pages
22 rows where page = 33
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
date (date) 22 ✖
- 2005-05-17 1
- 2005-07-19 1
- 2006-12-05 1
- 2010-06-15 1
- 2010-07-27 1
- 2016-01-05 1
- 2016-02-16 1
- 2017-07-05 1
- 2017-07-18 1
- 2017-11-07 1
- 2018-06-05 1
- 2018-07-10 1
- 2019-09-12 1
- 2019-12-18 1
- 2020-05-19 1
- 2020-07-21 1
- 2021-03-11 1
- 2021-03-16 1
- 2021-07-06 1
- 2021-07-20 1
- 2021-09-07 1
- 2021-11-16 1
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 33 | appraiser, Mike Dunn, was jointly retained by the City and Cocores and came up with a value of $3.7 million; the appraisal the City is using is over a year old; for a jointly hired appraiser to come up with $3. 7 million and the City to disregard the offer and use a year old appraisal that is less than half of the jointly appraised value is fundamentally flawed; secondly, the City has not followed the adopted owner participation rules required by law; the rules specify that the City will give preference to property owners within the project area, which has not occurred; the City allowed Cocores to jointly pay for an appraisal and took half of the $25,000 price for a feasibility study in 1996 that has been shelved; the City has been willing to take Cocores's money in partnership, but has not continued to follow through with any owner participation rules; the third problem is that the City claims the justification for the public use of the project is remediation of blight the area is not blighted; the blight findings are unfounded and not supported by the evidence; additionally, there is evidence that the outcome of the hearing is predetermined; news articles indicate the City has commissioned construction reports and studies and committed itself contractually towards the condemnation and project; the City is conducting a sham hearing and is committed to going forward with the project; requested adoption of the resolution be delayed for a couple of meetings to allow the City to re-engage Mr. Cocores on the fair market value issue; stated City staff offered $2.5 million to Mr. Cocores at one point and even offered $3 million if structured as $2 million upfront and $1 million over a period of years; similar negotiations could continue if the resolution is delayed; if not, the City will face a right to take challenge; good faith negotiations seem to have terminated but could be restarted; additional evidence of predetermination is the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) that has been entered into with a develo… | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-19 | 33 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - -JULY 19, 2005- -6:55 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-341/05-035CIC ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda V. Alameda Belt Line. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commission obtained briefing from the City Attorney/Legal Counsel. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 19, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2006-12-05 | 33 | Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. (06-599G CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement DA-06-004 By and Between the City of Alameda and the Palmtree Acquisition Corporation Governing the Development of Up To 300 Housing Units. Introduced. Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance incorporating amendments made at the meeting. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote. ( 106-599H CC) Resolution No. 14050, "Approving and Authorizing Execution of (1) an Amendment of the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL-BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center ("FISC" ) and the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station; and (2) a New Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL-BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC. Adopted. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution incorporating amendments made prior to the meeting. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-076A CIC) Resolution No. 06-149, "Approving a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project and 1) Adopting Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, 2) Adopting Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, 3) Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 4) Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, 5) Authorizing the Executive Director to Amend the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to the Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL-BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for … | CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 33 | CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION (10-306 CC/ARRA/10-44 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations The Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided a handout and gave a brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Stan Brown, SunCal, was here to speak or answer questions, to which Mr. Brown responded to answer questions. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a lot of people would like to see the former Naval Base cleaned up; inquired whether SunCal is phone banking. Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal has been contacting supporters; SunCal is urging supporters to let the Council/Board Members/Commissioners know that there is broad support. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal is intending to clean up the former Naval Base. Mr. Brown responded in the negative; stated the intent of the communication is for supporters to express continued support. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the communication is coming from SunCal staff, to which Mr. Brown responded the communication is coming from a consultant hired by SunCal. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the name of the consultant, to which Mr. Brown responded he does not know. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the transcript and consultant's name could be provided, to which Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative. Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; William Smith, Alameda. (10-307 CC/ARRA/10-45 CIC) Status Report of Finalized Navy Term Sheet Mandatory Milestone pursuant to Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Section 4.2.2. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated $108 million would have provided the Navy with profit participation when the housing market was hot and was calculated based upon far less units than what is in the Optional Entitlement Agreement (OEA); requested that future analysis project 5,000 units i… | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-27 | 33 | Councilmember Gilmore stated that she agrees with a lot of the points made tonight; Council needs to take a deep breath; staff should look at a broad set of options and bring the matter back to Council for discussion so the public can come forward and provide ideas; that she has heard several different ideas from the public; some of the ideas do not include jobs or housing; Council should be very deliberate and listen to the public; encouraged the public to contact Council or staff with preferred options. Councilmember Tam stated that she concurs with Councilmember Gilmore's and Mayor Johnson's comments; she feels that the wheel has been reinvented right after the wheel seemed not to be working; everything listed on Councilmember Matarrese's referral has been evaluated in the course of getting to a Master Plan; redeveloping Alameda Point is important, is a goal in the budget, but is not as important as developing a project that can be supported by the community and is financially and environmentally sustainable; the financial part is a big deal; the federal government does not think the world revolves around her and Alameda; having funding to get the project going is important; that she thinks providing direction is premature until the City can identify a funding source for conveyance of the property. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is appalled that people are accusing Council of having secret plans; Councilmember Matarrese's Council Referral is logical; local, non- profit development corporations have been used; Councilmember Matarrese is suggesting looking into the matter and nothing more than that; everyone has different thoughts; Councilmember Matarrese has set a baseline; a lot of caveats need to be included to provide leeway in order to put the issue in property context; Council and staff are not starting at square one. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not want staff to be limited what options are brought to Council. Councilmember Matarrese stated limiting options is not the point; the first point would … | CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2016-01-05 | 33 | Councilmember Oddie stated that he could support doing so if there are not three votes in favor of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog stated the fair thing is to start off the process by tying the benefit to length of tenancy; however, in several years, there should be a set amount; expressed concern over a tenant being eligible to receive four months' rent after not being there very long. Mayor Spencer stated the tenant would receive four months' notice so they have more time to find alternative housing or receive money; the issue is really providing longer notice beyond the required 30 and 60 day notices. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ordinance requires tenants to receive one month rent for each year; expressed concern over landlords paying four months' rent for a tenant who has only lived there one year; stated that she would like to see longer term tenancy encouraged; landlords like good tenants to stay because there is a cost to prepare the unit and find new tenants. Mayor Spencer requested staff to clarify the matter. The Community Development Director stated the ordinance includes that the relocation benefit is equal to the value of the tenant's month rent up to a maximum of four months' rent; tenants can exchange the monetary compensation for staying in the unit longer; for example, a 10 year tenant would qualify for a cash equivalent of four months' rent; the tenant could opt to stay two additional months and receive payment for two months, plus $1,500 for moving expenses; time can be traded for money up to a maximum of four months; staff tied the benefit to the length of tenancy. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the landlord could offer additional time instead of money. The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the decision is the tenant's choice. Mayor Spencer suggested that mom and pop landlords be able to choose whether to offer time or money in response to Councilmember Daysog's concern; stated the tenant could choose if under corporate ownership; the re… | CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2016-02-16 | 33 | Vice Mayor Matarrese stated what is proposed has a number of good protections for renters; there are provisions in the ordinance that he cannot support; he is concerned the cost will make rent rise even more. Councilmember Oddie stated the issue is not being rushed; the process has been 18 months; the ordinance has some very strong tenant protections; he would like to have a model lease used in the future; he would also like to have more discussion on two issues: semi-private mediation and eviction mediation; there should be translation services; people should be educated about the ordinance to prevent landlords from making mistakes and so tenants understand their rights; there is a housing shortage in the Bay Area; a bill was introduced today to be able to use Boomerang funds for affordable housing; his goal is to bring peace, calmness and stability to the City. Councilmember Daysog stated the data in the preemptory clause trends rent of 50 units or more apartments; inquired whether there is data for different classes; inquired why there is an absence of data for less than 5 or 6-10 units. The Community Development Director responded the data was taken from the BAE Urban Economics Study; stated there is a lack of available data from reliable sources; data is not available for smaller units like it is for larger units. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is data that combines Alameda renter's income trends and rent to income ratio. The Community Development Director responded the income data comes from BAE Urban Economics community survey from 2013; stated there no way to correlate the data from the census about income with the census about rising rents. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has data from ACS that has the standard monthly rent payment to income. The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated there is data on renter income and data on the rate at which rent is rising, but they are not correlated. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned about the mom and… | CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2017-07-05 | 33 | The City Manager responded anyone is interested in purchasing a pin can contact the City Manager's Office. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she is grateful the U.S. Coast Guard renewed their commitment to be a Coast Guard city for another 5 years. (17-442) Vice Mayor Vella stated that she attended the Alameda County Lead Abatement Joint Powers Authority (JPA) meeting as the delegate from the City of Alameda; East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has lead contamination in some of its pipes and in Lafayette; EBMUD is currently trying to remediate that the lead; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has publicized that there is lead contamination in baby food; the FDA will not release names of companies; Gerber is fighting the release of the names; the City is partnering with food banks and other groups to request release of the information and for more transparency with the test results; June was lead prevention awareness month; she would like to have a presentation done by the Lead Abatement Executive Director Larry Brooks to discuss work that the JPA is doing. (17-443) Councilmember Oddie thanked Barbara Price and the parade committee for a great parade; stated that he attended a press conference last week; there is an effort to move all arraignments to Dublin; if moved, it would make it hard for defendants and people in custody in Alameda and their families; he would like Council to weigh in with a letter to the presiding judge. Vice Mayor Vella stated moving the arraignments to Dublin would also affect staff's travel time. (17-444) Mayor Spencer stated that she attended the Relay for Life and the League of California Cities in Monterey; one item that was raised was timing Councilmembers, not just the public speakers. Councilmember Matarrese stated that a 3 minute time limit is already in the City. Mayor Spencer stated maybe it should be implemented. Councilmember Matarrese stated the time limit is already implemented; Council does not follow it. (17-445) Mayor Spencer stated a delegate from the Sister … | CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2017-07-18 | 33 | The Community Development Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion to ensure that the 50% of the commercial industrial actually happens within a certain timeframe can be required. The City Manager responded in the affirmative. The Community Development Director stated if Council would like to move forward with requiring the project take place in a certain timeframe, the concept should be negotiated and included in the Operating Memorandum. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not want to see the process go forward with no commercial development in the end. The Community Development Director responded Catellus understands the concern and is prepared to do the commercial construction within a certain timeframe. Councilmember Matarrese stated his request is within a certain time or the amendment will be void. The Community Development Director responded the current Master Plan amendment includes a variant for existing entitlements. The City Attorney stated Council may need to take a short recess to allow staff to discuss Councilmember Matarrese's request; she is concerned with putting the request in an Operating Memorandum. Councilmember Matarrese stated his goal is to ensure the commercial construction is completed; Site A is an example where the commercial is in jeopardy because it is harder to do than housing. Councilmember Oddie stated if there is a way to satisfy Councilmember Matarrese's concern without destroying the deal, he would like staff to address the issue. The City Attorney stated that she would like a chance to discuss the issue with her colleagues and Catellus' attorney. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is excited about the commercial aspect of the project; easements for the additional crossings are important; the project is a good step in improving housing needs; he plans on supporting the project. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is excited about the maritime jobs being created and the strengthening of the wat… | CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2017-11-07 | 33 | Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated that he is concerned with tying the hands of future Councils; he is in favor of setting aside 50% of the surplus. Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support the motion. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she does not believe future Council's hands will be tied. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes: - 2 Councilmember's Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese. Noes - 3: Councilmember Oddie, Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella. (17-674) Recommendation to Receive the Information Technology Strategic Plan (ITSP). Not heard. (17-675) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Third Amendment to the Long Term Sublease between the City of Alameda and the US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration. Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (17-676) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (17-677) Bob Priebe, Town of Moraga City Manager, expressed his support for the City Manager (17-678) Bob Nader, SAWW, gave a Power Point presentation on boat yards and yacht clubs. COUNCIL REFERRALS (17-679) Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Public Update on Crime within the City. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (17-680) Vice Mayor Vella requested that the Council subcommittee meetings be agendized to allow Councilmembers to attend. Mayor Spencer stated the meetings that Councilmembers are on can be added. The City Clerk inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is requesting the subcommittees only, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded the sub liaison committees. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 7, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2018-06-05 | 33 | provided assistance with drafting the resolution; the wording is different than others. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the language could be changed from "could include" to "include," to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the negative. Mayor Spencer's inquired whether release time means the employees would get paid, to which the Acting City Manager and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the number of union leaders, the Human Resources Director stated release time for union leaders is done now for union leaders to go meet with employees; IBEW has two and the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) has three. Mayor Spencer inquired how release time is determine, to which the Human Resources Director responded there are certain items that allow release time, such as meet and confer, time to negotiate. Mayor Spencer inquired whether release time is already allowed under the current contract, to which the Human Resources Director responded the contract is probably a little more specific and the resolution is broader; stated staff works with labor to mitigate impacts. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the resolution changes what is currently done; stated that she is concerned the City Manager or Human Resources Director would normally work out the matter with labor without direction from Council. The City Attorney stated the language "which could include" does not specifically direct that it has to happen and gives the flexibility. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of calling the question. 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. On the call for the original motion, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and … | CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2018-07-10 | 33 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY- -JULY 10, 2018- 7:01 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella was present via teleconference from the Hilton Minneapolis, 1001 Marquette Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403] Absent: None. AGENDA ITEM (18-414) Recommendation to Review Ballot Argument Against the Initiative Measure that Proposes to Amend the City Charter by Incorporating into the Charter, Ordinance 3148 Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions, with Certain Modifications, on the November 6, 2018 Ballot. The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the word count, the City Clerk stated the limit is 300 words. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Matarrese and Vice Mayor Vella did a very nice job; suggested changing the word "fixes" to "modifications" in the fourth paragraph. Stated the Alameda Just Alliance (AJA) is comprised of the Alameda Progressives, Alamedans for Black Lives, the Buena Vista United Methodist Church, Filipino Advocates for Justice, the Alameda County Central Labor Council, the Alameda Firefighters Local 689 and Renewed Hope Housing Advocates; the groups have recently joined forces to work for a just and livable community for all Alamedans, especially those who have struggled the hardest; AJA is prepared to defend the town against real estate speculation that is set to banish more people and threatens the sovereignty of the City government; the initiative to put Ordinance 3148 into the Charter is a powerful weapon against local control over housing affordability; it attempts to smash the ability of the elected Council to pass the laws necessary to maintain affordability; the law benefits and protects landlords, limited liability corporations, hedge funds, private equity funds and financial predators in the Charter; discussed the Blackstone Gro… | CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf |
CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2019-12-18 | 33 | City Council Workshop Workshop Report Management Partners Attachment B - Workshop Evaluation At the end of the workshop participants were asked to complete a workshop evaluation form. The following responses are a compilation of answers from five of the workshop participants. Overall usefulness of the workshop (4.7 average score) Not Useful Very Useful 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of the workshop (4.5 average score) Poor Quality High Quality 1 2 3 4 5 The best thing about this workshop was. Having uninterrupted dialogue about our priorities. Discussion of effectice practices for elected officials and establishing City Council norms. Letting Council talk. Well planned and organized. Open and honest dialouge. Ability to talk through priorities. Some things that could have been better. More time for communications discussion. Room temperature. Regarding establishing priorities, questionnaire may have had some redundancies. A warmer room! Other Comments Need to do these two times a year. 27 | CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2020-05-19 | 33 | On the call for the question, the motion passed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:35 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 24 May 19, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2020-07-21 | 33 | and collaboration; the recommendations received would then be put in an unfiltered, formal report to Council; outlined the Brown Act provisions of a committee; stated the proposed process would allow more flexibility for committee members to meet informally, but still contain a formal, public process to get recommendations back to Council. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the task force will take community input or only discuss amongst themselves. The City Manager responded the steering committee will need to discuss the best way to involve the community; the process is still evolving; the committee is not envisioned to only meet amongst themselves; the committee will receive community input, but the method has yet to be determined. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired who has informed the process. Councilmember Vella stated that she has spoken to Rasheed Shabazz, Robbie Wilson and Shalom; she can provide emails and comments which have helped inform the process; she has not had specific conversations about who will serve on different committees; she has recommended people email to participate. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she met with the Alameda Youth Activists; she urged members to apply to the subcommittee; she has read about the need for representation of underrepresented people; Al Mance has expressed interest in guiding the process along with Jolene Wright. *** (20-543) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of waiving Council speaking time. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Christine Chilcot has expressed interest in the steering committee; when she forwards emails expressing interest about being on the steering committee to the City Manager; those following the matter are natural constituents; expressed support for doing something that has not been done before. Councilmember Oddie stated that it is not up to him to dec… | CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2021-03-16 | 33 | MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED MARCH 9, 2021 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- MARCH 16, 2021-5:59 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (21-149) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point, Site A, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager; Lisa Maxwell, Interim Community Development Director; and Debbie Potter, Special Project Analyst; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms. [Continued from February 16, 2021 to March 2, 2021 to March 9, 2021]. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that staff provided information and Council provided direction; the first motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No; Ayes: 2. Noes: 2; Abstention: 1; the second motion 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. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Continued March 9, 2021 Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-06 | 33 | to be appealed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a grounds for the appeal is typically provided; requested clarification for the process. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated a stronger appeal provides a recommended number; there is a very low chance of success in the appeal; staff is looking for direction toward [appeal] arguments to make and the particular allocation number desired; staff has a couple days to put together the appeal on behalf of Council. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether an alternative RHNA number around 3,300 exists to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Knox White stated that he plans to support the appeal; he does not plan to support the resolution as-written; requested a friendly amendment to the motion in listing the following three reasons for the basis of the appeal: 1) 60% of voters recently voted to uphold the adopted Charter provision which prohibits multi-family housing from being built making the RHNA allocation thwarting the will of the Alameda voters, 2) Alameda's uniqueness as an island of the San Francisco Bay is subject to sea-level and emerging groundwater issues, liquefaction and loss of access to the mainland should an earthquake destroy bridges and [access] tube, and 3) the City's transportation and infrastructure constraints; the City is an island with limited ingress, egress and water supply transported by pipelines on the mainland; unlike many East Bay cities, Alameda lacks direct access to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) within its borders; the reasons mirror the comments received from the community in requests for an appeal. Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the friendly amendment; stated she is happy to include the reasons listed; questioned whether the reasons listed include the significant geological seismic issues; the language listed in her resolution is broader and includes more points and reasons; she is happy to provide a number for the allocation. Councilmember Knox White state… | CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 33 | shall authorize expenditures from the public art fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the City Manager shall be authorized to approve expenditures within the City Manager spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with approval authorizations in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The City Manager shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager, for any new artwork or project. Any two Councilmembers may call the City Manager's decision for review within ten days of the City Manager's notification. If no Call for Review is timely perfected, the City Manager's decision shall become final and effective.' In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the timing is 10 days after the City Manager's notification. Councilmember Knox White made a substitute motion approving introduction of the ordinance with the proposed amended language. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the substitute motion. Councilmember Daysog stated that he dislikes giving up Council prerogative in approving public art. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. (21-509) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code, Including Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) to Clarify Enforcement Provisions and Provide for Other Updates and Enhancements to the Sunshine Ordinance. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the matter to September 7, 2021 at 6:59 p.m. Vice Mayor Vella 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 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 26 | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2021-09-07 | 33 | Drought and Provide Direction on Further City of Alameda Water Reduction Efforts. The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation. (21-558) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of providing an additional minute for the presentation. 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. The Public Works Director completed the presentation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many projects are needed to qualify for the $15,000 rebate from East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). The Public Works Director responded each individual meter onsite is eligible for the $15,000 rebate; staff can pursue all nine sites; the rebate is currently only valid through the end of the calendar year; she does not know whether EBMUD will be extending the program. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the projects have to be completed by the end of the calendar year. The Public Works Director responded that she has not been able to get clarification from EBMUD. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will forward information from the EBMUD Manager of Water Conservation; she hopes an application submitted by the end of the year will suffice. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where the $2.3 million will come from, to which the Public Works Director responded staff is currently looking at the General Fund. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter will be placed ahead of other requests for General Fund. The Public Works Director responded the matter of funding is up for discussion; stated staff is recommending Council input on a standalone budget item; Council can consider waiting until mid-year in order to consider multiple budget requests; the process is imperfect; staff is seeking direction on whether to move forward with the matter and return with a standalone budget amendment. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 25 | CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-16 | 33 | Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands APD is agreeable to the transfer of responsibility to Public Works; inquired whether there are reasons APD supports the transfer. The Police Captain responded APD supports the transfer; stated APD is happy to help successfully transfer the program; APD has training outlines and programs which can be provided to Public Works; APD has experienced difficulty hiring for the positions in the past; transferring the program to Public Works will hopefully provide more success in staffing. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she plans to support the staff recommendation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the matter; noted the program is a better utilization of resources. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. *** (21-758) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Tuesday November 30th at 5:00 p.m. works for Councilmembers to hold a special meeting; whether the Housing Element [paragraph no. 21- and the General Plan [paragraph no. 21- ] will be the matters continued for discussion, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for limiting the special meeting to the Housing Element and the General Plan; stated that she would like staff to alert the public of the meeting start time. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of scheduling a special meeting for November 30th at 5:00 p.m. to hear the Housing Element and General Plan. 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. *** (21-759) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add and Revise Recreation and Park Fees for Calendar Year 2022. Continued to December 7, 2… | CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf,33 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2019-09-12 | 33 | RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf | |
RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf,33 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2021-03-11 | 33 | Full Name Zip code Email Signature Amanda Hunton 94501 daun2681@gmail.com and but Erik Swanson 95563 faura Shen 94705 JAS ANOUSA KHAJVANDI 94501 kashwandi@yahoo.com A FIREZ tarks 94561 for Princess Alejandria 94066 princessty5@yahoo.com P Jake Havvid 14001 8 David Paraly guson of Jumelphilo 94501 James Pressh Hoaz 94501 Hour EVA VU 94501 ve Lanson Paurl 9450 UP Jossie Pavid 94501 JP T. PAWID 44501 An Yen LIM 94611 Rached Brown eye 94501 rachalbrown.edua @gmail M Raj Aurora 9450 McAnn Jillianne White 94501 Pala word | 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]) );