pages
11 rows where page = 36
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: body
date (date) 11 ✖
- 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
- 2021-03-11 1
- 2021-07-06 1
- 2021-09-07 1
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf,36 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 36 | Mr. Brown responded that SunCal indicated that the ENA would be ending soon and that SunCal wanted to remain involved in the project. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired if the conversation included whether the Navy supports the ENA extension, to which Mr. Brown responded briefly. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Section 20-1 states that SunCal is not to meet or engage in negotiations with the Navy concerning the project or project site without giving advanced, reasonable notice to the City in order to give the City an opportunity to negotiate with SunCal and the Navy at such meeting; inquired what is Mr. Brown's interpretation of said Section. Mr. Brown responded that he concurs that the statement is the first sentence of the Section; however, the second sentence states "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, developer is authorized to communicate directly with the Navy regarding the project and project site as long as the developer promptly keeps the City informed of such communications"; stated SunCal made no attempt to negotiate with the Navy without the City being present. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired how the meeting came about; further inquired whether Mr. Brown just happened to be in Washington, D.C. Mr. Brown responded in the negative; stated SunCal does a fair amount of business with the Department of Defense; originally, SunCal was talking to the Department of Defense regarding solar opportunities; SunCal has been pursuing entering into a Power Purchase Agreement to sell power to the armed services; the opportunity came to head at the meeting. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that it does not sound like a meeting was planned to follow up on Council's opportunity to meet with the Navy; inquired whether SunCal informed City staff immediately after the meeting. Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal still wants to meet with senior Navy staff, Councilmembers, and City staff to negotiate terms of the Agreement; one frustr… | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf,36 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-27 | 36 | Councilmember Gilmore stated that she wants consensus to bring the matter back for a full-blown discussion. Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer to bring the matter back rather than discussing the matter at 1:45 a.m. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is in concurrence. Councilmember Tam moved that the matter be brought back. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated past practices have been to bring legal opinions to Closed Session. Councilmember Gilmore stated this time, she found out about the existence of the opinion beforehand. Vice Mayor deHaan stated a hard copy has never been provided to Council [to keep] in the past. Mayor Johnson stated the City Attorney has followed past practices; Councilmember Gilmore wants to discuss the issue. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the intent would be to discuss the matter or provide a policy for handling confidential documents. Mayor Johnson stated the discussion and/or policy would need to be addressed when the matter is heard. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she wants the matter agendized for further discussion, and wants some sort of direction to come out of the discussion. Mayor Johnson stated the process followed by the City Attorney has been consistent with past practices. Councilmember Gilmore stated Council has not affirmed policy and direction. Mayor Johnson stated a policy is nowhere to be found if there is one. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor deHaan - 1. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 36 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf,36 | CityCouncil | 2016-01-05 | 36 | Councilmember Daysog stated a landlord might need to have a family member move in for medical reasons. The Assistant City Attorney stated there is an exception; extension of time does not apply to a family member moving in. Councilmember Oddie stated Council needs to decide whether or not to do a sliding scale. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the table attached to the staff report shows relocation benefits in other jurisdictions are substantially more and can contain additional charges. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would prefer to go with the staff recommendation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred. Councilmember Oddie stated that he could go either way. Mayor Spencer stated two Councilmember support the staff recommendation and two do not. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would support the staff recommendation. Mayor Spencer stated the relocation benefit would be tied to length of tenancy. Councilmember Oddie noted the reduced services petition is outstanding, but could come back. The Community Development Director stated there is a request to analyze the components of the fee; staff would continue to recommend that there be a fee to administer whatever program is adopted; a more in depth analysis can now be completed since staff understands what the program would be. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether tenants could petition for reduced services. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not inclined to support Ordinance 3 because she thought the provision would be more complicated to administer, especially in the first year; stated the matter could be considered after a year. Councilmember Oddie stated the matter should be reviewed after the capital improvement plan is addressed; landlords have indicated that they will not spend money to invest in their properties if rent increases are limited; properties will end up with broken heaters, etc.; that he would like the matter to return before one year. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 36 January 5, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf,36 | CityCouncil | 2016-02-16 | 36 | Vice Mayor Matarrese - 1. The Community Development Director stated the matter will be back March 1, 2016 for a second reading of the ordinance and to extend the moratorium for 22 more days until the ordinance can go into effect; staff can expand the item to include the resolution on the CIP, which does not need to be effective until the ordinance is effective. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the CIP resolution only requires one reading. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the appropriation of funds also has to be discussed. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of continuing the meeting on the CIP. The motion FAILED for lack of a second. The Interim City Manager stated that if the meeting is continued, it would not be subject to public comment. Mayor Spencer stated the second reading cannot be continued; inquired if the meeting could be continued to 6:00 p.m. on March 1st to address the CIP and the appropriation. The Community Development Director responded that the resolution and the appropriation are not required to be done at a regularly scheduled meeting so Council could start early. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated there was no public comment on the CIP or the fee. Mayor Spencer inquired whether public comment could be allowed at the continuation meeting. The Assistant City Attorney clarified if the Council wants to continue the item to a date certain or the next meeting, public comment would not be required because the matter has already come before the public at a public hearing. Mayor Spencer stated there will need to be public comment on the ordinance second reading; she would like to continue this part of the item to an hour before the March 1st regular meeting; then, have the second reading and public comment on the second reading at the regular meeting. Mayor Spencer inquired whether a time has to be picked; she inquired on how much time would be needed for the items to be able to start the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. was needed for the items to be able to start the regula… | CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf,36 | CityCouncil | 2017-07-18 | 36 | Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf,36 | CityCouncil | 2018-06-05 | 36 | 238 Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:47 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 June 5, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf,36 | CityCouncil | 2018-07-10 | 36 | 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: Abstain. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1. The City Clerk stated the subcommittee will draft the rebuttal; inquired whether the Council wants the subcommittee to decide who will sign the rebuttal argument, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of having the subcommittee, which has agreed to draft the rebuttal, decide who would sign the rebuttal argument. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Council decided who would draft the rebuttal, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; noted the argument in favor would be transmitted to the subcommittee after the deadline tomorrow. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Abstain. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer 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. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 4 July 10, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf,36 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-06 | 36 | Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to pivot to the Planning, Building and Transportation Director and see if sense can be made of the Council direction provided. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated clarity to the City-wide prohibition related to Measure Z is to be provided in acknowledging that the City does allow multi-family housing through the overlay and Density Bonus; staff will need to not use the clarity as an argument as to why the appeal for 2,650 units will be allowed; noted State law states Density Bonus cannot be counted on for RHNA numbers; stated a developer may take advantage of the Density Bonus however, the Density Bonus cannot be counted on; staff can write the appeal to include the clear distinction. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff feels as though sufficient direction has been provided from Council, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is agreement in including the 2,650 unit allocation in the appeal. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the number. Councilmember Knox White stated that he prefers no number be included however, he will support the 2,650 units being included. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has input on the proposed units. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff will include the units as requested and will explain the determination as recommended by Councilmember Daysog. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the changes are acceptable to Councilmember Daysog as the seconder of the motion, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative. On the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated there are three different resolutions on the table and all three h… | CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf,36 | CityCouncil | 2021-09-07 | 36 | Alameda Sun. The City Clerk and the Economic Development and Community Services Manager gave a brief presentation. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic and Community Services Manager stated qualified businesses could have received $7,500 from one grant or another and staff evaluates the application in order to determine qualification. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether applicants were able to receive funds from either grant source or both, to which the Economic and Community Services Manager responded only one. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Alameda Sun has been able to receive funds from the State or federal government, to which the Economic and Community Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Alameda Sun received Paycheck Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 28 | CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf,36 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2019-09-12 | 36 | RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf | |
RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf,36 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2021-03-11 | 36 | Preserve Courts 1-6 at Fairfield Tennis Complex We, the undersigned, call on the City of Alameda and ARPD to drop the consideration to converting court 44 or any of the tennis courts at WAPA, Krusi or Leydecker park courts into pickle ball courts since the Longfetlow courts are already home to pickle ball. We request the city and ARPD look into other solutions for the pickle ball demand and we also request looking into meeting the higher demand for tennis courts that has also occurred this year. The wait times to play tennis at WAPA. Krusi, Leydecker are excessive during the weekdays after 4pm and on all weekends The existing tennis courts are not enough to meet this demand for tennis courts currently in Alameda Tennis courts currently not being used AHS. EHS. College of Alameda. Navel base courts Full name Postcode Email address Signature Alex Pryshch. epa 94501 alex33603@yahoo.com # Andrew Hom 94502 farms.new-yorka@yahoo PLA Jon Greer 94501 jgreen113@gmail.com If MagieMorom 94501 an Et lifeta the EV. 94561 Moses Dmolade 94409 KS e Jun Macbonald 94582 SEANMACDONOCOMGASTNET fm Path Dumsly 94502 Rathanasby@gmail.com Rm Pallins 94597 RideRhin @@hotmail.com in David Alle- 94501 dallanmare@gmail.com I. Zayden muse P4501 zaydon@Allernoon.com Zayden iad lee 94501 Tad-601@Yahoo.com th Ryanynny 94502 lol @gmail. 100m Ray fres Speper 94608 (or fu Published and promoted by the Alameda Happy Tennis Group at Fairfield Tennis Complex When complete, piease return to: The Alameda Happy Tennis Group at Fairfield Tennis Complex or email directly to both ARPD@alamedaca.gov and awooldridge@atamedaca.gev For more info please join our F acebock Group www Ne may conted you for the ihs - bul will - USI your ine ane suspose or share 2 entity | 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]) );