pages
15 rows where page = 35
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: body
date (date) 15 ✖
- 2005-05-17 1
- 2010-06-15 1
- 2010-07-27 1
- 2016-01-05 1
- 2016-02-16 1
- 2017-07-18 1
- 2018-06-05 1
- 2018-07-10 1
- 2019-09-12 1
- 2020-07-21 1
- 2021-03-11 1
- 2021-03-16 1
- 2021-07-06 1
- 2021-09-07 1
- 2021-11-16 1
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf,35 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 35 | Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Daysog stated moving forward is in the best interest of the City. Commissioner deHaan requested staff to clarify whether Hair Shapers received notification. The Development Services Director stated that on March 22, all the tenants were notified that the City made a bona fide offer to the owner the City's relocation and acquisition agents provided information to all of the tenants at that time staff would ensure the tenant has all the facts. Commissioner deHaan stated that he supports the action to go forward to allow a common position to be reached. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint meeting at 8:02 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, Community 5 Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 17, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf,35 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 35 | discussed at the meeting; SunCal requested that the Navy support the six month ENA extension. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the Deputy City Manager - Development Services' made a determination that there was a breach of the Agreement. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded that she did not make the determination, but staff and the legal team made the determination that the City was supposed to be notified and invited to attend the meeting; that she was not invited to the meeting or a subsequent negotiation session. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether or not the Washington, D.C. meeting was an outcome of the email which invited Council, the Interim City Manager and Deputy City Manager - Development Services to the meeting and reminded everyone that the subcommittee had been formed. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the meeting may have been; stated that she was never provided with a date or invited to attend. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam requested clarification on what transpired in Washington, D.C. and how communication occurred. Mr. Brown stated initially, the meeting was with the Department of Defense; that he heads SunCal's renewable energy plan; SunCal wanted to discuss opportunities to sell power to the federal government; solar power issues were discussed; negotiating was not done; the status of the ENA was discussed; that he still wants the Council subcommittee meeting to occur. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether meeting discussions were communicated to staff. Mr. Brown responded that he called the Interim City Manager the next day; stated the Interim City Manager returned his call but he and the Interim City Manager were unable to connect; that he believes that SunCal CEO Frank Faye sent a text message to the Mayor regarding the meeting; the meeting was not focused on Alameda Point; that he strongly disagrees with the breach of Agreement position; the Agreement has … | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf,35 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-27 | 35 | Vice Mayor deHaan noted transportation is missing. The motion carried by consensus. (10-396 CC) Discuss/Take Action on the City Attorney Policy of Not Providing Legal Opinions to Councilmembers in Advance of Meetings. Councilmember Gilmore gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired what Section 8-2 of the Charter states. The City Attorney responded the last phrase of the last sentence of Section 8-2 states "The City Attorney shall be the legal advisor of and attorney and counsel for the City and for all officers and boards thereof in all matters relating to their official duties, and whenever requested in writing by any of them, he shall give his or her legal advice in writing"; a legal opinion was given in writing; that she advised each individual Councilmember that the legal opinion would be handed out in Closed Session which has been done many times before; that she needs to have some discretion as to how best to do her job to protect Council and the City; she made it clear that the opinion was going to be provided in Closed Session, but that any Councilmember could come to her office to read the opinion in advance; the opinion was to be collected at the end of the Closed Session as has often been done which is not a violation of the City Attorney's duties under the Charter. Councilmember Gilmore stated the opinion was particularly lengthy as well as the staff report; she went to the City Attorney's office to read the opinion within an hour before the meeting started; the lengthy opinion was hard to digest; the City Attorney's procedure assumes that she would only read the opinion once; the City Attorney made some vague comments regarding concerns with leaks coming out of Closed Session; that she has not been accused of a leak; she does not understand why she could not have a copy of the opinion to read at her leisure; that she advised the City Attorney that she had no problems with giving the opinion back; she has no interest in keeping confidential materials; the City Attorney is making it hard for he… | CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf,35 | CityCouncil | 2016-01-05 | 35 | Councilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with the flat amount in order to break the tie vote. The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether tenants would have to be in the unit for one year to qualify for relocation assistance. Mayor Spencer responded in the negative; questioned why a landlord would bring in a tenant just to do a no cause or no fault eviction within the first year. Councilmember Oddie stated within the first year is usually when a landlord finds out if there are issues with the tenant. Mayor Spencer stated the benefit applies to no cause and no fault evictions. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated regardless of a tenant living there 6 months or 10 years, finding a new place to live is a hardship; uprooting a family is hard; giving time would not be a hardship; providing money could be a hardship; that he likes the idea of giving four months' notice on top of 60 days; less time can be taken; a payment for a shorter timeframe should be mediated between the tenant and landlord; a byzantine ordinance is being created; it is convoluted and complex; he would prefer a simpler more direct approach of using the current process expanded to include certain eviction deliberations and some teeth or recourse if someone is being abused by the system. Councilmember Daysog stated there should be clear relocation benefits; any jurisdiction which does relocation benefits provides clarity; expectations should be clear. Councilmember Oddie stated Council needs to pick an option. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated predictability is important; requiring relocation benefits would also dis-incentivize evictions. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated that he can live with four months, but would prefer less; he has seen two months plus $1,500 for moving expenses in other jurisdictions; that he would prefer two or three months; the saving grace is allowing the exchange for time, but the problem is making the decision at the discretion of the renter; the landlord sho… | CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf,35 | CityCouncil | 2016-02-16 | 35 | Councilmember Daysog clarified the motion is to exempt parcels with rental units consisting of 5 units or less from the relocation benefits requirement, have a relocation benefits assistance formula for parcels with rentals of 6 to 10 units start with ordinance adoption, and lower relocation assistance to 2 months plus $1,500 versus the 4 months plus $1,500. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the formula for 6 to 10 units. Councilmember Daysog clarified if the ordinance is adopted, a tenant who has lived in the unit for 5 years is eligible for 4 years' worth of relocation assistance which is fine for the larger apartments to absorb the costs but not for small mom and pop landlords. Councilmember Daysog's motion FAILED for lack of second. Councilmember Daysog stated the legislation before the Council is an ordinance that provides protection for only the tenants, not the mom and pop landlords; Council should move forward with the renter protection ordinance; stated in the future he would like to see a renter and small mom and pop landlord protection ordinance. The Community Development Director stated staff has two items to clarify: on page 10 the intent of Section 6-58.50C is that if the property owner does not properly notice the rent increase, that they have the ability to cure and re-notice to have the rent increase go into effect if they re-notice correctly; staff did not pick up that parallel change on page 14 under Section 6-58-75C, which would read that there would be an opportunity to cure an incorrectly noticed rent increase by allowing the landlord to re-notice; on page 12, Section 6-58.65, units exempt from Costa Hawkins and requesting a rent increase over 5%, must have increases go into effect at the effective date of the notice, after the RRAC process; language needs to be relocated to make it clear. The Assistant City Attorney stated the proposed language is moving the underlined Section 6-58.65 that says: "Unless you and your housing provider agree, the rent increase will not go … | CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf,35 | CityCouncil | 2017-07-18 | 35 | - 1. Mayor Spencer called a recess to hold the joint meeting at 2:48 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:49 a.m. The City Attorney requested Council to clarify the action taken on the Public Hearing; stated the ordinance was adopted with the amendment; the amendment language is added to the Master Plan as a condition; the ordinance adopts the Master Plan amendment but the language should be in the Master Plan itself. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of clarifying the action taken. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (17-486) The City Manager stated the results from the Registrar of Voters (ROV) verified 129.88% valid signatures on the referendum; Council's would have the choice to either rescind Ordinance No. 3180 or place the ordinance on the ballot for the voters to decide. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (17-487) Brian McGuire, Alameda, expressed concerns for the lengthy Council meetings. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (17-488) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues, Historical Advisory Board, Planning Board and Public Art Commission. Mayor Spencer nominated Pat Lamborn and Alan Teague for appointment to the Planning Board. ADJOURNMENT (17-489) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 2:53 a.m. in memory of Florence Hoffman. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf,35 | CityCouncil | 2018-06-05 | 35 | 237 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -JUNE 5, 2018- -5:00 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:04 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella was present via teleconference from the Hilton at 10000 Beach Club Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29572.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (18-310) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivisions (d)(2) and (e)(1) of Government Code Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action) (18-311) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section 54956.8); Property: Northwest Territories, Alameda Point; City Negotiators: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam, Acting City Manager; and Jennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse & Transportation Planning; Potential Tenant: East Bay Regional Park District; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment. Not heard. (18-312) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring Pursuant to Government Code § 54957; Title/description of positions to be filled: Acting City Manager and City Manager (18-313 ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action) Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding Public Employee Appointment/Hiring and Initiating Legal Action, the City Council gave direction to staff 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; and regarding Exposure to Legal Action, the City Council gave direction to staff by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: No; Councilmember Matarrese: No; Counci… | CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf,35 | CityCouncil | 2018-07-10 | 35 | Council. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated signatures must be gathered by 6:00 p.m. tomorrow; inquired whether the subcommittee thought of any community signers or assumed it would be the Councilmembers. Councilmember Matarrese responded since the issue is about good government, he was hoping to have the entire Council sign the argument; stated it does not matter which side of the question you are on; Ordinance 3148 has things that are impossibly wrong to put in the Charter and require an election to fix; as State law changes, the City has to adapt. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested Laura Thomas be the fifth signer. Councilmember Matarrese suggested the argument be left in the Clerk's office for anyone to sign. The Clerk stated there is a limit of five signers. *** Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:11 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:22 p.m. The City Clerk outlined the options to determine who will sign: defer the decision to the subcommittee; have only four Councilmembers sign; have four Councilmembers sign and one other person sign, which would require Council to decide how to select the other person. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is happy to let the subcommittee decide who they want as the fifth person or if they even want a fifth person. Councilmember Matarrese stated said suggestion is fine with him. Vice Mayor Vella stated the subcommittee's preference was to have the Council sign; she is open to hearing other Councilmember's preferences. Mayor Spencer stated Councilmember Oddie suggested having the subcommittee discuss whether or not to have a fifth person sign. Councilmember Oddie stated four Councilmembers will sign and the subcommittee can decide whether or not a fifth person would sign and who that would be. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Vella expressed support. Councilmember Oddie moved approval [of having the four Councilmembers sign and the subcommittee decide about a fifth signature]. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 3 July 10, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf,35 | CityCouncil | 2020-07-21 | 35 | Councilmember Daysog expressed support for a process which actively notices and engages the public. Vice Mayor Knox White stated direction and non-action is being asked of Council; that he does not support the current direction. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see what the proposed process yields. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the proposed process. (20-544) Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the next item would be continued. The City Manager responded Council should decide an alternate date to continue the item; the meeting Saturday is set to be seven hours long; expressed concern for adding more time to the discussion. *** (20-545) Councilmember Vella moved approval of continuing the meeting until 12:40 a.m. Vice Mayor Knox White 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. *** Following a brief discussion about timing, Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of continuing the special 7:02 p.m. meeting to Tuesday, July 28th at 5:00 p.m. Councilmember Daysog seconded 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. *** ADJOURNMENT (20-546) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:38 a.m. in memory of Congressman John Lewis. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 13 July 21, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf,35 | CityCouncil | 2021-03-16 | 35 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) TUESDAY--MARCH 16, 2021-6:59 - P.M. Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*21-151 CC/21-06 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission (SACIC) Meeting Held on February 2, 2021. Approved. (*21- CC/21-07 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2020. Accepted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 1 to the Community Improvement Commission March 16, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf,35 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-06 | 35 | the mainland in an earthquake should destroy Alameda's bridges and tubes; and 3) Transportation & Infrastructure: Alameda is an island with limited ingress and egress and water supply transported from pipelines on the mainland. Unlike many East Bay cities, Alameda lacks direct access to BART within their borders. Councilmember Daysog stated that his friendly amendment to ground 1 is to place a comma at the end while adding: recognizing that the City of Alameda has adopted the Density Bonus law and the multi-family housing overlay to meet State law regarding multi-family housing and RHNA obligations." Councilmember Knox White stated Density Bonus should be omitted as it is not allowed to be used in the RHNA determinations; mentioning the matter in the appeal will only confuse things and appear like the City does not know what it is doing. Councilmember Daysog stated Density Bonus law is at the heart of modifying Measure A; the Density Bonus has two components, one of which is regulatory and allows a project to be free from Measure A, and the second is a quantitative formula; the Density Bonus allows projects to be free from Measure A. Councilmember Knox White stated Council adopted a multi-family overlay to get around the State regulations; the Density Bonus law allows the City to go above the multi-family overlay; RHNA and Housing Element law do not allow the City to use the Density Bonus to achieve RHNA numbers; the letter appealing the allocation is not going to look sincere or authoritative when including things which show that the law is not understood. Councilmember Daysog stated every time a project proponent wants to build multi- family housing project, a Density Bonus trigger must first be pulled; the part of the Density Bonus trigger being pulled speaks to getting relief from the regulatory local regimes which constrict affordable housing; the second part consists of a mathematical formula which can increase the number of units; the Density Bonus law is a critical part of the City meeting the affordable … | CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf,35 | CityCouncil | 2021-09-07 | 35 | can be attractive and will be a great example; it is important for the City to practice what it preaches; the City should be voluntarily conserving water; she supports the City Manager's recommendation; inquired how much input the Historic Advisory Board (HAB) should have in putting in drought-friendly landscaping; stated that she is having trouble understanding the need for input from HAB if staff is running up against a deadline to apply for funds; she understands landscaping can be part of a historic property's character; expressed concern over delays since it is a time-sensitive matter. The Public Works Director responded that she has consulted with HAB staff in the Planning, Building and Transportation Department; stated staff recommended the matter be heard by HAB; staff would like more direction on whether Council desires one or many sites to be selected; there is value in hiring a single design contractor to design multiple sites and provide the same EBMUD application; staff can move forward with the design and return to Council to appropriate funds for design; by the construction is ready to move forward, staff can return to Council by mid-year for approval of construction on all or some sites. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed approach allows staff to still apply for the $15,000 per project. The Public Works Director responded staff will have to work with EBMUD partners; should staff have designs and applications in by the end of the rebate, EBMUD will likely be able to work with the City. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for more information being provided in relation to the role played by HAB in the matter; inquired whether a vote from Council is needed or whether direction to staff is sufficient. The Public Works Director responded direction to staff is sufficient; stated staff will move forward with the design for the lawn conversions; inquired whether Councilmembers are on board for the smart irrigation products as well; stated the products will include a budget amendment in or… | CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf,35 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-16 | 35 | Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 24 | CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf,35 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2019-09-12 | 35 | RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf | |
RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf,35 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2021-03-11 | 35 | Preserve Courts 1-6 at Fairfield Tennis Complex We the undersagned call on the City of Alameda and ARPD to drop the consideration to converting court #4 or any of the tennio courts at WAPA Kruni or Leydecket park courts into pickle ball courts unce the Longlellow courts are atready home to piokie ball We request the city and AAPD look into other solutions for the picide ball derrand und we also requent logking into meeting the higher demand for tennis courts thut has algn occurted this year The ward times to play ternis at WAPA, Knust 1 eydecker are excessive during the after 4pm and on all weekends The existing tevinus courts are not enough to ment this demand for tennut courto currentiy in Alameda Tonnic courts currently net AIS FHS College of Alameda Navel base courts Full name Postcode Email address Signature Nathan ket 94501 Nather Kest Giacomo ratesic 94501 gjacomocratesic.com m Noah Walters 94501 noahmwalters@gmail.com brdele Erdene Zohaya 94501 Zolco.uso@gmail.com 2.30uro IREEDHI Enottuushin 94501 TREED4E@gmail.com say Mike Mar tm 94502 mmlhomeey@gmail.com vitate Kevin Kanungulk 94502 Kit. - 8c chatarill her SHE KZ WAI SLAGOL Kenzluid Yahov.com B May 1 ee 94602 maylee882@yahoo.com MS. Claia Lai 94706 cls Christia Velasquez 50312 quitinav5@gmail.com a G RICH KRINKS 94502 Rist. Rella Teshare Diluly 94618 takay Published and promoted by the Alameda Happy Tennis Group al Faurbeld Tennis Comptex When complete. péease retum to The Alarbeda Happy Group at Faurfield Complex email directly to beth ARPD@alamedaca gov For more info plesar nut Facebook Group whw year - - was result for come what | 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]) );