support the ordinance: Mike Katz Lacabe, Oakland Privacy. Councilmember Oddie stated that he concurs with Vice Mayor Vella; approving an ordinance is a power Council has as individuals and as a community; there is no threat of federal funding cuts; he is fully prepared to support the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese stated the referral is a logical extension of what the Council did when it declared Alameda a Sanctuary City; staff should review the ordinance and bring it back to Council for an update at the workshop. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the ordinance cannot be adopted as a first reading tonight because it was not noticed. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not opposed to having staff review the ordinance and implications; she is mindful of the risks; Council balances a lot of different interests; she is impressed with the work Mr. Kofer has done; she supports staff reviewing the ordinance and coming back to Council. Mayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft; stated that she would like staff to look at the ramifications; there is a lot of technical language in the ordinance; she wants to find the real asks, the impact and the cost; it is important to hear from the Police Chief; Alameda should do its best to protect the safety of every person regardless of immigration status. Vice Mayor Vella stated as… | CityCouncil/2018-04-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2018-06-05 | 28 | language, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the negative; stated the motion is to instruct staff to move forward with the sales tax measure. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff would return to Council about how the money would be apportioned without being too specific, to which the Public Works Director responded having the Council provide the general sense about including operational and capital needs would be helpful; he has concern about getting into special tax territory. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the presentation posed the question for the Council to answer; that she can support leaving it open. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the sales tax measure would not indicate what the tax would be used for at all. The Public Works Director responded the ballot would have language roughly similar to Exhibit 2. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the language reflects the output of a poll, to which the Acting Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer read the draft language; inquired whether there would be no end date and there would have to be a vote of the people to end the sales tax. The Public Works Director responded voters would have to vote to end the tax. Mayor Spencer noted the proposal is similar to the hospital tax with no termination date and would go on for ever and ever unless the voters end it. The City Manager stated the issue was polled. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she does not want to wordsmith the language because it was polled; additional conversations are needed to discuss priorities and uses; as currently written, the City can spend the funds for both operations and capital projects. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would be willing to include that there is no end date and would require a vote of the people to end the tax. Vice Mayor Vella stated said information will come out in the ballot arguments. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated going against the polling would be foolish. Mayor Spencer stated being transparent and hones… | CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2018-07-10 | 28 | The Assistant Community Development Director stated the decision rests with the Council; the area is very small and will probably not have a building, but could be used as yard space; the concept was to have park areas along the Bay Trail. Mayor Spencer stated that her preference would be to keep the area useable for sailors. Councilmember Oddie stated if the change will get the entire Council to approve the project, he is supportive; if not, he would prefer to keep it as is. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant Community Development Director stated an assessment district is being set up for the project; the assessment district will fund a number of things, such as transit, sea level rise, and public infrastructure maintenance; the project is fiscally positive project for the City. Mayor Spencer inquired about removing the multi-family (MF) overlay from the commercial property once the homes are built. The Assistant Community Development Director responded adopting the Master Plan by ordinance determines the zoning for the site; stated adoption of the ordinance tonight does not allow homes in the commercial core area; the Council would have to adopt an ordinance to make any changes. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant Community Development Director stated three votes are required to remove the MF overlay, approve the Master Plan, or amend the Master Plan. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City can ask the developer to give money towards a bridge, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the City has Development Impact Fees (DIF); the developer is paying $2 million in transportation impact fees; the City has identified what will be funded using developer fees; a bridge is not proposed for funding because neighborhoods in both Oakland and Alameda have not agreed to have a bridge landing; until there is neighborhood agreement, a bridge will not be added to the list. Mayor Spencer inquired whether a 60 boat dry storage would be adequat… | CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2018-07-24 | 28 | Councilmember Oddie stated the cleanup should be kept separate; cleanup to the rent ordinance was lost. In response to the Assistant City Manager's inquiry regarding timing, the Economic Development Manager stated staff was planning to come back on September 4th, but she would prefer to make it the first meeting in October due to the amount of work. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the second meeting in September, the Economic Development Manager stated staff is working on arts and minimum wage items for said date. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the ordinance would require two readings, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the cleanup can be presented at the first meeting in September, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; noted zoning changes would have to go to the Planning Board. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like the matter expedited; the cleanup is not as critical; her preference would be to do the substantive work. Vice Mayor Vella stated some of the substantive work, such as adult use, would not go to the Planning Board; only the zoning has to go to the Planning Board. The Acting City Manager stated everything needs to be approved to go out with RFP. The Economic Development Manager stated staff would shoot for the October meeting to allow time to go to the Planning Board. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (18-449) The Acting City Manager announced information would be posted on the website regarding signature gatherers misrepresenting the McKay property initiative. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (18-450) Consider Drafting a Letter to Federal Representatives Supporting Congressional Bill S. 3036, the "Keep Families Together Act." (Councilmember Oddie) Councilmember Oddie made brief comments regarding the referral. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval [of drafting a letter]. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 July 24, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-09-04.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2018-09-04 | 28 | COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (18-488) Councilmember Oddie expressed appreciation to the City Manager and Fire Chief for their advocacy in the Community Paramedicine Bill, which passed on Friday causing the City's pilot program to become something permanent. Mayor Spencer mentioned that she signed a letter of support. (18-489) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Historical Advisory Board, Planning Board, and Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB). Mayor Spencer nominated Cheryl Harawitz for appointment to the SSHRB. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:22 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 September 4, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-09-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2018-10-16 | 28 | Vice Mayor Vella stated it does not matter if the applicant, the City or an outside consultant performs the notice; the action needs to be certified. Mayor Spencer stated that she understands there are two mailings: one early and another by the City as the applicant is going through the normal process; inquired if the first mailing would be pass/fail, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated the process seems redundant and he does not understand why it would be included in the RFP process. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to follow the same Planning Board process used for any land use determination. The Economic Development Manager stated the requirement could be dropped. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the neighbors need to be notified, but not twice. The Economic Development Manager stated neighbors would be noticed twice in the process; if the RFP process is kept standard, the neighbors would only be noticed during the Use Permit process. Mayor Spencer inquired if a motion is needed to remove the process, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the negative. The Economic Development Manager stated staff would incorporate the information from the ordinances being approved into the RFP; the last item is to issue a fee credit to those submitting on the same location; requested general approval from Council for the process. The Council unanimously agreed to the process. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (18-592) The Interim City Manager announced a proposed USS Hornet event was not approved after the Drake concert on October 26, 2018. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 16, 2018 25 | CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2019-03-19 | 28 | Dispense Non-Medicinal or "Adult Use" Cannabis, (f) Modify Requirements for Off- Island Delivery, and (g) Make Any Other Related Amendments; and (B) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (1) Amending Section 30-10 (Cannabis) to (a) Add Cannabis Retail Businesses as Conditionally Permitted Uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Business, and C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing Zoning Districts, (b) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-Medicinal or "Adult Use" Cannabis, (c) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Remove the Dispersion Requirement; and (d) Make Any Other Related Amendments; and Consider Phasing Implementation of the Cap on the Number of Dispensary/Delivery Permits, Through the Request for Proposals Process, and Provide Direction to Staff, as Necessary. Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (19-177) The Interim City Manager made brief comments about his time as Interim City Manager. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (19-178) Consider Raising the Rate of the Hotel Tax (Transient Occupancy Tax). (Councilmember Daysog) Councilmember Daysog stated the item would be placed on the April 16, 2019 agenda. (19-179) Consider Directing the City Manager to Create Breastfeeding Locations, Baby Changing Stations and Gender Neutral Bathrooms. (Councilmembers Vella and Oddie) Councilmembers Vella and Oddie made brief comments regarding the referral. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the referral. Councilmember Vella seconded, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (19-180) Status of the Emma Hood Swim Center at Alameda High School. Vice Mayor Knox White gave a brief update. (19-181) Review and Discuss Charter Amendment Timeline and Issues Proposed by the Council Subcommittee. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 March 19, 2019 | CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2019-05-07.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2019-05-07 | 28 | Interim City Attorney for his service. (19-287) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a workshop related tax increment financing, the League of California Cities Legislative Day, the CASA Compact housing legislative working group; announced she and PUB members attended a meeting in Washington D.C. on the Northern California Power, Agency ; stated a meeting with the Veterans Association (VA) has been arranged for the proposed columbarium; further discussed meetings with Congress members and staff from House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA construction. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:13 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 7, 2019 27 | CityCouncil/2019-05-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2019-07-16 | 28 | Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether any voter education has been produced to date, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. The Public Works Director continued the Power Point presentation. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the amount for Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is accurate. The Public Works Director responded the figure is an average over the course of 1 year. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the 2 different rate structures are defined or determined. The Public Works Director responded fees are developed per parcel for residential as well as permeability. Jerry Bradshaw, SCI Consulting Group, responded a statistical approach is taken; parcels are broken into different groups; all sizes of parcels have been reviewed; a statistical sampling of parcels has been taken which measures rooftops and driveways. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired the tradeoff for selecting a specific fee versus a range of fees and why one would be selected over the other. The Public Works Director responded the range of fees allows Council more discretion at the October 1st public hearing to set a fee within the provided range; stated if a fee is set now, Council is bound by the decided fee at the October 1st public hearing. Vice Mayor Knox White stated there is confusion caused by sending a letter that says $45-78 or an expectation of a lower rate versus deciding a set fee. The City Manager stated that he recommended the options of either setting a specific fee or providing a range; in his experience both options do not have an advantage or disadvantage. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there will be new information in October. The Public Works Director responded survey data will be provided; stated there will be a better sense from the community; a couple community meetings will be held between now and October; there will be more anecdotal information. Stated constituents find the services as essential and support moving forward with property owners voting on the matter: Ruth Abbe, Alameda. Mayor Ezz… | CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2019-12-18 | 28 | City Council Workshop Workshop Report Management Partners mistakes/risk will breed an overly conservative organization and will stifle creativity and flexibility and the benefits these values can bring. Try to focus feedback on service quality, not individuals: An ongoing challenge is the difficulty of reconciling the ultimate responsibility of the city council for city service quality versus the need to avoid interfering in the daily management of the organization. It is much better for the city council to communicate service level or quality concerns to the city manager versus performance judgments regarding individual staff members. It is particularly inappropriate for individual members or the council as a whole to try to direct the manager to hire, fire, or promote members of the city staff. Don't expect managers to take sides in councilmember disputes: Regardless of how they may personally feel, most city managers will avoid, at all costs, "taking sides" in disputes between councilmembers. While on occasion the manager might try to help reconcile councilmembers, don't expect the manager to take your side in a dispute with a fellow member. Even if they may agree with you, most managers will avoid taking part in public or private criticism of council- members unless professionally required to do so in extreme cases. Don't jump to conclusions regarding citizen/customer feedback: While it is your responsibility to be available to listen to citizen and customer feedback regarding the city organization, be careful not to jump to conclusions based on what you are told. Oftentimes an individual may sound completely sincere and credible while providing you an inaccurate account of their experience with the city organization. It is best to not jump to conclusions, one way or the other, until the manager is able to provide you a response to the concern. It is embarrassing to criticize staff for poor performance only to find out that the information you relied on was not accurate. At the same time, the manager needs to… | CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2020-03-03 | 28 | funding pathways; staff has a limited amount of time to work on items; there are nice parks throughout Alameda; expressed concern about DePave Park not being given priority; expressed support for moving DePave Park up on the list and having staff provide next steps; noted former Councilmember Matarrese discussed DePave Park signage; stated there is a lot of potential and nothing is being done; West Alameda has Jean Sweeney Park and the Cross Alameda Trail, but DePave should not be forgotten; DePave Park could be a key part of the CARP. Councilmember Daysog stated the map presented is helpful; stated the map shows projects throughout Alameda; expressed support for staff's recommendation; stated that he would like to hear Councilmember's thoughts on prioritization; expressed support for DePave Park; stated this is a different type of park and can be an example that shows other cities how to plan for parks with regard to climate change. Councilmember Oddie stated Council has the chance to be the most climate friendly Council; discussed various climate actions; stated DePave Park can be state-of-the-art; the Recreation and Parks Commission has reviewed the item. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommended priorities, with direction to staff to hire a consultant to develop the Master Plan, ballpark the cost and return to Council by the end of July. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she respects the Recreation and Parks Commission; everything Council has discussed is true and correct; DePave Park is not part of the CARP; expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated the funding streams will be different and allow for moving forward on two tracks. Vice Mayor Knox White stated his comments were aligned with the staff report and the recommendation of the Recreation and Parks Commission; the motion got into advising staff to hire an engineer by the end of July; hiring an engineer has not been agendized; it is not clear where the funding for a… | CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-05-05.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2020-05-05 | 28 | informing qualifying seniors. Councilmember Vella stated many people have been contacted; noted Meals on Wheels or the Mastick Senior Center may not be serving everyone; inquired whether the City can work with the list of those unable to be served. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted there is no income limit for Meals on Wheels. The Community Development Director stated neither Meals on Wheels nor the program at Mastick Senior Center are limited by income restrictions; noted there is a 6.2% administrative fee that the City must pay for the Great Plates program; inquired whether or not the money paid toward the administrative fee could be augmented or used to grow the grant fund, and whether staff can provide an update to the Great Plates program outside of a Council Meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the administrative fee is reimbursable through Housing and Urban Development (HUD); stated that she will reach out to Congresswoman Lee's office for a proper HUD point of contact; the money is put out initially and then reimbursed. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he supports giving the option for the 80 selected businesses to receive less money; the option may not be taken by many businesses, but could allow the assistance of an additional 2 to 5 businesses. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the proposal of using loans; outlined loaning Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funds in the 1990s; stated the City can also look into working with HUD on waivers for income restrictions to loaning CDBG funds. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for allowing awarded businesses to take less of the grant to help additional businesses. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is wise to consider. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:34 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 7 May 05, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-05-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2020-05-19 | 28 | maintenance staff to create additional "Road Closed to Through Traffic" and additional "Pedestrian Warning" signs; 20 total installations are available and 14 are deployed; should staff move forward to phase two, staff will be able to deploy the rest by early next week; the intention is to place signage at primary intersections and additional intersections could be backfilled as the program progresses. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether a determination has been made during the pilot regarding safety being higher or lower with signage. The City Engineer responded early feedback stated there was insufficient signage to provide at intermediate cross streets; stated the project was deployed May 11th with additional barricades and signage to begin blocking off through traffic to certain streets; additional signage could be added however staff is limited by the ability to create signage and the duration of the program. Councilmember Vella expressed concern for issues on through streets; inquired whether there have been reports of near misses or other traffic safety issues since implementation. The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded that some survey responses have yielded reports of speeding and concerns; stated that she does not recall reports of near misses or reported collisions during the program. The City Clerk stated public comment will take Council past the 11:00 p.m. limit; noted Council may call back recused Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie for a vote to extend the meeting time past 11:00 p.m.; stated Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie may then re-recuse themselves and allow public comment to be heard and read into the record; outlined the remaining items on the agenda. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to get to the regular agenda items; inquired whether certain items should be heard or if Council should proceed to a time- specific. *** Special Meeting Alameda City Council 19 May 19, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2020-06-02 | 28 | Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Clerk is willing to continue the role, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a Section on page 6 related to effective problem solving. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion includes Council comments, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (20-381) The City Manager stated the Slow Streets program has expanded into Phase 2; COVID testing sites are being looked into for Alameda; the current activity level is low with no incidents. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (20-382) Katherine Allen, Alameda, inquired about laws giving citizens the ability to protect themselves and their property against those in violation of the law. COUNCIL REFERRALS (20-383) Consider Amending Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-91.4 (f) Pertaining to Special Meetings. (Councilmember Vella) Councilmember Vella made brief comments on the referral. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staff or the City Attorney to look into the item and bring back information for Council consideration; stated that she is unclear what is being asked of the Open Government Commission (OGC). Councilmember Vella stated the OGC is looking at the Sunshine Ordinance; expressed support for staff looking into different possible noticing requirements; direction provided could be simple; Charter discussions would either require 10 day notice or be announced at a regularly agendized meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated more nuances need to be addressed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 June 2, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2020-07-21 | 28 | The City Manager responded that he agrees; stated the language to require Greenway to meet all County and State COVID-19 requirements can be amended in the agreement and is appropriate. The Assistant Community Development Director stated leases and licenses generally have a clause requiring tenants comply with all local, State and Federal law. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated COVID-19 is new and the consequences for non- compliance can be significant and can implicate many; expressed support for the addition of a clause related to COVID-19. Councilmember Vella inquired whether the license agreement has card check neutrality. The City Manager responded in the negative; stated the provision may be added and Greenway is agreeable. The City Attorney inquired whether the request for card check neutrality would apply to the construction workers or on-site staff. Councilmember Vella responded the card check neutrality applies to on-site staff; stated there is a requirement for construction workers of a certain threshold falling under the Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA); questioned whether the language needs to be added to the agreement. The City Attorney responded the threshold for the PSA is quite high; stated the work may not meet the threshold; unless Council specifically directs staff to include the language in the license agreement, it is likely construction workers will not be covered. The City Manager stated Greenway is agreeable to card check neutrality for on-site staff; noted construction workers have not been discussed. Councilmember Vella expressed concern about the long-term use of the space; stated there are upcoming discussions about Council priorities; expressed support for Council decisions to be confined to a shorter period of time; stated that she hopes for a larger conversation in the future about long-term visions for the property; the event space may not stay at the location; expressed support for the short-term license agreement, adding card check neutrality language and adding COVID-19 specific l… | CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2021-03-16 | 28 | write a memo indicating areas in which advice could be given along the lines the City Attorney mentioned to begin to address the issue that was raised by the Committee members about the criminalization of poverty. The City Attorney stated a section on the topic can be included when reports return to Council. Councilmember Knox White stated an issue somewhat tied to the matter is diversion programs and traffic enforcement, such as whether tinted windows need to be enforced when other drivers are speeding. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of directing staff to identify a traffic enforcement policy that focuses on safety related citations, as well as any diversion ideas within traffic enforcement and working with the Transportation Commission; in addition, he would suggest getting a report back on Universal Basic Income (UBI); he heard a lot of support for the conversation; he did not hear Council take up his idea for a catalytic converter rebate or other ideas to avoid crimes; noted the Review Committee will take a long time to get going and that he would like the City Manager to return with ideas in the short term about how the City will shift and change review of the practices of the Police Department so there is civilian review out of the City Manager's office; he does not know what it looks like and will leave it up to the City Manager; he would like a report back on the matter as well. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated catalytic converters are an important issue; she would like add that the City support making it so that catalytic converters cannot be turned in; other States are starting to do so and the legislature should be asked to look into making it illegal for scrap metal people to purchase catalytic converters. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to amend the motion to add the matter to the Legislative Agenda; he thinks there already are a lot of rules around it, but he is not an expert. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the catalytic converter shield rebate; sta… | CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2021-05-04 | 28 | lower the Board compensation and reinvest saved funds into the training budget; discussed letters being sent in about lead and other heavy metals in baby food and advocating for more enforcement around the matter. ADJOURNMENT (21-322) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:29 p.m. in memory of Juelle Ann Boyer. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 May 4, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2021-06-15 | 28 | Under discussion, the City Manager stated once an option is selected, the Police Chief would work with Dispatch to create a system how to move certain calls. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council gave direction on May 8th to begin immediate training for Dispatchers not to have mismatched responses as before; inquired whether the City Manager is waiting to do the training once an option is selected. The City Manager responded the agency needs to be selected to allow Dispatch to move the response. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is moving the response, but it is also training. *** (21-425) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of extending the meeting until 12:30 a.m.; stated that she would like to finish the item tonight. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion was previously made about when the meeting would end. On the call for the question, the motion, which required four affirmative votes, failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the item is important; Council should not rush to finish at 12:30 a.m.; she agrees with a previous speaker that some rules might need to be changed. The Police Chief outlined the process for calls coming into Dispatch. *** (21-426) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the matter being continued to a date certain, July 6, 2021; stated that she would commit to putting the item after the Wellness Center. The City Clerk stated the motion should include the 5:00 p.m. time and order does not need to be specified. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Note: Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft did not record a vote.] *** Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2021 19 | CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-06 | 28 | schedule. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the ambulance rates are noted as being established by contract with Alameda County Emergency Medical Services (EMS); the City of Alameda follows the County's adopted fee schedule; new rates are anticipated mid-July. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated many people have expressed concern for bills with large amounts after ambulance services have been called; she would like Council to look into the issue of ambulance fees; her preference is to postpone fee increases as much as possible; it is important to recognize that future hardships are unknown. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ambulance rates are established by a contract with Alameda County EMS; inquired whether the contract is housed with Alameda Fire Department or City of Alameda and how the rate could be changed. The City Manager responded the ambulance fee could be kept at the County rate; stated staff can bring back a review of the rates in September; the Fire fees can then be brought back along with the ambulance fees in the fall with the other rates being approved. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is looking for a reduction in ambulance fees. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative; stated she thinks it is interesting to have the victim billed for someone else calling an ambulance; expressed support for Council looking at the fees and figuring out a way to address the cost concerns. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the City Manager's recommendation to have staff take a closer look at the Fire fees and return to Council in September with a proposal. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the Master Fee Schedule, with the Fire fees to return to Council in September, including adoption of related resolution. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-455) Public Hearing to Consider Collec… | CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 28 | Consent Calendar. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Alameda Police Department having a table at the Alameda Job Fair; noted that she was pleased to hear both the City Manager and Police Chief were present. Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined a "Coffee with a Cop" event at Starbucks Coffee. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-507) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Lease with Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability Company to Extend the Term for Five Years for Building 29, Located at 1701 Monarch Street, at Alameda Point. Not heard. (21-508) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Public Art Requirements, as Recommended by the Planning Board. Introduced. The Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Development Manager stated deaccession is the removal of public art from the City's public art collection. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City has performed deaccession. The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated deaccession is generally performed in a variety of ways; the process is lengthy and governed by State and federal law. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is prepared to support staff's recommendation; he supports being able to move forward without Council approval under the City Manager's approved spending limit; however, he would like to propose requiring Council notification in the event a Call for Review is needed; Council receives calls related to negative community impacts; it is a bad look for Council to respond to calls by indicating unawareness; Calls for Review add balance. The City Attorney stated the proposed recommendation from Councilmember Knox White can be implemented in two ways: 1) Council direc… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2021-09-07 | 28 | Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems; family housing is combined in separate ends of the development; there is need for unites for single adults and for couples; the Carnegie Library is not ideal for transitional housing; the ideal location for transitional housing would include a little outdoor space; the Carnegie Library might be better as a navigation center; expressed support for allocating money for transitional housing; stated the bottle parcel is a great location and is close to many services; every transitional housing unit must have its own bathroom as a matter of human dignity; adding a bathroom does not indicate the addition of a kitchenette; staff is in the process of working with people from the Marina Village Inn; the Marina Village Inn had not been doing well related to TOT revenue generation; the owner of the Marina Village Inn was willing to sign up for the Project Room Key program, which helped guarantee income that did not produce TOT; price and terms must be negotiated; expressed support for Option 1 and for UBI; stated the City might be able to utilize State grant money for UBI; outlined a program called Keep Oakland Housed and a federal funding program; stated calling 2-1-1 will provide information on how to apply for funding; Council may want to set aside money in a fund in order to help keep people from falling through the cracks. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a Board of Commissioners appointed by the Council has oversight over AHA; the AHA holds Board meetings; she is disheartened to hear complaints raised about the AHA's services; the public is welcome to attend AHA meetings and report to Council; she does not know the extenuating circumstances for specific cases; however, AHA serves many people; expressed support for AHA. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a Council vote is needed or whether direction to staff is sufficient, to which the Assistant City Manager responded direction to staff. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated majority of Council is in support of Option 1 with … | CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2021-09-21 | 28 | motion; his only potential change would be to consider whether Council wants the ordinance to go into effect immediately with enforcement not starting until 2023; the matter will have the same enforcement timeline; rather than people continuing to use gasoline powered leaf blowers for a year and a half, the City can begin the education portion and phase in enforcement. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staying with the staff recommendation; stated that the education piece for the matter is important, including bilingual outreach; the City is impacting people's employment; there is hope that the change happens sooner rather than later. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-596) Recommendation to Review, Comment and Provide Direction on Preliminary Needs Assessment and Recommendations for Development of Smart City Master Plan. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the item to the Continued Agenda Items section of the October 5, 2021 Council meeting. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (21-597) The City Manager made an announcement regarding the City's annual Job Fair at South Shore Center; stated the City is seeking Community Service Award nominations for community members who have made tremendous contributions over the past year in the City of Alameda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-598) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief regarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-599) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-600) Consider Directing Staff to Pu… | CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2021-10-19 | 28 | judicial action for bonds; if Council approves filing a judicial validation action, bonds must exist as a requirement under State law; staff has provided assurances verbally and in Section 5 of the resolution that the matter will return to Council before finalization occurs; there will be nothing for staff to validate if Section 1 of the resolution is removed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the process has to take place in order to begin; checkpoints occur in the timeline. Mr. Morales stated it is Council's legal and fiduciary duty to review the Authorizing Statement; a bond cannot be sold without Council authorizing the Authorizing Statement; the document has not been generated; there is currently no way the City could legally issue or sell bonds without coming back to Council. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (21-664) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed concern about information not being released regarding the Mario Gonzales investigation. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-665) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-666) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. (21-667) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. (21-668) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember Daysog). Not heard. (21-669) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023- 2031 Regional Housing Needs … | CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-16 | 28 | Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the Housing Element under the Continued Agenda Items section of the next Council agenda. Councilmember Knox White stated the next Council agenda will be multi-hour discussion. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the Housing Element matter can be continued to a special meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can agree to take one more matter after the current discussion; Council may then discuss the continued, date specific matters after. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the parking management plan [paragraph no 21- after the current matter. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Vice Mayor Vella stated unhoused individuals continue to grow in number year after year; the winter months bring bad weather events; the project is economy of scale being phased in. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolution] with direction to staff to change the contract language and have more than one community meeting. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has visited a site run by BACS; she has discussed BACS success with other mayors; the value of using an organization like BACS is the track record; there are many ways in which people become homeless; it would have been preferable to perform outreach ahead of time; Council stretches staff pretty thin; there are only so many hours in each day; the outreach portion is not a reason to delay the project; the housing crisis is present and a long time coming; working with BACS, a trusted provider, gives much confidence; however, good communication with neighbors is critical; having a team and advisory committee is needed for neighbors to feel that they are being heard; she fully expects neighbors to be open-minded and allow for further learning; co… | CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2022-02-01 | 28 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 1, 2022 28 | CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2022-05-03 | 28 | Expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated creating a fair and expanded housing program is critical; many people are looking for affordable housing; the City has a chance to address and right structural racism which has been built into the housing plan; urged the plan move forward: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda. Councilmember Knox White stated that he has heard comments not supporting rezoning the R-1 through R-6 areas; inquired the process and response if the City submits a draft HE to HCD that does not include the residential areas. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded HCD would send the draft HE right back to the City; stated the City would essentially state that it is keeping Measure A/Article 26 in-tact for residential areas; HCD has already stated the approach is not acceptable; acceptance is not related to numbers or allocation, it is related to fair housing; HCD states the City cannot prohibit multi-family housing in residential densities which support affordable housing in all residential districts; the approach is unfair to those who need affordable housing by Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH); HCD has been consistent in its approach and attitude around what Alameda needs to do; discussed HCD's 2012 letter. Councilmember Knox White stated the AFFH language requires cities to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers which restrict access to opportunity; inquired the location of the areas referenced in the statement. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded prohibiting multi-family housing and not allowing residential densities that support affordable housing are barriers to AFFH; stated west Alameda has a higher percentage of lower-income households; continuing the trend of placing all affordable housing on the West End does not affirmatively further fair housing. Councilmember Knox White stated most of the patterns of segregation related to housing show up in the residential districts; in order to… | CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2017-04-12.pdf,28 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2017-04-12 | 28 | ITEM 2-B COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES MEETING MINUTES OF Wednesday, April 12, 2017 6:30 p.m. Victoria, "We've got a lot of drive-bys." And she said, "Oh well. It doesn't stop at the places on the schedule unless there's somebody waiting there." I said, "But no, I'm talking about we've got a lot of places on the schedule that there is no sign. No one would stand there in a million years, knowing or thinking that the bus is going to be there." These are all things that they're going to be working on. There's a lot of things that need to be done and I hope that if you are, or I know lot of you are at work on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays but, if you have the chance to and you see the bus, go ahead and get on it. I also asked, "why can't we go ahead and put the shuttle in the parade?' Arnold Brillinger: I was told, "Well, there's not enough time." I went in after our last meeting. I was there in February. The Friday after that Wednesday. So, it mystified me it takes the city that long to work. I'm realizing now that she meant that there's not enough time from when the new contract starts, because the new contract starts the 3rd of July. The Monday of that week. And to get it wrapped and all that kind of stuff. So, we'll probably see it in the next 4th of July parade. Not in this year. But the following year. And we're inviting all of you to come and ride on it. I'm thinking that that would be a good thing to have the Transportation Committee also to ride on it. Make a big deal of it. Beth Kenny: Yes, I'm so happy that you are doing this because we've really been offered a seat at the decision-making table as to where they going to contract the transportation through, and then also Commissioner Lewis has been doing something similar but with the taxi services that they going to contract with. To me it's wonderful. We're getting at the table where decisions are being made and thank you for doing that. Arnold Brillinger: Because, Beth, in response to that, Ikind of had the feeling that a lot of times, we are giv… | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2017-04-12.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf,28 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2018-05-09 | 28 | COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MUTES OF Wednesday May 9, 2018 6:30 p.m. amazed by it also. It's just that I had never seen a playground like that. Anto Aghapekian: And just it occurred to me that one of the things we could do is maybe do the same presentation adding more, and then get on the Rec and Parks agenda and show them what could be done to make it accessible. That would be a big help. Beth Kenny: Thank you, Commissioner Aghapekian. So I have not attended a SSHRB meeting. What I do is I get their agendas and see if there's anything that I think is going to be of interest, and then I'll just go to that part of the meeting in the video. It's pretty easy to get through it if you can just go to the right agenda item that you want. But what I did see is Doug Biggs from the Alameda Point Collaborative did an amazing presentation to SSHRB about the potential housing going in down by Crab Cove for seniors and homeless people coming out of hospital. And I would really love to see him give that presentation to us because I think this is something that we could. If we can help in any way, I think this commission would probably be interested in that, especially given our focus, our talking about focusing more on people with mental health disability. I think there's a lot of overlap in who would be receiving some housing in this area. Laurie Kozisek: I've left him a phone message asking him to contact us about that. Beth Kenny: Great. So that's my report for SSHRB. A lot going on at council right now, and a lot going on with the school board right now. I haven't actually watched the school board meetings, but they're talking about consolidating the high schools, and I know there's a lot of issues around that, and I would love to find out how it would affect students with disabilities. That's neither here nor there at this point. I just wanted to put that out for you, Commissioner Roloff, for stepping in there. Jennifer Roloff: Yes, thank you. Beth Kenny: I'm sure you're aware of the possibility that Encinal High Scho… | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-07-11.pdf,28 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2018-07-11 | 28 | COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday July 11, 2018 6:30 p.m. More on 4C: Laurie Kozisek: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I did a quick check on my phone while we were talking and found out that City Council will be meeting on November 7th. I don't know why, but they'll be meeting on a Wednesday that week. So, I would recommend that you do a vote saying you would like to meet on November 21st, because there's nobody on the City calendar for November 21st. Chair Beth Kenny: Is City Council meeting November sixth? Laurie Kozisek: That's a Tuesday. Chair Beth Kenny: Right. Laurie Kozisek: I don't know, I didn't check that. I just noticed that they are meeting on a Wednesday, for some reason. Chair Beth Kenny: I was just thinking that on the 21st the 22nd is Thanksgiving. Chair Beth Kenny: So, I don't really want to do the 21st. I can recommend, I would put out there the 28th, if that's available? Laurie Kozisek: That, I believe, is available. Chair Beth Kenny: Okay, so that's the last Wednesday of November. Laurie Kozisek: Which ironically is when the Transportation Commission will not be meeting, so it will be available. Chair Beth Kenny: So, I would recommend the 28th. Do I have a second? Anto Aghapekian: Second. Chair Beth Kenny: All in favor? All: Aye. Chair Beth Kenny: Any opposed? The 28th, it is. Laurie Kozisek: I will double check that again. 6-A Façade Response Laurie Kozisek: And then, my other item, somehow it didn't get on there. For the facade response, 09/12/18 Page 28 of 29 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-07-11.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf,28 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2018-11-28 | 28 | ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 6:30 PM the elections. But there is two items that the planning department is working on, and you've probably heard them that's one on Central that a member of the planning department came and did a presentation for us last year, and they have made some changes, some modifications to the original plan. And then the other one is on Clement Street. The plans are pretty well-developed. And I would like to, if the mission's agreeable, to invite one of the planning department officials to come and make presentation to us and both develop next meeting or the week, whenever they can come. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay. So, on my part, I went to a Chamber of Commerce meeting to talk about the ADA Initiative that I've done, been working on for getting businesses to be doing small steps to be more accessible under the ADA, and providing certificate, showing that they've made progress. So I left a number of flyers there, and we have a commission email address so that people can email and ask questions and send in photos of their before and after. And I also got in contact with three city staff members that I met and have asked them to pass along our flyer and our information as well. I'm still going to try to work on spreading the word a little bit more the best I can, so any ideas on how to do that, the better. And then I believe the I'm sorry, I don't know the exact name. They came to talk to us about the help for the elderly and some of the homeless. They're going to be talking in front of the city council next meeting, I believe. Laurie Kozisek: If you're speaking of the Alameda Collaborative, which is working on the McKay Wellness Center, yes, they spoke here, and then they spoke at the planning board, and then I think they're speaking at the council. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: And this is to remove the government name on the parcel right now. Laurie Kozisek: Yes, it's to remove the government overlay, which is a required step before they… | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2019-03-13.pdf,28 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2019-03-13 | 28 | ITEM 3-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, March 13, 2019, 6:30 PM Jennifer Roloff: Yeah, and then we'll follow up about a statement. Okay. Leslie Morrison: I'll try to have a letter drafted by early next week. Jenn Barrett: Okay. Great. Arnold Brillinger: This reminds me that, as liaisons, when we're there at the meetings, we identify ourselves. And let them know that we're coming. That we are on the Board, or on the commission, and that the commission is interested in what's going on. Jennifer Roloff: Right. We can declare that we're there on behalf of. Okay. Thank you. 8. ADJOURNMENTS Jenn Barrett: Does anyone else have any further announcements? Okay. Item 8, as adjournment. Would anyone like to file a motion to adjourn? Leslie Morrison: I move. Jennifer Roloff: I second. Liz Acord: Okay. So thank you all for attending the meeting tonight on the Commission on Disability. 03/13/19 Page 28 of 28 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2019-03-13.pdf |
GolfCommission/2018-02-15.pdf,28 | GolfCommission | 2018-02-15 | 28 | Exhibit B CORICA Chuck Corica Park PA RK 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road Alameda, CA 94502 To: Amy Wooldridge, City of Alameda From: Ken Campbell, Greenway Golf Date: February 7, 2018 Re: South Course Proposed Alameda Resident Golf Rates Amy, In preparation for the opening of the South Course, Greenway Golf is submitting for review and approval Alameda resident walking golf fees of $40 per player Monday-Friday and $50 per player on Saturday, Sunday & Holidays. Below is an outline of the proposed resident fees and other resident comparison courses. In reviewing other city resident rates, it is important to note the other courses only offer one course as Alameda offers two. The strategy at Alameda is to offer separate resident rates for North and South courses reflective of their design, condition and quality. The North course is positioned as the lower priced of the two Alameda courses and in line with other comparable local resident courses including Metro and Monarch. The South course is positioned to be of good value for new construction and quality conditions. Alameda Residents Green Fee Rates and other Comparable Course Comparisons Property City Local Resident Mon-Thu Friday Weekend Corica South Proposed Alameda 40 40 50 Corica North Current Alameda 29 29 37 Metropolitan Golf Links Oakland 30 30 55* Monarch Bay Golf San Leandro 27 27 44 Presidio Golf Course San Francisco 54 80* 82* Callippe Preserve Pleasanton 40 40 56 * Mandatory cart fee included Sincerely, Ken Compbell Ken Campbell Greenway Golf | GolfCommission/2018-02-15.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,28 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 28 | private cause of action or offense to disciplinary action" is really good language, except it has been negated in the first sentence; the last sentence says an employee can be disciplined and this first sentence says cannot. Commissioner Bonta stated the first sentence says an employee cannot be disciplined for expression of personal opinions when not materially misrepresenting their position as an employee of the City. The Assistant City Attorney stated this area of the law is not clear; a person has certain constitutional rights; the idea is that the ordinance should not create additional rights beyond that which is already recognized by law; in other words, the ordinance would not give a separate cause of action if someone expresses an opinion and is disciplined for it; the City does not want the fifth cause of action to be a violation of Section 2-92.6 of the Alameda Municipal Code. Commissioner Bonta suggested the Section be redrafted perhaps adding the language provides "additional rights" to the last clause. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 14 is just housekeeping, clarifying language; Section 15 has been moved to the Section on posting of information; Section 16 has been moved into a previous section dealing with providing records; Section 17 would change the training from every year to every third year; the video is available to anybody elected, appointed or hired. Commissioner Bonta questioned whether Section 2-92.15 on requests by email stating an email has to be acknowledged by similar communication is limiting; stated there are probably instances when calling would be helpful. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Section can be made broader; continued that completes [the review] all of the changes which were discussed in October; staff will redraft the ones the Commissions suggested be worked on; if there is anything else the Commission feels needs some fine tuning or wholesale changes, please let staff know. Vice Chair Foreman inquired when it will be ready; stated there is no hurry but … | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf,28 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2019-09-12 | 28 | RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf | |
RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf,28 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2021-03-11 | 28 | Full Name Zip code Email Signature Suk Change Lee 94501 prayer766@gmail.com his Kwei Wilson 94541 Rastono@gahoo.com KS DINA Williams 94602 diracbboun@ibubul GAB Patrick Leong 94605 psskang@aol.com by Gary Budd 94602 gargburt@compant GBR Chs Canad 94618 (C2007j44@hotmail.com water Edison Tuny 14501 edisontunp@gmail.com Gold Minh Trinh 94577 TeleveR@Hotmail.com physical David Ruly 94501 - Joseph teal 94501 Joegkoll@ado.org Bath Waranch 94501 bethus531@yahoo.com Bets Lani-Rau Green 94501 Joel Loz 7, Garcia 94580 Markle 94601 R loves 94602 Aky KEY 94605 gary Keganay Apply Peter tan MirGal Lan 94561 mijamach@yah 9950 , management Novman Xie 9450 I xienormani @ Screta 941010 | RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.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]) );