pages
44 rows where page = 30
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: body
date (date) 44 ✖
- 2005-05-17 1
- 2005-07-19 1
- 2006-10-17 1
- 2006-12-05 1
- 2007-01-02 1
- 2007-12-04 1
- 2008-10-07 1
- 2009-02-07 1
- 2009-10-20 1
- 2010-03-16 1
- 2010-04-20 1
- 2010-06-15 1
- 2010-07-27 1
- 2015-02-02 1
- 2016-01-05 1
- 2016-02-02 1
- 2016-02-16 1
- 2016-11-01 1
- 2017-06-06 1
- 2017-07-05 1
- 2017-07-18 1
- 2017-11-07 1
- 2018-03-06 1
- 2018-05-09 1
- 2018-06-05 1
- 2018-07-10 1
- 2018-07-24 1
- 2018-11-28 1
- 2019-03-19 1
- 2019-07-16 1
- 2019-09-12 1
- 2019-12-18 1
- 2020-03-03 1
- 2020-05-19 1
- 2020-07-21 1
- 2021-03-11 1
- 2021-03-16 1
- 2021-06-15 1
- 2021-07-06 1
- 2021-07-20 1
- 2021-09-07 1
- 2021-11-16 1
- 2022-02-01 1
- 2022-05-03 1
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 30 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -MAY 17, 2005- - -7:10 P. .M. Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 7:20 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (05-225) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case St. Paul Property and Liability Insurance V. City of Alameda. Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the City Attorney. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 17, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-19 | 30 | (05-367) - Susan Potter, Alameda, requested guidance in procuring a permit for a mobile vendor to do business in the City; stated many companies do business without a permit. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the request was for a mobile business at the dog park, to which Ms. Potter responded in the affirmative. The Acting City Manager stated the proposal is to utilize a space at the dog park and other parks; the Recreation and Park Commission is working on a comprehensive policy and did not want to address the request as part of the policy; the section of the Municipal Code dealing with rolling stores could be amended; if the Council desires, staff could work with the Planning Board to draft an ordinance making amendments to address the issue. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council has to direct that the matter be referred to the Planning Board; noted issues are unknown, for example merchants might oppose changes. The Acting City Manager suggested the Planning Board consider the matter. Mayor Johnson concurred with the suggestion. Councilmember deHaan stated the issue of how long a business could remain on pubic property would need to be addressed. The Acting City Manager stated rolling stores can only use the public right-of-way, not standing locations. Councilmember deHaan noted Oakland allows rolling vendors on private property. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Planning Board should review the matter. Ms. Potter noted nothing is being done about the rolling vendors that are currently operating in the City without permits. Mayor Johnson stated the City might need to start doing enforcement. (05-368) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed speeding vehicles. (05-369) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated non-food services, such as bicycle repair, should be considered when addressing mobile businesses; noted market factors, such as demand, would not support Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 30 July 19, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 30 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY - -OCTOBER 17, 2006- -7:25 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:50 p.m. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/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. . ] (*06-062 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting and Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on October 3, 2006. Approved. (*06-063 CIC) Resolution No. 06-148, "Approving the Report to the City Council on the Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, Authorizing Transmittal of Said Report to the City Council of the City of Alameda, and Consenting to Holding a Joint Public Hearing with the City Council. Adopted; and (*06-511 CC) Resolution No. 14028, "Receiving the Report to City Council Prepared for the Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and Consenting to Holding a Joint Public Hearing with the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. Adopted. AGENDA ITEM (06-512CC/06-064 CIC) Public Hearing to consider certification of a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) approval of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, a Development Agreement Amendment, two new Development Agreements, a Disposition Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 1 Community Improvement Commission October 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2006-12-05 | 30 | the preferred provider to the extent allowed by the law; and 6) amend the Public Benefits schedule to include that one of the public benefits state: "visually enhances surrounding areas which represent a key Alameda gateway." Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated Lowe's and Best Buy are examples of why retail cannot be limited to 50,000 square foot. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the leakage study shows smaller footprint type retail would capture sales leakage. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the leakage study assumes that Target would be at the Alameda Towne Center; the study would show different leakage in the event that Target does not go to the Alameda Towne Center; the idea is to be complimentary and not competitive. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated higher end tenants are usually not over 50,000 square feet. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he is not arguing for big box stores he would rather have smaller, boutique- type stores. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated retail mix, leakage factors, Council briefing, and business associations are important. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Catellus is willing to come back to the CIC in the event of deviation from the table. Mr. Marshall stated Catellus would be in default of all development documents if the leakage study were not followed; tenant discussions would be a challenge in a public forum. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated Council could receive a confidential Off Agenda Report if Catellus does not comply; the matter would not need to come to Council for public discussion. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Catellus has a development in Fremont. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 19 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 30 | recommendation on the budget and allocation of funds to Council. Vice Mayor Tam responded in the affirmative; thanked Councilmember Matarrese for the clarification. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the measurement-triggering device would be included. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded language would come back that states that the evaluation criteria would be developed by the Transportation Commission and Planning Board and would not be part of the DA that comes back to Council in two weeks. On the call for the question, Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07-014) - Councilmember deHaan requested that the Police Department look at the activity occurring across the Fruitvale Bridge; stated campers are moving into the direct access to Alameda. Mayor Johnson stated the Alameda Police Department has worked on the issue with Oakland in the past; the matter needs to be revisited. ( 07-015) Vice Mayor Tam stated she would like the City to reflect that condolences were extended to Councilmember Gilmore in the passing of her father-in-law, Carter Gilmore; Mr. Gilmore has been an icon for civil rights in the Oakland area. (07-016) Councilmember deHaan requested that the meeting be adjourned in a moment of silence for former President Gerald Ford and Carter Gilmore. ADJOURNMENT (07-017) Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting in recognition of the national day of mourning for the passing of former President Gerald Ford and in recognition of Councilmember Gilmore's father- - in-law's passing; stated Carter Gilmore recently had a park named after him; the park naming was a recognition of his service in Oakland which affected the Bay Area region; noted Mr. Gilmore was Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 30 January 2, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2007-12-04 | 30 | the few cities that has a reserve many cities are being hit hard; the League of California Cities cautioned all cities regarding Proposition 1A; it is easier for the Legislature to raid local government than it is to go up against the educational lobbyists. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City of Oakland was audited; $3 million is questionable on payrolli inquired whether an operational review or audit would be beneficial to Alameda. The Finance Director responded an operational review never hurts; there is a great deal of coordination between Human Resources and the Finance Department a review could be scheduled later in the fiscal year and there has been some practice with the conversion of the new payroll system. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated operational reviews were performed with significant findings for AP&T and the golf course. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that the City of Oakland did a performance audit; inquired what would be the cost for such an audit. The Finance Director responded a Request for Proposal (RFP) would need to be done. The City Manager/Executive Director stated AP&T and the golf course are enterprise funds and are different. The Finance Director stated a RFP could be issued in the spring. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated expenditures are 23% to 25% generally; some are lower; inquired whether some categories are over budgeted, such as Police Contract overtime, abandoned vehicle abatement, and advance life support. The Finance Director responded the Police Contract overtime does not follow a straight line and is based upon the need of outside persons to contract with the Police Department for overtime, such as for school dances. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is enough in the budget for additional animal shelter staffing and improvements. The City Manager/Executive Director responded a grant fund could be used; stated funding impacts would need to be identified. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 16 and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improv… | CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-07 | 30 | geotechnical and environmental information. Ms Potter said that it is a provision that we do own any and all materials prepared or commissioned by the developer. Member Tam motioned approval of the 2nd Amendment to the ENA, including approving a transfer of the ownership interest in SCC Alameda Point LLC to Cal Land Venture, LLC, subject to the following modifications 1. modify mandatory milestone for submittal of Final Business Plan and draft Master Plan by December 19, 2008, in order to incorporate public comment and to have a meaningful work product 2. get a status report at least 30 days in advance whether or not we need an extension on the mandatory milestone regarding finalization of the Navy term sheet on July 31, 2009. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes : Ayes : 5, Noes: 0 , Abstentions: 0. Member Gilmore requested an update of the financial analysis of DE Shaw given the tremendous change in market. The Board directed staff to provide this update and staff affirmed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC and Irma Glidden, Secretary ARRA The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 11 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting October 7, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2009-02-07 | 30 | The City Manager responded in the affirmative. The Interim Finance Director noted a 1079/1082 bond would be a pension obligation bond (POB) and an OPEB bond is a benefit obligation bond (BOB) . Councilmember Matarrese stated the City Attorney indicated validation could take three to six months inquired whether Council could give direction to start now. The City Attorney stated the validation process would be started right away. Mayor Johnson stated the direction includes comments from Vice Mayor deHaan and Councilmember Matarrese about the upfront size [bond amount and projecting out the whole 30 years; borrowing $75 million for OPEB would be reviewed. Councilmember Matarrese stated $97 million could be borrowed, which is $75 million for OPEB and $23 million for 1079/1082; multiple options should be reviewed 1) a 1079/1082 bond, 2) an OPEB bond, and 3) bonds for both the OPEB and 1079/1082 plan. Mayor Johnson stated $75 million is based on 4.5% interest the amount needed would be greater if the 4.5% interest rate cannot be met. Vice Mayor deHaan stated pay-as-you-go increases 10-14% per year ; the City has to react. Council thanked the Interim Finance Director, Finance Department staff, the City Manager and Department Heads. * * (09-061A) Recommendation to accept the Financial Report for the Second Fiscal Quarter - October, November and December 2008. [Note: The item was discussed at beginning of meeting see Page 1] Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Manager provided closing comments. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 30 February 7, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2009-10-20 | 30 | ballot; inquired what Oakland Chinatown wants. The Planning Services Manager responded the project that would be analyzed is the project described in the SunCal initiative; stated alternatives would also be reviewed; an EIR is needed; mitigations need to be identified; the primary issue is transportation. louncilmember/Board Member Tam stated that she has concerns with the $2 million cost; inquired how much of SunCal's money was spent on Transportation Report #2, to which the Planning Services Manager responded approximately $70,000. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the City paid for the report. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated that she is referring to the transportation element part of the initiative. The Planning Services Manager stated land use and transportation are both in the initiative; the EIR would determine whether traffic at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street would be unacceptable and would address mitigations; mitigations would be imposed on the project through later approvals. Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan inquired how long the EIR would take. The Planning Services Manager responded a public draft could be provided late May or early June 2010. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated six months seems fast. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be a safe timeline for a preliminary EIR, to which the Planning Services Manager responded August. Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated an EIR would not be available prior to voting on the initiative. The Planning Services Manager stated the commitment to Chinatown is that there would be an EIR before construction occurs; the Settlement Agreement does not prevent a citizen's initiative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether a conflict between mitigation measures and voter approved initiative language could be possible. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2010-03-16 | 30 | other stakeholders; SunCal is coming from a position of distrust within the community by its own choosing; that he does not see any humbleness. Mr. Faye stated that he has addressed the Council/Board Members/Commissioners because of the enormity of the situation; lifting the transparency will help everyone to avoid the misunderstanding; SunCal has an obligation to submit a transparent plan and looks forward to meeting the upcoming deadline as presented; rights will be reserved in a letter. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal spent $1,250,000 on the campaign; the community had to take on a poorly written initiative; that he hopes the community will never see a similar situation again; money seems to be more important than good will. Mr. Faye stated that is not SunCall's intent; SunCal has paid between $10 and $12 million on the project and has tried to be a good partner with the City; SunCal and D.E. Shaw are still willing and able to make contributions; most sponsors are gone, lenders are not giving land loans, and most equity partners are not putting out money. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated SunCal's proposal is to meet the deadline and submit an OEA by March 22, 2010 which can be processed by staff; that she does not understand how the process interplays with Council; inquired what is the best way to maximize opportunity for transparency. The City Attorney/Legal Council responded the process would be the same as for any development plan or submittal for entitlement; stated staff will review the matter, which will be forwarded on to the Planning Board once it is considered complete. Mr. Faye stated in the past, Council has formed a sub-committee to accompany staff in meetings to help develop a consensus; SunCal would love to have the opportunity to present responses and ideas directly to the Council/Board Members/Commissioners in an appropriate forum. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a factual description could be published on the new subm… | CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2010-04-20 | 30 | implementation of the density bonus provisions for affordable housing that have existed in State law and the ability to modify the City Charter absent a vote of the people; Council changed that in the middle of December; the dialogue that SunCal had was that the only way to implement a change to Measure A was to have a vote of the people; when the Code was modified, SunCal looked into whether the election could be pulled, but there is no ability to do so under the Elections Code. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal's attorney and the City Attorney/Legal Counsel should both provide a brief on whether the City fundamentally changed SunCal's ability to request a density bonus under State law by anything the City did in December; SunCal did not need an amendment to Measure A to request a density bonus and to get what is entitled to under a density bonus ordinance. Mr. Faye stated that is a good solution. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal went to the ballot for Measure A, a specific plan, and a development agreement; SunCal was aware of density bonus before. Mr. Faye stated most voters were in favor of the plan; however, most voters were opposed to the process; voters felt the effort was to usurp Council's ability to do its job; that he hopes the debate will be about the plan/plans and not about a discussion of process; now the process is normal. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal went to the ballot for Measure A [amendment], a specific plan and a development agreement; Mr. Faye is saying none of that would have been done if the City had a density bonus ordinance; density bonus was discussed leading up to Measure B; SunCal was aware of density bonus. Mr. Faye stated polls showed most voters were in favor of the plan, but opposed to the process; the debate now should be about the plan, not the process. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commission deHaan stated that his own polling indicated that the reasons the Measure was defeated were SunCal's financial inabilities, with 29 bankrupt… | CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 30 | MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA) MEETING TUESDAY- -JUNE 15, 2010- -7:01 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 12:21 a.m. Roll Call - Present: Authority Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. Consent Calendar (10-03) Minutes of the Annual APFA Meeting of March 16, 2010 and the Special APFA Meeting of June 1, 2010. Approved. Authority Member deHaan moved approval of the minutes. Authority Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (10-04) Resolution No. 10-20, "Authorizing the Issuance of Its 2010 Local Agency Refunding Revenue Bonds (Harbor Bay CFD and Marina Village AD), and Approving Documents and Authorizing Actions in Connection Therewith.' Adopted. Authority Member Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with amendment to include 6% present value savings. Authority Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Agenda Items None. Oral Communications None. Board Communications None. Regular Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority June 15, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-27 | 30 | Vice Mayor deHaan stated the basic concern is why there is binding arbitration for one union and not others; inquired how existing negotiations would be affected if the proposed resolution went forward. Joe Wiley, Labor Negotiator, responded the ground rule would be predicated on the existence of the Charter amendment; stated binding interest arbitration could be bargained if Council gave authority to do so; the issue would be a non-mandatory subject of bargaining. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the issue has been done for any other unions, to which Mr. Wiley responded not to his knowledge. The City Attorney stated parties could always elect to go to arbitration when there is a dispute; arbitration does not have to be mandatory or binding. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired why one bargaining unit would have something that others would not. Councilmember Tam responded fire fighters are precluded from striking. Mr. Wiley stated that fire fighters and police officers are precluded from striking; the Seal Beach decision stated having a strike that would create an impact to public health and safety would be unlawful and would be subject to being enjoin; the Seal Beach case does not apply to the City's circumstances; the Seal Beach case addressed a mandatory subject of bargaining in which an employee would be fired without review if engaged in the conduct [strike]; a mandatory subject of bargaining cannot be placed on the ballot without first having a meet and confer; two decisions have been handed down Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 30 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2016-01-05 | 30 | The City Attorney suggested staff could bring the matter back. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a tenant would receive relocation assistance if they are required to move out for no cause reasons and later finds out the new tenant is paying more. The Community Development Director responded said proposal was raised by Alamedans for Fair Rents; stated the staff recommendation is to have tenants evicted for no cause receive relocation assistance regardless of what happens to the next tenant. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Daysog might have been thinking about the new tenant receiving some money back for overpaying; staff should refine the matter a little more; that she likes the direction; inquired whether staff could enumerate what the fee would pay when the fee study returns. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated a tenant given a 10% rent increase would go through the RRAC process; inquired whether the tenant would not qualify for relocation assistance if they go through the arbitration process and the outcome is still 10%, but the tenant has to move out because they cannot afford the increase. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated Vice Mayor Matarrese hit the issue on the head; evicting tenants to raise rents to market rate is the problem the City is trying to fix; staff has to come back with something that fixes the problem; new tenants should get something specific, such as the same rent as the previous tenant or a 5% rent increase above the previous tenant. The Community Development Director stated staff understands and will be as precise as possible. Mayor Spencer stated staff is doing a great job and should proceed. The Community Development Director stated staff heard consensus to allow no cause evictions with a huge disincentive; staff will review whether there should be no rent increase or an increase of no more than 5%; everyone supports approving a capital improvement plan … | CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2016-02-02 | 30 | The Community Development Director stated Los Gatos has rent control at 5%. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is agreeable to staff's recommendation. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with staff's recommendation. The Community Development Director requested Council direction on data collection. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with staff's recommendation; clarified anything that goes to RRAC would be tracked. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated data collection is needed; she agrees with staff's recommendation. Councilmember Daysog inquired how many cases currently come to the RRAC for 5% rent increases. The Community Development Director stated there are not a lot, but it will change if the ordinance is passed because it will be a mandatory. Councilmember Daysog stated in the first year, the City should collect data on everything that goes to RRAC. Mayor Spencer stated 4 members of the Council are in agreement with staff's recommendation. Mayor Spencer stated the first reading of the ordinance will be on February 16th Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to see clear written standards and guidelines for the RRAC and arbitrator regarding what documentation a landlord is required to provide and when a tenant is requesting lowered rent to ensure that the parties are dealt with in consistently; inquired whether a property manager could attend the RRAC meeting in case an owner could not attend. The Community Development Director stated staff understood from Council that it would need to be someone with owner interest or someone who has legally binding interest. Mayor Spencer inquired if the housing provider does not agree with the Committee's decision, the housing provider must file a petition to consider the new rent increase; if no petition is filed, the rent increase is void. The Community Development Director responded the Mayor is correct. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 29 February 2, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2016-02-16 | 30 | Mayor Spencer inquired if there are any objections from Council, to which Council responded there are no objections. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the form would not change the ordinance, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested Committee hearings and decisions be clarified; stated if a tenant has requested the Committee to review a rent increase, the Committee's decision will be non-binding on the parties; there needs to be a sentence that explains it more clearly; a tenant could initiate the RRAC proceeding but the landlord still has the right to increase rent above 5%. The Community Development Director responded for rent increases of 5% or less, the case has to be initiated by the tenant; the RRAC decision is non-binding and there is no recourse to a hearing officer, but there is recourse to the City Council. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council only gave the right to go to binding arbitration for increases above 5%. The Community Development Director stated language could be inserted that for increases of 5% or less the Committee's decision will be non-binding on the parties. Mayor Spencer stated it could say for rent increases of less than 5% arbitration is not available. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff work out the wording for clarification. The Assistant City Attorney stated the idea is nothing would prevent a tenant and landlord from arriving at a rent increase less than the maximum rent increase; nothing precludes reaching an agreement before the Committee hearing. Councilmember Oddie stated the tenant can request Committee review of a rent increase pursuant to Section 6-58.70, which says the tenant may request the Committee review rent increase under 5%. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the decision is non-binding. Councilmember Oddie stated language could be inserted into Section 6-58.70. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is agreeable to said suggestion. The Community Development Director responded th… | CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2016-11-01 | 30 | the bus stop in front of their house attended; staff came up with a plan to obtain a handicapped parking space in close vicinity of the house to allow the elderly owner of the house to have access to a parking space. (16-582) Councilmember Oddie stated that he attended the community awards; Stop Waste.org passed the second reading of the revised plastic ban ordinance. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:23 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 November 1, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2017-06-06 | 30 | The Finance Director responded in the negative; stated $11.3 million is a combination of OBEP and pension funds. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired whether the projected ending balance for the OPEB trust comes from on the All Funds Budget Summary Fund Balance on page B-5. The Finance Director responded $7.2 million is the projected number; additional contributions are expected. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired about the difference between $7.2 million to $11.373. The Finance Director responded the difference is from an Internal Service Fund. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie stated the City will have over $20.4 million in the fund where there was previously $300,000 two and a half years ago; the City is being fiscally conservative; praised City staff. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired what dollar amounts will be transferred into the OPEB and PARS trust accounts. The Finance Director responded $11, ,143,000, not including the contractual obligation of $250,000. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired how much is being spent from the reserves. The Finance Director responded $6,043,000 comes from reserves previously authorized by Council in 2015; $5.1 million is based on direction from the workshop that was held in May. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he likes the idea of a mid-term review to see how the City is tracking progress; he also likes that the projections are conservative. Councilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft stated with good discipline and grant funding the purchase of the parcels from Union Pacific should be possible. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested a projection of the effect of the City's and employees contributions over time to lower the OPEB liability; stated reviewing where the City stands with and without the contributions would be worthwhile; Council and the public would benefit from a graphic showing how actuals are tracking against projections. The City Manager stated the initial analysis from the CalPers financial expert addressed Special Joint Meeting Alameda … | CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2017-07-05 | 30 | City and the residents. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would like to focus on the dispensaries and onsite consumption; stated the list is too long; she would like to break it into parts to address the dispensaries and onsite consumption first. Councilmember Oddie responded the matter may not require an ordinance; he does not want to shut the door on any options. Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification about whether the staff presentation in September will include adult recreational use, not just medical use. The City Manager responded staff will include both. Vice Mayor Vella stated everything tends to be on Alameda Point; inquired whether Council would be able to review mapping and proposals for zoning for possible locations; stated her concern is location and options. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff needs direction from Council prior to providing possible locations; selection of a location will be difficult. Vice Mayor Vella inquired what the impact will be on the work currently being done on Councilmember Oddie's referral if the ban is lifted. The City Manager responded the consultants are reviewing the current medical marijuana ordinance and the State regulations, which will be part of the discussion in September. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff is also reviewing labor relative to businesses of certain sizes which cities can regulate further than State regulations. The City Manager responded that staff is currently reviewing State regulations. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she visited Harborside, which makes deliveries, the City is not cutting off patients who live in Alameda; regulations need to be put into place to ensure the City maintains local control; she understands the no smoking ordinance is silent on medical marijuana. Councilmember Matarrese stated questions still need to be answered so he does not see a reason not to have the referral go forward as direction; he would like to ensure the City makes an informed decision using experie… | CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2017-07-18 | 30 | Mayor Spencer inquired whether a new owner could choose not build maritime commercial. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the language is in the Master Plan. The Community Development Director stated the permitted uses are defined in the Amended Reuse Plan; other contemplated uses would need to return for another entitlement process. Mayor Spencer requested clarification on the word commercial in the language. The Community Development Director responded it means commercial manufacturing, not retail. Mayor Spencer inquired whether it is not commercial maritime. The Community Development Director responded it is broader than just maritime; manufacturing includes research and development and advanced manufacturing, which is permitted in the MX zoning. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Bay Ship & Yacht is proposing commercial maritime. The Community Development Director responded Bay Ship & Yacht is proposing a combination of uses. Mayor Spencer inquired whether protecting the maritime use is not being built into the proposal. The Community Development Director responded the use is a permitted use; stated a maritime business is proposing to purchase the property; the project addresses a lot of issues, such as jobs. Mayor Spencer stated the plan has many changes. The City Manager stated staff is being transparent about the agreement; cautioned the Council on being so restrictive regarding the types of uses, which would makes the project less financially viable for Bay Ship & Yacht; stated the economy, technology and what maritime is would all change over time. Mayor Spencer stated that the description staff used in the report is waterfront maritime commercial. The Community Development Director responded the term is general; stated the definition is in the proposed amendment to the Master Plan; the language will be in the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2017-11-07 | 30 | The Finance Director responded $3 million would be put towards OPEB and $8 million would go to pension. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Finance Director stated the goal is to add $2 million as a line item in the budget; any excess over 50% would be set aside for either pension or OPEB. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the City is on the hook for OPEB. The Finance Director responded the City is obligated to pay the pay as you go amount and the annual bill for OPEB. Councilmember Oddie inquired if the City is still on the hook for the pension and whether the City can just wash its hands of OPEB. The Finance Director responded that she believes the City would still owe the money. The City Manager stated the purpose of putting 25% into the 115 Trust every year is that can be used in down years to pay the City's portion of CalPERS. The Finance Director stated the goal is to assist with cash flow; should a downturn happen, the City will have time to deal with a shortage rather than making it an emergency. Councilmember Oddie inquired why the City would commit to the proposal. The City Manager responded the budget is approved by Council; stated the more the City pays into the unfunded liability, the more the City can save. Mayor Spencer stated if the item appears as a line item in future budgets, the Council could remove it if desired; inquired whether the money could be left where it is and when the budget is addressed the current Council could review all the recommendations and input from the community. The City Manager responded the model saves the City and taxpayers significantly. Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff is asking to have the money as a line item for future budgets, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the 30 year model is in the presentation to Council. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated every city is concerned about the new CalPERS assumptions; in 3 years, the amount will increase dramatically; Council direct… | CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2018-03-06 | 30 | Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether there is an estimate of the deferred maintenance. The City Auditor responded the deferred maintenance does not appear in the financials because it is not required. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether there is a payment plan for the unfunded pension liabilities. The City Manager responded Council has set aside money towards paying the amount down; stated last fiscal year, money was set aside and 50% of any surplus is directed to go towards the unfunded liability; staff will bring the item back to Council during the mid- year budget. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired about the highest amount the City will have to pay, to which the City Manager responded $34 million. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether that is for one year payment and which year the payment is due. The City Manager responded in 2025. Mayor Spencer inquired when staff will return to Council. The City Manager responded the mid-year budget cycle will be on the next Council meeting. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on OPEB; stated at one point, public safety employees were paying into the fund. The City Manager responded a contribution brought the fund from 0% funded to the 12% funded range. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether deferred maintenance can be listed in the Auditor's report although it is not required to be listed. The City Manager responded the matter can be discussed at the mid-year budget cycle. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he would like to be ahead of the curve on said issue. The City Manager stated staff has collected data and has deferred maintenance figures. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether the deferred maintenance can return at the next meeting. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission March 6, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2018-06-05 | 30 | ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (18-346) Richard Bangert, Alameda, stated clear direction was not provided to staff about what to do to get a bond measure on the ballot; there seems to be a trend in the Bay Area of admiring the problem of climate change; the only way anything is going to get done is if money is appropriated; thinking the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will help is dreaming; the City has to pay for climate adaptation itself; staff should be given direction at a future meeting; the matter should go to the voters. The Acting City Manager stated the matter can be discussed when the Climate Action Plan is addressed in March or sooner if Council wishes. Councilmembers expressed support for the matter returning sooner. COUNCIL REFERRALS Mayor Spencer stated that she would call Councilmember Oddie's referral next since there are two speakers. (18-347) Resolution No. 15389, "Supporting Alameda Rank-and-File Employees Post a Janus V. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees) Supreme Court Decision." Adopted. (Councilmember Oddie) Councilmember Oddie made brief comments. Expressed support for the resolution; discussed the positive working relationship with the City; stated the resolution confirms meet and confer rights: Al Fortier, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1245. Discussed the me too and the civil rights movements; stated labor is also being attacked; outlined jurisdictions which have taken action or will take action on the matter; asked Council to support the resolution: Josie Camacho, Alameda Labor Council. Councilmember Matarrese stated the timing is apropos; he does not have any issue with the resolution; the City has used collective bargaining and good faith negotiations, which has provided a good framework; direction should be given to staff ensure the City is prepared to address the changes in the law should the ruling come down as expected; staff is not directly involved in membership cards; assurance should be provided that… | CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2018-07-10 | 30 | take away public open space, but she will not vote against the project because of the change; she agrees with the Mayor regarding the 50/50 rental/for sale split. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she does not like the idea of eliminating 1,900 square feet of open space. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would prefer to keep the open space, but he would like the project to pass unanimously. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of calling the question. The City Attorney stated the Council needs to certify the EIR. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of certifying the EIR [adoption of the resolution]. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of calling the question. Mayor Spencer stated that she could just call the question. Councilmember Oddie withdrew his motion to call the question. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council could do a substitution motion. The City Attorney responded the Mayor called the question. Mayor Spencer stated Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft needs to vote yes or no. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested to be passed over. The City Clerk stated a roll call vote is alphabetical; stated that the order can be done differently if Council desires to do so. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there could be discussion, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the negative; stated the question has already been called; stated that she is happy to vote yes. Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer their names be called before Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft. On the call for the question on the original motion, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 July 10, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2018-07-24 | 30 | The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 July 24, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf |
CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2019-03-19 | 30 | Councilmember Oddie stated the matter would return on April 2, 2019. ADJOURNMENT (19-183) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 1:37 a.m. in memory of Victor McElhaney and victims of the terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand. 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 March 19, 2019 | CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2019-07-16 | 30 | Clerk responded in the negative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public hearing. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is opposed to the item. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (19-449) The City Manager made an announcement regarding funding related to the Woodstock Park fire. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (19-450) Consider Reducing the Number of Commission on Disability Members from Nine Due to Difficulty Achieving a Quorum for Meetings and Limited Staff Resources. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox White). Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (19-451) Councilmember Vella requested a moment of silence for former Supreme Court Justice and noted scholar of jurisprudence, John Paul Stevens. (19-452) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Public Art Commission and Rent Review Advisory Commission (RRAC). Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft Nominated Liz Rush and Kirstin Van Cleef for appointment to the Public Art Commission and the RRAC incumbents. ADJOURNMENT (19-453) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting in memory of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens at 11:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 July 16, 2019 | CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2019-12-18 | 30 | City Council Workshop Workshop Report Management Partners Have a clear understanding with the manager of the type and frequency of communication you prefer: While a fundamental value of city managers is to provide regular and complete information equally to each councilmember, councilmembers can vary significantly regarding the type and frequency of contact with the manager they desire. While the manager will use written reports in one form or another as a base line of information to all the members, it is important for the manager to understand your preference for how information should be communicated, including the frequency of personal contact. While some members prefer regular "face-to-face" contact with the city manager, others prefer less time-intensive information-sharing methods. While sharing the same information among all councilmembers, it is helpful for you and the manager to understand how much and what type of contact you prefer. Do your homework: It takes time and effort to be a successful councilmember. It makes the manager's and staff's job a lot easier if you have reviewed the reports and related materials provided to you prior to the city council meeting. This facilitates efficient meetings, accelerates decision-making and gives the impression that staff and council are working well as a team. Additionally, it will avoid you appearing unprepared to your fellow councilmembers, the staff and your constituents. Trust above all: As in all relationships, an effective city council/manager relationship must be based on trust. Other potential obstacles such as differing personalities, styles, philosophies, etc., can be overcome if there is mutual trust. Without trust, little else will be successful. Both parties need to treat each other with respect and be truthful and forthcoming in their dealings. No Surprises: Both the manager and council should do their best to make sure that important information is not first learned from others. While in this age of instant communication this is more difficult, … | CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2020-03-03 | 30 | Councilmember Oddie stated that there are many projects for the Recreation and Parks Director; expressed support for a date being included in the budget request. Councilmember Vella expressed support for the item to return in a timely manner. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated should the item be included in the budget, the project can return in the Fall. Councilmember Vella stated direction should include background work as well. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated background work is needed in order to include an item in the mid-cycle budget. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he is unclear about the RFP; there will be engineers and consultants hired at some point. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is beyond the scope of item. The City Attorney responded Council can give direction related to timing; Council should avoid budgeting or deciding to budget for an engineer; Council can present a deadline for a project milestone. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about date certain provisions. The City Attorney stated Council may provide prioritization. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he would like the motion clarified; stated that Council cannot make a decision based on funding; he would like to know what is not being done; questioned whether a proposal with funding and a timeline can be provided for moving the project to the next phase. The City Manager stated that Council can request a consultant come back as a priority based on funding. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for prioritizing DePave Park; stated there is long-standing community support; the item has been prioritized; the RFP should be issued efficiently; expressed support for moving forward. The Recreation and Parks Director stated that she is happy to bring back a plan on DePave Park and include the steps needed, funding, and timeline to Council in June or July; more funding sources for the aquatic center might be known at that time; decisions can be made related to staffing for projects; an update can be provided based on staffing and potential dela… | CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2020-05-19 | 30 | The City Clerk requested clarification that the meeting will end regardless of item discussion by midnight. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated unless there is a vote to overrule. 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. Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie recused themselves and left the meeting. Expressed support for commercial slow streets that support social distancing; urged all forms of alternate transportation be treated equally; stated proper treatment of AC Transit busses are measured by three goals: safety, accessibility and operational performance; urged Council to pay particular attention to bus stops and temporarily install bus bulbs or boarding islands: Robert delRosario, AC Transit. Public comment read into record: Discussed her experience with transportation in Alameda; expressed concern about the slow streets plan; stated implementation will be based on community response; urged safer streets for Alameda; stated public transit is essential to reducing the carbon footprint: Ingrid Ballmann, Alameda. Urged Council to support slow streets; stated the pilot program is limited in a number of ways; expressed support for implementing strategies which allow small businesses to open without endangering the health of customers or staff: Cyndy Johnson, Alameda. Stated Alameda could be ranked with the best European pedestrian plazas; urged people to be prioritized; discussed visuals: Pat Potter, Bike Walk Alameda. Expressed support for the existing slow streets; urged Council to expand the slow streets project and re-configure street space in business districts to allow safe and separated bike infrastructure on Park Street and Webster Street: Denyse Trepanier, Alameda. Expressed support for closing some streets to allow restaurants to use sidewalk space or lanes for outdoor seating; noted restaurant business is episodic; urged… | CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2020-07-21 | 30 | Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the size of each subcommittee needs to be determined; members of the community wanted time to discuss issues and sensitive topics; noted the committee would not meet in secret. Councilmember Vella stated there are a couple aspects to consider; one is timing; meetings having agendas would hamper the ability to have a number of smaller meetings with various groups, which may not be comfortable speaking on record in a public manner; expressed support for members of the community being allowed to have conversations in a smaller listening site; stated the truth and reconciliation processes formed listening committees; the committees are not precluded from Brown Act agendized meetings; the process allows flexibility for some meetings; there are constraints about how meetings are run; informal conversations may be held without limiting speaking times or discussions; work sessions can be held; the consideration of a heavily bureaucratic process may not work for BIPOC community members; a process for a safe discussion which also allows for public and transparent meetings is needed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the provision had been suggested by BIPOC community members and is being passed on to Council for discussion and direction. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Council cannot provide direction. The City Attorney responded Council may provide suggestions; stated the suggestions should not be direction and may be changed by the City Manager; the City Manager may receive input from Council and the community in order to make a determination about how to form the committees. Stated that she does not know the process of how to get involved; the process has not been laid out directly: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda. Stated there seems to be a collective lack of understanding on how to engage with subcommittees; urged a release of a public document which indicates the process and ways which are clear; inquired what the pathway of engagement would be if the general public does not agree with the subc… | CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2021-03-16 | 30 | drivers more than others; the issue is about that, rather than all vehicle citations. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer raise good points; this is not the end of the discussion; she wants to see a robust discussion of UBI come back; the two year study in Stockton just came back with impressive results; valid concerns raised about fees and fines impacting someone with lower economic means can be part of the discussion. Councilmember Knox White stated that he would be happy to add a review of fines and penalties to the motion. Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended 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. Councilmember Herrera Spencer questioned whether any of the motions address use of cameras; stated, if not, she would move approval of staff looking into the matter and providing an update on the status. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be repeated. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the motion is to receive an update from staff on the status of the License Plate Readers (LPRs) and cameras. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the request is just about the status and whether it could be off agenda. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to have a conversation about whether or not the Council wants cameras; there have been multiple meetings. Vice Mayor Vella questioned whether the matter is properly agendized. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the report does address cameras as alternatives means of enforcement relying more on technology. Vice Mayor Vella stated it was part of the earlier motion, which was generalized; inquired why a specific motion is needed on the status; stated it was part of the first motion; questioned what Council is trying to achieve with the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 30 March 16, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2021-06-15 | 30 | Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (21-436) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Historical Advisory Board, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Public Art Commission. Not heard. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m. with items continued to July 6, 2021 at 5:00 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 June 15, 2021 21 | CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-06 | 30 | The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the same strategy used two years ago to meet the regional housing need will need to be applied to additional sites; the zoning code will not be new, however, new zoning will be added to sites in Alameda; the zoning can be changed to multi-family overlay as an adjustment to C2, and both are simple to achieve in removing the multi-family prohibition and allowing at least 30 units per acre; Council may amend the zoning or provide a multi-family overlay; the effect and result will be the same. Stated that she supports the staff recommendation; urged Council to prepare a resolution of intent to begin the Housing Element process consistent with the language listed in the staff report; expressed support for the Housing Element process in Alameda over the last two cycles; urged Council continue to submit conforming Housing Elements; she would like Council to do everything required in order to submit a Housing Element consistent with State law including using the multi-family overlay and perform zoning changes where necessary; discussed Article 26 being in conflict with State Housing Element law; urged Council to not appeal the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) designation for Alameda: Sophia DeWitt, Alameda Resident and East Bay Housing Organization (EBHO). Discussed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements concerning the side inventory; stated some of the areas are high resources; lawyers and past Councilmembers have stated Article 26 is in conflict with State law; he is favor of declaring such conflict in the resolution; California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has not responded to the City's request for comments made by Paul McDougall; it is unique to see such huge MF overlays; questioned the reason not to up-zone underlying zoning and codes instead of having large MF overlays; expressed concern for issues with the resulting wording; discussed the proposed resolution from Councilmember Herrera Spencer; he does … | CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 30 | Councilmember Knox White stated the art will not be installed; the proposed process occurs prior to payment; outlined the process for Public Art Commission (PAC) and Council approvals; stated Council would not see the proposals that fall within the City Manager authorization threshold; he is proposing Council be allowed to see the artwork and have a review period; expressed support for a Call for Review process; stated the process will likely not be used often; however, it might be helpful if installation of a problematic piece is proposed. Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about the proposal appearing to be a new process; stated that he is not opposed to the proposal, but the matter causes concern; inquired whether Council can gain a sense of the amount of projects that cost under $75,000. The Development Manager responded the public art fund has expended one $100,000 grant and the remainder fell below the $75,000 threshold; the remainder includes two to three public art grants and roughly 16 smaller grants. Councilmember Daysog noted many of the funding approvals fall below the approval threshold; stated that he dislikes giving up Council prerogative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft question whether or not public art funds are always spent on a physical art installation; noted performance art can be funded; questioned whether non- physical art approvals will be presented to Council. Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the proposal to include expenditures for newly approved pieces of art; stated that he does not want to review nominal funding increase requests; all art projects, including non-physical art pieces, would be included; he does not expect the process to be used often; the proposal allows Council an opportunity to raise a hand and indicate a potential problem; the form of the art does not change the proposed review. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether any harm has occurred in the process; questioned the source for the proposal. The Economic Development Manager responded staff has returned to Cou… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2021-09-07 | 30 | Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the proposed sunset. Councilmember Daysog stated the resolution would be adopted; however, a sunset clause would be included in order to re-visit the matter in five years to determine whether or not it should continue. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the proposed addition includes continuing what has historically been done for each new Chief; stated the City has essentially given each new Chief who has come from the outside over the last 10 to 15 years the same benefit; the benefit is not new; expressed support for a timeline being added if the addition result in a vote. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for sunset clause. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned how many Chiefs from the outside have been hired in the City over the last 10 to 15 years; stated the City recently hired a Fire Chief from an outside agency; other Fire Chiefs have all come from within Alameda Fire Department (AFD); the last three Police Chiefs prior to the current Police Chief have all come from Alameda Police Department (APD). Councilmember Knox White stated the external candidates that have come in have been offered the benefit due to the problem of hiring from outside agencies and losing a major benefit; expressed support for having a wide pool of candidates. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the breakdown of promotions within the Fire and Police Departments; stated the policy is not that old; the City has not often had candidates from other organizations. Vice Mayor Vella stated the City has still had applicants despite the existing policy in place; top candidates have still accepted the position; expressed concern about having a policy if people arrive from other agencies and immediately negotiate; there have been calls to limit or de-fund some positions and the expenditure is significant; expressed support for a discussion relative to the City budget; stated that she is concerned about existing negotiations with units; she would like to take into account the… | CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-16 | 30 | The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded if the City initiates parking fees at ferry terminals, all revenue is received by the City; it is not split with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA). Expressed support for moving parking enforcement out of the Alameda Police Department (APD) and into Public Works and for ferry terminal parking fees: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Expressed support for moving parking enforcement from APD to Public Works; discussed the death of Mario Gonzales; expressed support for the matter tying into a larger transportation issue; urged traffic stops also be considered: Savanna Cheer, Alameda. Expressed support for parking management being part of the new program; stated that she is against the paid parking at ferry terminals; ferry tickets are expensive; expressed concern about increasing the cost for commuters; urged Council take the cost and burden into consideration; discussed accessibility: Carmen Reid, Alameda. Expressed support for the proposed changes being in line with parking minimums; urged City staff to think of a parking brokerage model for business districts; stated the City could make business parking pools more straight-forward, such as a branded City facility; expressed support for moving parking management out of APD and for looking at traffic management in a holistic manner: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda. Stated that he applauds the City's efforts to bring as many services as possible out from under the purview of APD; questioned who should pay for parking; stated General Fund parking maintenance payments are paid for by taxpayers; many pay for enforcement inactions; stated the City needs to separate parking problems from housing problems; parking as a function of Public Works is a great first step; urged Council to consider implementing street parking permits from 2:00 to 4:00 a.m. across the entire Island: Morgan Bellinger, Alameda. Stated California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (CLETS) does not allow non- sworn law enforcement offic… | CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2022-02-01 | 30 | (22-042) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire Chief's Association (AFCA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding the Existing Litigation, staff provided information and Council provided direction, by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Abstain: 1. Absent: 1; regarding Potential Litigation and Real Property, staff provided information and Council provided direction 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; and regarding Labor, staff provided information and Council provided direction 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. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:28 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 January 18, 2022 | CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2022-05-03 | 30 | the State does not agree with the City's approach to protect old housing stock; many people have been pushed out of other cities with new housing stock; she disagrees with the language in the draft HE stating: "systemic reduction of the supply of affordable housing in Alameda;" rent control will not apply to new rental units and condominiums; inquired where the condominium development in Alameda is located or whether any condominiums have been built in the past 10 years. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded all of the townhomes being built and sold are condominiums; stated many developers are not building condominium flats or apartment type buildings due to concerns over lawsuits; developers are building multi-family buildings which are held as rentals for at least 10 years until a statute runs; the units can potentially change into condominiums after 10 years; the City is not getting a lot of condominium multi-family housing that are not townhomes. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the starting price for the market rate townhomes in Alameda, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded over $900,000. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the price is not affordable; it is unfortunate that the State is pretending the housing units are affordable housing; many people do not qualify for the units; the housing units lead to gentrification; she will only agree to minimal upzoning; expressed support for the draft HE being rejected multiple times; inquired whether the City is advocating for permit waivers. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff does not want people to waive universal design requirements. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated waivers continued to be provided in Alameda. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports upzoning where needed in order to be responsible; local voters spoke on a measure that causes the City to jump through additional hoops in order to meet its RHNA obligation; the obligation is to the region and the peo… | CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf,30 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2018-05-09 | 30 | COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MUTES OF Wednesday May 9, 2018 6:30 p.m. on East Bay Transit. So that's good. And of course, the shuttle is open to everybody, including Arthur, because he rode it. Arnold Brillinger: And I just had a couple more things on announcements. The 4th of July parade, that was part of what I was going to announce and let Laurie know, so that she can tell Victoria and make sure that we're not, don't have way too many people and they're hanging out the windows because the windows don't open. Arnold Brillinger: Okay. And the other thing that I want to talk about a little bit was SRAC, that's Service Review Advisory Committee for East Bay Paratransit, and at their last meeting, they had a couple of presentations; one was a video done in-house, trying to let their staff know the ones that is scheduled, know all the kinds of things that happen in the life of a driver. So they presented that. And also they had new buses that they're going to be encouraging the providers to buy that have the lift door in the middle of a bus right behind the front door. And those are very good because right now they've got the lift doors in the back, and the only place for wheelchairs is right in the back, and it is murderous on your hiney and your back and other parts of your body. So they're looking into some of these new buses and they'll be better. And also at the meeting, it was presented that their service is getting a bit better. They were having so many problems because they couldn't keep drivers. The economy is too good. And so as soon as somebody had some experience, they'd go off to AC Transit for twice the money. Arnold Brillinger: But they've got better incentives now to keep drivers. And I also went to the Momentum Expo at the Ed Roberts Campus, and they had a variety of speakers and presentations there. And also the reason I was right here at, like it's 6:32, was because I went to the forum in Berkeley, and it had our friend, Karen Nakamura and Silvia Yee, who is a lawyer in disability rights, and … | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf,30 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2018-11-28 | 30 | ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 6:30 PM I've had problems with mine, but I've luckily been able to get help and get back home because of AC Transit or somebody else who really went out on a limb and took care of it for me. So what I would like to do just in this announcement thing, could we put it on the next agenda? And it'd only be like five minutes or something like that of trying to work up something in the county again and Okay. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: So we actually do have it as part of our agenda. It reached Laurie as well that people are having trouble getting home. So, perfect prelude into our next meeting. This is a huge issue that was cancelled, this program that Arnold is speaking of where the fire department will not come and pick you up and take you home. There's not a current system. And I think this is something that we really need to look into and try to help address so that people are not stranded when their wheelchair or other mobility device fails them when they're out on the streets. Anto Aghapekian: Two or three meetings ago, we had a presentation about emergency help for people, if somebody faints on the street, there is an emergency department in the city that goes and picks you up. Wasn't there a lady that gave a representation like that to us, about three meetings ago, two meetings ago? Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: I know we've spoken about a number of transportation items whether it be the taxi or the Paratransit or the shuttle. When we're talking about the bikes, and maybe they would prevent you from going down a curb ramp or something. So it's definitely come up, but I don't think we've had a concrete solution. Because they could submit something to the city, but that request is not something that's immediate. The see click fix is something that you guys work on over a period of time. It's not like an emergency service. If anyone has any other comments on that. Susan Deutsch: Well, we did have a presentation just about emergencies in g… | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf,30 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-02-02 | 30 | Vice Chair Foreman provided an example: recommend to Council under that the Commission's jurisdiction should be expanded; stated the Commission is called Open Government but the actual grant of authority is Sunshine Ordinance; other aspects of the law pertain to open government and the Commission's role should be expanded. The City Clerk stated the Commissioners need to provide the item greater than the seven days ahead of [publication] time; that she would indicate that it is coming from the Commissioner so the other Commissioners understand it is not staff generated. Commissioner Dieter stated it is a little bit more free flowing than the City Council, to which the City Clerk responded the City Council has an extensive Council referral process but the Commission does not have that. Commissioner Dieter inquired when Commissioners have referrals, should it have a staff report. The City Clerk responded typically, staff would want to wait to get direction from the whole Commission before putting too much work into the matter; if the rest of the Commission does not agree with going in that direction; stated it is easier for staff to get direction from the whole Commission. The Assistant City Attorney stated it is similar to a referral; if a Commissioners wants to bring something forward, they would communicate it to the City Clerk; it would then appear under Commissioner Communications; the Commission would have a chance to talk about it because it would be noticed; then if there is support to bring something back, staff would do it; if there is not support, it does not go anywhere. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Aguilar adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 30 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf,30 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2019-09-12 | 30 | RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf | |
RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf,30 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2021-03-11 | 30 | 94619 KEMARIN@GMAIL.COM Mife LARRY 94571 LARKY) JOKENO@GMAIL NCT L.g Marina Diaz 94501 Sens Susan G. 94501 m succet Kentine leckson 94501 n know Mana Bower 94501 Member Published and promoted by the Alameda Happy Tennis Group at Fairfield Tennis Complex When complete, please return to: The Alameda Happy Temnis Oroup at Fairtield Tennis Complex or amail directly to For more info please join our Facebaok Group Wa may containd you for tather on this ISSUO but wn will not uso your information for any olher purpose or sham E with any other ontity, | 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]) );