pages
1,588 rows where page = 4
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
date (date) >1000 ✖
- 2005-05-12 3
- 2008-02-13 3
- 2008-05-27 3
- 2013-07-24 3
- 2017-01-11 3
- 2005-01-18 2
- 2005-04-19 2
- 2005-07-20 2
- 2005-09-28 2
- 2005-11-16 2
- 2006-07-12 2
- 2006-09-13 2
- 2006-10-04 2
- 2006-10-23 2
- 2006-11-01 2
- 2006-11-08 2
- 2006-11-15 2
- 2006-12-13 2
- 2007-01-31 2
- 2007-02-28 2
- 2007-03-28 2
- 2007-04-18 2
- 2007-07-11 2
- 2007-07-23 2
- 2007-08-27 2
- 2007-11-13 2
- 2008-01-09 2
- 2008-01-28 2
- 2008-03-24 2
- 2008-04-01 2
- 2008-04-28 2
- 2008-06-04 2
- 2008-06-05 2
- 2008-06-23 2
- 2008-07-28 2
- 2008-08-25 2
- 2008-09-10 2
- 2008-09-22 2
- 2008-10-01 2
- 2008-10-27 2
- 2008-11-12 2
- 2008-11-18 2
- 2008-11-19 2
- 2009-02-23 2
- 2009-09-10 2
- 2009-10-26 2
- 2010-03-22 2
- 2010-04-26 2
- 2010-07-07 2
- 2010-09-27 2
- 2010-10-06 2
- 2011-02-23 2
- 2011-02-28 2
- 2011-04-06 2
- 2011-09-26 2
- 2011-12-01 2
- 2011-12-14 2
- 2012-04-23 2
- 2012-06-06 2
- 2012-08-27 2
- 2012-08-28 2
- 2012-11-08 2
- 2012-11-13 2
- 2013-01-28 2
- 2014-04-01 2
- 2014-10-27 2
- 2015-03-11 2
- 2015-04-01 2
- 2015-07-27 2
- 2015-10-07 2
- 2015-10-26 2
- 2015-11-18 2
- 2016-01-07 2
- 2016-02-10 2
- 2016-03-01 2
- 2016-06-27 2
- 2016-07-06 2
- 2016-10-03 2
- 2016-11-16 2
- 2017-02-22 2
- 2017-07-12 2
- 2018-01-03 2
- 2018-02-05 2
- 2018-03-05 2
- 2018-04-04 2
- 2018-07-23 2
- 2018-11-07 2
- 2018-11-14 2
- 2018-11-27 2
- 2018-12-17 2
- 2019-01-10 2
- 2019-01-23 2
- 2019-02-04 2
- 2019-02-25 2
- 2019-02-27 2
- 2019-04-22 2
- 2019-07-24 2
- 2019-11-12 2
- 2019-12-18 2
- 2020-08-17 2
- 2020-12-14 2
- 2021-12-09 2
- 2022-01-11 2
- 2022-04-12 2
- 2005-01-04 1
- 2005-01-06 1
- 2005-01-10 1
- 2005-01-13 1
- 2005-01-19 1
- 2005-01-24 1
- 2005-01-27 1
- 2005-01-31 1
- 2005-02-01 1
- 2005-02-03 1
- 2005-02-10 1
- 2005-02-14 1
- 2005-02-15 1
- 2005-02-16 1
- 2005-02-23 1
- 2005-02-24 1
- 2005-02-28 1
- 2005-03-01 1
- 2005-03-02 1
- 2005-03-03 1
- 2005-03-10 1
- 2005-03-14 1
- 2005-03-15 1
- 2005-03-16 1
- 2005-03-24 1
- 2005-03-28 1
- 2005-04-05 1
- 2005-04-06 1
- 2005-04-07 1
- 2005-04-11 1
- 2005-04-14 1
- 2005-04-20 1
- 2005-04-25 1
- 2005-04-27 1
- 2005-04-28 1
- 2005-05-03 1
- 2005-05-09 1
- 2005-05-17 1
- 2005-05-18 1
- 2005-05-23 1
- 2005-05-26 1
- 2005-06-02 1
- 2005-06-07 1
- 2005-06-09 1
- 2005-06-13 1
- 2005-06-15 1
- 2005-06-21 1
- 2005-06-23 1
- 2005-06-27 1
- 2005-06-28 1
- 2005-06-29 1
- 2005-07-05 1
- 2005-07-11 1
- 2005-07-14 1
- 2005-07-19 1
- 2005-07-25 1
- 2005-08-02 1
- 2005-08-04 1
- 2005-08-08 1
- 2005-08-10 1
- 2005-08-16 1
- 2005-08-17 1
- 2005-08-22 1
- 2005-09-01 1
- 2005-09-06 1
- 2005-09-12 1
- 2005-09-14 1
- 2005-09-15 1
- 2005-09-20 1
- 2005-09-21 1
- 2005-09-26 1
- 2005-09-29 1
- 2005-10-04 1
- 2005-10-06 1
- 2005-10-10 1
- 2005-10-12 1
- 2005-10-13 1
- 2005-10-18 1
- 2005-10-19 1
- 2005-10-24 1
- 2005-10-26 1
- 2005-11-01 1
- 2005-11-03 1
- 2005-11-09 1
- 2005-11-10 1
- 2005-11-14 1
- 2005-11-15 1
- 2005-11-30 1
- 2005-12-06 1
- 2005-12-07 1
- 2005-12-08 1
- 2005-12-12 1
- 2005-12-14 1
- 2005-12-20 1
- 2006-01-03 1
- 2006-01-05 1
- 2006-01-09 1
- 2006-01-12 1
- 2006-01-23 1
- 2006-01-25 1
- 2006-02-01 1
- 2006-02-07 1
- 2006-02-08 1
- 2006-02-09 1
- 2006-02-13 1
- 2006-02-21 1
- 2006-02-22 1
- 2006-02-27 1
- 2006-03-02 1
- 2006-03-07 1
- 2006-03-08 1
- 2006-03-09 1
- 2006-03-21 1
- 2006-03-22 1
- 2006-03-23 1
- 2006-04-04 1
- 2006-04-05 1
- 2006-04-06 1
- 2006-04-10 1
- 2006-04-12 1
- 2006-04-13 1
- 2006-04-18 1
- 2006-04-24 1
- 2006-04-26 1
- 2006-05-02 1
- 2006-05-03 1
- 2006-05-04 1
- 2006-05-08 1
- 2006-05-10 1
- 2006-05-11 1
- 2006-05-16 1
- 2006-05-17 1
- 2006-05-22 1
- 2006-05-24 1
- 2006-05-30 1
- 2006-06-06 1
- 2006-06-07 1
- 2006-06-08 1
- 2006-06-14 1
- 2006-06-20 1
- 2006-06-21 1
- 2006-06-28 1
- 2006-07-05 1
- 2006-07-07 1
- 2006-07-10 1
- 2006-07-18 1
- 2006-07-19 1
- 2006-07-24 1
- 2006-07-26 1
- 2006-08-01 1
- 2006-08-03 1
- 2006-08-09 1
- 2006-08-14 1
- 2006-08-15 1
- 2006-08-16 1
- 2006-08-30 1
- 2006-09-05 1
- 2006-09-07 1
- 2006-09-11 1
- 2006-09-14 1
- 2006-09-19 1
- 2006-09-20 1
- 2006-09-25 1
- 2006-09-27 1
- 2006-10-03 1
- 2006-10-05 1
- 2006-10-09 1
- 2006-10-11 1
- 2006-10-17 1
- 2006-10-18 1
- 2006-10-25 1
- 2006-11-02 1
- 2006-11-13 1
- 2006-11-14 1
- 2006-11-21 1
- 2006-12-05 1
- 2006-12-11 1
- 2007-01-02 1
- 2007-01-08 1
- 2007-01-10 1
- 2007-01-16 1
- 2007-01-24 1
- 2007-02-06 1
- 2007-02-08 1
- 2007-02-11 1
- 2007-02-12 1
- 2007-02-14 1
- 2007-02-20 1
- 2007-02-26 1
- 2007-03-01 1
- 2007-03-06 1
- 2007-03-08 1
- 2007-03-12 1
- 2007-03-14 1
- 2007-03-20 1
- 2007-03-21 1
- 2007-03-26 1
- 2007-04-03 1
- 2007-04-11 1
- 2007-04-17 1
- 2007-04-23 1
- 2007-04-25 1
- 2007-05-01 1
- 2007-05-09 1
- 2007-05-14 1
- 2007-05-15 1
- 2007-05-16 1
- 2007-05-21 1
- 2007-05-23 1
- 2007-05-29 1
- 2007-06-05 1
- 2007-06-06 1
- 2007-06-07 1
- 2007-06-11 1
- 2007-06-13 1
- 2007-06-14 1
- 2007-06-18 1
- 2007-06-19 1
- 2007-06-20 1
- 2007-06-25 1
- 2007-07-03 1
- 2007-07-09 1
- 2007-07-12 1
- 2007-07-17 1
- 2007-07-18 1
- 2007-07-25 1
- 2007-08-07 1
- 2007-08-08 1
- 2007-08-15 1
- 2007-08-21 1
- 2007-08-22 1
- 2007-09-04 1
- 2007-09-11 1
- 2007-09-12 1
- 2007-09-13 1
- 2007-09-18 1
- 2007-09-19 1
- 2007-09-24 1
- 2007-09-26 1
- 2007-09-27 1
- 2007-10-02 1
- 2007-10-03 1
- 2007-10-08 1
- 2007-10-10 1
- 2007-10-16 1
- 2007-10-17 1
- 2007-10-22 1
- 2007-10-24 1
- 2007-11-01 1
- 2007-11-06 1
- 2007-11-07 1
- 2007-11-08 1
- 2007-11-14 1
- 2007-11-20 1
- 2007-11-26 1
- 2007-11-28 1
- 2007-11-29 1
- 2007-12-04 1
- 2007-12-05 1
- 2007-12-06 1
- 2007-12-10 1
- 2007-12-12 1
- 2007-12-18 1
- 2008-01-02 1
- 2008-01-03 1
- 2008-01-14 1
- 2008-01-15 1
- 2008-01-16 1
- 2008-01-23 1
- 2008-02-05 1
- 2008-02-11 1
- 2008-02-19 1
- 2008-02-20 1
- 2008-02-25 1
- 2008-02-27 1
- 2008-03-04 1
- 2008-03-12 1
- 2008-03-18 1
- 2008-03-19 1
- 2008-04-02 1
- 2008-04-10 1
- 2008-04-14 1
- 2008-04-15 1
- 2008-04-16 1
- 2008-04-23 1
- 2008-04-24 1
- 2008-05-06 1
- 2008-05-08 1
- 2008-05-12 1
- 2008-05-20 1
- 2008-05-21 1
- 2008-05-22 1
- 2008-05-28 1
- 2008-06-03 1
- 2008-06-09 1
- 2008-06-11 1
- 2008-06-17 1
- 2008-06-18 1
- 2008-06-25 1
- 2008-07-01 1
- 2008-07-09 1
- 2008-07-10 1
- 2008-07-14 1
- 2008-07-15 1
- 2008-07-16 1
- 2008-07-23 1
- 2008-08-05 1
- 2008-08-07 1
- 2008-08-11 1
- 2008-08-13 1
- 2008-08-14 1
- 2008-08-19 1
- 2008-09-02 1
- 2008-09-04 1
- 2008-09-08 1
- 2008-09-11 1
- 2008-09-16 1
- 2008-09-17 1
- 2008-09-24 1
- 2008-10-02 1
- 2008-10-07 1
- 2008-10-08 1
- 2008-10-09 1
- 2008-10-13 1
- 2008-10-15 1
- 2008-10-21 1
- 2008-10-22 1
- 2008-10-23 1
- 2008-11-06 1
- 2008-11-13 1
- 2008-11-20 1
- 2008-11-24 1
- 2008-12-02 1
- 2008-12-03 1
- 2008-12-08 1
- 2008-12-10 1
- 2008-12-11 1
- 2008-12-16 1
- 2009-01-06 1
- 2009-01-07 1
- 2009-01-12 1
- 2009-01-20 1
- 2009-01-21 1
- 2009-01-26 1
- 2009-01-28 1
- 2009-02-03 1
- 2009-02-05 1
- 2009-02-07 1
- 2009-02-09 1
- 2009-02-12 1
- 2009-02-17 1
- 2009-02-18 1
- 2009-02-25 1
- 2009-03-03 1
- 2009-03-09 1
- 2009-03-12 1
- 2009-03-17 1
- 2009-03-18 1
- 2009-03-23 1
- 2009-03-26 1
- 2009-04-02 1
- 2009-04-07 1
- 2009-04-15 1
- 2009-04-21 1
- 2009-04-22 1
- 2009-04-23 1
- 2009-04-27 1
- 2009-05-05 1
- 2009-05-11 1
- 2009-05-19 1
- 2009-05-27 1
- 2009-06-02 1
- 2009-06-08 1
- 2009-06-16 1
- 2009-06-17 1
- 2009-06-25 1
- 2009-06-29 1
- 2009-07-01 1
- 2009-07-07 1
- 2009-07-13 1
- 2009-07-15 1
- 2009-07-21 1
- 2009-07-27 1
- 2009-08-03 1
- 2009-08-13 1
- 2009-08-20 1
- 2009-08-24 1
- 2009-08-27 1
- 2009-09-01 1
- 2009-09-09 1
- 2009-09-15 1
- 2009-09-16 1
- 2009-09-24 1
- 2009-09-28 1
- 2009-10-05 1
- 2009-10-06 1
- 2009-10-12 1
- 2009-10-20 1
- 2009-10-21 1
- 2009-10-22 1
- 2009-11-03 1
- 2009-11-05 1
- 2009-11-09 1
- 2009-11-17 1
- 2009-11-18 1
- 2009-11-23 1
- 2009-12-01 1
- 2009-12-02 1
- 2009-12-03 1
- 2009-12-14 1
- 2009-12-15 1
- 2009-12-16 1
- 2010-01-05 1
- 2010-01-06 1
- 2010-01-11 1
- 2010-01-14 1
- 2010-01-19 1
- 2010-01-21 1
- 2010-01-26 1
- 2010-02-03 1
- 2010-02-04 1
- 2010-02-08 1
- 2010-02-11 1
- 2010-02-16 1
- 2010-02-17 1
- 2010-02-22 1
- 2010-02-25 1
- 2010-03-02 1
- 2010-03-03 1
- 2010-03-16 1
- 2010-03-17 1
- 2010-04-06 1
- 2010-04-07 1
- 2010-04-08 1
- 2010-04-20 1
- 2010-04-21 1
- 2010-05-04 1
- 2010-05-10 1
- 2010-05-18 1
- 2010-05-19 1
- 2010-05-24 1
- 2010-06-01 1
- 2010-06-15 1
- 2010-06-16 1
- 2010-06-21 1
- 2010-06-24 1
- 2010-06-28 1
- 2010-07-06 1
- 2010-07-14 1
- 2010-07-20 1
- 2010-07-21 1
- 2010-07-26 1
- 2010-07-27 1
- 2010-08-09 1
- 2010-08-12 1
- 2010-08-18 1
- 2010-09-01 1
- 2010-09-07 1
- 2010-09-13 1
- 2010-09-21 1
- 2010-09-22 1
- 2010-09-25 1
- 2010-10-05 1
- 2010-10-11 1
- 2010-10-14 1
- 2010-10-19 1
- 2010-10-25 1
- 2010-11-03 1
- 2010-11-08 1
- 2010-11-10 1
- 2010-11-16 1
- 2010-11-17 1
- 2010-12-02 1
- 2010-12-07 1
- 2010-12-15 1
- 2010-12-21 1
- 2011-01-04 1
- 2011-01-05 1
- 2011-01-10 1
- 2011-01-13 1
- 2011-01-18 1
- 2011-01-19 1
- 2011-01-24 1
- 2011-01-25 1
- 2011-01-26 1
- 2011-01-27 1
- 2011-02-01 1
- 2011-02-02 1
- 2011-02-03 1
- 2011-02-10 1
- 2011-02-15 1
- 2011-03-01 1
- 2011-03-02 1
- 2011-03-09 1
- 2011-03-14 1
- 2011-03-15 1
- 2011-03-16 1
- 2011-03-23 1
- 2011-03-28 1
- 2011-03-29 1
- 2011-04-05 1
- 2011-04-07 1
- 2011-04-12 1
- 2011-04-13 1
- 2011-04-14 1
- 2011-04-19 1
- 2011-04-20 1
- 2011-04-25 1
- 2011-04-28 1
- 2011-05-03 1
- 2011-05-05 1
- 2011-05-11 1
- 2011-05-17 1
- 2011-05-19 1
- 2011-05-31 1
- 2011-06-01 1
- 2011-06-02 1
- 2011-06-07 1
- 2011-06-08 1
- 2011-06-09 1
- 2011-06-13 1
- 2011-06-21 1
- 2011-06-22 1
- 2011-06-28 1
- 2011-07-05 1
- 2011-07-06 1
- 2011-07-11 1
- 2011-07-12 1
- 2011-07-13 1
- 2011-07-19 1
- 2011-07-25 1
- 2011-09-06 1
- 2011-09-14 1
- 2011-09-20 1
- 2011-09-21 1
- 2011-10-04 1
- 2011-10-06 1
- 2011-10-10 1
- 2011-10-11 1
- 2011-10-12 1
- 2011-10-13 1
- 2011-10-18 1
- 2011-10-24 1
- 2011-11-01 1
- 2011-11-02 1
- 2011-11-08 1
- 2011-11-15 1
- 2011-11-28 1
- 2011-12-06 1
- 2011-12-12 1
- 2011-12-13 1
- 2011-12-20 1
- 2012-01-03 1
- 2012-01-04 1
- 2012-01-05 1
- 2012-01-09 1
- 2012-01-10 1
- 2012-01-11 1
- 2012-01-17 1
- 2012-01-25 1
- 2012-02-02 1
- 2012-02-07 1
- 2012-02-13 1
- 2012-02-21 1
- 2012-02-22 1
- 2012-02-27 1
- 2012-03-01 1
- 2012-03-06 1
- 2012-03-07 1
- 2012-03-08 1
- 2012-03-12 1
- 2012-03-13 1
- 2012-03-14 1
- 2012-03-20 1
- 2012-03-22 1
- 2012-03-28 1
- 2012-04-03 1
- 2012-04-05 1
- 2012-04-09 1
- 2012-04-10 1
- 2012-04-17 1
- 2012-04-18 1
- 2012-04-25 1
- 2012-05-01 1
- 2012-05-03 1
- 2012-05-07 1
- 2012-05-08 1
- 2012-05-09 1
- 2012-05-10 1
- 2012-05-14 1
- 2012-05-15 1
- 2012-05-22 1
- 2012-05-23 1
- 2012-05-29 1
- 2012-05-30 1
- 2012-06-11 1
- 2012-06-12 1
- 2012-06-19 1
- 2012-06-25 1
- 2012-06-26 1
- 2012-06-27 1
- 2012-07-03 1
- 2012-07-05 1
- 2012-07-09 1
- 2012-07-11 1
- 2012-07-17 1
- 2012-07-23 1
- 2012-07-24 1
- 2012-07-25 1
- 2012-08-08 1
- 2012-08-14 1
- 2012-09-04 1
- 2012-09-06 1
- 2012-09-10 1
- 2012-09-11 1
- 2012-09-13 1
- 2012-09-18 1
- 2012-09-24 1
- 2012-09-26 1
- 2012-10-02 1
- 2012-10-08 1
- 2012-10-09 1
- 2012-10-10 1
- 2012-10-11 1
- 2012-10-16 1
- 2012-10-18 1
- 2012-10-22 1
- 2012-10-30 1
- 2012-11-07 1
- 2012-11-20 1
- 2012-11-26 1
- 2012-11-28 1
- 2012-12-04 1
- 2012-12-05 1
- 2012-12-10 1
- 2012-12-11 1
- 2012-12-18 1
- 2013-01-02 1
- 2013-01-09 1
- 2013-01-10 1
- 2013-01-14 1
- 2013-01-15 1
- 2013-01-23 1
- 2013-01-31 1
- 2013-02-04 1
- 2013-02-05 1
- 2013-02-12 1
- 2013-02-19 1
- 2013-02-28 1
- 2013-03-05 1
- 2013-03-12 1
- 2013-03-14 1
- 2013-03-19 1
- 2013-04-02 1
- 2013-04-08 1
- 2013-04-10 1
- 2013-04-11 1
- 2013-04-16 1
- 2013-04-18 1
- 2013-04-24 1
- 2013-05-07 1
- 2013-05-13 1
- 2013-05-21 1
- 2013-05-28 1
- 2013-06-04 1
- 2013-06-05 1
- 2013-06-10 1
- 2013-06-11 1
- 2013-06-18 1
- 2013-06-24 1
- 2013-06-26 1
- 2013-06-27 1
- 2013-07-02 1
- 2013-07-22 1
- 2013-07-23 1
- 2013-09-03 1
- 2013-09-17 1
- 2013-09-24 1
- 2013-09-25 1
- 2013-09-26 1
- 2013-09-30 1
- 2013-10-01 1
- 2013-10-02 1
- 2013-10-07 1
- 2013-10-15 1
- 2013-10-23 1
- 2013-11-04 1
- 2013-11-05 1
- 2013-11-14 1
- 2013-11-19 1
- 2013-12-03 1
- 2013-12-11 1
- 2013-12-17 1
- 2014-01-07 1
- 2014-01-09 1
- 2014-01-13 1
- 2014-01-15 1
- 2014-01-21 1
- 2014-01-22 1
- 2014-01-23 1
- 2014-01-27 1
- 2014-02-04 1
- 2014-02-10 1
- 2014-02-18 1
- 2014-02-19 1
- 2014-03-04 1
- 2014-03-10 1
- 2014-03-13 1
- 2014-03-18 1
- 2014-03-24 1
- 2014-03-26 1
- 2014-04-02 1
- 2014-04-10 1
- 2014-04-14 1
- 2014-04-15 1
- 2014-04-23 1
- 2014-04-24 1
- 2014-04-28 1
- 2014-05-06 1
- 2014-05-08 1
- 2014-05-12 1
- 2014-05-20 1
- 2014-05-27 1
- 2014-05-28 1
- 2014-06-03 1
- 2014-06-09 1
- 2014-06-12 1
- 2014-06-17 1
- 2014-06-23 1
- 2014-07-01 1
- 2014-07-02 1
- 2014-07-14 1
- 2014-07-15 1
- 2014-07-28 1
- 2014-07-29 1
- 2014-07-30 1
- 2014-08-25 1
- 2014-09-02 1
- 2014-09-10 1
- 2014-09-16 1
- 2014-09-22 1
- 2014-09-24 1
- 2014-10-02 1
- 2014-10-06 1
- 2014-10-07 1
- 2014-10-21 1
- 2014-10-22 1
- 2014-11-10 1
- 2014-11-12 1
- 2014-11-13 1
- 2014-11-18 1
- 2014-11-19 1
- 2014-11-20 1
- 2014-12-02 1
- 2014-12-08 1
- 2014-12-16 1
- 2015-01-06 1
- 2015-01-07 1
- 2015-01-14 1
- 2015-01-20 1
- 2015-01-21 1
- 2015-01-26 1
- 2015-01-28 1
- 2015-02-02 1
- 2015-02-03 1
- 2015-02-05 1
- 2015-02-17 1
- 2015-02-23 1
- 2015-02-25 1
- 2015-03-03 1
- 2015-03-09 1
- 2015-03-10 1
- 2015-03-12 1
- 2015-03-17 1
- 2015-03-23 1
- 2015-03-25 1
- 2015-03-26 1
- 2015-03-30 1
- 2015-04-07 1
- 2015-04-13 1
- 2015-04-16 1
- 2015-04-21 1
- 2015-04-22 1
- 2015-04-27 1
- 2015-04-29 1
- 2015-05-05 1
- 2015-05-06 1
- 2015-05-07 1
- 2015-05-11 1
- 2015-05-12 1
- 2015-05-13 1
- 2015-05-19 1
- 2015-05-26 1
- 2015-05-27 1
- 2015-06-02 1
- 2015-06-08 1
- 2015-06-11 1
- 2015-06-16 1
- 2015-06-22 1
- 2015-07-01 1
- 2015-07-07 1
- 2015-07-08 1
- 2015-07-13 1
- 2015-07-14 1
- 2015-07-16 1
- 2015-07-21 1
- 2015-07-22 1
- 2015-09-01 1
- 2015-09-03 1
- 2015-09-08 1
- 2015-09-14 1
- 2015-09-15 1
- 2015-09-28 1
- 2015-10-06 1
- 2015-10-08 1
- 2015-10-12 1
- 2015-10-14 1
- 2015-10-20 1
- 2015-11-03 1
- 2015-11-04 1
- 2015-11-09 1
- 2015-11-17 1
- 2015-11-23 1
- 2015-12-01 1
- 2015-12-09 1
- 2015-12-14 1
- 2015-12-15 1
- 2016-01-05 1
- 2016-01-06 1
- 2016-01-11 1
- 2016-01-13 1
- 2016-01-14 1
- 2016-01-19 1
- 2016-01-25 1
- 2016-01-27 1
- 2016-02-01 1
- 2016-02-02 1
- 2016-02-08 1
- 2016-02-11 1
- 2016-02-16 1
- 2016-02-22 1
- 2016-02-24 1
- 2016-02-29 1
- 2016-03-09 1
- 2016-03-14 1
- 2016-03-15 1
- 2016-03-23 1
- 2016-03-24 1
- 2016-03-28 1
- 2016-04-05 1
- 2016-04-06 1
- 2016-04-11 1
- 2016-04-13 1
- 2016-04-19 1
- 2016-04-25 1
- 2016-05-03 1
- 2016-05-09 1
- 2016-05-10 1
- 2016-05-11 1
- 2016-05-12 1
- 2016-05-17 1
- 2016-05-23 1
- 2016-05-25 1
- 2016-06-07 1
- 2016-06-08 1
- 2016-06-13 1
- 2016-06-21 1
- 2016-06-22 1
- 2016-07-05 1
- 2016-07-11 1
- 2016-07-12 1
- 2016-07-14 1
- 2016-07-19 1
- 2016-07-25 1
- 2016-07-27 1
- 2016-08-01 1
- 2016-08-08 1
- 2016-08-23 1
- 2016-09-06 1
- 2016-09-07 1
- 2016-09-08 1
- 2016-09-12 1
- 2016-09-14 1
- 2016-09-20 1
- 2016-09-26 1
- 2016-09-28 1
- 2016-10-04 1
- 2016-10-05 1
- 2016-10-10 1
- 2016-10-12 1
- 2016-10-13 1
- 2016-10-18 1
- 2016-10-24 1
- 2016-11-01 1
- 2016-11-09 1
- 2016-11-10 1
- …
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-03-02 | 4 | Peter Lindh, representing the four boat yards came up to discuss the validity of the $34 million shortfall that his clients projected if the Nelson's Marine lease is approved. He stated that the $34M was based on the principles involved and that the actual lease terms themselves make the shortfall about $36M. Mr. Lindh explained that there were two specific flaws to the PM Realty (Mr. Jaber's ) argument. The first was that the two boatyards used in Mr. Jaber's analysis are not comparable (triple net versus gross analysis); it's not fair market value. The second flaw is the .45 cents that Nelson's is paying per square foot per month on maintenance. He stated the amount as inaccurate and reiterated that the Nelson rate is not fair market value. He discussed the cost of having a fixed rate - is $190,000 to the City of Alameda and stated that the only adjustment that PM has suggested in their counter proposal is reducing the lease term from 20 yr to 10 yrs. Mr. Lindh concluded and urged the Board, as a fiscal responsibility, to require PM Realty to reevaluate and come up with a proposal that is more consistent with economic reality and fair market value. Chair Johnson asked if the City is going to lose money on this lease. Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Division Manager, Development Services, explained that the Nelson's lease renewal was brought to the ARRA governing body for approval and the four boat yard attorney raised questions about a $34M loss if we went forward with this lease. The ARRA Board directed PM Realty and Development Services to research this issue. Ms. Banks further explained that there hasn't been a counter offer, nor would there be, because according to the Nelson's lease, they have the first right to negotiate at 90% fair market value and the appraisal was to establish the fair market value. Chair Johnson and Boardmembers discussed the issue of the Nelson's lease creating some unfair advantage to other boat yards, and the original concern of the $34M loss. There were no counter propos… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-04-06 | 4 | Third speaker, Diane Lichenstein, APAC Chair, commented on the tremendous amount of work and effort put into the community workshops and the preliminary development concept (PDC). Emphasized continued dialogue with community. Member Gilmore opened the item for discussion. Member Mataresse thanked staff and APAC for hosting the community workshops with the boards and commissions, etc. and appreciates the summaries of the meetings. He discussed the use of electric buses and liked the idea of the duplex shop houses in the historic buildings. Has one regret regarding "the Wall" and commented on the speed limit being dropped along Ralph Appezzato Pkwy. Member deHaan: Stated his appreciation for everything that's gone forward and particularly transportation, probably the most important segment. Had some concerns about the ferry service, that it should service Oakland as well. He stated he liked the idea of the ECO Pass but had concerns about how the fees are paid. He slso liked the idea of the tram. He stated that the realism is that the ferry system, the bus systems and some other rapid bus system is the solution. Member Daysog: Stated he was excited about the ECO pass and the BART shuttle alternative. Stated that the transportation solution for Alameda Point is really the transportation solution for the City of Alameda. Member Gilmore: Excellent presentation with an incredible amount of information in great detail yet very easy to understand. Agreed with Member Daysog that whatever transit solution that we end up with is a transit solution for the entire island and not just for Alameda Point, and that it needed to be in place yesterday. She made a specific comment about the potential light rail connection from Alameda Point to the Fruitvale BART station. Stated that we can't lose sight of the need for connections going off the island, but given our future developments - an "across island" transit corridor as well which has the potential of taking people out of their cars as they go from one end of the island to the o… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-04-19 | 4 | 4. ADJOURNMENT Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\April 19.Special ARRA minutes.doc 4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-05-12 | 4 | Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary 4 L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-12-07 | 4 | 4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2006-02-01 | 4 | Page 4 Mike Hampen, PM Realty Group, further explained that liability insurance of piers is required whether there is a port manager or not. Ms. Banks said that the reference to Trident will be removed, as there is no reference in naming the port manager in the agreement. Member Matarrese requested an analysis on the risk assessment and liability of lease, stating that staff and the City Attorney are being paid to review leases and contracts, not the responsibility of the ARRA Board (to review leases, etc.). He recommended bringing this item back and the need to keep MARAD as a tenant, to see the Navy in legacy. Chair Johnson agreed with Member Matarrese's request, stating she'd like a better definition of what the potential expenses and risks are. She stated that MARAD is an excellent tenant, and we don't want to lose them; we just need to understand the lease better. She also requested that the Trident provision be completely separate and not included in the MARAD lease. Member Gilmore expressed concern about the lease not being included in the packet for review. She prefers to receive copies of complex documents and decide how deeply to look at the documents or how much to rely on the staff report. Chair Johnson recommended that, at the least, significant attachments (like Attachment H, etc.) be summarized in the staff report, or be included in the package. Without a formal motion, all members agreed to continue this item to the March 1, 2006 ARRA meeting with a request for a more detailed analysis of the ARRA's risk assessment and obligations under the MARAD lease. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. Member Matarrese gave an overview of the Jan 5th meeting: The major item on the agenda was the Petroleum Hydrocarbon Program update, highlighting the status and technical explanations of the remediation taking place on sites spread across Phase 1 and several in Phase 3. He stated that there was an amazing mass of contaminants being removed: jet fuel, gasoline, etc. The next… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2006-10-04 | 4 | Page 4 With that negotiation process and chronology behind us, and the withdrawal of our Master Developer, Staff is proposing, as the initial next step, that we test the market through a request for qualifications (RFQ) process with the current term sheet. In the event that we are unable to identify a replacement development then we would work with the Navy on an alternate disposable strategy, most likely a public sale, an approach that the Navy had been taking of late. Chair Johnson asked about the on-going work with the Navy, in the event that a buyer under the current term sheet doesn't come forward. Ms. Potter answered that we will continue to run our leasing program, and the Navy will continue to run it's environmental clean up program. Chair Johnson also asked about the cost of working with the Navy to move forward with alternatives if a replacement developer isn't identified. Ms. Potter explained that the ARRA's budget did consider a scenario where the master developer didn't go forward and staff is funded in the ARRA budget and consultants would probably need far fewer consultants then we've had when we've been in activity negotiations on a term sheet and those kind of things, but we would still need to work with our environmental consultant and our out side counsel, those costs are included in the ARRA's budget. To answer Chair Johnson's question about what types of consultants would we still continue to need, Ms. Potter answered that we would continue to use an environmental consultant because we comment on all of the Navy environmental clean up documents. Chair Johnson asked if we should ask the Navy to pay for the consultants at that point. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, clarified that these are consultants that we use to protect the City's interest when it comes to the work that the Navy's doing on clean up as well as if there gonna be issuing opinions about the tidelands trust, then we need to have our experts weighing in about the tidelands trust and where were believe the legal issues ar… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2006-11-01 | 4 | Page 4 Member Matarrese motioned to direct staff to submit a letter to the Navy during the public comment period to include the ARRA policy aspect and endorse the preferred solution of scoop and haul, rather than an engineered cap. This motion was seconded by Member Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. Report was covered in discussion of Item 3-B, above. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Mayoral Candidate, Kenneth Kahn, stated that it would be an honor to serve with all of the members of the Board. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Member deHaan clarified a comment that was made regarding parolees working at Alameda Point. He stated that we indeed had parolees working at Alameda Point about 10 years ago through the Volunteers of America Program, under the control of the Navy. He explained that we were short of man-power, so we utilized San Quentin inmates that were being transitioned for landscaping and maintenance. 6. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2007-10-03 | 4 | Member Matarrese motioned to send a letter that is policy in nature requesting that the Navy excavate and remove the contents of the radioactive contaminated landfill, and dispense with institutional controls on surrounding properties that are deemed to be cleaned. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, o noes, and 0 abstentions. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative. The RAB met regularly and again on Sept. 28th to discuss six alternatives for the draft feasibility study for IR Site 32. Their recommendation endorses a chemical oxidation and institutional controls for that site to alleviate groundwater contaminations. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) none. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Member Matarrese was contacted by a member of boating industry regarding development in Jack London Square that will displace their annual boat show in 2009. The representatives are interested in another venue for the boat show and are looking at Alameda Point. Member Matarrese expressed that this would be a great thing to pursue a boat show of that magnitude, and that it would be an economic boom for our city. He requested a report when/if this can be done. Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said that ARRA staff has been in discussions with the representatives of the boat show and will update the Board with information. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson. Respectfully submitted, Have Glidden Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2007-11-07 | 4 | She explained that it is not her view that we should deprive the advisory boardmembers of their constitutional right to speak out or constrain them from sharing their views and experience. We chose these people because of their expertise and their broad experience in Alameda and outside - and that these boards and commissions have chosen them to help lead the discussion. It's appropriate for them, once they're on the advisory task force, to interact productively with SunCal to ask questions, and not simply be a human tape recorder. Member Matarrese stated that his explanation of the roles of the task force members does not preclude them from asking questions. Member deHaan added that the liaison to SunCal should be staff, and not the task force member. Andrew Thomas clarified that the advisory task force is an ad-hoc group, not a separate formal commission. The task force meetings are the public workshop meetings - everything is publicly noticed, there are no plans to hold "task force" meetings separate from the workshops. Speaker, Bill Smith, spoke about various topics. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative. Member Matarrese was not able to attend the last RAB meeting and did not have a report. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) none. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Member deHaan requested further discussion on the Coast Guard Housing Surplus process be placed on the next Regular ARRA agenda. Member Matarrese also requested a report on all the fields at Coast Guard Housing. Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that an off-agenda is in preparation regarding this issue. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson. Respectfully submitted, James Glidden Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2007-12-05 | 4 | Another speaker, Leora Feeney, Boardmember of the Golden Gate Audubon Society and Friends of the Alameda Wildlife (FAWR), stated her appreciation for the cordiality given by the VA regarding their proposal. She stated that all of them support Veterans in a huge way, and also support wildlife and open space and opportunities for our children to experience nature. Ms. Feeney discussed her concerns on specific issues of the VA presentation, mainly the "circle" concept (1900 feet distance from the nearest hangar). She's concerned that any development that places a barrier between the Lease Tern colony and the water would present a problem, as the Lease Terns do not fly over buildings. They would not be able to get to the water to forage. Ms. Feeney's other strong objection is the VA's unwillingness to accept the water around the refuge, together with the land, including the island breakwater where the brown pelicans roost. If the VA accepts the land and develops that northern portion of it, it seems reasonable, but there is a need to protect the foraging waters of the Lease Terns and the island breakwater for those endangered species. She emphasized the need for accountability to protect these things, and stated that if the USF&W does not have it, nor the VA, she's concerned about who will accept the responsibility. Chair Johnson asked the VA what their intention is with regard to Ms. Feeney's concerns about the water. Mr. Hutchison stated that it is envisioned that the water area would go to the master developer, SunCal, and that the VA has never coveted that water. Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, corrected Mr. Hutchison's statement by explaining that the area is Tidelands property, so it would be the ARRA or the City that would hold title to the property, and not SunCal. The next speaker was Eli Saddler, Conservation Director for the Golden Gate Audubon Society. He discussed further the concerns of Ms. Feeney, and agreed that they support the VA. He would like them to go forward with their development plan… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2008-09-10 | 4 | after characterization. Mr. Humphreys provided a summary of his letter and discussed some of the technical details, highlighting the deficiencies in the Navy's proposed plan to remediate Site 1. Mr. Humphreys explained that his letter is straightforward, stating that Site 1 has been releasing contaminants to the bay for a number of decades and deficiencies in the site need to be remedied. There is uncharacterized industrial-type waste that could be released in event of earthquakes, shoreline erosion, inundation by global warming, and by burrowing animals. The City asked for trenching, with the stated objectives to verify there weren't any intact drums. The trenching report showed that, of the 11 trenches the Navy identified, seven of them showed levels of radioactive contamination. It was concluded that the radium contamination is widespread and scattered. He said a letter was sent from the Navy to the environmental agencies proposing to move portions of Site I to Site 32, to shrink site 1, because they had found radioactive waste deeper. He also described photos of liquefaction and sand boils during the Loma Prieta earthquake, which he explained was a mechanism of how contaminated waste could be released in the future, if left in place. Member Matarrese reiterated that we have expertise on this board and commended the RAB for taking a vote, making a stand and bringing these issues to light. He had two key concerns; first that the material found was not ordinary household waste, rather, it is industrial waste plus radioactive, which appears to be pervasive. It seems the Navy glossed over this in their proposed plan. Secondly, Member Matarrese commented that it was disturbing that the plan was to excavate some of the radioactive material and just bury it on another part of Alameda Point. He requested the Board get a technical recommendation corroborating this report so that the ARRA can take a position with the Navy and the regulators that what is proposed is not acceptable. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2008-10-01 | 4 | Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow night and the minutes from the last meeting have been presented. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.) There was one speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Member deHaan asked if there was an update on the GSA property behind Foster Freeze. Ms. Potter informed him that staff will get and update and provide it to the City Manager as an Off- Agenda item. Member Matarrese stated that the Board has received a stack of documents from SunCal, but has not seen a document that fits the description of a Business Plan. He requested that staff ask SunCal for a business plan. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, affirmed Member Matarrese's request. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. by Chair Johnson. Respectfully submitted, Airan Glidden Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2008-11-18 | 4 | the application for the historic district. Clear policies and a well-thought-of redevelopment effort requires patience, due diligence, and there will be verbal sparring - a challenge and constraint that they are ready to engage in. Mr. Tagami discussed a similar situation with the Fox Theatre in Oakland - there were more reasons why you can't renovate the building versus why you can - and there's a shorter time horizon here at Alameda Point, so they are willing to explore adaptive reuse prior to transfer and are ready to take that risk. Member Matarrese asked whether Mr. Tagami has had discussions with the City regarding transitional use prior to transfer and whether we are pursuing this. Member Matarrese stated that this option was a way to get us closest to the plan without losing the assets out there, as there is copper mining, vandalism, and no funds to secure property. Mr. Tagami said that he has expressed this desire and that SunCal has beginnings of communication with the City. It is an ongoing process, but they want to mind their role, focus on due diligence and underwriting, but said that when the time is appropriate, they would be prepared to engage in that dialogue. Member Matarrese asked if the appropriate time is now and if they are prepared to engage in that dialogue now. Member Matarrese expressed to the Board that they consider giving direction to move this issue as a priority. Vice Chair Tam discussed that the heavy capital makes the council and the board reluctant to make investments for property we don't own. Mr. Tagami explained that they often go at risk and are not asking the city to go at risk. They evaluate current increment expense, have a good track record of delivering value, all of which requires a team approach. They will expend the time, energy and money. Chair Johnson asked if DSD wants to move forward with interim adaptive reuse. Debbie Potter explained that the key components to the partnership and business deal is the leasing program and at what point to transition that leasing p… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2009-01-07 | 4 | At Chair Johnson's request, Ms. Potter summarized the process and milestones of the ENA so that the public understands that this is not the end of the process. This report was for information only and no action was taken by the Board. 3-B. VA/Navy Presentation Regarding the Navy/VA Federal-to-Federal Transfer at Former NAS Alameda. Ms. Potter gave a brief overview about the 600 acres on western portion of Alameda Point property. The Navy and VA have been in discussion for many years about its plans for the development of the portion of the wildlife refuge property. She introduced Claude Hutchinson of the VA. Mr. Hutchinson gave his presentation via Powerpoint to the Board and community, summarizing the status of the fed-to-fed transfer The plans include a 50-acre above-ground columbarium, a site for a VA outpatient clinic, and a non VA-owned hospital. Other presenters included Patrick McKay of the Navy BRAC office; Dr. Ron Chun, VA outpatient clinic site manager; Don Reiker, National Cemetary Assoc. regional director; Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset Manager of the VA; and Jayni Alsep, the VA's environmental consultant from EDAW. Chair Johnson clarified for the public that the ARRA is not a part of the transaction between the Navy and the VA, and has no decision-making power in this transaction. She stated her appreciation to the VA on its presentation and all its efforts for community involvement. Chair Johnson also stated that although the ARRA has no control over this issue, we might be able to cooperate if the VA was willing to look at other areas of the base. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of December 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. Member Matarrese stated that the Dec. 4 RAB meeting was 1/2 Christmas party and 1/2 highlights of the coming year's projects. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) None. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. by Chair Johnson. Res… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2010-09-01 | 4 | mean the base is going to be completed in 15 months, rather, the 15 months timeline is for planning an assessment. The Board will have an opportunity to augment the timeline in more detail after subsequent discussions and at subsequent meetings. Member Matarrese stated that on strategic alliances, the regulators should be recognized, the EPA & DTSC for clean-up, and USF&W for the environmental. Regarding policy questions, Member Matarrese also expects certain questions to resurface, i.e., finances and how tax increment might be used, where the shortfalls are, how they will be backfilled, and where there are opportunities for early transfer for land that has already been cleaned up. Member Matarrese also suggested looking at the potential for having a citywide Project Labor Agreement (PLA) . There also needs to be discussion about jobs-housing balance, to give an opportunity for public to weigh in on it. Member Matarrese remarked on the notion of using "other peoples money", i.e., funds from the Federal Government and MTC, as these funds could add up. Member Gilmore echoed Member Matarrese's comments and requested to see a primer of what the lease environment looks like in the Bay Area, regarding the asset management application. If the ARRA is renegotiating leases, it would be good to know realistically what the competition is, in order to have a more realistic expectation in terms of putting in more capital into a building or not. In terms of leasing strategy, Member Tam inquired whether or not there is opportunity to adjust the restriction in the LIFOC which says the Navy can give minimal notice to terminate a tenant, recommending that it is something that should be pursued. There was discussion about the amount of documents that have been produced and compiled through the years, and where they are made available to the public on the City and Alameda Point websites. The Interim City Manager stated that staff is working on implementing a new Alameda Point website which will focus strictly on Alameda Point and th… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2010-10-06 | 4 | 9. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. by Chair Johnson. Respectfully submitted, Itema Glidden Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2011-02-02 | 4 | The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not propose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on potential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to the table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the financial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon because there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point. Member Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of other incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented that owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has discussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns about load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage. Staff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is short listed. Member Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the user goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of Alameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power, which was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL scenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity. Chair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The Acting City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2. Member Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer for the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanim… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2011-03-02 | 4 | The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not propose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on potential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to the table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the financial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon because there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point. Member Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of other incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented that owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has discussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns about load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage. Staff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is short listed. Member Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the user goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of Alameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power, which was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL scenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity. Chair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The Acting City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2. Member Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer for the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanim… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2011-04-06 | 4 | 8. REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None. 9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2011-06-01 | 4 | Member deHaan inquired how the legislators discussed slicing out base conversion. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed a bill in circulation that carves out military bases, a new bill from the League of Cities, and the CAL Redevelopment Agency and Association of Defense Communities. Senator Wiggins introduced a bill on behalf of communities with Bases, which staff will be monitoring. The Acting City Attorney reminded the Board that this discussion couldn't continue, as it is not on the agenda. It can be agendized on a future meeting if they want to discuss it further. Member Tam concluded her report. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Vice Chair Bonta adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2011-11-02 | 4 | Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011 Time Comment Marker Response remediation. However, the cleanup is going on for much contamination. The remediation of many Alameda Point longer than that. For example, the RAB had a presentation groundwater contamination sites follows two principal on one site (groundwater at OU-2B), where the cleanup was steps. The first is an initial phase, during which the going to take 22 to 35 years, and there'll be severe contamination, especially the source area, is treated, for restrictions on the use of that site. example by injection of chemicals or by heating. The second phase typically consists of periodic groundwater (Full Comment: Cleanup as defined in the presentation, as I sampling to monitor progress of natural processes in further read it or I hear it, means the active remediation done by the reducing contamination concentrations. The first phase often military, meaning trucks and things are out there. Scoops are takes three years or less. The second phase lasts until clean- digging up dirt. Otherwise the cleanup is going on for much up goals are reached. The commenter is correct in that the longer than that. We had a presentation on one site two second phase can last for several decades, as in the example months ago where the cleanup was going to take 22 to 35 of Operable Unit 2B (OU-2B). years, and there'll be severe restrictions on the use of that site. So bear that in mind.) During the second phase, land-use restrictions may be applied to protect monitoring wells and to prevent use of the groundwater. Depending on the type of groundwater contamination, land-use restrictions may also require that building designs include vapor barriers, special ventilation, etc. to safeguard public health. Land-use restrictions during the second phase typically do not preclude most uses of the site. Thus, "severe restrictions" on land use typically apply only to the first few years of cleanup. 35:44 Quite a … | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2012-01-04 | 4 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012--6:00 P.M. Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 5. Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider: (12-015) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director and Masa Shiohira; Employee Organizations: Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA), Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and Police Officers Non-Sworn (PANS). Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore announced that the labor negotiators provided the status of negotiations with four bargaining units: IBEW, ACEA, PANs, and MCEA. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:05 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 January 4, 2012 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-04 | 4 | Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with direction that the matter be brought back to Council if there would be any cause for rate increases. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*05-016 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a New Section 3-91 (City of Alameda Community Benefit Assessment Procedure Code) to Article VI (City of Alameda Improvement Procedure Code) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) . Introduced. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (05-017) Recommendation to reappoint Mary Rudge as Alameda's Poet Laureat. The Recreation and Parks Director outlined the nomination process. Lisa Piatetsky, Executive Director Alameda City Art Council, stated that she looks forward to having Ms. Rudge continue as Alameda's Poet Laureat. Mary Rudge, Alameda, submitted a handout i outlined poet activities; thanked the Council for acknowledging and encouraging poetry. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 January 4, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-18 | 4 | Chamber's Town Hall Meeting. Mayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to send a strong message in support of the Resolution opposing the Rancheria-Koi - Nation proposed casino; Alameda's vote, along with the City of San Leandro, Alameda County, and the City of Oakland, will send a strong message to the Bureau of Indian Affairs stated she had the opportunity to speak with Congressman Stark and that he will support Alameda in their efforts. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the casino proposal is not good for Alameda, the adjoining wildlife refuge, the City of Oakland and is a false economy that he would oppose any casino by any tribe in any urban area; he hopes that there is unanimous support of the Resolution. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he joins his colleagues in opposing the casino; Council should consider joining the City of Oakland in pursuing legal issues. Mayor Johnson stated that she has spoken to the Interim City Manager and meetings have already taken place Alameda is working with San Leandro to jointly respond to the environmental documents; staff is working with the City of Oakland; Alameda County should be included in pooling resources to save money in the battle opposing the casino. Councilmember Daysog stated that there should be an amendment to the Resolution which would include directing the City Attorney to work with colleagues in the surrounding jurisdictions to actively oppose the proposed casino. Mayor Johnson stated that the Resolution should be very strong, clear and precise regarding Alameda's position on the casino; that she would prefer to give separate direction to staff to work with the surrounding communities and Alameda County. Acting Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Daysog was amicable to giving staff direction, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated that he commends the Council in taking the lead;… | CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 4 | Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other multi-purpose rooms were comparable in size. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the proposed multi-purpose room would be larger than most. Councilmember Daysog inquired what are the anticipated uses for the baseball and softball fields. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the use would depend on the age of the participants; stated two practices could be held at the same time for age groups under 12. Councilmember deHaan requested an explanation of funding sources. The Redevelopment Manager responded the funding sources come from project revenues such as land sale proceeds, residential profit participation, and tax increment. Mayor Johnson inquired whether adequate benches would be provided. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative; stated the play areas would have benches also. Mayor Johnson stated that the Joint Use Agreement was a great success; the City and School District benefit when resources are pulled together. The Acting Recreation and Park Director noted the new park would be the first park built since Tilden Park in 1993. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-041) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2-18 (Alameda Film Commission) to Chapter II (Administration), Establishing an Alameda Film Commission, and Prescribing Membership and Duties of Said Commission. Introduced. The Development Services Director provided a brief report. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether neighborhoods, business districts, and areas at Alameda Point had filming opportunities in the past, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 4 | 4 February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 4 | money by the end of March; the City can deposit the money and begin earning interest to mitigate the reduction. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City would sell bonds inquired how the liability would be covered. The Interim City Manager responded there would be no liability to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 February 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 4 | ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (05-101) Martin White stated that the Development Services Department provided moderate income housing for the Bayport housing development at 110% of the median income but cut off at 80% of the median income; redevelopment law does not allow for cut offs; stated he met with the Director of Development Services about the matter. Mayor Johnson requested staff to provide Council with a report on the matter. Councilmember Daysog stated that moderate income, by definition, is 80% to 110% of median. (05-102) - Hallemariam Alema, Alameda, stated that he won the lottery for moderate income housing in the Bayport housing development; he has an income of $64,000 and has been disqualified. Mr. Alema's wife stated that the Development Services Director is unable to provide reasons for the disqualification. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the couple won the lottery; the range for moderate income is 110%; $64,000 is below the range and is the reason for disqualification. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05-103) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the League of California Cities East Bay Division representative. Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Daysog has volunteered to serve as the City's representative and Vice Mayor Gilmore has volunteered to serve as the alternate. louncilmember Matarrese moved that Councilmember Daysog serve as the City's S representative for the League of California Cities East Bay Division and that Vice Mayor Gilmore serve as the alternate. Mayor Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Daysog stated that the East Bay Division meeting he attended two weeks ago was very nice. (05-104) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that he looks forward to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2005 4 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 4 | permit the conversion of an existing detached garage to be used as a dwelling unit. " Adopted. The Supervising Planner gave a brief oral report. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning Board made a recommendatior to Council, to which the Supervising Planner responded that the Planning staff denied the variances. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Proponents ( In favor of Appeal) : Frank Mulligan, Appellant (submitted handout) i Jeff Kassow, Alameda: Walter DeCalle, Alameda; Christina Locklear, Alameda. Opponent (Not in favor of Appeal) : Leo Beaulieu, Alameda. After Mr. Mulligan's comments, Councilmember deHaan inquired how Mr. Mulligan obtained the referenced photo album, to which Mr. Mulligan responded that the trustee provided him with the album. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the permit provided to Council is the one on file with the Planning Department, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the "SFD" notation on the permit is for the use of the lot. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there was anything at the location before the structure was built. Mr. Mulligan responded that he did not know; stated there may have been a garage, but no driveway. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there are any records that indicate that there was a previous garage, to which the Supervising Planner responded there was a permit for demolition of a garage dated April 1984; a second permit for a new garage was issued in June of 1984 and finaled in October 1984. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City issued plumbing and mechanical permits which would be necessary for a kitchen and a bathroom, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson stated that a dwelling unit could not have been built on a zero property line in 1984; inquired whether building a dwelling unit with a garage permit would have been legal in 1984, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative; the permit would lack the rear and side … | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-04-05 | 4 | changes ; that he can live with the client only boarding concession; that he did not hear dogs barking at the site; noted that the site is a very professional and confined operation; a lot of dogs have to stay in kennels for a period of time and are picked up later in the day; that in mind, he feels comfortable with moving forward with the project. Mayor Johnson stated that the Applicant has been very accommodating. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution upholding the Planning Board's recommendation. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan inquired how the recommended concessions [regarding kenneling and dog walking would be reflected in the motion. The Supervising Planner stated the conditions of approval do not include the Applicant's agreement that only patients be kenneled on site, not general kenneling; as to walking in the neighborhood, a condition could be crafted that encourages use of streets other than Regent Street and the south side of Central Avenue, which might be difficult to enforce. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the approval could reflect that the Applicant has an adopted dog walking policy, to which the Supervising Planner responded the dog walking policy could be incorporated. Mayor Johnson inquired whether including the policy was acceptable to the Applicant, to which the Applicant responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese amended his motion to incorporate reference to the Applicant's dog walking policy as well as the kenneling of client animals only. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05-145) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's approval of Design Review, DR04-0113, and Planned Development, PD04-0004, for the construction of a new 6,000 square foot community center and four detached sixteen-car garages, exterior modifications to existing apartment buildings, and other site modifications at the 615 unit Harbor Island Apartments Regular Meeting Alameda C… | CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-04-19 | 4 | Accepted. (05-169) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to use $201,000 in Measure B ferry reserves for ferry boat repairs. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there seems to be more ferry boat repair issues with the Harbor Bay Ferry than the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service; if so, requested a review of ferry boat operators' maintenance schedules. Councilmember deHaan stated that the Harbor Bay Ferry costs need to be reviewed; an Off Agenda Report notes that the Peralta was sent back up to Washington for super structure modifications the Peralta is a young ship; there were flaws in the materials used; requested the review address the Peralta. Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *05-170) - Resolution No. 13829, "Preliminarily Approving Annual Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of June 21, 2005 Hearing Thereof - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. " Adopted. ( (*05-171) Resolution No. 13830, "Preliminarily Approving Annual Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of June 21, 2005 Hearing Thereof - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) . " Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 April 19, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-03 | 4 | the Plan was not broader. The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded the census tract has the highest concentration of minorities and low Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 May 3, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-12 | 4 | The Assistant City Attorney responded Mr. Hartinger drafted the Agreement. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought that the Council was meeting to agree to hire an outside attorney and that the scope of work would be determined later; that she does not want her second to the motion to be considered as an approval of the Agreement. Mayor Johnson stated that the Council should not sign an Agreement without reviewing the scope of work; inquired whether the Council could make a motion to authorize the City Attorney to sign the Agreement hiring the outside attorney to work with the Council and finalize the Agreement when the scope of work is determined. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the motion could be made in open or closed session, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the motion must be made in open session. Councilmember Daysog stated that the scope of work would still need to come back to the Council. The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Council's agenda is to consider hiring an outside attorney to help with labor negotiations regarding the City Attorney's contract; the outside attorney would be the labor negotiator in closed session; the City Attorney would have a direct conflict in advising the Council on interpretations regarding her contract. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the scope is in paragraph 1 of Mr. Hartinger's letter [proposed Agreement]. The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope of service is very narrow. Mayor Johnson stated that the scope can always be changed and looks fine; the Council could have the outside attorney do as little or as much as requested. The Assistant City Attorney stated retainers are not normally paid to outside counsel. Mayor Johnson suggested the retainer and the late payment provisions be removed; stated the Agreement should be left as is to allow the Council flexibility; outside counsel would not perform any services the Council does not want. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like Mr. Hartinger to Special Meeting Alameda City Coun… | CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 4 | (*05-232) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2005 for sales transactions in the Fourth Calendar Quarter of 2005. Accepted. ( *05-233) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for one animal control vehicle. Accepted. (*05-234) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Cyclic Sewer Repair Project, Phase 4, No. P.W. 05-03-11. Accepted. (05-235) Recommendation to authorize installation of an All-Way - Stop Control at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street. Don Patterson, Alameda, stated that he opposes the four-way stop sign; the Transportation Technical Team (TTT) did not address the real problem of why Sherman Street is operating as a major thoroughfare; the General Plan Traffic Element's goal and intent is to have a transportation plan with traffic controls and techniques that direct and keep traffic on major streets; questioned how the City can make decisions without the advice of a professional traffic engineer on staff; stated said position has been vacant since October 2003; urged Council to direct the Acting City Manager to hire a traffic engineer suggested the application be withdrawn; noted the individual who filed the application has not participated in any of the public hearings and must not be very serious about the request stated the stop sign should only be addressed in the context of a total transportation plan, not a band-aid approach that would only exacerbate the problem by moving traffic faster along Sherman Street. Stanton Scott, Alameda, stated that he has witnessed many accidents at the intersection; increased traffic has become more aggressive; that he supports some form of traffic controls; stop signs would be good. Mary Amen, Alameda, stated that she represents a group of Santa Clara Avenue residents who are opposed to the stop sign; she gathered signatures in the four blocks directly affected; the residents would like the City to implement traffic calming dev… | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-07 | 4 | in the parking lot near the Dog Park and then move from park to park; there is a Use Permit provision in the Open Space section of the Zoning Code that allows commercial concessionaires the proposed vendor would need to get permission from the Recreation and Park Commission first in order to get a Use Permit from the Planning Commission to vend from a City park. Mayor Johnson suggested having a workshop involving the business community and Recreation and Park Commission; stated that there is a significant difference in using a park versus a City street; the possibility of 10 trucks selling coffee in one place needs to be considered. Councilmember deHaan stated there was a mobile canteen at Alameda Point; it is important to review the whole picture. Mayor Johnson stated that she was not clear on the recommended policy. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not believe the draft policy is ready for adoption; the policy does not establish or define standards for non-City use, long-term use, construction or renovation, or private uses; concessionaire needs to be defined; stated that he would oppose any private use that is 25% of the total park acreage available; the park application and review process is a procedure and not a policy procedures and policies need to be kept separate; suggested that the policy be sent back to the Recreation and Park Commission. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; noted that the statement regarding the Recreation and Park Department's authority to deny non-City uses is unclear; Recreation and Park Commission decisions need to be able to be appealed to the City Council stated that it was not the Council's intent to have the Recreation and Parks Department have the sole determination to deny non-City uses; the language needs to be changed; the Council did not request a policy that limited any appeal rights or delegation of Council authority. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that it appears that the policy was combined with the process and did not follow through on either o… | CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-21 | 4 | The Acting Planning Director stated that he had no knowledge of the issue; the Planning and Building Department was asked to test the soil to see if the soil was safe for the trees. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Title 22 related to safety for trees. Mr. Bowen responded that he was advised that Title 22 addressed toxicity of materials in the soil; he was asked to find out if the trees would be harmed by anything in the soil; the soil from the fill was tested as well as the soil around the trees. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether soil would be removed from the site during construction, to which the Acting Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the pile of dumped soil would be removed, to which the Acting Planning Director responded that most of the pile would be redistributed, if not removed from the site. Councilmember deHaan stated that the soil should be analyzed for the health of the trees and to see if there was dumping of hazardous soil; there is a concern with mixing the soil. The Planner III stated that Title 22 specifically addresses environmental hazards and hazardous waste materials for the general environment. Councilmember Matarrese stated that a licensed arborist is looking at the health and protection of the trees; the Historic Advisory Board has a solution to mitigate the removal of trees; a composite soil sample has been collected that is appropriate for the future health of the trees; the laboratory' S certification to determine whether the soil dumped was toxic is questionable; the owner should be responsible for taking the soil away if the levels exceed the same standards that are applied at Alameda Point for building residential units. Vice Mayor Gilmore noted that the Planner III stated that Title 22 covers hazardous waste in situations beyond agriculture; the report states that the mineral content of the soil does not exceed Title 22 limits. Councilmember Matarrese stated there is a question about whether Regular Meeting Alameda City Council… | CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-28 | 4 | outside counsel and needs to be more in line with the intention of the Charter; changes can be made as time goes on and when the Council feels more comfortable a lot of money is being spent on outside attorneys and the Council has an obligation to be more aware of outside attorney costs. Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that defining the parameters of discretion and how the discretion relates to Section 8-5 of the Charter is the issue; the Council is in the process of defining discretionary parameters of "may empower" the City Attorney or any other City office meets Council expectations through the establishment of the budget i threshold parameters need to be established; the Council is moving in the direction that will work for both sides but will not be established tonight. Chair Johnson stated that clear direction was given to the City Attorney to bring the matter of hiring of outside counsel back to the Council at the last Closed Session Meeting. Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that his interpretation of the Charter is that because there was no specific ordinance or resolution defining "may empower" the past practice is still in effect. Chair Johnson stated that is not what she heard at the last meeting. The City Attorney stated that she is working on a proposal to be presented to the City Council on July 5; that she hears what the Council is saying and understands that there is a desire for additional oversight the proposal will provide additional Council involvement and discretion, and provide significantly less discretion on the City Attorney's part. Chair Johnson stated that the Council is not asking for less discretion on the City Attorney's part; stated that Council should do what the Charter says; the interpretation of the Charter could be that the Council gives consent to the City Attorney to spend money on outside attorneys by putting a line item in the budget or the interpretation of the Charter can be that the Council is not going to give consent by a line item; the latter was made c… | CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-05 | 4 | The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of appointment to Ms. Gormley, Ms. King, Ms. Belikove, Ms. McNamara, and Mr. Chen. (05-331) Ordinance No. 2942, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to Change the Name of the Public Art Advisory Committee to Public Art Commission, Transfer Reporting from Recreation and Park Commission to City Council, and Transfer Staffing from the Recreation and Park Department to the Planning and Building Department by Amending Subsections 30-65.3 (Contribution Requirements), 30-65. 4 (Public Art), 30-65.5 (Alameda Public Art Fund) , 30-65.7 (Public Art Advisory Committee) 30-65.8 (Application and Approval Procedures for Placing Public Art on Private Property) 30-65.10 (Guidelines for Approval), and 30- 65.11 (Appeal to the City Council) of Section 30-65 (Public Art in New Commercial, Industrial, Residential and Municipal Construction) " Finally passed. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the function of the Public Art Advisory Committee is important and deserves commission status. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( 05-332) Recommendation to accept report on proposed PERS Golden Handshake Retirement under California Government Code Section 20903. The Acting City Manager stated the matter was on the agenda to request approval to contribute funding to the PERS Retirement System on behalf of employees who are being laid off and are eligible to retire. employees who retire within 90 days of the adoption of the resolution would be eligible; savings are created by reducing the number of positions in the City and allowing some employees to receive up to two years service credit. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there would be a net savings, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired when the last Golden Handshake occurred, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in 1992 and again in 1995 or 1996. Co… | CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-19 | 4 | Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council requested a more detailed Citywide vehicle inventory. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should be a written, Citywide policy; noted Police Department needs would differ from Public Works; stated the supplemental report indicates other cities replace vehicles at higher mileage; requested that the policy include mileage replacement comparisons with other cities and explanation of why the City replaces vehicles with lower mileage. The Acting Police Captain stated that a 65,000 to 75,000 mile vehicle replacement is not abnormal; the City garage mechanic is concerned with the idle hours. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the number of vehicles that are replaced may not be the same as before because of tough budget times; the City might need to go longer before replacing vehicles. Councilmember deHaan stated that he looks forward to receiving a policy with input from the Public Works Department i inquired what would be the impact if a six-month deferral; inquired whether vehicles have hour meters. The Acting Police Captain responded that hour meters are not installed; a six-month deferral would be difficult; the vehicles take a beating. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the three vehicles are Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 July 19, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-08-02 | 4 | Employ Special Legal Counsel. Not adopted. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the proposed resolution was a very good start in addressing how the Council would implement its authority per Section 8-5 of the Charter and to be clear on how the Council chooses to empower the City Attorney to make decisions at a lower expenditure level and moving upi the Charter obligations are met with the concepts in the proposed resolution; the resolution should be written in said terms; the elements, e.g. threshold, are included; the direction is in terms of implementation of a Section of the Charter; reporting details do not have relevance to the Charter, are more of an expectation and work product rather than an implementation of the Charter, and should be removed from the resolution; that he does not recall discussing how the Council would incorporate Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T). the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she recalled that there would be a separate discussion on AP&T; that she was not sure whether there would be a separate discussion on the ARRA and CIC. Councilmember Matarrese noted that the discussion would be about delegating authority to the Public Utilities Board (PUB ) ; the resolution should be presented in terms of clarifying and providing the procedure for implementing the Charter further stated that the proposed resolution should be written as the Council's path on how it empowers the City Attorney to engage outside counsel. Councilmember Daysog stated that the proposed resolution starts with operative clauses; pre-ambulatory clauses are needed to provide context. Mayor Johnson stated the language should restate the Charter provision and state that pursuant to the Charter, the Council has the authority and is making a delegation of its Charter authority under the particular circumstances in the resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the language should state that the resolution would also apply to the CIC… | CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-08-16 | 4 | Rudenko, Alameda (not present) ; Gina Shepard, Alameda; Margarita Dorland, Alameda (not present) ; Alex Helperin, Alameda (not present) ; Vicki Varghese, Alameda (not present) ; Sia Bayat, Alameda Michael Cate, Alameda; and Pat Bail, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 August 16, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-09-06 | 4 | (05-431) Public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's decision to impose penalties for unauthorized demolition. The site is located at 616 Pacific Avenue, within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential District. Applicant/Appellant: Erwin Roxas and (05-431A) Resolution No. 13892, "Granting the Appeal and Overturning the Historical Advisory Board's Decision to Uphold the Five-Year Stay in Development for the Property Located at 616 Pacific Avenue. Adopted. The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Daysog stated that the site's historic designation is Level H; inquired whether Levels A through G are before Level H. The Supervising Planner responded that designation "N" is for buildings that could be placed on the National Register, "S" is for buildings that could be placed on the State Register, and "H" is the lowest level for potentially historic buildings that require further investigation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Opponent (Not in favor of appeal) : Kevin Frederick, Alameda. Proponent (In favor of appeal) : Paul Rezucha, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Mayor Johnson stated that she could not tell from the drawings that 24 studs were retained; the neighbor mentioned that studs from the north and west walls were being retained; inquired whether parts of the walls would be used in the interior of the house. The Acting Planning and Building Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether any of the exteriors walls would remain, to which the Acting Planning and Building Director responded that the sidewall and part of the front wall would remain. Mayor Johnson stated that the west and front walls appear to be completely new. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 September 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-09-20 | 4 | Mayor Johnson stated that Mr. Norton's skill, leadership, and experience enabled handling a tough situation; read the resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that working with Mr. Norton has been a privilege; she appreciates Mr. Norton's willingness to give of his time and self, and for listening to the Council and community; stated Mr. Norton did a terrific job in reaching out to the community in some very difficult times. Councilmember deHaan stated that he has enjoyed Mr. Norton's leadership; noted that Mr. Norton leads by example; stated accomplishments were enjoyed; curveballs were tackled; Mr. Norton recognized staff's skills; the ship was put back on course after a difficult time; he has never seen such incredible leadership. Councilmember Matarrese thanked Mr. Norton; stated he appreciates Mr. Norton's skills, professionalism, and enthusiasm; everything was handled with a unique and successful approach. Councilmember Daysog thanked Mr. Norton for his enthusiasm and leadership; stated that the City Manager's work is set because of Mr. Norton's work. Mayor Johnson noted that former Councilmember Kerr was instrumental in bringing Mr. Norton back into service. Former Councilmember Kerr stated that the Council handed Mr. Norton a disastrous budget ; the community thanks him for getting the job done. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 September 20, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-10-04.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-10-04 | 4 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 October 4, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-10-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-10-18 | 4 | Alameda City Council 4 October 18, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-11-01 | 4 | Stieg, Alameda; Harry Hartman, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda. Opponents (Not in favor of the design) : Anthony Mark, Oakland; Birgitt Evans, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) i Jack Boeger, Alameda: Christopher Buckley, AAPS Richard Rutter, AAPS; Irene Dieter, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Valerie Ruma, Alameda; Victoria Ashley, Alameda; Vern Marsh, Alameda; Robert Gavrich, Alameda (submitted comments) i Jay Levine, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Jon Spangler, Alameda Ron Schaeffer, CMFA (submitted comments) i Kevin Fredrick, Alameda; David Miller, Alameda; Dave Kerwin, Alameda. There be no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Daysog stated that the project design was light years ahead of the previous design. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated Council direction was followed to make the façade less modern, match the architectural character of the existing theater, and accommodate the project; the project should be accepted. Councilmember deHaan stated that he is comfortable with the design; the design addresses some of the AAPS's concerns and project continuity; he appreciates that time was taken to review the design. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she is particularly pleased with the parking garage the staff and Architect did an excellent job of following Council direction; thanked AAPS for input; stated the parking garage is an excellent design. Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates the staff's and Architect's work; improvements are outstanding; the project should move forward. Councilmember deHaan stated he is concerned with the 70-foot - high parking structure, which would be even with the marquee; stated Mariner Square's new boat storage facility is 50-feet tall; Alameda Point Hangers 41 and 39 are 45-feet tall; massing is a concern. Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted against the matter several months ago on very narrow grounds, which still stand; he is concerned that the City is not getting… | CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-11-15 | 4 | Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 November 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 4 | Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting at 8:03 p.m. and reconvened the Regular Meeting at 9:10 p.m. *** (05-566) Update on City's infrastructure investment and review of options to increase funding for preventative maintenance of infrastructure. The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson requested that a comprehensive report be brought back to the Council at mid-year. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the real property transfer tax was adjusted every year for inflation, to which the Finance Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Daysog stated $5.40 per thousand would be $5.69 per thousand if adjusted for inflation; the increase would equal approximately $180,000. Mayor Johnson stated that she received several calls on the matter the Board of Realtors supports an increase in the tax but would like to be involved in deciding the amount; the increase in home prices pus an increased transfer tax above inflation rates. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $27 million was needed for deferred maintenance, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated nothing in the presentation reduces the shortfall in a good orderly manner making up the shortfall through the transfer tax and lighting district assessments would be hard; inquired whether the shortfall would continue to escalate and deteriorate over time. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the recommendation tonight was to get direction on crafting a long-term strategy which would be folded into the ten-year model. Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not see any cure-all, only band-aids. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-20 | 4 | The City Manager stated that the correction would be made to the report. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with a correction to list the Work/Live Citywide Development Fee (CDF) under commercial [non-residential building space] instead of residential. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*05-583) Recommendation to appropriate $49,000 from San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Grant and $21,930 in Urban Runoff Funds for removal of existing dock and placement of riprap adjacent to Bridgeside Center Project, No. P. W. 10-05-01. Accepted. (*05-584) Recommendation to appropriate $40,000 in Measure B Funds, adopt plans and specifications, and award a Contract in the amount of $87,000, including contingency, to Richard Heaps Electric, Inc., for Pole-Mounted Radar Speed Display Signs Project, No. P.W. 06-05- 05. Accepted. (05-585) Resolution No. 13914, "Applying for a Bicycle Transportation Account Grant to Enhance the North Approach to the Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge, Appropriating Measure B Funds as Local Match, and Authorizing the Public Works Director to Execute all Necessary Grant Documents. Adopted. Councilmember deHaan stated that the bicycle route is the primary force in applying for the grant; inquired whether approved, solid plans are in place. The Public Works Director responded detailed plans are not in place; an illustration has been developed to provide a cost estimate; time would be spent on design after the grant is received. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 December 20, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-01-03 | 4 | finish the Park Street project. The Public Works Director responded that the grant should finish the segment from Webb Avenue to Lincoln Avenue; joint trenching has been done. continuing down to least Alameda Avenue would be ideal. Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the projected budget for continuing the work. The Public Works Director responded that the project is going through the Community Improvement Project process; the limits of the $700,000 grant would be reviewed along with additional contributions from City funds. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the same type of trenching would be needed for the block south of Central Avenue, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the lights could be installed without trenching, to which the Public Works Director responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan stated the Webster Street project involved five blocks for a cost of approximately $2 million; the Park Street project involved two blocks for about the same amount of money; inquired how the Park Street project was different. The Public Works Director responded that Park Street has private basements extending into the public right-of-way; Webster Street does not have basements under the sidewalks the work on Park Street was more expensive because trenching needed to be done under the streets for utilities; Park Street was also completely resurfaced from curb to curb. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether CalTrans money was available for the resurfacing on Webster Street. The Public Works Director responded that Webster Street was resurfaced by CalTrans three years ago and did not need to be resurfaced: PSBA wanted to have flush transit plazas, which are more expensive; complex drainage issues also increased costs. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the same problems could occur with the remainder of the Park Street project. The Public Works Director responded the same problems could occur if underground basements are in the extended phase. Regular Mee… | CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-02-07 | 4 | schedule and within budget. *** Councilmember deHaan excused himself from the City Council Meeting at 9:49 p.m. due to a pinched nerve. *** CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the bills for ratification [paragraph no. 06-061] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1. ] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number ] ( *06-062) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on January 17, 2006, and Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on February 1, 2006. Approved. (06-063) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,501,850.82. Mayor Johnson thanked the Finance Director for the new check register format. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of ratifying the bills in the amount of $5,501,850.82. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1. ] (*06-064) Resolution No. 13924, "Appointing an Engineer and an Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 February 7, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-02-21 | 4 | past. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the process would be at the applicant's expense, to which the Acting Recreation and Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the long-term, exclusive use was for the whole park or for not more than 15% of the park. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the long-term, exclusive use would be for not more than 15% of the park. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to require Council approval for any alternations to existing park conditions; the parks are precious open space; he does not believe that the public should be excluded if a private group has long-term, exclusive use of a portion of the park; inquired how the policy would affect existing private use of park land. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded currently there are no long-term uses. Councilmember Matarrese stated the two pools have long-term uses. The Recreation and Park Director stated the two pool associations have leases until 2011. Mayor Johnson inquired when the leases were renewed, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded five years ago. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the pool association and [Cellular] tower leases are the only private uses. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative; stated that the private uses are covered by separate, detailed agreements. Mayor Johnson requested clarification on Councilmember Matarrese' S requested changes. Councilmember Matarrese stated changes would be requiring Council's approval for any uses that would change existing park conditions. Mayor Johnson stated a distinction is needed between use and structures; a requirements is needed in the case of change or structures. she prefers that the policy be a resolution or ordinance: she personally prefers an ordinance; stated broader newspaper noticing should be required; she does not like the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 February 21, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-03-07 | 4 | [for branch libraries] as another local match for a future bond measure; the Statewide Library Bond Measure would provide a significant amount of funding if the Measure passes in June 2006; the Office of Library Construction looks very favorably on Alameda because of the current project. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the $2 million was additional Measure O dollars, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether using the funds as a local match for the Bond Measure would come back to Council, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative. On the call for the question, the motioned carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ] (*06-110) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on February 21, 2006; the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting held on February 27, 2006; and the Special City Council Meeting held on March 1, 2006. Approved. (*06-111) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,255,021.50. (*06-112) Recommendation to appropriate $170,000 in Urban Runoff Funds and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Contract with Regency Centers for repair to public drainage facilities in coordination with construction of the Bridgeside Shopping Center improvements. Accepted. (*06-113) Recommendation to accept the work of Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. for Park Street Streetscape and Towne Center Project, No. P.W. 10-02-13. Accepted. (*06-114) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending December 31, 2005. Accepted. ( *06-115) - Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 March 7, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-03-21 | 4 | Alameda City Council 4 March 21, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-04-04 | 4 | The Project Manager responded in the affirmative stated a Request for Proposal would be presented to Council in May for the move. Mayor Johnson inquired whether old computers would be moved to the new Main Library, to which the Project Manager responded 16 computers would be moved from the Interim Library. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendations. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember Daysog - 1. ] CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember Daysog - 1. ] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ] ( *06-171) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on March 21, 2006. Approved. (*06-172) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,676,785.42. ( *06-173) Recommendation to accept the Interstate 880/Broadway- Jackson Interchange Feasibility Study. Accepted. ( *06-174) Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon Construction, Inc. for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 repair of concrete sidewalks, No. P.W. 07-05-06. Accepted. ( *06-175) Recommendation to authorize the City of Alameda's continued participation in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program for Fiscal Year 2007-2010. Accepted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (06-176) Resolution No. 13938, "Appointing Arthur A. Autorino as a Member of the Economic Development Commission. " Adopted; and (06-176A) Resolution No. 13939, "Appointing Irene Balde as a Member of the Housing Commission. Adopted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 April 4, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-04-18 | 4 | year funding; allocation adjustments would need to be made based on the funding received. Councilmember deHaan stated some projects are long-range, such as the Woodstock to Webster Street Project. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated only social service contracts are on the two-year funding cycle. Councilmember Daysog stated the two-year funding cycle provides an element of stability for non-profits; he supports the two-year funding cycle. Mayor Johnson stated she is happy the Woodstock to Webster Street Project has CDBG funding; the Council supports the project and feels strongly about moving forward as quickly as possible. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation Councilmember Matarrese thanked the SSHRB for recommendations; stated the SSHRB would be tapped to monitor the progress; decreased funding is a possibility next year. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1. ] (06-207) Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Adjust Appeal Fees to the Planning Board and City Council; and (06-207A) Resolution No. 13945, "Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Fees Charged for Appeals to the Planning Board and to the City Council. Adopted. The Building and Planning Director provided a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated that San Jose's flat fee is $1,925 plus time and materials; she does not like the current system and would prefer a flat fee; cost recovery is not an issue for her; detailed accounting would need to be provided to the appellant if the City were to charge for time and materials. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how many appeals were filed in 2005, and whether the time charged was for salary or hourly employees. The Planning and Building Director responded that 13 appeals were filed in 2005; stated the average cost was $1,061; the $100 per- Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 April 18, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-05-02 | 4 | Mayor Johnson inquired whether early voters would be voting by machine. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the equipment will be borrowed from San Diego and meets the requirement for paper audit trail. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the partial refund of Appeal Fees [paragraph no. 06-233] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she watched the meeting and read the minutes; inquired whether or not she could vote on the minutes, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on the Minutes [paragraph no. *06-223]. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number ] (*06-223) Minutes of the Special City Council and Regular City Council Meetings held on April 18, 2006. Approved. [Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on the Minutes. ] ( *06-224) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,530,239.69. ( *06-225) Recommendation to authorize Call for Bids for Legal Advertising Accepted. (*06-226) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report for period ending March 31, 2006. Accepted. (*06-227) Recommendation to set Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit for Fiscal Year 2006-07 for May 16, 2006. Accepted. (*06-228) Recommendation to Approve Contract Amendment for Library Artist Yuki Nagase. Accepted. ( *06-229) Recommendation to authorize the execution of Landscape Maintenance Management Contract for the City of Alameda Island City Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 May 2, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-05-03.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-05-03 | 4 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY- -MAY 3, 2006- -6:32 P. .M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmember deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Absent : Councilmember Daysog - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (06-247) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.91 Number of cases One. (06-248) Workers' Compensation Claim; Claimant : Yvette Stairrett; Agency Claimed Against City of Alameda. (06-249) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations : Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees Association. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, Council gave direction to Legal Counsel regarding disposition of the claim; regarding Workers' Compensation Claim, direction was given to the Risk Manager regarding the disposition of a claim; and regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiator. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:50 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 3, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-05-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-05-16 | 4 | Routes to School) No. P.W. 11-02-15. Adopted. (06-262) Resolution No. 13953, "Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2006-07 and to Set a Public Hearing for June 6, 2006. " Adopted. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the annual assessment is only for Park Street. The Development Services Director responded the assessment is for Park Street and Webster Street the levy rates are different; the fee is collected along with the business license fee. Councilmember DeHaan inquired whether businesses have other assessment. The Development Services Director responded a City Lighting and Landscape District is used for maintenance and trash collection smaller areas also have individual Lighting and Landscape District areas. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a vote for the assessment. The Development Services Director responded the assessment was voted in a long time ago but is not renewed annually the self- taxing improvement assessments have an annual review process. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Webster Street has a Lighting and Landscape District. The Public Works Director responded the City has Landscaping and Lighting Districts throughout the City, including Webster Street, Park Street and Bay Street the fees are set annually; the fees are used for maintenance, litter collection, and electricity. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City provides the service, to which the Public Works Director responded the service is provided by a contractor. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 May 16, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-05-30.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-05-30 | 4 | Counci lmember Daysog requested the rating sheets for CIPs; further requested copies of all CIP proposals submitted. Mayor Johnson requested the website include more historic information in order to allow the public to conduct research on- line; requested the reserve be included in pie chart; further requested a goal be set to allow Alameda residents to purchase what they want in Alameda. Councilmember deHaan requested a more defined golf budget; further requested a side-by-side comparison with the last two-year budget. David Kirwin, Alameda, suggested the information be put on the website with figures attached; suggested the 10-year tool be placed on the website, too. In response to Mr. Kirwin's comments regarding redevelopment funding, the Development Services Director provided a brief overview. Councilmember Matarrese requested the explanation of redevelopment funding be posted on the website. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:40 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 3 May 30, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-05-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-06 | 4 | available through the State procurement process; Requests for Proposals would be sent out after the grant funds are received; there are vendors for electric vehicles. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she has received several letters regarding cities joining a Plug-In Initiative; requested more information on the matter. Councilmember Matarrese stated complaints have been received regarding the traffic signal timing along Otis Drive near Regent Street; suggested painting "Keep Clear" on the street at the intersection. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ] REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (06-293 - ) Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution 13969, "Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year 2006-07 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2006-07. Adopted. The Business Development Division Manager provided a brief report. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. ] (06-294) Recommendation to approve Alameda Ferry Service actions : (06-294A) - Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Ferry Services Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 June 6, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-07 | 4 | workshops and stakeholder interviews, and to get a read of the community to help Development Services direct resources. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the information from the last two meeting has been summarized and is available, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Commissioner deHaan requested said information. The Development Manager noted the information has been provided to Dr. Manross to assist him with developing questions. Commissioner deHaan stated that he would like to see the questions once developed. The Development Manager stated an Economic Development Commission (EDC) subcommittee would assist with drafting the questionnaire. Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be done with the data. The Development Manager responded the data with be reviewed, analyzed and presented to the EDC. Dr. Manross stated the information gathered would be tested in the community; there would be a return on the investment. The Development Services Director stated the survey would be an update to the EDSP, which provides the foundation; the survey would ensure the EDSP stays valid. Commissioner deHaan stated results should be presented to the community; his concerns are ensuring results of meetings held are included and the crafting of the questions; there is no hidden agenda for funding streams. Ani Dimusheva, Alameda, stated the best way to get the opinion of the community at large is to talk to the community; suggested holding a town hall meeting once a month at cafes throughout town; stated a study is not needed. Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation, with the change to cap the budget at $17,000 to allow staff and the consultant to determine how to proceed stated that he would hope for a higher sample size; however, increasing the time is acceptable. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 4 June 7, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-20 | 4 | Ed Clark, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) President thanked Council for project support i encouraged continued support. Councilmember deHaan expressed gratitude on how well the project turned out ; stated a few more blocks need to be completed; that he supports the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *06-315) Recommendatior to accept the work of Republic Electric for the Crosswalk In-Pavement Lights (SR2S) to serve Donald Lum Elementary School, Haight Elementary School, Wood Middle School, and Chipman Middle School Project No. P. W. 01-04-01. Accepted. (*06-316) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Modular Recreational Building and Site Improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05-06-17. Accepted. (*06-317) Recommendation to accept the work of Zaccor Company for the Bay Farm Island Dike - Emergency Repair, No. P.W. 01-06- 02. Accepted. (*06-318) - Resolution No. 13973, "Approving an Agreement for Funding from the State of California Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures. " Adopted. ( *06-319) Resolution No. 13974, "Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application for Measure B Paratransit Funding for Fiscal Year 2006-07. Adopted. (*06-320) Resolution No. 13975, "Authorizing Grant of a Non- Exclusive Easement from the City of Alameda to Pacific Gas and Electric Company within Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 4497." Adopted. ( *06-321) Resolution No. 13976, "Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 June 20, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-05 | 4 | (06-352D) Resolution No. 13988, "Reappointing Judith A. Lynch to the Historical Advisory Board - Community-at-Large Seat. Adopted; (06-352E) Resolution No. 13989, "Appointing Mark Irons to the Historical Advisory Board - Contractor Seat. " Adopted; (06-352F) Resolution No. 13990, "Reappointing Jeff Cambra to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. Adopted; (06-352G) Resolution No. 13991, "Appointing Harold J. Holmes to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. Adopted; (06-352H) Resolution No. 13992, "Reappointing Billie Trujillo to the Housing Commission. " Adopted; (06-352I) Resolution No. 13993, "Reappointing Karen A. Butter to the Library Board. Adopted; (06-352J) Resolution No. 13994, "Reappointing Anne Cook to the Planning Board. " Adopted; (06-352K) Resolution No. 13995, "Reappointing Andrew J. Cunningham to the Planning Board. Adopted; (06-352L) Resolution No. 13996, "Reappointing Ann McCormick to the Public Utilities Board - Engineer Seat. Adopted; (06-352M) Resolution No. 13997, "Reappointing Michael J. Kreuger to the Transportation Commissioner. Adopted; and (06-352N) Resolution No. 13998, "Reappointing Robert L. McFarland to the Transportation Commission." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates to Board and Commission members. Mayor Johnson thanked the Board and Commission members for their willingness to serve. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (06-353) The following speakers discussed Measure A: Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Karen Butter, League of Women Voters (submitted letter) ; Arthur Lipow, Alameda Public Affairs Program; Ashley Jones, Alameda; Janet Gibson, Alameda; Helen Sause, Housing Opportunities Makes Economic Sense (HOMES) ; Pat Gannon, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 July 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-18 | 4 | portion of the meeting. Mayor Johnson stated the number of public members should be increased; the Task Force could have two additional members. Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the Task Force's life expectancy. The Supervising Planner responded the process would be completed in March 2007. Councilmember deHaan stated the initial Task Force could be large and move down to a smaller oversight Task Force. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember deHaan; stated there is a process that covers the assessmenti proposed that the resolution describe what is expected from the Task Force; some functions to consider are: 1) publicizing and engaging the general public in the discussion of what ICLEI is and what the assessment is, 2) determining what evaluation of the output of the assessment affects the City and providing a recommendation to Council on priorities of actions that the City should take against the assessment points; 3) determining what policies may affect the general public, and 4) providing future recommendations; stated a century and a half of industrial revolution habits are backing up because fuel is going awayi the impact has been demonstrated on the whole planet; the process sets up an ongoing way of life for the City; a commission might be recommended by the Task Force after the process is completed in March 2007. Councilmember Daysog thanked the speakers for addressing the issue stated global warming can be reduced by 10 -20% by taking mass transit or car sharing once a week. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she would like to see the Task Force focus on encouraging individual citizens, and more importantly businesses in town, to do their share. Councilmember deHaan stated he is concerned that past efforts have not been institutionalized; Alameda has been extremely successful in waste management, green power generation, and as an electric city; emphasis is not placed on programs as time passes the City has some of the basic policies and desire; the City has been a leader and has some of the bet… | CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-26 | 4 | an interest in selling the property to the City. The Development Services Director responded the Elks considered entering into a transaction if the City rebuilt the gymnasium. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Elks would transfer property to the City, to which the Development Services Director responded she did not know. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated he is concerned that said discussions did not take place. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 4 Community Improvement Commission July 26, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-08-01 | 4 | complex projects] through a fee reduction. Councilmember deHaan stated the proposed ordinance is a major step the Planning Board was interested in moving in the same direction; Victorians are a concern and are in more jeopardy he looks forward to providing an incentive to encourage retrofitting. Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. ] Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 August 1, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-08-15 | 4 | Protection Agreement. Mayor Johnson stated that a number of cities have signed on to the agreement; the matter should come to Council for approval. Herb Behrstock, Alamedans for Climate Protection, stated he is in favor of the agreement; the City has been doing great work to continue keeping Alameda in the lead on climate protection; the initiative helps take Alameda to the next level; 275 cities have endorsed the resolution, which represents approximately 40 million people; the resolution outlines twelve different areas to reduce Regular Meeting 4 Alameda City Council August 15, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-05 | 4 | Councilmember Daysog inquired about the plans for the $14,800 in savings; inquired whether there is a fund for alternative fuel vehicles. The Public Works Director responded all vehicles are purchased from the same fund; stated five electric vehicles would be purchased by the end of the fiscal year; the savings return to the vehicle replacement fund. The City Manager stated the purchase is the result of the new approach to manage vehicle replacement; savings remain in the fund along with vehicle sales revenue. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-438) Adoption of Resolution Authorizing and Approving Sale of Emergency Generators and Associated Electric Equipment to Cummins West, Inc. for $832,000. Not adopted. Hadi Monsef, Alameda, urged Council to reject the recommendation stated $1 million of public funds would be given away; the situation of the world could impact the supply of electricity to the City: the future is too unstable. Mayor Johnson inquired whether potential generator uses could arise and whether the generators could be used in the event of a disaster Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 September 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-19 | 4 | Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business Travel. " Adopted. David Kirwin, Alameda, stated the $64 per diem rate only should apply when in San Francisco. The Finance Director stated the rate has not been updated since 1996; San Francisco was used because the area is the closest geographical area reported in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 1542 Publication; the $64 per day rate is the maximum amount further stated the proposed resolution would change the processes to automatically refer to the IRS publication for per diem reimbursement, the same as mileage reimbursement. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether reimbursement would be less than $64 per day if expenses were less, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated that $46 in 1996 dollars equals $64 in 2006 dollars when you use 4% annual rate of inflation. Councilmember deHaan stated he did not see where the resolution language included "up to.' The City Manager read the language in the proclamation addressing the issue. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding reimbursement, the Finance Director responded receipts would need to be submitted. The Finance Director responded in the negative; stated receipts would need to be submitted. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (06-470) Resolution No. 14014, "Reappointing Jessica Lindsey to the Economic Development Commission. Adopted; (06-470A) Resolution No. 14015, "Appointing Alan J. Ryan to the Economic Development Commission. " Adopted; (06-470B) Resolution No. 14016, "Reappointing Betsy E. Gammell to the Golf Commission. Adopted; and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 September 19, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-03 | 4 | Mr. Cooney stated disability is a natural condition and could happen to anyone; thanked the Council for the proclamation. CONSENT CALENDAR (*06-497) - Ratified bills in the amount of $8,039,803.21. (*06-498) Resolution No. 14019, "Finding and Determining That a Project Area Committee Need Not be Formed in Relation to the Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Area. " Adopted. (*06-499) Ordinance No. 2953, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 30-4.9A.g. (Off-Street Parking and Loading Space) of the C-C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) , to Add a Process for Parking Exceptions. Finally passed. Councilmember deHaan stated Council requested that the matter be brought back for review in six months; tweaking can be done if necessary. The Planning and Building Director stated that she would be happy to provide a report as often as necessary. Councilmember Daysog moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (06-500) Resolution No. 14020, "Appointing Robert A. Bonta as a member of the Economic Development Commission (Banking/Finance Seat). " Adopted (06-500A) Resolution No. 14021, "Appointing Cathy Nielsen as a member of the Social Service Human Relations Board. " Adopted; and 06-500B) Resolution No. 14022, "Appointing Henry B. Villareal as a member of the Social Service Human Relations Board. Adopted. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolutions. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath TO Ms. Nielsen and Mr. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 October 3, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 4 | Following Jay Ingram's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the park space would remain at ten acres. The Supervising Planner responded the General Plan calls for ten acres of open space; stated only a portion of the ten acres is within the applicant's property. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the ten acres would be kept as open space under all circumstances. The Supervising Planner responded residential rezoning would not be recommended for the ten acres. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the green area was ten acres and would stay proposed open space, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Following Robert McGillis' comments, Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. McGillis stated that he did not think a General Plan Amendment was necessary, to which Mr. McGillis responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson requested further explanation on Project Site #9. Mr. McGillis stated Project Site #9 shows what the shoreline would look like, which would include a boardwalk, boat docks, a pier, walkway, and bikeway. Mayor Johnson inquired what are the structures, to which Mr. McGillis responded two family units. Mayor Johnson stated the structures look very high; inquired what would be the height of the structures. Mr. McGillis responded the structures would be 35 foot, three-story townhomes. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 42 duplexes were proposed for the 7.2 acres in 2001. Mr. McGillis responded in the affirmative; stated Mr. Collins only owned one of the two parcels at that time. Councilmember deHaan inquired how many acres are on the additional parcel, to which Mr. McGillis responded 2. 4 acres. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether approximately 115 units would Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 October 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-11-01.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-11-01 | 4 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY - -NOVEMBER 1, 2006- -6:55 P.M. Acting Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:18 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese and Acting Chair Gilmore - 4. Absent : Chair Johnson - 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Chair Johnson - 1. ] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ] ( *06-065) - Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to enter into Contracts with the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) in the amount of $108,020.00 and the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) in the amount of $98,200.00 for Fiscal Year 2006-07. - (*06-066) Recommendation to approve Amendment to Predevelopment Agreement with the Alameda Unified School District for Affordable Housing at the Island High School Site. AGENDA ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Acting Chair Gilmore adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission November 1, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-11-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-11-14.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-11-14 | 4 | stated disaster preparedness should include comprehensive plans for detouring traffic around the tubes or bridges and ensure everyone is informed of alternate routes when accidents occur. Mayor Johnson requested that the City's protocols be reviewed. Councilmember deHaan outlined a similar situation that occurred at the Park Street Bridge; stated redirecting traffic earlier would be advantageous. The City Manager stated the Police Chief would report back on the matter. (06-545) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, thanked the Council and staff for the free meter parking and wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (06-546 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Commission on Disability Issues, Housing Commission, Recreation and Parks Commission, Social Services Human Relations Board, and Transportation Commission; and Mayor's appointment to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. Mayor Johnson nominated Margaret A. Hakason to the Commission on Disability Issues; Joy Pratt to the Housing Commission; Joseph S. Restagno to the Recreation and Park Commission; Jonathan D. Soglin to the Social Service Human Relations Board; and Srikant Subramaniam to the Transportation Commission; and appointed Gail Patton to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. (06-547) Councilmember Matarrese requested that the midyear budget review include budget tracking, and updates on staffing and revenues. Mayor Johnson noted updates were in February the last two years. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants to ensure the last several years' direction on how the City is accomplishing the delivery of services is being followed; requested that the continued decline in sales tax be highlighted to make the public aware. (06-548) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she received complaints about cars parking too close to intersections, for example at St. Charles Street and Lincoln Avenue; drivers cannot see until they are out into the oncoming traffic lane because cars are parked too Adjourned Regular M… | CityCouncil/2006-11-14.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-11-21 | 4 | funding than the federal government. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would still have the responsibility [for abandoned boats and debris] if the conveyance occurred, to which the District Counsel responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson called the public speakers. Seth Hamalian, Waterfront Homeowners Association, stated a parallel track is needed for the land transfer and a shoreline management plan described by the Army Corps of Engineers; he does not understand how a moratorium meshes with the Army Corps of Engineers' missions; inquired why the moratorium is being selectively enforced. Richard Pipkin, Alameda, stated an Officer in Charge stated the Army Corps of Engineers is a poor landlord at a meeting six months ago; the Army Corps of Engineers usually have a lot of deferred maintenance; poor landlords cause property values to decrease; dredging is necessary in the Estuary; questioned where the landlord has been; stated that he has not heard about concerns for families who have invested in the property a sign of good faith should be given if the Army Corps of Engineers wants to negotiate. Council deHaan inquired how other Estuary projects differ. The District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers had a program under the Economy Act for private dredging near the High Street Bridge through a governmental agency stated a governmental body requested work be done; the Army Corps of Engineers can offer technical knowledge; the Army Corps of Engineers does not have authority to dredge unless there is a federal interest and cost benefit, unless directed by Congressional legislation in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) . Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the dredging was done at the homeowner's expense but was performed by the Army Corps of Engineers; stated the Army Corps of Engineers performed the dredging at the gravel area just before High Street dredging would need to be done eventually. The Project Manager stated the Port of Oakland would need to request the Arm… | CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2006-12-05 | 4 | Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant was referring to a rear, second-story addition. The Appellant responded in the affirmative; stated most neighborhood additions are rear additions built on the back of the house to provide a one-story character. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Appellant shared that he would accept a rear, set back addition. The Appellant responded he would not be at tonight's meeting if the Applicant's needs could be met with a rear second-story addition. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Appellant would be hampered by the Applicant going further back to the fence line. The Appellant responded that he would need to see the plans; stated he would be more amicable to the idea instead of what is currently Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 December 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 4 | which the Planning and Building Director responded in the affirmative. The Planner III stated concerns were raised about the height of Building 300; the Applicant redesigned Building 300 to lower the height; concerns were that Building 500 was plain and did not have some of the architectural details of the other renovated buildings; the Applicant added murals along the center courtyard as well as additional windows, trellises and landscaping; the changes were well accepted by the Planning Board; one of the Planning Board members who voted against the project in November voted for the project in December. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Opponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Dorothy Reid, Alameda; Tim Erway, Alameda; Holly Sellers, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 January 2, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 4 | (07-032A) Resolution No. 14061, "Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the Grand Marina Village Development Located at the Northwest Corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way (State Clearinghouse #2006-04-2145). " Adopted; (07-032B) Resolution No. 14062, "Approving General Plan Amendment (GPA-05-02) for Grand Marina Village to Amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to Change the Designation of Approximately 8.3 Acres to Specified Mixed Use and Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6 and Associated Tables of the Land Use Element to Reflect the Specified Mixed Use Designation. Adopted; (07-032C) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Property Located Adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and Grand Street from M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to MX, Mixed Use Planned Development District (MX) . Introduced: (07-032D) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan MP05-01 for a Mixed Use Development Including Single-Family Residential, Recreational Marina, Maritime Commercial, and Open Space Uses, Located Within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 8.36 Acres of Land and Water at the Intersection of Grand Street and the Oakland Estuary. Introduced (07-032E) Resolution No. 14063, "Approving Tentative Map, TM05- 0002, for Property Located Between Grand Street, Fortmann Way, and the Oakland Estuary. Adopted; and (07-032F) Resolution No. 14064, "Upholding Planning Board Approval of Planned Development PD05-02 and Design Review DR05-0126 for Grand Marina Village. Adopted. The Supervising Planner gave a brief Power Point presentation. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff recommends an asphalt path. The Supervising Planner responded staff recommends keeping the asphalt as long as adequate width and good transitions exist between the asphalt and other materials. Mayor Johnson inquired who would be responsible for the maintenance, to which the Supervising Planner responded the Grand Marina. Mayor Johnson inquired whether defined maintenance … | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-02-06 | 4 | explanation on the advantages and disadvantages. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded forty years is the typical lifespan for a redevelopment agency stated a number of redevelopment project areas were adopted prior to 1994; local jurisdictions adopted time limits for issuing debt; bonds were issued up to a certain time, after which the ability to issue debt went away because that is what the City preferred. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how 2011 was established. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded she did not know; stated the project area was pre-1994; the West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP) does not have the same requirements; the Alameda Business Improvement Area has the ability to issue debt through the life of the project area; efforts are being made to bring BWIP into conformity with the other two project areas. Councilmember deHaan inquired why the issue was not addressed in 2003. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded staff was dealing with the [WECIP] project area where time limits were expiring; stated 2011 seemed far away; there was time to address the BWIP time limits. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 February 6, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-02-20 | 4 | Otis Drive and unanticipated conseguences from existing traffic signal improvements. Councilmember deHaan inquired how the study would dovetail with the Transportation Commission's concerns regarding looking beyond the focused area. The Supervising Planner responded staff is looking at intersections as far away as Park Street and Lincoln Avenue; stated staff is following up with the Transportation Commission's bicycle interconnection, transit and pedestrian concerns; an on-sight workshop is scheduled with the Planning Board on March 12. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Safeway fueling station and Alameda Landing entitlement changes would be discussed. The Supervising Planner responded that he received comments on the Safeway fueling station from John Knox White with the Transportation Commission; stated comments would be discussed at the March 12 Planning Board meeting; staff is not looking at how Alameda Landing relates to the project. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 2005 was the baseline date for determining tax and traffic data. The Supervising Planner responded real data was gathered in 2002- 2003 for the previous shopping center expansion proposal; stated Omni-Means - collected new data for the 2005 proposal; traffic levels were lower because of vacancies; the higher number was used in the traffic study. Councilmember deHaan stated not all retail is equal : inquired whether a different retailer would have a different requirement. The Supervising Planner responded the project is treated as a shopping center with a variety of retail uses; stated retailers are treated the same. Councilmember deHaan provided a handout stated tax data was used as a base to make traffic determinations. The Supervising Planner stated that the traffic study was based on trip generation factors; the information was consolidated into standard numbers that apply to a broad range of shopping centers. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Bayfair Mall Target has the same retail square footage as the proposed Target ; the Bayfai… | CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-03-06 | 4 | government should be empowering there should be an expansive range to create synergies between high school and college students; in addition to representatives from each high school, there should be a good geographic representation throughout the City. Mayor Johnson requested that the ordinance include the requirement that the Commission members be Alameda residents. Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the ordinance would return to Council, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded forty-five - days. (07-111) Consideration of an Appeal of the Transportation Commission's decision to install new bus stops on Otis Drive at Pond Isle, and approve staff's recommendation to install bus stops at Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way, and Otis Drive and Willow Street. The Program Specialist II gave a brief Power Point presentation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the 63 travels down Whitehall Road and Willow Street to get to Otis Drive, to which the Program Specialist II responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Tam stated many bus stops on Otis Drive do not have painted crosswalks; requested an explanation of the requirement to install crosswalks. The Program Specialist II responded the crosswalk would be required at Pond Isle as the result of litigation involving a transit entity; new stops are required to have painted crosswalks; previous stops were grandfathered and do not require crosswalks. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether buses stop if riders are not waiting at stops, to which the Program Specialist II responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan inquired how often the bus actually needs to stop west of Grand Street. The Program Specialist II responded ridership data is available, not the number of times buses stop; provided data. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether it is fair to say that the buses do not stop 80% of the time, to which the Program Specialist II responded that he could not provide the percentage, but certainly the bus does not stop a significant number of times. Councilmember deHaan… | CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-03-20 | 4 | to Council annually; Council should initiate the process for naming or renaming streets or facilities; she does not want Council review to be in the last step of the process. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the policy states that an individual needs to be deceased for a minimum of three years, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated the Boards and Commissions have violated the policy for the past two names. The City Manager requested clarification on whether the Boards and Commissions would perform an annual review and that recommendations would come to Council first. Mayor Johnson stated that the Boards and Commissions would review the list annually and make recommended changes to Council for approval requested that the resolution be revised to reflect recommended changes and brought back to Council. (07-130) - Resolution No. 14077, "Directing Staff to Monitor the Chuck Corica Golf Complex Budget, Consider Results of Operational Review, and Implement Operational Changes to Ensure a Balanced Budget. Adopted. The Finance Director gave a brief presentation. The City Manager clarified that the anticipated revenue would be $60,000, which would leave a $20,000 deficit. Mayor Johnson requested that the Golf Commission be added to the last Whereas statement and the first NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; more detailed budget reporting is needed. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the unreserved balance would be $2.2 million at the end of the year. The Finance Director responded the unrestricted fund balance was $2,358,000 at the end of February. Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the unrestricted fund balance at the beginning of the year, to which the Finance Director responded $2,611,000. Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the unrestricted fund balance five years ago, to which the Finance Director responded approximately $6 million. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 March 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-04-03 | 4 | standards for all future installations in the City of Alameda. The City Engineer provided a brief report. Proponents (In favor of bus shelter standards) : Greg Harper, AC Transit Richard Neveln, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda; Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates; David Kirwin, Alameda. Following Mr. Harper's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 April 3, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-04-17 | 4 | rates, not an average Comcast rate, to which the AP&T General Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated that people should be switching to AP&T; AP&T internet and cable is cheaper than Comcast, even with the rate increase; Alamedan's should be investing in themselves. Councilmember Gilmore stated reducing the churn to 1% seems like a formidable task; inquired how the churn would be reduced for the military requested an explanation on the recommendation for increased web presence. The AP&T General Manager responded the churn reduction is an incredibly ambitious goal; stated all recommendations will be tried; needed changes will be monitored; web presence connects with customer service; he would like to get some of the pressure off the Customer Service Center through the web; the Customer Service Center is inundated with calls; the phone system is being upgraded he would like to move non-essential type customer interactions to the web. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the number of customers has increased. The AP&T General Manager responded there has been a leveling off; stated there has been a net of 30 customers lost in the last three months; there is a churn of 250 to 300 customers leaving AP&T; AP&T gets as many customers back, minus 30. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether reduced marketing efforts have had an impact. The AP&T General Manager responded door-to-door sales people were used in the past; stated a plateau was reached; it was time to try a different way to reach customers; no one has been on the streets for an extended period of time since the elimination of the door- to-door sales people; management structure has changed; a few changes have been made in terms of refocusing some of the reporting relationships ; low-cost/Guerilla marketing will be reviewed. Councilmember deHaan stated it is in the public's best interest to be supportive. The AP&T General Manager stated staff is very focused and wants to make the business a success. Mayor Johnson stated that the AP&T G… | CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-05-01.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-05-01 | 4 | The Public Works Director responded no all-way - stop warrants were met on Clinton Avenue stated stop sign orientation would be changed by providing an alternating stop sign pattern at two intersections; Clinton Avenue has a higher traffic volume, which may be because of access to the Hospital. Councilmember deHaan inquired how existing, parallel streets would be affected. The Public Works Director responded there would be an alternating pattern; stated all-way stops are at the corners of St. Joseph Elementary School and St. Joseph Notre Dame High School. Mayor Johnson stated previously Council discussed a Citywide strategic approach; inquired whether it is better to strategically review stops in a specific area rather than Citywide. The Public Works Director responded issues are being reviewed to comprehensively address where stop signs should go and to determine appropriate locations for traffic calming devises. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Fountain Street intersection referenced is near St. Philip Neri Elementary School, to which the Public Works Director responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson stated said intersection does not have four-way stop signs; Council has stated that the preference is to have four-way stop signs by schools; she recommended that residents contact the Public Works Department regarding the issue. The Public Works Director stated that he would look into the matter. Mayor Johnson requested staff to ensure that four-way stop signs are installed at the Fountain Street intersections adjacent to St. Philip Neri Elementary School. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendations [paragraph no. .07-197] and [paragraph no.07-198, 07-198A, and 07- 198B]. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember Matarrese - 1. ] (07-198) - Recommendation to authorize installation of Two-Way Stop Controls at the Versailles Avenue at Washington Street, Clay Street Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 May 1, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-05-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-05-15 | 4 | Milana, Alameda. Opponents (Not in favor of Appeal) : Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board Member ; Ann Cook, Planning Board Member ; Kate Quick, League of Women Voters of Alameda (submitted handout) i Michael Schmitz, Alameda. Lois Pryor, Alameda; Doug Linney, Alameda; Mark Irons, Alameda; Mi 'Chelle Fredrick, Alameda; Diane Lichtenstein, Housing Opportunities Makes Economic Sense (HOMES) ; Susan Decker, Alameda; Walter Schlueter, Alameda; Lauren Do, Alameda; Dan Wood, Alameda; Helen Sause, HOMES; Jon Spangler, Alameda Sam Sauce, Alameda; Carl Halpern, Alameda; Liz Rogers, Alameda; Michael Kruger, Alameda; John Knox White, Alameda; Laura Thomas, Alameda; and Eve Bach, Arc Ecology. Neutral : Pamela Kurtz, Alameda; and Bill Smith, Alameda. Mayor Johnson left the meeting at 8:18 p.m. and returned at 9:21 p.m. Following the Appellants' comments, Councilmember deHaan stated the City is going through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Station Area Plan; the initial meeting was held; inquired whether the Planning Board submitted information and inquiries for discussion at said meeting. The Planning and Building Director responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan stated that he was concerned that the Planning Board talked about wanting to see design and land usage; inquired what the Station Area Plan is to do. The Planning and Building Director responded the Station Area Plan looks at land development patterns for Alameda Point; stated as part of the grant MTC awarded the City, the City is required to look at a land use development pattern that would be denser around a multi-modal transit station, which would be a non-Measure A alternative; the land development alternative in the Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) will be compared to something with a different form to see how transit would or would not be supported. Councilmember deHaan inquired why would said avenue not be used as the platform for discussion. The Planning and Building Director responded said avenue is part of the … | CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-05 | 4 | Building Located at 1000 Atlantic Avenue. This property is located within the M-X Mixed use Planned Development Zoning District. " Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (07-263) Public Hearing to Establish Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriation Limit) for Fiscal Year 2007-2008; - and (07-263A) Resolution No. 14099, "Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. Adopted. The Finance Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Finance Director for providing a clear set of tables; stated the City's revenues were a higher percentage of the allowed limit in the early 1990's. The Finance Director stated a law changed the formula in 1991; the City was allowed to use the County population increase, not just the City population increase; the City has elected to continue to use said formula; the City is using the County population increase and per capita personal income change for 2007 and 2008; the two factors create the compounding factor for the increase; previously, the City was using the City population. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-264) Public Hearing to consider collection of delinquent business license fees via the property tax bills. The Finance Director provided an updated list and a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Tam stated that a significant amount of effort has gone into contacting business owners ; total uncollected fees are approximately $7,000; inquired whether the business associations have been able to assist in communicating with the business owners. The Finance Director responded a great deal of support has been received from the business associations in other actions; she is sure the business associations would come forward if questions were asked; the majority of delinquent license fees are for businesses that are not active in the business associations. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 June 5, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-06.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-06 | 4 | Vice Mayor Tam responded in the affirmative ; stated [her recommended language is ] to enhance revenue-generating opportunities as a public benefit. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 8:45 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 4 June 6, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-06-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-19 | 4 | a Member of the East Bay Regional Communications System Joint Powers Authority and Also Submit A Good Faith Payment Not to Exceed $54,100 to Support Formation of the East Bay Regional Communications System. Adopted. The Interim Fire chief gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated that she is glad to see the matter moving forward; Senator Barbara Boxer is pleased that the region is forward thinking of forming the Joint Powers Authority; inquired whether most Alameda County cities would join. The Police Chief responded the majority have agreed to join; stated the City of Oakland and City of Berkeley have not responded. Mayor Johnson stated hopefully the City of Oakland and City of Berkeley would join; the Oakland Hills fire had some interoperability issues. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Alameda's estimated cost is based on 100% participation. The Interim Fire Chief responded the estimate is a wild guess; stated the estimate is based upon the expectation of some grant funding and long-term financing by the City. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the estimate assumes 100% participation of the cities within the region or is an estimate based on how many cities are presently involved. The Interim Fire Chief responded a backbone system is needed first; stated thirty-one cell sites are expected; fewer cell sites would be needed with less participation; a portion of the estimate is the City's cost for purchasing radio equipment the estimate could change dramatically; the City is not obligated at this time. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is the timeframe. The Police Chief responded the project is anticipated to have a five to seven year window; stated the early parts of the project are already in place the key is to get the Joint Powers Authority up and running in order to apply for the funding. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda was already interoperable with the County, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded the Fire Department is. Mayor Johnson inquired whether system upgrades were do… | CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-07-03.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-07-03 | 4 | The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative; stated the old ordinance had the Public Works Department as the point of contact; now the point of contact is the Planning Department; the Development Coordinator would report back on the economic activity. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar minus Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code [paragraph no. 07-321], which was moved to August 7, 2007. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( 07-312) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on June 19, 2007. Approved with the following corrections to the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission Meeting Page 11: "Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Board Members are required to make contributions over time; Page 15 "...the City needs to help the Museum with finding a site if fund raising is not enough to cover a projected rent increase." (*07-313) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,379,969.18. (*07-314) Recommendation to approve a Lease Extension with E-Z- Go/Textron Financial Corporation for 120 electric golf carts for rental use at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. Accepted. (*07-315 - ) Recommendation to allocate $58,665 and award Contract in the amount of $511,468, including contingencies, to William P. Young Construction for Ballena Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project, No. P.W. 05-00-09. Accepted. (*07-316) Recommendation to accept the work of Ghilotti Brothers for the Fernside Boulevard Pedestrian Access Improvements near Lincoln Middle School (Safe Routes to School), No. P.W. 11-02-15. Accepted. (*07-317) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for the Grand Street Sewer Pump Station, No. P.W. 04-07-16. Accepted. ( *07-318 - ) Recommendation to authorize installatio… | CityCouncil/2007-07-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-07-17 | 4 | addressed comments submitted by former Councilmember Barbara Kerr and Chris Buckley. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she read former Councilmember Kerr's letter differently [than the Planning Services Manager] ; she did not get the impression that former Councilmember Kerr is saying that Work/Live should be prohibited; the concern is that there would be no way to go back and require more parking if an applicant received a Use Permit for Work/Live and decided to change the use to one that needed more parking. The Planning Services Manager stated former Councilmember Kerr is referring to the former Clamp Swing building the Use Permit originally came to the Planning Board for seven Work/Live units in the entire building; the Use Permit was approved; one of the Work/Live units was removed and used for a permitted use; the Zoning Ordinance has a Rolling Ten rule regarding parking; parking requirements do not have to be met for a permitted use in a building over ten years old; the Conditional Use Permit process is used to override the Rolling Ten rule. Councilmember Gilmore stated that part of the Work/Live rationale was to make it easier for property owners to rehabilitate historical buildings rather than tear down the buildings. The Planning Services Manager stated parking issues can be addressed with the Work/Live Use Permit; Council could consider reserving the right to re-open a Use Permit to address parking if the permitted use changes. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she likes the idea [of re- opening a Use Permit] the issue should be brought back for Council discussion. Mayor Johnson questioned whether the ordinance establishing the Rolling Ten rule should be reviewed; stated parking for permitted uses is not addressed. The Planning Services Manager responded both ordinances could be reviewed. Councilmember deHaan stated that the Planning Board had reservations about the four-story height limit; inquired how height limits are represented in the General Plan. Regular Meeting 4 Alameda City Council July 17, 2… | CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-08-07 | 4 | Mayor Johnson inquired what is the rating for the other bridges. The Public Works Director responded the Park Street bridge is 67.8, the Fruitvale Avenue bridge is 68.6, and the Grand Street bridge is 93.6. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the bridges are structurally similar. The Public Works Director responded that he would research the issue. Mayor Johnson stated that the matter should continually be reviewed; California is making investments in infrastructure; people need to understand the consequences of neglecting infrastructure inquired whether improvements would include making the Grand Street bridge more attractive over the water. The Public Works Director responded the railing would be replaced; stated one bid would be for replacing the railing in kind, which would require keeping the cyclone fence; another bid would be for a higher railing, which would allow the cyclone fence to be removed. Mayor Johnson stated that some Oakland bridges are much more attractive [than Alameda's ; railings should be safe but also attractive; the public should be able to view the waterways. th Councilmember Matarrese stated the 112 Street Dam in Oakland has the same railing height as the Grand Street bridge but does not have a cyclone fence; requested a report on bridge ratings for structural integrity and what needs to be done to ensure Alameda bridges are structurally sound. Mayor Johnson requested that landscaping be reviewed to ensure that lagoon views are not blocked. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Councilmember Gilmore - 1. ] ( *07-369) Resolution No. 14138, "Authorizing the City's Participation in the 211 Program and Appropriating $25,000 for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. " Adopted. (07-370) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease of Vacant Properties at 2300 Alameda Avenue, 2304 Regular Meeting 4 Alameda City Council August 7, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-08-21 | 4 | The Recreation and Park Director responded the goal is completion by the end of the year. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether contamination would have any affect on the characteristio of the land. The Recreation and Park Director responded the contamination would have an affect on the ultimate placement of amenities; stated the Master Plan would identify the types of amenities; amenities could be interchangeable. Councilmember deHaan requested an interpretation of what open space would include. The Recreation and Park Director stated open space could include elements of a passive park with bike trails, picnic areas, and athletic fields. Councilmember deHaan stated Measure E discussions were headed toward open space being a passive park area. Mayor Johnson stated that [a passive park area] was not her recollection; inquired what is the status on the possession of the property. The City Attorney responded the City does not have possession stated the Alameda Belt Line [ABL] retains title and possession; the City has no right to enter the property without ABL's permission. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has any control of what ABL can do with the property since the City won the Trial Court decision. The City Attorney responded ABL cannot enter into an agreement to sell the property to someone else; stated improvements would be done at ABL'S own risk. Mayor Johnson requested that staff investigate whether the City has control over what ABL can do to the property; stated ABL should be required to let the City know about any plans so that the City can challenge said plans since the Trial Court decision states that the City has the right to buy the property. The City Attorney stated she would get back to Council on the matter. Regular Meeting 4 Alameda City Council August 21, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-04.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-04 | 4 | the resolution; stated that he hopes that the owners do not continually request additional hours. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Condition of Approval 16 requires the owners to redo the process in September 2008. The Planner III responded in the negative; stated the owners will be able to operate under the conditions of the Use Permit if they are in compliance with the Conditions of Approval Condition of Approval 16 states that the owners have until September 4, 2008 if they choose not to vest the Use Permit. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*07-423) Ordinance No. 2971, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2-19 (Youth Advisory Commission) to Article II (Boards and Commissions) of Chapter II (Administration) , Establishing a Youth Advisory Commission and Prescribing Membership and Duties of Said Commission. Finally passed. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (07-424) Proclamation declaring September 15, 2007 as Coastal Cleanup Day and September 16 through 22, 2007 as Pollution Prevention Week. Mayor Johnson read the proclamation; requested that the City Clerk forward the proclamation to Doug Siden, Board of Directors, East Bay Regional Park District; stated the City has battery drop off locations; the Public Works Department has scheduled an electronic drop off event for October 20. Councilmember deHaan stated that the beach is a beautiful City asset; the shoreline is beginning to gain some character and is superb; the sand is course and beautiful: he encourages everyone to help clean up the beach; sand had to be brought in to keep erosion from occurring in the past; mother nature has done a great job. Mayor Johnson stated the back page of the Park Street Business Association newsletter indicates that the electronic drop off location is at the Towne Centre on the north side of Safeway. The Environmental Services Manager stated that there would be two electr… | CityCouncil/2007-09-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-11 | 4 | City of Alameda Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - September 11, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PRIORITY SETTING WORKSHOP 1 PRIORITY SETTING PROCESS PURPOSE 1 WORKSHOP AGENDA 1 WORKSHOP GROUND RULES 2 ALAMEDA'S RECENT SUCCESSES 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN 2 Environmental Scan Factors 3 STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES (LIMITATIONS), OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS 3 Strengths 3 Weaknesses (Constraints/Limitations) 3 Opportunities 3 Threats 4 DRAFT CITYWIDE OBJECTIVES 4 WORK PLAN PRIORITIES 6 ISSUE BIN 7 WORK PLAN NOTES 8 NEXT STEPS 8 ATTACHMENT A - COUNCIL'S HIGHEST AND HIGH PRIORITIES 9 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN 11 Figures Figure No. 1: Council's Highest Priorities and Citywide Objective Each Priority Relates To 6 | CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-18 | 4 | located, to which the AP&T General Manager responded near Rosenblum Winery. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether fossil fuel is used. The AP&T General Manager responded natural gas is used to generate electricity; two units are located in Alameda, two in Roseville, and one in Lodi; natural gas is used to generate power; the heat rate is very high; the units are expensive to run; the primary use is reliability; Alameda is electrically interconnected to the regional grid; the combustion turbines (CT's) provide reliability benefits to the entire East Bayi the CT's ran 1% of all available hours in 2005 and approximately 4% in 2006; 10% is the maximum amount of running hours. Councilmember deHaan stated the grid could be backfilled with additional power at peak capacity; inquired whether CT1 was developed as an emergency backup for the former Base. The AP&T General Manager responded CT1 was built by NCPA; stated the City had an interconnection agreement with PG&E; PG&E would charge an extremely high fee for exceeded loads; more than ten northern California cities built CT's and hydro-electric plants as ways to mitigate the cost. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City would have an opportunity to receive a greater share [of ownership] The AP&T General Manager responded the matter was brought to the Public Utilities Board (PUB) last night and was approved unanimously; stated the matter was also brought to the NCPA Commission's August meeting and was approved unanimously; Alameda will continue to have the same amount of megawatts; the only difference is that Alameda will own more megawatts in the Alameda and Lodi units; Alameda will relinquish rights to the Roseville units; rules changed in 2005; the Roseville unit went into the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) control area and was electrically isolated from other owners California grid owners could not get the value of the unit; the proposed action realigns ownership percentages. Councilmember deHaan inquired how the turbines fit into future operati… | CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-10-02 | 4 | with motion detectors. The City Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated said system is more expensive; the system would have been ordered if current facts were known. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether in-pavement lights would be placed between Santa Clara Avenue and Central Avenue. Mayor Johnson responded that said lights have already been installed. Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that he would like to see in- pavement lights at the intersection of Main Street and Ralph Appezzato Parkway. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that hopefully money will be available to install embedded lights. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-483 - ) Recommendation to adopt the City of Alameda Ferry Short Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Year 2008/2018 and receive an update on the Water Emergency Transportation Authority Legislation. The Ferry Services Manager and Public Works Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Gilmore requested background on the Golden Gate Bridge Transit District; inquired how many ferries are run by the District. The Ferry Services Manager responded that the Golden Gate Bridge Transit District is the largest ferry service on the Bay and carries approximately two million passengers per year; stated the District has five boats. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the legislation was to ensure a coordinated emergency response effort; inquired why the largest provider [Golden Gate Bridge Transit District] is excluded. The Public Works Director responded that he does not have an answer tonight, but that he will look into the matter. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 October 2, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-10-16 | 4 | Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would have the opportunity to approve a new operator, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Operation Dignity would be entitled to operate the project from year 15 to 59. The Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated Operation Dignity's role in year one through 15 would be limited because of tax credit funding that the City would pursue; the project would become Operation Dignity's responsibility in year 15. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would approve a new operator if something happened to Operation Dignity. The Development Manager responded the long-term lease would allow the City to approve a new operator. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would happen if RCD and/or the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) did not have the wherewithal to repay the bonds and whether the City's reputation or credit rating would be affected. The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated the motivation would be to ensure that there was a successful operator with available resources. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the City wants to be involved in and make sure that the housing project has resources; however, she does not want to see the City become financially responsible or have its credit rating or reputation flawed if the project goes belly up in three years. The Development Manager stated numerous financing sources would be concerned that the project would continue to operate successfully; opportunities would be available to review the books and not be surprised. John Stoecker, CMFA Financial Advisor, stated CMFA's name would be on the bond, not the City's RCD would be responsible for repayment, not the City. Vice Mayor Tam inquired how CMFA's bonds are guaranteed; further inquired who backs the funding sources. Mr. Stoecker responded the bond is a private activity bond; stated the repayment is solely from RCD ; CMFA does not give the funds ; funds are given from a private investor; … | CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-06 | 4 | district. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether some of the money could be used for more bike racks or bus shelters which would encourage people to get out of cars. The Development Services Director responded that she would have to defer the question to the City Attorney; stated she would assume that the money could used in any way - Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 November 6, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-11-06.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]) );