pages
1,104 rows where page = 6
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: body
date (date) >1000 ✖
- 2008-05-27 3
- 2005-05-12 2
- 2006-11-08 2
- 2006-12-13 2
- 2007-01-31 2
- 2007-07-23 2
- 2007-11-13 2
- 2008-04-01 2
- 2011-12-14 2
- 2012-06-06 2
- 2012-08-27 2
- 2013-07-24 2
- 2015-04-01 2
- 2015-10-07 2
- 2015-10-26 2
- 2016-06-27 2
- 2018-07-23 2
- 2018-11-07 2
- 2018-12-17 2
- 2019-01-23 2
- 2019-02-04 2
- 2019-02-25 2
- 2019-04-22 2
- 2019-12-18 2
- 2022-01-11 2
- 2005-01-04 1
- 2005-01-10 1
- 2005-01-13 1
- 2005-01-18 1
- 2005-01-24 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
- 2005-02-28 1
- 2005-03-01 1
- 2005-03-03 1
- 2005-03-10 1
- 2005-03-14 1
- 2005-03-15 1
- 2005-03-16 1
- 2005-03-28 1
- 2005-04-05 1
- 2005-04-07 1
- 2005-04-11 1
- 2005-04-14 1
- 2005-04-19 1
- 2005-04-25 1
- 2005-04-27 1
- 2005-05-03 1
- 2005-05-09 1
- 2005-05-17 1
- 2005-05-23 1
- 2005-06-02 1
- 2005-06-07 1
- 2005-06-09 1
- 2005-06-13 1
- 2005-06-21 1
- 2005-06-27 1
- 2005-06-28 1
- 2005-06-29 1
- 2005-07-05 1
- 2005-07-19 1
- 2005-07-20 1
- 2005-07-25 1
- 2005-08-02 1
- 2005-08-04 1
- 2005-08-08 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
- 2005-09-15 1
- 2005-09-20 1
- 2005-09-21 1
- 2005-09-26 1
- 2005-09-28 1
- 2005-09-29 1
- 2005-10-06 1
- 2005-10-10 1
- 2005-10-18 1
- 2005-10-24 1
- 2005-10-26 1
- 2005-11-01 1
- 2005-11-14 1
- 2005-11-15 1
- 2005-11-16 1
- 2005-11-30 1
- 2005-12-06 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
- 2006-02-07 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
- 2006-03-21 1
- 2006-03-22 1
- 2006-04-04 1
- 2006-04-06 1
- 2006-04-10 1
- 2006-04-18 1
- 2006-04-24 1
- 2006-04-26 1
- 2006-05-02 1
- 2006-05-08 1
- 2006-05-10 1
- 2006-05-16 1
- 2006-05-22 1
- 2006-05-24 1
- 2006-06-06 1
- 2006-06-07 1
- 2006-06-20 1
- 2006-06-28 1
- 2006-07-05 1
- 2006-07-10 1
- 2006-07-18 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
- 2006-09-05 1
- 2006-09-07 1
- 2006-09-11 1
- 2006-09-13 1
- 2006-09-14 1
- 2006-09-19 1
- 2006-09-25 1
- 2006-09-27 1
- 2006-10-03 1
- 2006-10-04 1
- 2006-10-09 1
- 2006-10-11 1
- 2006-10-17 1
- 2006-10-23 1
- 2006-10-25 1
- 2006-11-02 1
- 2006-11-13 1
- 2006-11-14 1
- 2006-11-15 1
- 2006-11-21 1
- 2006-12-05 1
- 2006-12-11 1
- 2007-01-02 1
- 2007-01-08 1
- 2007-01-16 1
- 2007-02-06 1
- 2007-02-08 1
- 2007-02-12 1
- 2007-02-20 1
- 2007-02-26 1
- 2007-02-28 1
- 2007-03-01 1
- 2007-03-06 1
- 2007-03-12 1
- 2007-03-20 1
- 2007-03-26 1
- 2007-03-28 1
- 2007-04-03 1
- 2007-04-11 1
- 2007-04-17 1
- 2007-04-18 1
- 2007-04-23 1
- 2007-04-25 1
- 2007-05-01 1
- 2007-05-14 1
- 2007-05-15 1
- 2007-05-23 1
- 2007-05-29 1
- 2007-06-05 1
- 2007-06-07 1
- 2007-06-11 1
- 2007-06-19 1
- 2007-06-20 1
- 2007-06-25 1
- 2007-07-03 1
- 2007-07-09 1
- 2007-07-17 1
- 2007-07-25 1
- 2007-08-07 1
- 2007-08-15 1
- 2007-08-21 1
- 2007-08-22 1
- 2007-08-27 1
- 2007-09-04 1
- 2007-09-11 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
- 2007-10-08 1
- 2007-10-16 1
- 2007-10-17 1
- 2007-10-22 1
- 2007-10-24 1
- 2007-11-06 1
- 2007-11-20 1
- 2007-11-26 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
- 2008-01-09 1
- 2008-01-14 1
- 2008-01-15 1
- 2008-01-23 1
- 2008-01-28 1
- 2008-02-05 1
- 2008-02-11 1
- 2008-02-13 1
- 2008-02-19 1
- 2008-02-25 1
- 2008-02-27 1
- 2008-03-04 1
- 2008-03-18 1
- 2008-03-24 1
- 2008-04-14 1
- 2008-04-15 1
- 2008-04-23 1
- 2008-04-28 1
- 2008-05-06 1
- 2008-05-08 1
- 2008-05-12 1
- 2008-05-20 1
- 2008-05-28 1
- 2008-06-03 1
- 2008-06-17 1
- 2008-06-18 1
- 2008-06-23 1
- 2008-06-25 1
- 2008-07-01 1
- 2008-07-10 1
- 2008-07-14 1
- 2008-07-15 1
- 2008-07-23 1
- 2008-07-28 1
- 2008-08-05 1
- 2008-08-07 1
- 2008-08-11 1
- 2008-08-14 1
- 2008-08-19 1
- 2008-08-25 1
- 2008-09-02 1
- 2008-09-04 1
- 2008-09-08 1
- 2008-09-16 1
- 2008-09-22 1
- 2008-10-07 1
- 2008-10-13 1
- 2008-10-21 1
- 2008-10-22 1
- 2008-11-06 1
- 2008-11-12 1
- 2008-11-18 1
- 2008-11-20 1
- 2008-11-24 1
- 2008-12-02 1
- 2008-12-08 1
- 2008-12-10 1
- 2008-12-16 1
- 2009-01-06 1
- 2009-01-12 1
- 2009-01-20 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
- 2009-02-17 1
- 2009-02-25 1
- 2009-03-03 1
- 2009-03-09 1
- 2009-03-17 1
- 2009-03-23 1
- 2009-03-26 1
- 2009-04-07 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
- 2009-07-07 1
- 2009-07-13 1
- 2009-07-21 1
- 2009-08-03 1
- 2009-08-24 1
- 2009-08-27 1
- 2009-09-01 1
- 2009-09-10 1
- 2009-09-15 1
- 2009-09-28 1
- 2009-10-05 1
- 2009-10-06 1
- 2009-10-20 1
- 2009-11-03 1
- 2009-11-09 1
- 2009-11-17 1
- 2009-12-01 1
- 2009-12-02 1
- 2009-12-14 1
- 2009-12-15 1
- 2010-01-05 1
- 2010-01-06 1
- 2010-01-11 1
- 2010-01-14 1
- 2010-01-21 1
- 2010-01-26 1
- 2010-02-03 1
- 2010-02-08 1
- 2010-02-11 1
- 2010-02-16 1
- 2010-03-02 1
- 2010-03-16 1
- 2010-04-06 1
- 2010-04-20 1
- 2010-05-04 1
- 2010-05-10 1
- 2010-05-18 1
- 2010-05-24 1
- 2010-06-01 1
- 2010-06-15 1
- 2010-06-21 1
- 2010-06-24 1
- 2010-07-06 1
- 2010-07-07 1
- 2010-07-20 1
- 2010-07-26 1
- 2010-07-27 1
- 2010-09-07 1
- 2010-09-21 1
- 2010-09-22 1
- 2010-09-25 1
- 2010-10-05 1
- 2010-10-19 1
- 2010-11-03 1
- 2010-11-16 1
- 2010-11-17 1
- 2010-12-07 1
- 2010-12-15 1
- 2010-12-21 1
- 2011-01-04 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
- 2011-02-01 1
- 2011-02-10 1
- 2011-02-15 1
- 2011-02-23 1
- 2011-02-28 1
- 2011-03-01 1
- 2011-03-14 1
- 2011-03-15 1
- 2011-03-28 1
- 2011-03-29 1
- 2011-04-05 1
- 2011-04-06 1
- 2011-04-12 1
- 2011-04-14 1
- 2011-05-03 1
- 2011-05-17 1
- 2011-05-19 1
- 2011-05-31 1
- 2011-06-07 1
- 2011-06-08 1
- 2011-06-13 1
- 2011-06-21 1
- 2011-06-22 1
- 2011-06-28 1
- 2011-07-05 1
- 2011-07-11 1
- 2011-07-12 1
- 2011-07-13 1
- 2011-07-19 1
- 2011-09-06 1
- 2011-09-20 1
- 2011-09-21 1
- 2011-10-04 1
- 2011-10-10 1
- 2011-10-13 1
- 2011-10-18 1
- 2011-10-24 1
- 2011-11-01 1
- 2011-11-02 1
- 2011-11-15 1
- 2011-11-28 1
- 2011-12-01 1
- 2011-12-06 1
- 2011-12-12 1
- 2011-12-13 1
- 2011-12-20 1
- 2012-01-04 1
- 2012-01-09 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
- 2012-02-27 1
- 2012-03-01 1
- 2012-03-06 1
- 2012-03-07 1
- 2012-03-12 1
- 2012-03-20 1
- 2012-03-22 1
- 2012-03-28 1
- 2012-04-03 1
- 2012-04-09 1
- 2012-04-17 1
- 2012-04-18 1
- 2012-04-23 1
- 2012-04-25 1
- 2012-05-01 1
- 2012-05-07 1
- 2012-05-08 1
- 2012-05-10 1
- 2012-05-14 1
- 2012-05-15 1
- 2012-05-23 1
- 2012-05-30 1
- 2012-06-11 1
- 2012-06-19 1
- 2012-06-27 1
- 2012-07-03 1
- 2012-07-09 1
- 2012-07-17 1
- 2012-07-23 1
- 2012-07-24 1
- 2012-07-25 1
- 2012-08-28 1
- 2012-09-04 1
- 2012-09-18 1
- 2012-09-26 1
- 2012-10-02 1
- 2012-10-10 1
- 2012-10-11 1
- 2012-10-16 1
- 2012-10-22 1
- 2012-10-30 1
- 2012-11-07 1
- 2012-11-13 1
- 2012-11-26 1
- 2012-11-28 1
- 2012-12-04 1
- 2012-12-05 1
- 2012-12-10 1
- 2012-12-18 1
- 2013-01-02 1
- 2013-01-14 1
- 2013-01-15 1
- 2013-01-23 1
- 2013-01-28 1
- 2013-01-31 1
- 2013-02-05 1
- 2013-02-19 1
- 2013-03-05 1
- 2013-03-19 1
- 2013-04-02 1
- 2013-04-08 1
- 2013-04-10 1
- 2013-04-16 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
- 2013-06-10 1
- 2013-06-18 1
- 2013-06-24 1
- 2013-06-26 1
- 2013-07-02 1
- 2013-07-22 1
- 2013-07-23 1
- 2013-09-17 1
- 2013-09-24 1
- 2013-09-25 1
- 2013-09-30 1
- 2013-10-01 1
- 2013-10-02 1
- 2013-10-15 1
- 2013-10-23 1
- 2013-11-05 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
- 2014-01-27 1
- 2014-02-04 1
- 2014-02-19 1
- 2014-03-04 1
- 2014-03-10 1
- 2014-03-18 1
- 2014-03-24 1
- 2014-03-26 1
- 2014-04-01 1
- 2014-04-02 1
- 2014-04-15 1
- 2014-04-23 1
- 2014-04-28 1
- 2014-05-06 1
- 2014-05-12 1
- 2014-05-20 1
- 2014-05-28 1
- 2014-06-03 1
- 2014-06-09 1
- 2014-06-17 1
- 2014-06-23 1
- 2014-07-01 1
- 2014-07-02 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
- 2014-09-16 1
- 2014-09-22 1
- 2014-09-24 1
- 2014-10-06 1
- 2014-10-07 1
- 2014-10-21 1
- 2014-10-27 1
- 2014-11-10 1
- 2014-11-18 1
- 2014-11-19 1
- 2014-12-02 1
- 2014-12-16 1
- 2015-01-06 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
- 2015-03-17 1
- 2015-03-23 1
- 2015-03-25 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
- 2015-05-11 1
- 2015-05-12 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
- 2015-07-13 1
- 2015-07-16 1
- 2015-07-21 1
- 2015-07-22 1
- 2015-07-27 1
- 2015-09-01 1
- 2015-09-14 1
- 2015-09-15 1
- 2015-09-28 1
- 2015-10-06 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
- 2015-11-18 1
- 2015-11-23 1
- 2015-12-01 1
- 2015-12-14 1
- 2015-12-15 1
- 2016-01-05 1
- 2016-01-06 1
- 2016-01-11 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
- 2016-02-10 1
- 2016-02-16 1
- 2016-02-22 1
- 2016-02-24 1
- 2016-02-29 1
- 2016-03-01 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
- 2016-04-19 1
- 2016-04-25 1
- 2016-05-03 1
- 2016-05-09 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
- 2016-07-06 1
- 2016-07-11 1
- 2016-07-19 1
- 2016-07-25 1
- 2016-08-08 1
- 2016-09-06 1
- 2016-09-07 1
- 2016-09-12 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
- 2016-10-18 1
- 2016-10-24 1
- 2016-11-01 1
- 2016-11-14 1
- 2016-11-15 1
- 2016-11-16 1
- 2016-11-28 1
- 2016-12-05 1
- 2016-12-06 1
- 2016-12-12 1
- 2016-12-14 1
- 2016-12-20 1
- 2017-01-03 1
- 2017-01-09 1
- 2017-01-11 1
- 2017-01-17 1
- 2017-01-23 1
- 2017-01-24 1
- 2017-02-06 1
- 2017-02-07 1
- 2017-02-08 1
- 2017-02-13 1
- 2017-02-15 1
- 2017-02-17 1
- 2017-02-21 1
- 2017-02-23 1
- 2017-02-27 1
- 2017-03-06 1
- 2017-03-07 1
- 2017-03-13 1
- 2017-03-21 1
- 2017-03-22 1
- 2017-03-27 1
- 2017-04-03 1
- 2017-04-04 1
- 2017-04-05 1
- 2017-04-06 1
- 2017-04-07 1
- 2017-04-10 1
- 2017-04-12 1
- 2017-04-18 1
- 2017-04-24 1
- 2017-05-01 1
- 2017-05-02 1
- 2017-05-08 1
- 2017-05-16 1
- 2017-05-22 1
- 2017-06-06 1
- 2017-06-08 1
- 2017-06-12 1
- 2017-06-14 1
- 2017-06-20 1
- 2017-06-26 1
- 2017-07-05 1
- 2017-07-12 1
- 2017-07-17 1
- 2017-07-18 1
- 2017-07-24 1
- 2017-07-25 1
- 2017-09-05 1
- 2017-09-06 1
- 2017-09-11 1
- 2017-09-14 1
- 2017-09-19 1
- 2017-09-25 1
- 2017-09-27 1
- 2017-10-03 1
- 2017-10-09 1
- 2017-10-11 1
- 2017-10-12 1
- 2017-10-17 1
- 2017-10-18 1
- 2017-10-21 1
- 2017-11-07 1
- 2017-11-09 1
- 2017-11-13 1
- 2017-11-14 1
- 2017-11-15 1
- 2017-11-21 1
- 2017-12-05 1
- 2017-12-07 1
- 2017-12-11 1
- 2017-12-13 1
- 2017-12-14 1
- 2017-12-19 1
- 2018-01-02 1
- 2018-01-03 1
- 2018-01-09 1
- 2018-01-10 1
- 2018-01-16 1
- 2018-01-22 1
- 2018-02-05 1
- 2018-02-06 1
- 2018-02-08 1
- 2018-02-12 1
- 2018-02-14 1
- 2018-02-15 1
- 2018-02-20 1
- 2018-03-05 1
- 2018-03-06 1
- 2018-03-08 1
- 2018-03-12 1
- 2018-03-20 1
- 2018-03-26 1
- 2018-03-28 1
- 2018-04-03 1
- 2018-04-04 1
- 2018-04-11 1
- 2018-04-12 1
- 2018-04-16 1
- 2018-04-17 1
- 2018-05-01 1
- 2018-05-09 1
- 2018-05-10 1
- 2018-05-14 1
- 2018-05-15 1
- 2018-05-29 1
- 2018-06-05 1
- 2018-06-06 1
- 2018-06-14 1
- 2018-06-19 1
- 2018-06-25 1
- 2018-07-02 1
- 2018-07-10 1
- 2018-07-11 1
- 2018-07-24 1
- 2018-07-25 1
- 2018-08-06 1
- 2018-08-15 1
- 2018-08-20 1
- 2018-08-29 1
- 2018-08-30 1
- 2018-09-04 1
- 2018-09-10 1
- 2018-09-12 1
- 2018-09-13 1
- 2018-09-17 1
- 2018-09-18 1
- 2018-10-01 1
- 2018-10-02 1
- 2018-10-03 1
- 2018-10-08 1
- 2018-10-16 1
- 2018-10-22 1
- 2018-10-25 1
- 2018-11-13 1
- 2018-11-14 1
- 2018-11-19 1
- 2018-11-27 1
- 2018-11-28 1
- 2018-11-29 1
- 2018-12-03 1
- 2018-12-04 1
- 2018-12-10 1
- 2018-12-18 1
- 2019-01-02 1
- 2019-01-09 1
- 2019-01-14 1
- 2019-01-15 1
- 2019-01-16 1
- 2019-01-28 1
- 2019-01-29 1
- 2019-02-05 1
- 2019-02-11 1
- 2019-02-14 1
- 2019-02-19 1
- 2019-02-27 1
- 2019-03-04 1
- 2019-03-05 1
- 2019-03-11 1
- 2019-03-13 1
- 2019-03-16 1
- 2019-03-19 1
- 2019-03-25 1
- 2019-03-27 1
- 2019-04-01 1
- 2019-04-02 1
- 2019-04-03 1
- 2019-04-08 1
- 2019-04-15 1
- 2019-04-16 1
- 2019-04-17 1
- 2019-05-01 1
- 2019-05-07 1
- 2019-05-09 1
- 2019-05-13 1
- 2019-05-15 1
- 2019-05-21 1
- 2019-05-22 1
- 2019-05-28 1
- 2019-05-29 1
- 2019-06-03 1
- 2019-06-04 1
- 2019-06-10 1
- 2019-06-13 1
- 2019-06-18 1
- 2019-06-24 1
- 2019-07-01 1
- 2019-07-02 1
- 2019-07-08 1
- 2019-07-16 1
- 2019-07-22 1
- 2019-07-23 1
- 2019-07-24 1
- 2019-08-07 1
- 2019-09-03 1
- 2019-09-05 1
- 2019-09-09 1
- 2019-09-12 1
- 2019-09-17 1
- 2019-09-23 1
- 2019-09-25 1
- 2019-10-01 1
- 2019-10-02 1
- 2019-10-08 1
- 2019-10-14 1
- 2019-10-15 1
- 2019-11-05 1
- 2019-11-14 1
- 2019-11-19 1
- 2019-11-20 1
- 2019-11-25 1
- 2019-12-03 1
- 2019-12-05 1
- 2019-12-09 1
- 2019-12-12 1
- 2019-12-17 1
- 2020-01-07 1
- 2020-01-13 1
- 2020-01-15 1
- 2020-01-21 1
- 2020-01-22 1
- 2020-01-27 1
- 2020-02-03 1
- 2020-02-04 1
- 2020-02-10 1
- 2020-02-18 1
- 2020-02-24 1
- 2020-02-26 1
- 2020-03-03 1
- 2020-03-09 1
- 2020-03-17 1
- 2020-03-23 1
- 2020-04-07 1
- 2020-04-21 1
- 2020-04-22 1
- 2020-04-27 1
- 2020-05-05 1
- 2020-05-06 1
- 2020-05-07 1
- 2020-05-11 1
- 2020-05-12 1
- 2020-05-19 1
- 2020-05-20 1
- 2020-05-27 1
- 2020-06-02 1
- 2020-06-08 1
- 2020-06-16 1
- 2020-06-17 1
- 2020-06-22 1
- 2020-06-24 1
- 2020-06-29 1
- 2020-07-01 1
- 2020-07-07 1
- 2020-07-14 1
- 2020-07-21 1
- 2020-07-22 1
- 2020-07-25 1
- 2020-07-28 1
- 2020-08-03 1
- 2020-08-17 1
- 2020-09-01 1
- 2020-09-14 1
- 2020-09-15 1
- 2020-09-23 1
- 2020-09-28 1
- 2020-10-06 1
- 2020-10-07 1
- 2020-10-12 1
- 2020-10-20 1
- 2020-10-26 1
- 2020-10-28 1
- 2020-11-04 1
- 2020-11-12 1
- 2020-11-16 1
- 2020-11-17 1
- 2020-11-18 1
- 2020-11-23 1
- 2020-12-01 1
- 2020-12-14 1
- 2020-12-15 1
- 2021-01-05 1
- 2021-01-06 1
- 2021-01-14 1
- 2021-01-19 1
- 2021-01-25 1
- 2021-01-27 1
- 2021-02-01 1
- 2021-02-02 1
- 2021-02-16 1
- 2021-02-22 1
- 2021-03-01 1
- 2021-03-02 1
- 2021-03-04 1
- 2021-03-08 1
- 2021-03-11 1
- 2021-03-16 1
- 2021-03-22 1
- 2021-03-24 1
- 2021-03-30 1
- 2021-04-05 1
- 2021-04-06 1
- 2021-04-07 1
- 2021-04-08 1
- 2021-04-20 1
- 2021-04-26 1
- 2021-05-03 1
- 2021-05-04 1
- 2021-05-06 1
- 2021-05-08 1
- …
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf,6 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2006-10-04 | 6 | Page 6 parallel path of moving forward with an RFQ process to see if there is a developer who wants to step into the existing field; a public sale; federal legislation on a trust; caretaker issues, etc. A motion to initiate an RFQ and to reevaluate all other options discussed was motioned by Chair Johnson and seconded by Member deHaan 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. Member Matarrese attended the September 7th meeting, highlighting issues regarding additional radiological testing of sites 1,2, and 32. There was also an update on site 25, the Coast Guard north housing and a observation of a violation of the marsh crust ordinance (trenching and digging). Member Matarrese would like the City to investigate further. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) None. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Per Member Matarrese's earlier discussion of the RAB meeting regarding Site 25, Member deHaan requested an update at the next regular ARRA meeting on the status of Site 25. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf,6 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2007-12-05 | 6 | 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY none. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. by Chair Johnson. Respectfully submitted, Airna Glidden Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf,6 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2011-11-02 | 6 | Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011 Time Comment Marker Response there are Proposed Plans, RODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of it doesn't have those in place yet, but they're put in the active cleanup column.) 36:46 The presentation (Slide 15) indicated portions of the The IR Site boundaries on Slide 15 accurately reflect the Northwest Territories are white (outside of IR Sites). But BCT's current understanding of the extent of radium in soil most of these areas have recently been found to have radium at Northwest Territories. Within the last few years, the contamination in soil. There is no plan for remediation of boundaries of the site in the area the comment references this contamination. (IR Site 32) were expanded to account for low-level radium contamination in soil extending over a greater area than was (Full Comment: The map showed the Northwest Territories originally recognized. The Navy is currently completing an to be white, but they have recently been found to be covered extensive radiological survey of soil in this area. The with radium to a depth of a half foot to a foot and a half, as I preliminary results from this investigation indicate that the recall, in most of it. And there has been no plan as to how extent of radium in soil does not extend beyond the current that's going to be remediated, as far as we know.) IR Site boundaries (into the white areas shown on Slide 15). 37:09 Natural attenuation hasn't occurred for 60 years. Why expect Natural attenuation consists of a variety of natural processes it to occur in the next five or ten years? that reduce contaminant concentrations over time, usually relatively slowly: biochemical degradation, dispersion, (Full Comment: And one of, George Humphries, who is my volatilization, etc. These are commonly effective in cohort in this battle, likes to point out that natural attenuation reducing contaminant concentrations to remedial goals after hasn't occurred for 60 years. Wh… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf,6 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2012-01-04 | 6 | automatically established by ABX1 26, to which the Housing Development and Programs Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated on February 1st, responsible agencies would start expending funds in the normal course of business; hopefully, reimbursement would be set in place on July 1st. The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated an administrative budget needs to be presented for each successor agency by February; the legislation has some inconsistencies; last year, an obligation schedule was done which predicted payment obligations pursuant to enforceable obligations; the next one would be due March 1st, which would cover January 1st to June 30th; schedules would need to be approved by the Oversight Board that would review work of the successor agency; the Oversight Board would not come into existence until May 1st; suggested amending Section 7 to read: "This resolution shall take effect and be enforced as of the deadline for adoption of this resolution established pursuant to State law as may be amended from time to time". Councilmember/Commissioner Tam's inquired whether the City could recover money, to which the City Manager/Executive Director responded the money has not been submitted yet. Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated the State was not hitting budget targets before the ruling; it appeared that automatic cuts would go into effect; the State will not receive $1.7 billion due to legislation being declared unconstitutional. The City Manager/Executive Director stated that the State has centralized what the payments would be but has created chaos throughout the system. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta stated things are moving very quickly; that he wants to ensure that the City does not do something it will regret later; inquired what precautions would be taken if another legislative remedy caused the City's successor agency role to not be advantageous, to which the City Manager/Executive Director responded the resolutions could always be amended. In response to Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-04 | 6 | (05-018A) Resolution No. 13810, "Upholding the Planning Board's Denial of Major Design Review DR04-0013 and Variances, V04-005, V04-0015, V04-0016, V04-0017 for the Structural Expansion of a Single-Family Residence and Construction of Rear Deck at 913 Oak Street. " Adopted. The Supervising Planner provided a presentation on the background of the project. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the garage was a two-story structure connected to the house, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the garage was intended to be more than a one-car garage, to which the Supervising Planner responded that the plans indicate a one-car garage with storage on the left side. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there was a proposal for the upstairs portion of the garage, to which the Supervising Planner responded the photographs show an attic with a couple of chairs and table. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the garage doors are smaller than the width of the driveway there is a vent pipe that comes down along the side of the house and protrudes into the driveway which would make it very difficult for a car to enter the garage. The Supervising Planner stated many driveways are challenging in terms of access. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she is concerned with the intent of using the garage for the proposed use. The Supervising Planner stated that the Parking Ordinance requires that garages be kept free of structures to accommodate a vehicle. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the garage could abut the property line if detached from the house; once the garage is attached to the house, there are side and backyard setback issues. The Supervising Planner stated the Code allows for garages to abut both the side and rear property lines under certain circumstances the front of the garage needs to be 75 feet from the front property line and there needs to be a 5-foot separation between the main house and the garage a detached garage could comply with the 75- foot regulation; she is not sure… | CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-18 | 6 | deficit. The Finance Director responded that she would provide the information to Council. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the requested information coordinated with the budget information provided in the first week of February. Acting Mayor Gilmore stated that the City has become dependant on Information Technology services system failure would result in countless hours of lost productivity; Council should carefully review the costs of addressing the issue and prioritize accordingly. Councilmember Daysog stated that the Plan makes a lot of the internal mechanisms of the City transparent; requested information on the debt reserve compliance issues. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether bonds are typically refinanced without the qualification process. The Finance Director responded there would be a competitive bid process if a bond is straight forward and uncomplicated; complicated bonds would be negotiated; the underwriters would respond to the Request for Proposal (RFP) stating what could be done at what price; staff would then recommend a selection to the governing body. Councilmember Daysog requested that the bond bidding process be placed on a future agenda for discussion; stated that it is important for Council to be involved in the bidding of bonds and in the decision not to bid. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the City's retirement and health benefit costs have increased dramatically; the City's Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) contribution increased 615% from 2002 to 2004. (05-040) Discussion regarding options for relocation assistance legislation and a temporary moratorium on all new construction, demolition and condominium conversion in the "West End Atlantic Corridor Area" (bounded by Webster Street, Main Street, Pacific Avenue and Ralph J. Appezzato Memorial Parkway). The Interim City Manager provided a brief outline of the Harbor Island Apartment eviction process and staff's coordinating efforts to financially help the remaining tenants move. Regular Meeting Alam… | CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 6 | Alameda residents. The Development Services Director stated that the initial terms could be shortened to no longer than two years. Councilmember deHaan concurred with the Development Services Director; stated the terms should be staggered and reviewed; the number of business representatives could be reduced; he would prefer to eliminate the Chamber of Commerce representative. The City Attorney outlined the sections of the ordinance to be revised. Mayor Johnson clarified that the terms should be a maximum of two years. The Development Services Director stated terms could be for one and two years. Councilmember deHaan noted he would like the membership brought down to nine members. Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with the proposed amendments : [1) reduce the number of members with working knowledge of the film/video industry to three; 2) change the "neighborhood member or Alameda Victorian Preservation Society representative" to "neighborhood member; 3) add a neighborhood member with knowledge of historic districts; 4) require that the majority of the commissioners be Alameda residents; and 5) shorten terms to one and two year staggered terms) Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-042 - ) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs for the Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan. The Development Services Director provided a brief report. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) , stated that he supports the recommendations of staff and the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) ; APC is building the capacity of the community; Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliance is a growing issue. Jim Franz, Alameda, stated he supports continued funding for safety Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 6 | Board. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like to go on record as liking the design, especially the changes the architect has made ; she is concerned about the noticing issue. Mayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor Gilmore; not including the address on Central Avenue in the notice may have caused confusion; she feels badly for the business because of the project delay. Councilmember Daysog stated that speakers mentioned that the design does not fit the residential character of the neighborhood; arguments could be made that the design is an improvement over the existing structure; the project is a positive step. Councilmember deHaan moved that the matter be sent back to the Planning Board for proper notification. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmembers Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog, and Mayor Johnson went on record that the only reason the matter was being sent back to the Planning Board was to allow proper notification. (05-057 - ) Public Hearing to consider Amendment to Zoning Map to rezone approximately 7,800 square feet (1/5 acre) at 1410 Everett Street, APN 070-170-15, from R-5 Hotel Residential to C-C Community Commercial; and (05-057A) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., from R-5 (General Residential Zoning District to C-C (Community Commercial Zoning District, for that Property Located at 2507 Central Avenue at Everett Street. Not introduced. Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing. Proponents (In favor of rezoning) : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association; Steve Busse, Park Centre Animal Hospital. Opponents (Not in favor of rezoning) : John Barni, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 6 | Mayor Johnson inquired whether the County sets policy. The Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the County reviews compliance with protocols and licensing. Mayor Johnson stated the City should review the County's budget to determine why it is so expensive to be part of the system. The Interim City Manager stated staff could provide a report with more detailed information and obtain a copy of the budget. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City provides more assistance in mutual aid outside Alameda or whether Alameda receives more mutual aid assistance from outside agencies. The Deputy Fire Chief responded the County requires the City to enter into a mutual aid Contract to have American Medical Response (AMR) provide backup AMR comes into town to backup Alameda and Alameda provides backup for AMR; the amount of assistance provided and received is probably about even; yesterday, paramedics were in Oakland nine times because the trauma center was on bypass; often times it goes the other way; if paramedics are at a fire scene, AMR takes all medical calls; noted when Alameda was ramping up the Advanced Life Support (ALS) system, the City was receiving money back from the County contract. Mayor Johnson stated the amount that the City can charge for ambulance service is set by the County contract the City should charge as much as insurance companies pay, which is often higher than the cap set by the County the City should review the rates charged for ambulance services and request the flexibility to charge more to recover service costs from users. The Deputy Fire Chief stated that the County sets the maximum charge for transport and equipment used; the City is allowed to charge a little more since Alameda is unique and citizens do not pay a paramedic assessment; however, historically the City has not charged more and only charges a prevailing rate. The Interim City Manager continued reviewing budget adjustments. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry whether an increased permit fee could be charg… | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 6 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY MARCH 1, 2005 - - 6:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. (05 5-089 - ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: 1429 Oak Street; Negotiating parties : City of Alameda and County of Alameda; Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the Real Property negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:50 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 March 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 6 | have been permitted in 1984, to which the Supervising Planner responded that she did not know. Councilmember Daysog stated that he wished the rules were otherwise; it is difficult to make things right for the property owners. Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Board. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05 -119 - ) Public Hearing to consider Zoning Text Amendment ZA05- - 0001 and Rezoning R05-0001 to create a Theater Overlay District and rezone certain properties to the Theater Overlay District; and (05-119A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) ; Amending Subsection 30-3.2 (Combining Districts) ; Adding a New Subsection 30-4.22 (T- Theater Combining District) ; and Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include the Theater Combining District. The Management Analyst provided a brief report. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Mayor Johnson stated that Melody Marr, Chamber of Commerce, submitted a letter stating that the Chamber is in favor of Zoning Text Amendment ZA05-0001 and Rezoning R05-0001. Proponent (In favor of ordinance) : Robb Ratto, PSBA. Opponent (Not in favor or ordinance) : Gary McAffe, Alameda. After Mr. Ratto's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed ordinance would have an impact on the Central Cinema, to which the Management Analyst responded in the negative; stated the proposed ordinance pertains to multi-screen cinemas. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting 6 Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-04-05 | 6 | The Supervising Planner responded that plans reviewed by the Building Department would be checked against the Alameda Building Code; stated any new construction has to be done according to the 2001 CBC ; that any rehabilitation to the existing buildings needs to be done to Code, but not necessarily the 2001 CBC . Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be any work done that would trigger a requirement for all buildings to be brought up to code, to which the Supervising Planner responded that she was not qualified to answer the question; stated the Building Official would need to respond. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether any safety issues would be addressed by the Building Official before the buildings were reoccupied and whether a Certificate of Occupancy would need to be issued. The Supervising Planner responded that the Building Code requires that only safe buildings be occupied. The Project Architect stated that he was not aware that the Building Department identified any structural problems. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how the balconies would be checked. The Project Architect responded that a Structural Engineer would make sure that the existing balconies are structurally sound. Mr. Hartney stated that the Community Center and any additional work on the old building needs to be built to 2001 CBC ; noted that the Planning Department would check the safety of every building before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. The Acting City Manager stated that the exterior work is primarily cosmetic; noted that nothing was being done that would structurally change the balconies; stated that he would ensure that the Building Official check the balconies and that the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) trigger would be reviewed. The Project Architect stated that the 2001 CBC has a provision that excludes any upgrades from complying with the ADA for residential buildings built and occupied before 1991; noted that any new work done to the Community Center needs to conform with the current standards. Councilmem… | CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-04-19 | 6 | (05-177) - Ordinance No. 2939, "Approving and Authorizing Execution of Lease between the City of Alameda (Lessor) and the County of Alameda (Lessee) for Real Property Located at 1429 Oak Street. " Finally passed. Mayor Johnson stated that the County Health Center is moving into the former Children's Library site; there is now a home for the Recreation and Park Department and the County Health Center thanked the Acting City Manager for finding a very good solution to a potentially difficult problem. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the County's opportunity provides the City with the benefit of improvements and maintaining a building that is a City asset; the move is a fine solution and keeps the County services central to the bus line and the center of town. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, the Acting City Manager stated that the Public Works Department put in partitions and did a lot of the work in a short period of time; the County will have a ribbon cutting ceremony either later this week or next week; the cost of the materials was paid for by the County; a City building has been fixed up with a combination of City forces and County funds; everyone came out a winner. Mayor Johnson stated that the building was not occupied for at least eight years and was in fairly blighted conditions. Councilmember deHaan stated that he appreciates the Acting City Manager's win-win solutions. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05-178) - Discussion of the Harbor Bay ferry system. Councilmember Daysog stated that he received many e-mails regarding the Harbor Bay ferry; noted that the City was able to get a one Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 April 19, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-03 | 6 | infrastructure and repairs; Public Works would provide an infrastructure report at the next City Council Meeting; Council would receive a model showing the performance of the budget over a period of ten years in late July or early August reports will outline what needs to be done to correct problems i funding recommendations can be discussed. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not be on the Council if not for the support of residents south of Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Avenue; many people needed to sell their homes with the Base closure; the neighborhood faces a lot of development Council would be missing an opportunity if there is no coordination with activities occurring north of Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the Plan, modifying the title to reflect the Plan's intent to target the most needy census tract in the City and requiring that the Plan return to Council coinciding with the Task Force report to revise concepts in the Plan if needed. Councilmember deHaan stated that there is $500,000 in resources that can go towards activities right away; going forward and accepting the Plan is prudent; the elements within the first and third year are very straightforward. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated that she is very concerned with the infrastructure everywhere in Alameda; the sidewalks and streets are not in the same condition as a few years agoi Council needs to address the issues and set priorities on the infrastructure deficit. Councilmember Daysog stated re-designating the name is important; he is fine with remaining north of Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Avenue if the Plan is not opened up to Harbor Island Task Force. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (05-210) Wilbur Richards, Alameda, complimented the Council on the quality of City services. (05-211) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated the President is proposing to put oil refi… | CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-12 | 6 | to go through the courts; that she hopes that the Council would not get into said situation. Councilmember Daysog stated that the vote might take the Council to unintended destinations. Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Daysog but stated the matter could be discussed in closed session. Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has complete control. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the language should be clarified to: "advising and/or representing the City Council. " Mayor Johnson suggested the language in the scope remain as is, except for the addition of "as directed by the Council" at the end. Councilmember Daysog inquired what would fall within "additional matters" in the scope of engagement. Mr. Hartinger responded "additional matters" is a catchall phrase if the Council requested him to do something else. Councilmember deHaan stated the Agreement would not have to be reopened to have Mr. Hartinger do something else. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the modified motion [to approve the Agreement, with modifications to remove the retainer and late payment provisions], which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan and Gilmore, and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes : Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Absent Councilmember Matarrese - 1. ] The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney hires all attorneys under the City Charter the City Attorney is hiring the outside attorney to advise the Council regarding interpretation of her contract. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is authorizing the City Attorney to sign the Agreement as discussed and whether the outside attorney would work for the Council. The Assistant City Attorney responded that the outside attorney would not work for the Council; the City Attorney controls all legal counsel under the City Charter; the City Attorney is on the hook for the legal advice given. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 6 May 12, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 6 | working on a comprehensive strategic plan and there has only been one accident each of the last four years, Council should postpone review until information from the strategic plan is available. The Public Works Director stated there is a concern that since all way stop warrants are met , the City might open itself up to liability. Mayor Johnson stated there would be many more four-way stop signs if the City studied every intersection to determine whether warrants are met. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about whether the City Attorney wished to address liability, the City Attorney stated not in public; holding the matter over would not be a problem. Councilmember deHaan stated that he travels on Sherman Street; a number of accidents are probably not reported; that he has witnessed accidents ; lateral corridors are impacted when vehicles travel to the South Shore area; vehicles travel 40 mph down Santa Clara Avenue; crossing the intersection is a challenge; hopefully, traffic can be diverted [off of Sherman Street] at some point. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has data on whether peak traffic on Sherman Street has changed; stated there are probably younger families in the Gold Coast now; Sherman Street traffic volumes might be increasing because it is probably easier for workers to commute down Sherman Street rather than traveling down Constitution Way and Eighth Street. Mayor Johnson stated analysis of Councilmember Daysog's idea would be interesting to review and is why the City needs to pay attention to the impacts of stop signs; Constitution Way should handle more traffic; the City should be encouraging drivers to use Constitution Way; the City should review whether drivers are discouraged from using Constitution Way because of the traffic controls. Councilmember Daysog stated Constitution Way narrows down to one lane at Eighth Street there is a bottleneck on Eighth Street at Santa Clara and Central Avenues at commute hours, which makes it more convenient to use alternate routes, such as S… | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-07 | 6 | for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Services (AOFS) and adopt associated budget. Councilmember Matarrese stated that there was a public hearing regarding the Harbor Bay ferry which addressed increasing ridership and marketing services the public should know that the City is trying to get as much grant money as possible to keep the ferries operating the ferries need to be in front of the public's eye; encouraged people to take the ferries. Councilmember deHaan stated the Water Transit Authority (WTA) joined forces with the City in moving forward with publicity; noted the Port of Oakland's $140,000 contribution is now reduced to $83,000; there is talk about the Port not contributing at all; noted there would be a major glitch if the contribution amount was not maintained at the current amount or higher. The Acting City Manager stated the contribution was going to be a budget cut for the Port of Oakland; the Port was persuaded to make a contribution of $83,325 for the next fiscal year; getting the WTA to take over in the future would solve the problem with the Port of Oakland funding the ferries. Councilmember DeHaan stated that it appears that the WTA is going forward to establish runs in various directions inquired whether it was the Council's desire to join forces with the WTA at some point. The Acting City Manager responded that joining forces with the WTA would be a Council decision; the WTA's first goal is to establish new ferry services; the WTA is starting to look at the Harbor Bay Ferry Service for merchandising and providing some other services to the City. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the WTA would have jurisdiction over funds. Mayor Johnson responded that the WTA is a transit agency and would have access to funding that the City does not have. The Acting City Manager stated that the WTA has access to Regional Measure 2 Funds which are difficult for the City to access except through the WTA; the City is currently using Regional Measure 1 Funds through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Council… | CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-21 | 6 | 13860, "Authorizing Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills. Adopted. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Opponents : Nancy Schlegel, Alameda; Leo Beaulieu, Alameda; Pamela Jones, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Following Nancy Schlegel's comments, Mayor Johnson suggested that Ms. Schlegel discuss her garbage problem with the Acting City Manager. Councilmember deHaan stated that he was concerned that Ms. Schlegel's garbage problem had been on going for two years. Councilmember Matarrese stated that space allotted for recycling bins is the Home Owner Association's responsibility the City can address the lack of response and communication between the contractor and the City. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Ms. Schlegel received any notification. Ms. Schlegel responded that she has returned unopened statements and left messages but has not been called back. The Public Works Director stated notification is via the bill; a late notice is sent 45 days after a bill has not been paid; there have been eight notifications over two years based upon information provided by Alameda County Industries (ACI) Following speaker Leo Beaulieu, the Public Works Director stated the integrated waste management rate pays for all services residents can use one or all of the services; there are no longer exemptions for green waste; the contract with ACI allows for vacation exemptions it is necessary to call ahead of time to stop and start service. Mayor Johnson suggested that Mr. Beaulieu discuss the matter with the Public Works Director. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 June 21, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-28 | 6 | The City Attorney stated the information would be provided to the Council before the City Council Meeting; stated that she would bring the proposal to the July 5 Closed Session Meeting with the advanced copy of all information requested; she hears the Council direction in terms of a desire for policy direction to provide the additional thresholds and Council involvement and oversight for all governing bodies matters would be discussed and direction taken from the Council. Chair Johnson stated that she does not expect that any outside counsel would need to be hired within the next week, inquired what was decided on the interim. The City Attorney responded that she would like the Council to keep a reasonable, fair and equitable approach; all department heads are authorized to spend monies when the budget is adopted $75,000 or less is the current amount without Council authorization. Chair Johnson stated that no one else in the City has authorization to spend over $800,000. The City Attorney reiterated her request for a reasonable approach. Chair Johnson stated that the Council is always fair and reasonable; stated that she made it clear at the budget meeting that the Council is not changing the amount of the City Attorney' budget but is exercising Council responsibility. Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated that the direction for other City departments might change also; the City is in extraordinary times in reviewing the budget, controlling staffing, and developing needed services. Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council does not want to make it significantly more difficult for the City Attorney to be able to do her job. Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that delivery of successful services to the residents is ultimately the end responsibility; the question of reasonableness is not incidental; rapid responses are necessary for the legal team; the City is shooting itself in the foot if rules do not allow for rapid responses. The City Attorney stated that she is fully confident that the pr… | CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-05 | 6 | Council should wait to act on the new practice until the new City Manager is on board to ensure an understanding of the new management practice. Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council should not bore too deep; he would prefer a modified policy. Mayor Johnson stated the Council needs to be very conscientious about requests; the Council should schedule an appointment to meet with a department head and be courteous to staff. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated recognition of staff's workload is common courtesy; the Council's need to dig deep should be directed to the City Manager and raised at Council meetings. Councilmember deHaan stated that his experience with staff communication has been excellent; the Council needs to be respectful; in-depth inquiries need to be directed to the City Manager. Councilmember Daysog stated that improvements should be made when there is an opportunity to do so; his ability to represent residents' interests has not been burdened or hindered by the current management practice; stated he would welcome more information that addresses what is meant by inquiryi the current management practice is sufficient and represents the necessary separation of powers between the City Manager and that of the City Council. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Council direction was to have a new management practice drafted for discussion and action at a future date. Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated the Acting City Manager would provide some ideas. ( (05-334) Report from the Housing Task Force regarding strategies to prevent mass evictions and provide for low-income housing. Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (05-335) - Randy Watkins, Alameda, stated that the cost to build the garage, renovate the theatre, and build the cineplex is $45 million; there is only $10 million in revenues from the project; the lease is only $7,000 per month for cineplex and commercial lease space; the agreement allows the lessor to purchase a site Regular Meeting Alame… | CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-19 | 6 | Councilmember deHaan requested that the policy address all vehicles Citywide. Mayor Johnson requested that the policy address all police vehicles, not just patrol vehicles. (*05-351) - Recommendation to appoint Lee Perez as a representative to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. Accepted. (*05-352) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to execute an amendment to the Contract with MV Student Transportation, increasing the budget by $8,000, and extending the Contract to August 15, 2005. Accepted. ( (*05-353) - Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Holland & Knight, LLP in the amount of $40,000 for federal legislative advocacy, and appropriate the $40,000 from the General Fund reserves. Accepted. ( *05-354) Resolution No. 13874, "Approving Parcel Map No. 8574 (Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop Road) . " Adopted. (*05-355) Resolution No. 13875, "Adopting the Findings for the Non-Native Spartina Eradication Program Contained in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Prepared by California State Coastal Conservancy, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving an Agreement for Funding from the State of California Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures. " Adopted. (*05-356) Resolution No. 13876, "Granting Another Designated Period for Two Years Additional Service Credit as Provided for Under Contract Amendment between the City and the Public Employees' Retirement System and California Government Code Section 20903. " Adopted. (*05-357) Adoption of Resolution Creating Special Newsrack Districts in Both the Park Street Business and the West Alameda Business Districts as Authorized in Alameda Municipal Code Section 22-7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines of Article I Streets) Chapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks) Not heard. (*05-358) Resolution No. 13877, "Authorizing Filing of a Notice of Exemption for Acquisition of the Alameda Belt Line. Adopte… | CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-08-02 | 6 | proposed resolution was that the City Attorney could spend $35,000 and then, once the cost goes beyond $35,000, the matter would come to the Council for additional authority. The City Attorney stated that the fourth bullet point in the resolution includes limitations on spending; that she does not have the authority to spend $35,000 on a $200,000 case and then come to Council. Mayor Johnson stated that the fourth bullet point addresses reporting; the first bullet point states that the City Attorney is authorized by the Council to spend up to $35,000 per matter from the appropriated budget without prior Council approval; the statements implies that the Councils is giving the City Attorney authority to spend $35,000 on any matter before coming to Council ; the fourth bullet point is a reporting requirement the focus should be on the issue of when the Council is delegating its Charter authority to the City Attorney, not reporting requirements the language might just need clarification; inquired whether she was interpreting the first bullet point correctly. The City Attorney responded that the first bullet point is in context of the fourth bullet point, which means that she has authorization to spend $35,000 per matter without prior Council approval, however, she must come to Council with the litigation budget for anything estimated to exceed $35,000 within 35 days. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney would come to Council for approval of hiring outside counsel or simply to report to the Council. The City Attorney responded that she would bring the issue to the Council similar to the Closed Session tonight. Mayor Johnson stated the Closed Session tonight was a report the purpose of the resolution is to clarify when the Council would delegate its authority to the City Attorney to hire outside counsel. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Council would not delegate its authority to hire outside counsel if any of the following apply: 1) if the estimated defense costs were over $35,000; 2) if a policy que… | CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-08-16 | 6 | Counci lmember Daysog stated the $13 million bonds issued for the Cineplex and historic theater would need to be paid back. Mr. Kelly stated that the bonds have already been issued based upon the CIC's cash flow; the income from the theater project does not have to repay the bonds the bonds are financed by CIC's existing cash flow. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the cash flow is tax increment. Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; the cash flow is the existing tax increment the tax increment does not come out of the General Fund and is not money that would have gone to the General Fund; the tax increment is redevelopment money that has to be used for certain limited purposes; redevelopment law prohibits the money from being used for Police and Fire services. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether tax increment could be used for public infrastructure in a redevelopment area, to which Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether General Fund costs that are used for public improvements in a redevelopment area could be covered by redevelopment funds. Mr. Kelly responded that the purpose of the redevelopment financing is to provide economic development, stimulate growth, and remove blight redevelopment financing is not intended for public improvements that would have otherwise occurred; theoretically, redevelopment funds could be used. Councilmember Daysog stated that the argument is that redevelopment money cannot be used for General Fund type activity with regards to infrastructure. Mr. Kelly stated redevelopment money is all the tax increment captured above a certain base; redevelopment law limits the City to use the funds for remediation of blight. The Development Services Director stated that redevelopment law is very clear that new improvements need to be made; funds cannot be used for operating and maintenance costs; redevelopment law findings that state there are no other public monies available must be made to do an improvement, like a street. Councilmember Daysog stat… | CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-09-06 | 6 | directly in back of the lot on Lincoln Avenue 15 of the buildings are owner-occupied and 6 are rentals; the construction period ranges from 1895 to 1999; the neighborhood has a fairly good mix [of houses] Mayor Johnson stated that the design review process needs to be reviewed; there are commercial and two-story structures in the area; Lincoln Avenue structures should not be considered; inquired whether moving a piece of the structure counts as demolition. The Acting Planning and Building Director responded not necessarily; the project is viewed as a whole to determine if demolition is more or less than 30%; a new, red stamp will be placed on all plans to indicate the Historical Advisory Board's (HAB's ) approval is needed prior to demolishing more than 30% of a pre-1942 - home. Mayor Johnson stated the issue needs to be reviewed; people think that deconstruction and reconstruction do not count as demolition. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the demolition issue is being reviewed independently; someone could demolish less than 30% of a house and build a structure that does not look historic; on the other hand, a 50% demolition and remodeling project could retain the historic look; that she is not sure how the demolition can be separated from the design review; the matter needs to be reviewed in terms of what is being protected. The Acting Planning and Building Director stated the exterior walls and roof percentages are reviewed. Mayor Johnson stated that the design does not reflect the historic character of the building. ouncilmember Daysog inquired when demolition versus deconstruction issues would be addressed. The Acting Planning and Building Director responded the issues would be addressed as quickly as possible; that he would like to review other jurisdiction's process. Councilmember Daysog stated the situation is unfortunate; the existing ordinance needs to be clarified; the Appellant needs to move forward with the project for reasons stated in the report ; staff and the Appellant have different interpretations; s… | CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-09-20 | 6 | The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated that establishing a Film Commission is a great idea; a number of movies have been filmed in Alameda; inquired about commission memberships in other communities. The Development Services Director responded the memberships have a strong industry representation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether half of the membership should be from the industry and whether three marketing memberships should be included. The Development Services Director responded other communities' experiences and selection process would be reviewed and provided to the Council. Mayor Johnson stated that the Alameda Civic Light Opera has an apprenticeship program; connecting the apprenticeship program with filmmakers would be good. Councilmember Matarrese requested an analysis of other Film Commission success rates to determine what membership works best. Councilmember deHaan stated the City has some very unique assets; Alameda Point is a great marketing tool; a Film Commission would be helpful; consistency in the community is important; neighborhoods have had short notification; consistency would come from Commission and Planning Department guidance; positive steps are being taken. The Development Services Director stated that sometimes the City receives very little notice. Councilmember deHaan stated that movie making would spill over into the City; the City is a friendly community. The Development Services Director stated that the community has fun with filming activity; opportunities are available to engage the community. Mayor Johnson stated that the closure of the High Street Bridge for filming was handled well / there was little traffic; people were cooperative; no complaints were received since the filming; filming can be accommodated, if handled properly. Kappi Hommert, Alameda, submitted handout. stated that she helped to start the Oakland Film Commissioni Alameda has not been able to take advantage of the benefits associated with having a Film Regular Meeting A… | CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-10-18 | 6 | anything to protect redevelopment money; no one is certain that the State will be able to meet all its financial commitments without looking to cities again. (05-509) Councilmember Daysog stated that the League of California Cities endorsed Proposition 76 which addresses the smoothing out of the fiscal situation at the State level; Proposition 76 could have impacts at the local level and even more so on school districts. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular meeting at 9:04 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 6 October 18, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-11-01 | 6 | for the Cineplex pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.g.2; and c) extended hours of operation until 3:00 a.m. for the theatre pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.c. 1 (a) for up to 24 days per year. The site is located at 2305 - -2317 Central Avenue, within the C-C T (Community Commercial Theatre Combining) District. Applicants : Kyle Conner, Alameda Entertainment Associates, LP. Appellants : Ani Dimusheva and Robert Gavrich; and (05-525A) Resolution No. 13907, "Upholding the Planning Board's Approval of Use Permit UP05-0018 for A) Multi-Screen - Theater, Live Theater, and Public Assembly Use in the C-C T District Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.22; B) Fifty Eight Foot (58' ) Building Height for the Cineplex Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A. G-2; and (C) Extended Hours of Operation until 3:00 A.M. for 24 Days per Year for the Theater Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.C.1 (A) for Occasional Special Events and Screenings, with a condition that an analysis of late-night screening be conducted after 12 events or a year, whichever comes first. " Adopted. The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation on the project. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Opponents (Not in favor of the project) : Jenny Curtis; Citizens for a Megaplex-Fre Alameda (CMFA) (submitted comments) ; Valerie Ruma, CMFA (submitted comments) ; Ani Dimusheva, Appellant Alice Ray, CMFA (submitted comments) ; Kristi Koenen, CMFA; Andy Crockett, CMFA (submitted comments) ; Vern Marsh, CMFA; Phyllis Greenwood, CMFA; Lew Brentano, CMFA (submitted comments) ; Joe Meylor, CMFA; Robert Gavrich, Appellant (submitted comments) ; Paula Rainey, CMFA; Kevin Fredrick, CMFA; Russell Kirk, CMFA (submitted comments) ; Richard McClure II, Alameda (not present) ; Arthur Lipow, Alameda (submitted letter) ; Deborah Overfield; David Kirwin, Alameda; David Miller, Alameda Jon Spangler, Alameda; Gary McAffe, Alameda; Mark Dombeck, Alameda Ana Rojas, Alameda; Clyde Serda, Alameda (submitted comments) i Glen Vivion; Susan Battaglia, Alameda; Rosemary Mc… | CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-11-15 | 6 | Mayor Johnson inquired what would occur if one city did not agree to participate, to which Mr. Allen responded that he did not know. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the requested reports should be provided to the Council before the matter was on the agenda for action. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether similar polling has been done in the past. Supervisor Lai-Bitker responded that she was not aware of any. Councilmember deHaan stated that he would assume that similar polling would be done continually. Supervisor Lai-Bitker stated that similar polling has been done for Countywide issues. Councilmember deHaan stated that some of the safeguards used in the past could be put into the contract. Councilmember Daysog stated that there was overall support for the good work being done. (05-543) Councilmember Daysog stated that he was concerned with Bill Riley's comments which almost invited a terrorist attack in San Francisco; public officials need to take a stand and write a letter regarding possible implications. (05-544) Mayor Johnson stated that the Council attended the Bridgeside Shopping Center groundbreaking Councilmember Matarrese stated that Nob Hill Foods was coming to Alameda: construction has started; the property was being graded. Mayor Johnson stated there have been a number of false rumors regarding the Bridgeside Shopping Center over the past few months ; the previous owner's lack of interest in developing the property in a way the community desired was one of the complications the project should be completed by Labor Day. Councilmember deHaan stated the Webster Street Streetscape has been completed; Park Street would be completed tomorrow. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Bridgeside Shopping Center was one of the most positive projects in the City; he was on the Economic Development Commission with Councilmember deHaan when the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 November 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 6 | Mayor Johnson stated that the new, flexible sidewalk material seems to be working well; inquired what type of feedback has been received. The Public Works Director responded the feedback has been positive; Redwood City has tried a new rubberized concrete product; he was waiting for a report back from staff on the product. Mayor Johnson stated replacing the sidewalks with the new product saves money because less on-going maintenance and repair is needed consideration should be given to drawing down on some of the reserve to catch up on sidewalk repairs. The City Manager stated that staff could project and identify whether there would be an additional percentage above the 25%. Councilmember Matarrese suggested going below 25% of the reserve, using part of the $2.8 million [identified in the staff report] for streets, and using the amount identified in the staff report for streets from the reserve for sidewalks instead. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether different species of trees are reviewed. The Public Works Director responded a Tree Master Plan was developed to address trees planted years ago which were not the most desirable for long term. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that trees fall down through natural attrition. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a plan that identifies a tree's life expectancy, to which the Public Works Director responded in the negative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a list was available which identifies trees with non-invasive roots. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative stated standards for expanded planting strips and deep watering are being reviewed. Councilmember Matarrese stated that Gibbons Drive would always have Liquid Amber trees; sidewalk maintenance was greater in Alameda than in other cities because of the value of large trees. Councilmember deHaan stated that parameters need to be set for Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-20 | 6 | blend together and build on each other; the Safe Routes to School project would come to the Council early next year; construction should start in the summer of 2006; the proposed project would follow. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the public process would be the same, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated that it is important that the two projects dovetail together and marry in the proper way. The Public Works Director ensured that the two projects would work together. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the grant could be used for another project. The Public Works Director responded that the grant is not portable; changes can be made based on constraints discovered while working on the design. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there were any other proposed bike projects that would require grants. The Public Works Director responded that the proposed project is one of the higher rated projects in the Bike Master Plan. Mayor Johnson stated that the proposed project was determined to be a top priority based upon the Bike Master Plan; requested that a process be established to allow the Council to prioritize projects which could receive grant funding; stated the area is dangerous and the proposed improvements are important. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution with the caveat that the project be dovetailed together with the Safe Routes to School project. The Public Works Director stated that the projects would have different schedules the proposed project would fall behind the Safe Routes to School project. Councilmember deHaan stated the problem needs to be cured in trying to get the children to school safely, mitigating on-going problems at Lincoln Middle School, and getting the community involved in both projects so that the decision has continuity. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there were discussions regarding Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 December 20, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-01-03 | 6 | for a faithful and cheerful job performance; stated the Community Development Manager's accomplishments are helping the City to do what is right. Councilmember deHaan thanked the Community Development Manager for her dedication and effort in working on the Base closure and Alameda College Career Center. Councilmember Daysog stated that the Community Development Manager was behind Ed Dankworth, Lois Workman, and Ken Warner in getting Alameda to think about new ideas since the mid-1990's the Community Development Manager's departure from the City will result in a tremendous void. (06-008) Public Hearing to consider Amendment No. 1 to Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan, approving reallocation of funds, and authorizing the City Manager to execute related agreements with sub-grantees. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Matarrese stated a $6,000 increase is proposed for fair housing services Sentinel Fair Housing's (SFH) efforts were questioned during the Harbor Island Apartment mass eviction; inquired what additional services would be provided with the $6,000 increase. The Community Development Manager responded the proposal includes a $5,996 allocation to SFH; SFH requested the additional amount as part of the grant; the increase in funds would provide the City with additional technical assistance in meeting Housing and Urban Development (HUD) obligations; fair housing regulations have changed for people with disabilities and language barriers. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how SFH's scope of work was being measured. The Community Development Manager responded that traditionally SFH's goals are exceeded; SFH would continue to meet contractual obligations; technical assistance would be added to the scope of work; more meetings would be scheduled to brief staff on community questions. Councilmember Matarrese stated that goals are not set appropriately when consis… | CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-02-07 | 6 | Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the resolution provides non- - discriminatory access to fields and times; certain groups have been given the least favorite fields and times in the past the Resolution would ensure a balance in times and field locations. Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates former Councilmember Barbara Kerr originally bringing the matter to the Council's attention. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1. ] ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) (06-068) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Economic Development Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Lorre Zuppan for appointment to the Economic Development Commission. (06-069) Discussion regarding a resolution calling upon steps to withdraw our Reservists, Coast Guard Units and members of the California National Guard troops from Iraq. Joseph Woodard, Alameda, quoted 2005 Nobel Prize Playwright Harold Pinter urged a return of the troops. Mary Abu-Saba, Alameda Peace Network, stated that Alameda needs the California National Guard back. Susan Galleymore, Alameda, stated the War has caused a lot of horror and destruction; urged bringing the National Guard home. Mark Irons, Alameda, urged the Council to place the resolution on the next agenda for discussion. Sallyanne Monti, Alameda, stated the death rate of the National Guard is 35% higher than other units of service; urged return of the National Guard. Dorothy Kakimoto, Alameda, stated that the War is robbing social services ; urged the return of the National Guard. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 February 7, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-02-21 | 6 | Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the application form should include the language: "Park land and recreation facilities are designed for public use. Therefore, entities requesting approval for long-term use of park land and recreation facilities must be able to accommodate participation from the general public and not be limited by membership association. The Acting Recreation and Park Director stated the language could be included; noted applicants need to schedule a pre-meeting as part of the process. Councilmember Daysog inquired what were the Recreation and Park Commission's comments regarding the 72 hours and whether the 72 hours applied to a per-year basis. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the Recreation and Park Commission felt other activities would be impacted if any park activity shut down a park for 72 hours or more; a 72- hour use would be subject to more review than shorter-tern uses. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the 72-hour use would apply if a non-profit occupied different parks for eight-hour periods at different times of the year. The Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded said uses would be handled through the current one-day reservation process. Mayor Johnson inquired whether reservations for picnic areas would be included in the policy. The Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded picnic area reservations are handled through the one-day reservation process. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Lincoln Park and Franklin Park pool association responsibilities would change with the policy, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Daysog stated that the pool associations have a lease; inquired how the policy would affect the renewal of the lease. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the Council would have the option to extend the lease based upon the public service provided. Mayor Johnson stated lease renewals are issues that should come to the Council. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 Fe… | CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-03-07 | 6 | same time. Mayor Johnson stated people have served on three boards at one time; she does not believe serving on multiple boards is necessary because many people are interested in serving. Councilmember Daysog stated the Council should respect the nominee's desire to serve; the Mayor has the prerogative to nominate individuals; he respects Councilmember deHaan's position. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Councilmember deHaan - 1 . - The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of appointment to Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft. Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft thanked the Council for the honor of being appointed; stated she enjoyed serving on the Economic Development Commission. (06-119) - Public Hearing to consider ZA06-0001 - Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide and revision of Section 30-5.7 of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), Projections from Buildings and Roof Planes, Permitted Encroachments, and Treatments of Minimum Required Yards; and (06-119A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a New Subsection 30-5.7 (M) (Extensions of Roof Pitch and Roof Ridges) to Section 30-5.7 - (Projections from Buildings and Roof Planes, Permitted Encroachments and Treatments of Minimum Required Yards) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Add a Process for Allowing Additions to Existing Dwellings with Nonconforming Height. Introduced. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed amendment relates to the Design Review Guidelines. The Supervising Planner responded the amendment was proposed by the Customer Service Initiative Committee and is part of the on-going Development Code review. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 March 7, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-03-21 | 6 | (06-154) - Councilmember deHaan stated that the sidewalk on the Park Street side of the Alameda Towne Centre was only three feet; five feet would be more appropriate. (06-155) Councilmember deHaan stated that he attended AC Transit's hydrogen fuel cell demonstration on March 13; the bus has already been operating in Alameda. Mayor Johnson noted that the bus seems to be very quiet. (06-156) Mayor Johnson inquired whether anyone attended the AP&T electric partnership groundbreaking. Councilmember deHaan responded that he attended; stated the environment would be impacted if the gas was not captured. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11:15 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 6 March 21, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-04-04 | 6 | Robert Eves, President of Venture Corporation, responded in the negative; stated Phase 1 is completed and sold out; Phase 2 would provide 24 office spaces i Venture Corporation does not own any more land. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the same architectural design was reviewed for both projects, to which Mr. Eves responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated that he was not thrilled with having the buildings look identical. Mr. Eves stated that the buildings are not identical; Phase 2 color treatments are more upscale and have more architectural texture; the buildings are designed to maximize the views. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be access concerns if the buildings were moved forward. Mr. Eves responded alternative plans have been studied; Phase 2 occupants could lose views all together at least half of Phase 1 occupants could have views blocked. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the other speakers wished to speak at this time. Mr. Eves stated a presentation was planned, but the Planning Director's presentation was done very well; Venture Corporation representatives were present to answer any questions. Councilmember deHaan stated that the positioning of the buildings has been developed to maximize all tenants' views. Mr. Eves concurred with Councilmember deHaan. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she did not get a sense that the Planning Board overwhelmingly liked the alternative solutions presented by Venture Corporation the second time; requested Mr. Eves to comment. Mr. Eves stated that the Planning Board did not like any of the alternatives; the consensus was that the design presented was the best design; two Planning Board members felt the design should be changed but were unable to provide any ideas for change ; one Planning Board member did not feel that the design was consistent with her personal goals. Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates the Planning Board's Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 April 4, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-04-18 | 6 | Mayor Johnson stated that applicants often are individual homeowners. Councilmember deHaan stated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required projects are pushed to a higher level; a flat rate [for both appellants and applicants) would be fine. Councilmember Daysog stated the current rule has a chilling affect on free speech and needs to be changed he prefers the $100 flat rate; he cannot recall any frivolous appeals coming to the City Council or Planning Board in his ten years on the Council: apologized for participating in the passage of the 2004 Ordinance stated the ordinance went awry. Councilmember deHaan stated other concerning fees are in the Master Fee schedule, such as traffic appeal fees. Mayor Johnson stated the Council is trying to make the appeal process standard. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolution, option 2, with changing the Master Fee Resolution flat rate fee for applicants and non-applicants to $100. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1. ] Councilmember deHaan requested an Off Agenda Report on the breakdown of appeal fees charged over the past two years. (06-208) Adoption of Resolution Adopting a "Buy Alameda" Philosophy. Not adopted. The Assistant to the City Manager provided a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City had another "Buy Alameda" resolution; stated the first priority was to have the City do business with businesses in Alameda; the Finance Department has done a good job implementing policies; policies should be included as part of the proposed resolution or reflected in a separate resolution. Councilmember Matarrese stated the proposed resolution does not include language regarding the City's internal policy and procedures. The City Manager stated the Municipal Code addresses a local preference policy; additional language could be added to reflect Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 April 18, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-05-02 | 6 | with buttons supporting Proposition 81; stated she attended the Annual California Library Association and School Library Association Legislative Day in Sacramento; Proposition 81 is a $600 million Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act Proposition 81 is not polling well; the City could benefit from State bond funds to renovate the two branch libraries or build another branch library ; noted over 3 million native English speaking Californians are functionally illiterate; urged adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Daysog inquired what underlying revenue stream would pay for the Bond. Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft responded the indebtedness is taken on by the State; stated Proposition 81 has the same structure as Proposition 14. Councilmember Matarrese stated the New Main Library would not be possible without Proposition 14; support is needed for Proposition 81; the West End has an old branch library and Bay Farm Island has an undersized branch library. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-235) Resolution No. 13950, "Supporting a "Buy Alameda" Philosophy. " Adopted. The Acting Assistant to the City Manager provided a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the centralization for purchasing goods and supplies is being handled by the Finance Department, to which the Acting Assistant to the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether hiring a buyer was anticipated. The City Manager responded expanding the responsibilities of existing staff is being considered. Councilmember Daysog inquired how the 5% preference would work on a $10,000 purchase. The Finance Director responded written proposals would be requested on large purchases; a local vendor would have the advantage if they Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 May 2, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-05-16 | 6 | ( *06-264) Resolution No. 13956, "Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the Salary Range for the Classification of Web Technical Producer. " Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS ( 06-265) Resolution No. 13957, "Appointing Jeanette L. Copperwaite as a member of the Film Commission. (Historic Experience Seat) Adopted; (06-265A) Resolution No. 13958, "Appointing Kenneth I. Dorrance as a member of the Film Commission. Realty/Property Management Professional Seat) Adopted; (06-265B) Resolution No. 13959, "Appointing David J. Duffin as a member of the Film Commission. " (Film/Video Industry Seat) Adopted (06-265C) Resolution No. 13960, "Appointing Liam Gray as a member of the Film Commission. (Arts/Cultural Seat) Adopted; (06-265D) Resolution No. 13961, "Appointing Orin D. Green as a member of the Film Commission. " (Film/Video Industry Seat) Adopted (06-265E) Resolution No. 13962, "Appointing Patricia A. Grey and a member of the Film Commission. (Film/Video Industry Seat) Adopted; ( 06-265F Resolution No. 13963, "Appointing Tamar Lowell as a member of the Film Commission. (Water/Marina Based Experience Seat) Adopted; and (06-265G) Resolution No. 13964, "Appointing Theatte (Teddy) B. Tabor as a member of the Film Commission. (Community-at-Large Seat) 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 and presented certificates of appointment to Film Commission members. Mayor Johnson announced that Allison Bliss is the Chamber of Commerce representative, Tricia Collins-Levi is the West Alameda Business Association representative, and Robb Ratto is the Park Street Business Association representative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 May 16, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-06 | 6 | control; more information is needed prior to entering into negotiations; he attended one of two public meetings in which ten people attended; questioned whether the attendance was representative of the true passions for the Harbor Bay Maritime Service; stated he is not ready to enter into negotiations. Councilmember deHaan stated past meetings had high attendance regarding fare box issues; the same individuals need to provide strong input. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he draws a line between relinquishing the service and the negotiating process i the negotiating process is timely and provides an opportunity to explore conditions and guarantees. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated proceeding with negotiations is the first step in the process and would involve a lot of public input. Councilmember Daysog stated he would like to see plans regarding the ferry service from Harbor Bay to Alameda Point and on to San Francisco; he is concerned that a regional agency, such as WTA, relies on regional, State or federal money that is not guaranteed; pressures to rationalize operations could develop basic, general discussions are needed before negotiations. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation excluding the recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter into negotiations with (WTA). Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1. ] Councilmember deHaan requested the motion include the caveat that there is a certain threshold of anticipation for guarantees that the City wants, and that concerns raised would be discussed and fulfilled. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how said information would come back to Council; stated negotiations are timely because funding streams are available; inquired whether the reporting back could be structured around timeframes and milestones. The City Manager responded the Council would be informed throughout the processi timeframes and milestones would be provided to Council. Councilmember Matarrese … | CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-07 | 6 | the project) : Rosemary McNally, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Pat Bail, Alameda; Ani Dimusheva, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Richard Rutter, Alameda; Robert Gavrich, Alameda; Kristianne Koenen, Alameda; Kevin Frederick; and Nancy Kerns, Alameda. Speaker in support of staff recommendation (Option 1, Reject the bid and negotiate with Overaa Construction) : Lars Hansson, Park Street Business Association. Chair Johnson closed the public comment. The Development Services Director responded to comments. Commissioner deHaan provided a handout inquired whether using the parking contractor as an alternate is legally acceptable. Legal Counsel responded Option 1, contracting with the parking garage contractor low bidder who has not been selected, would be legal under the facts of the situation; stated economy of scale is possible, making the option legally permissible. Commissioner deHaan stated the displaced contractor has done an admirable job on the library; inquired whether the parking structure budget would be close to $900,000 with contingency. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has provided information on the cineplex portion, to which the Development Services Director responded the developer has a project estimate in excess of $5 million; he has been getting estimates; his formal cost estimates will be in next week. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has seen a major increase. The Development Services Director responded the developer is fairly confident; four contractors are sharing preliminary estimates. In response to Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding project costs to date, the Development Services Director stated $3,378,500 has been spent, including acquisition of two properties. Commissioner deHaan outlined cost increases since 2002; stated cost estimates were $17. 6 million in 2004; today's costs are around $33.6 million; there has been growth. The Development Services Director stated construction costs co… | CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-20 | 6 | There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-325) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 13980, "Authorizing Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills. Adopted. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Opponents (Not in favor of resolution) : Mark Fielding, Alameda; Lou Bradas, Alameda Jon Spangler, Alameda. Proponents (In favor of resolution) : None. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how long the accounts have been delinquent; stated there seems to be a lag in time from when payment was due and notification. The Public Works Director responded ACI is required to give four formal, default notifications; stated Mr. Fielding received three notifications; he has not researched Mr. Bradas' claim; ACI might apply payment to the most delinquent account. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether people are receiving proper notification and whether issues are being resolved at the ACI level. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated delinquent accounts have decreased by 30% since last year; four formal notification letters were sent to any account that was in default after 45 days; the City also sent two letters. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether direction was given to contact the City instead of ACI. The Public Works Director responded contact information for both Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 June 20, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-05 | 6 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA, , AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING WEDNESDAY- -JULY 5, 2006- - -5:30 P. M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 5:40 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chail Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider ARRA Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property : Alameda Naval Air Station; Negotiating parties ARRA and Navy ; Under negotiation Price and terms. (06-339CC) 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. (06-340CC) Conference with Property Negotiators; Property: Fruitvale Railroad Bridge Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Army Corp. of Engineers Under negotiation: Price and terms. *** Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:40 p.m. to hold the Regular Meeting and reconvened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:56 p.m. (06-038CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case : Community Improvement Commission V. Cocores Development Company . (06-341CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 1 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-18 | 6 | aggressive about pursuing renewable energy sources. The Senior Management Analyst stated that management and staff have discussed a goal for 100% renewable energy sources. Mayor Johnson inquired what was the nationwide goal, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded the State's goal is 20% by 2013. Councilmember deHaan stated the landfill gas is a win-win situation. The motion carried by consensus - 5. Councilmember Matarrese suggested inserting "electric" in front of "hybrid electric" throughout the resolution because the City's vehicle replacement policy directs purchase of entirely electric vehicles first; stated the hybrid electric becomes a fuel efficient, gasoline driven car when driving at a high speed and long distance; former Interim City Manager Bill Norton had an electric Honda CRV and was able to make two round trips from Alameda to San Francisco between charges. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether members in the audience had any questions or needed clarification. Mr. Geller stated he wanted to ensure that Council was clear on the difference between hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and entirely electric vehicles; the resolution only relates to a hybrid vehicle that can be plugged in; today': hybrid vehicles cannot be plugged in; there is not option to get electricity from the cleaner, cheaper domestic source. Mayor Johnson stated that the City's number one priority is entirely electric. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Providing Support for Policies, with an amendment to insert "electric or" in front of "hybrid electric vehicles" Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-374) Negotiations with the Bay Area Water Transit Authority Related to Transfer of City Ferry Services. Mayor Johnson announced that she would recuse herself on the matter because she serves on the Water Transit Authority (WTA). Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 July 18, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-26 | 6 | Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the square foot price was determined for the Historic Theater. The Development Services Director responded cost comparisons were done against brand new, first-ru construction at $1.30 per square foot average; the budget starts out with a lease rate of $72,000 per year for years one through six; the rate jumps to $156,000 per year for years seven through ten; the rate would be based on the CPI starting in year eleven, with a 3% floor and 5% ceiling; the developer would be required to make a $1.2 million FF&E commitment; the operating costs would be very slim in the first six years, especially when there is a FF&E load to retire; a 17% profit participation has been included in the event the project stabilizes at a higher rate than estimated; the City would share in percentage rent if the project produces better than expected; the City would receive payments just about equal to what the developer and investors are getting. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the profit participation continues throughout the lease. The Development Services Director responded the profit participation is reduced to about 12% at the time the first loan is repaid. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the square footage rate is a minimum rental amount, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that translating items into square foot terms would not overcome the existing difference of 90 cents per square foot; related discussions were held last August; he would rather get the money up front. The Development Services Director stated the City is leveraging a minimum of $5.3 million in private investment as a result of the agreement. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated said investment contributed to the division within the community. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated there was a $4.5 million delta between the bids; the project includes the Cineplex, Historic Theater and parking garage inquired whether there was a guarantee tha… | CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-08-01 | 6 | what big box retail does to the Bay Area; City staff needs to be unbiased. Councilmember deHaan stated he placed the matter on the agenda because discussion needs to go forward now; proposals will be before Council and have already been before the Planning Board; the City is trying to capture off-island sales leakage many studies have been conducted; the June 7 Alameda Landing study specified that the leakage was not that big and does not constitute a large box format; the drawings show four 225,000 square foot boxes; he would like to start reviewing the opportunity of an ordinance, recommendation, or proposal control is needed on a level that is manageable for the City; additional entitlements are requested and would be a problem; the studies indicate that big boxes have an economic impact on local business; there are wage and benefit concerns ; he would like to have more dialogue on the matter and would like to have the leakage study go back to the Economic Development Commission (EDC) for further discussion to determine what is really needed; he would like to have the matter continued. louncilmember Matarrese stated the Economic Development Strategic Plan Task Force (EDSP) had the same discussion in 1999 ; the Strategic Plan states that Alameda does not want to have big box retail; discussion was mainly focused on Walmart, the Home Depot and COSTCO, which are warehouse stores; the Strategic Plan is being updated; concurred with Councilmember deHaan's suggestion; EDC review is a good idea; stated that re-establishing the goals of the Strategic Plan is good after seven years; big boxes should be defined; there are concerns with how employees are treated and the drain on the public health system. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated a shopping center study was conducted in the last two years; the study addressed the need for anchor stores at shopping centers; several stores on the list could have been anchor tenants but had minimal approval from Alameda residents; the EDC needs to review anchor stores being big box stores; … | CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-08-15 | 6 | commended the legal team for defending the Beltline property. (06-422) - ) Councilmember Daysog requesting looking into replacing the three old flags coming into Alameda through the Tube. (06-423 ) Mayor Johnson stated Jean Sweeney did a great job in tracking down the Beltline Contract; she hopes that better contract tracking has been implemented within the City. (06-424) Mayor Johnson stated the Coast Guard Island ball field would be a good facility to add to the City's inventory; the City uses the Coast Guard field for soccer already suggested the Coast Guard be approached to determine whether the City could use the ball field for other uses; stated the City could contribute to some improvements. The City Manager stated the Recreation and Park Director has had some discussions with the Coast Guard and is working on expanding the use beyond the soccer. Mayor Johnson stated people from the softball associations have mentioned that the Coast Guard field would be the best field for college exhibition games. (06-425) Mayor Johnson stated the City has been reviewing the need for additional senior housing over the years; requested that the Housing Authority Executive Director provide an update to Council and the public regarding adding senior housing to the City's inventory. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:15p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting 6 Alameda City Council August 15, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-05 | 6 | million; inquired whether, including depreciation, the units are being sold for the amount they are worth. The AP&T General Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what the money would be used for if the units were sold. The AP&T General Manager responded the money would be used for other infrastructure needs; stated one capital project in mind is a second feeder to Coast Guard Island. Councilmember Daysog inquired what would be the cost of a mobile unit, to which the Disaster Preparation Officer responded that he does not know the amount. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the units have a 10-year useful life period. The AP&T General Manager responded the units have a 10 or 20 year life period; stated maintenance staff indicated the life of the generators is rapidly declining. Councilmember Daysog stated the price is good if the life is 10- years; said information would be useful; the conversation should be from the vantage point of the objective that the City would achieve from selling the generators; more information is needed. Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to know the impact on disaster preparedness and whether proceeds should be used to purchase mobile generators to make the City better prepared in the event of a disaster; that she concurs with Councilmember Daysog that more information is needed. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he concurs with Councilmember Daysog about understanding the goal; homeland security money should be pursued for a second line to Coast Guard Island; the money from the sale should replace the original use; more information on the goal is needed. The AP&T General Manager stated the units were purchased for rolling blackouts; AP&T's portfolio has been properly planned and the City should not be subject to rolling blackouts; the generators are quite cumbersome and would not be best for disaster response ; there are costs for maintenance and fuel. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether keeping the units in stand by mode costs $30,000. Regular M… | CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-19 | 6 | building, to which the Supervising Planner responded the use runs with the land. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a new building owner would get the previous owner's reduced parking if the use would be different, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what would happen if a ground floor office was replaced by a retail store with more foot traffic. The Supervising Planner responded ground floor office is not allowed in the Community Commercial (CC) District. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired about parking in lieu fees. The Supervising Planner stated that parking in lieu fees are triggered when a building or use cannot meet the parking standards ; a fee is paid to assist the City with payment for off-street parking or a parking structure; parking waivers can be requested; parking in lieu requests are considered by the Planning Board. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the parking in lieu fees has a range or a set amount per parking space. The Supervising Planner responded the parking in lieu fees are based on the assessed value times 250 square feet. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what a parking study would cost, to which the Supervising Planner responded she did not think a parking study would cost as much as the cost of parking. Councilmember deHaan stated parking in lieu fees are approximately $6,000 and are predicated on the property use; a lot of retail tenants do not stay very long. The City Attorney stated the ordinance specifies that control would be for the use as well as the structure. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a use permit continues unless the use is discontinued for a year; further inquired whether the permit could run with the use of the land. The City Attorney responded the permit does not run with the land; a new parking exception would be needed if there are structure and use alterations. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the ordinance language was patterned after other cities. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 September 19, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-03 | 6 | The Recreation and Park Director responded thought has been given to having a very open and collaborative process, with a great deal of community involvement. Mayor Johnson requested that the process be brought back to Council for approval. Councilmember deHaan requested an explanation on the dwelling unit tax fund. The Finance Director stated the dwelling unit tax fund is a tax that is assessed at the building permit process stage; approximately one-sixth goes to the Library construction fund; the remainder goes to Recreation and Park; there are no requirements addressing us of the funds; typically, the funds are used for park construction and revitalization. Councilmember deHaan inquired how much money is in the fund. The Finance Director responded she did not know; stated funding usage depends on the building cycle. Mayor Johnson stated funding and ballot measure questions have been raised; she has requested that the City Attorney respond to some of the questions and provide an overview on the Beltline open space issue. The City Attorney provided a brief presentation. Councilmember Daysog stated ordinances have two readings; inquired whether the ordinance could be introduced but no finally passed until the process is completed. The City Attorney responded the first ordinance reading would not jeopardize the City's position with on-going litigation; stated rezoning action would not be taken until the second reading. *** Councilmember Daysog left at 8:45 p.m. and returned at 8:47 p.m. *** Councilmember deHaan inquired whether money is set aside and earmarked for Estuary Park. The Recreation and Park Director responded the money was earmarked as a match for a grant the City applied for through the State; the City did not receive the grant. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 October 3, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 6 | encompasses the parcel south of Clement Avenue as well as west; the intention was never to put all 300 units on the little piece of property; inquired whether the property is meant to have a 300-foot span from the water to whatever is developed is residential, mixed- use according to the General Plan was residential, mixed use, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the property could be rezoned and still have the potential of the ten-acre park, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what is the nearby residential zoning. The Supervising Planner responded Mr. Snyder's Elm Street property is zoned R-4; stated the Oak Street property, south of Clement Avenue and along Oak Street, is zoned R-5. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the areas shown on the zoning map are consistent with the General Plan. The Supervising Planner responded generally the areas are consistent with the exception of some of the M-2 zoning within the MU-5 General Plan designation. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the intention was never to cram 242 units onto the single parcel the 13.89 acres could possibly have 333 housing units after setting aside land for the park, roads, etc; the General Plan does not state that all residential units have to be shoehorned on the one little piece of property; other parcels can accommodate residential in the area. Mayor Johnson stated the Planning Board went through a process of reviewing areas for consistency with the General Plan ten years ago; other uses make the area R-4 commercial manufacturing, not the residential structures; she does not recall seeing large residential structures in the area; the area would be more consistent with surrounding areas if zoned R-2. The Supervising Planner concurred with Mayor Johnson, as long as there is a PD overlay provision. Councilmember Daysog stated the Collins' proposal comes out to be approximately 26 units per acre; the math comes out to be approximately 17 units … | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-11-14.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-11-14 | 6 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 14, 2006- -6:00 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:20 p.m. Roll Call - Present : louncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (06-532 CC) Conference with Labor Negotiatorsi Agency negotiators Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee organizations Alameda City Employees Association, Executive Management Group, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Management and Confidential Employees Association, and Police Association Non- Sworn. 06-067 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property Fleet Industrial Supply Center; Negotiating parties: CIC and Prologis/Catellus Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chail Johnson announced that regarding Labor, the Council met with its Labor Negotiators and received a briefing on the status of negotiations with each bargaining unit and provided direction; and regarding Real Property, the Commission received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiators regarding the status of negotiations with Prologis regarding the potential sale of property at the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center and direction was given to negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 14, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-11-14.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-11-21 | 6 | legislation addressing how a cost benefit analysis is done. Mayor Johnson stated the City needs special legislation; inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would support the City's request for special legislation. The District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers is prohibited from promoting legislation which would pour money into the Army Corps of Engineers' coffers. stated technical assistance is available if representatives make a request to the Army Corps of Engineers. Councilmember Daysog stated the Army Corps of Engineer's report mentioned an October 2007 date to have everything in place; inquired whether it would be possible to iron out issues and strike compromises within the timeline. The District Counsel responded negotiating a moratorium would take far less time than getting Congressional representatives to pass legislation; the Army Corps of Engineers is willing to entertain moratorium modifications negotiations could start as soon as a written proposal is received outlining what the City would want to change the Army Corps of Engineers wants to ensure that the waterfront is developed in an environmentally and economically sound manner. Councilmember Daysog stated the City needs the Corps to provide the City with possible actions by February. The Project Manager stated the October 2007 date applies to the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge and is flexible. Councilmember Matarrese requested that a message be sent up the chain of command regarding the City's issues with the imposed deadline; time is needed for City staff to prepare some type of Council action; the public needs an additional chance to comment i requested that the Army Corps of Engineers advise the chain of command that the deadline is not realistic. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the authority to transfer the property to the City supercedes the authority to transfer the property to the individual homeowners; stated that she understood the Army Corps of Engineers' preference was to transfer the property to the City. The … | CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-12-05 | 6 | The Supervising Planner stated moving the second-story addition closer to the property line might help; the shading study shows that moving the addition further away from the Appellant's house would reduce the impact; he understands that the Appellant does not mind the back side shading; the Appellant believes that relocating the master bedroom to the back of the house would open up the kitchen and dining area sunlight; the approach could be explored. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a quick test could be done without doing a full-scale redesign; further inquired whether computer modeling could be done. The Supervising Planner responded computer modeling could be done; stated he would prefer that Council pose the question directly to the Appellant; computer modeling cannot be done quickly; Council would need to remand the matter back to the Planning Board for redesign. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore regarding an allowed second-story addition in the neighborhood: stated other property owners enjoy the right to add a second story and the right cannot be denied to the Applicant; three conditions need to be met for design review approval; the current proposed design is not compatible with the adjacent and neighboring buildings; he would like to send the matter back to the Planning Board to consider redesign that models the Appellant's suggestion to set the addition back from the street in order to retain the one-story character of the neighborhood; the shade issue would be addressed. Mayor Johnson stated she would like to address the neighborhood's size and scale also; the neighborhood's size and scale would not be maintained by doubling the house size. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she would like to hear from the Applicant; statements have been made regarding size, scale and shading issues; suggestions have been made to send the project back to the Planning Board to consider moving the second-story addition over to the existing wall of the house and setting the front of the second-story add… | CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 6 | Counci deHaan inquired whether any action was taken on the items. The Planning and Building Director responded a number of issues have been addressed; stated all conditions of approval have been addressed with Harsh Investment. Councilmember deHaan stated transit stops and pedestrian concerns have been expressed. Councilmember Matarrese requested that staff relate any pertinent information on the referenced seven points; inquired how the items are connected. The Planner III responded the AC Transit route was shifted to Franciscan Way from Whitehall Place on the south side of the shopping center in 2003; one requirement was to move the route back to Whitehall Place; new bus stops were reviewed by AC Transit, Public Works, and Planning and have been constructed; the main difference was that the western half of Mervyns was going to be demolished and turned into a parking lot in 2003; the current proposal does not include demolition of half of Mervyns; staff is working with the Applicant, AC Transit and Bike Alameda on bus stop design and bike locker amenities; said changes are at the opposite end of the shopping center; changes are being proposed for the eastern end; the new designs will address comments received in response to the PDA as well as construction, such as widening the turning radius for buses to get onto Whitehall Place from Park Street, and widening Whitehall Place to allow for bicycle lanes and buses; Building 300 and Building 500 would not interfere with said improvements; bus pull-outs were discussed in 2003, as well as having buses pull up to the curb. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the process is on going. The Planner III responded in the affirmative stated the east/west sidewalk would go behind the buildings in front onto Otis Drive and connect the new Walgreen's down to the other end of the center and was a condition of approval in 2003. the Applicant encountered a number of feasibility issues from an engineering standpoint in 2003; the Applicant met with the Public Works and Planning Dep… | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 6 | The Supervising Planner stated Council could impose a Master Plan condition that would require that the Grand Marina residential project be responsible for maintenance of the public triangular parks; the condition could be expanded to include that the Homeowners Association be responsible for the portions outside of the parks. Mayor Johnson stated the path is a public access and could become a safety issue if the Grand Marina was not responsible for maintenance; the path would become a problem for the City; inquired whether agreements exist between Grand Marina and the Applicant. The Supervising Planner responded agreements are between the City and Mr. Wang, Warmington Homes and Mr. Wang, and Master Plan entitlements. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant would have the ability to pass on maintenance costs to the Grand Marina, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. The Supervising Planner continued with the presentation. The Architect provided a video presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents: (In favor of project appeal) : David Day, Applicant; Dan Lachman, Alameda Development Corporation. Opponent (Not in favor of project appeal) : Richard W. Rutter, Alameda. Neutral Christopher Buckley, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Following the Applicant's comments, Mayor Johnson stated the Bayport duplexes are very good; inquired why duplexes were not considered for the proposed project. The Applicant responded an attached product costs more to build because of insurance; stated the proposed project has great architectural quality; height diversity is good. Mayor Johnson stated that she likes the garages in the back. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-02-06 | 6 | Counci lmember Matarrese inquired whether ten years is sufficient, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether tax increment can be collected after the redevelopment period ends. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded only the amount of any outstanding debt owed. Mayor Johnson stated the tax increment is a benefit to the City; the City keeps the money instead of sending the money to the State or other jurisdictions. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a statutory control prevents the City from over bonding. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the City would not be able to issue a bond without the capacity to repay the bond within the legal time limits. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether bond issuance could go to the ballot. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the proposed ordinance does not have an impact on Council's decision to put bonds before the people for a vote. Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( 07-056) Ordinance No. 2961, "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) " Finally passed; and (07-056A) Ordinance No. 2962, "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. Finally passed. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she would abstain from voting on the matter. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 February 6, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-02-20 | 6 | Mayor Johnson inquired whether the additional work is the result of the Planning Board, Transportation Commission, and community input, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Tam stated additional traffic analysis is recommended by the Planning Board, Transportation Commission, and public; inquired what is not being addressed in the current scope. The Supervising Planner responded that he did not know; stated no specifics were offered; staff is responding to any written comments received; the City's EIR guidelines require written response to any comments. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the additional analysis would address timing, Target size, and tenant issues. The Supervising Planner responded said issues would be covered in the additional analysis or in staff's professional judgment. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board had the opportunity to review the scope of work. The Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated staff consolidated all comments received, which was two inches thick. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether going back to the Planning Board would be more prudent. The Supervising Planner responded a special meeting is scheduled for March 12 to walk the site. Councilmember Matarrese stated the scope is sufficiently broad to allow interaction between the Planning Board and staff to move forward and make adjustments as information is gathered from the March 12 meeting. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is the comment and discussion period once the final EIR is prepared. The Supervising Planner responded there is a mandatory fifteen day comment period once the final EIR is provided; stated that he anticipates more than a fifteen day comment period because the Planning Board wants opportunities to discuss the final EIR before the public hearing. Councilmember Gilmore stated there would be a full-noticed hearing Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 February 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-03-06 | 6 | Officer Rodrigue responded only two accidents have occurred in the corridor from January 2005 to present. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the accidents involved buses, to which Officer Rodrigue responded in the negative. Councilmember Gilmore requested Officer Rodrigue to detail the new Crossing Guard training. Officer Rodrigue responded the Crossing Guards have been instructed to review bus status prior to stepping into the crosswalk. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Crossing Guards have been instructed to hold the children back when they see the bus coming, to which Officer Rodrigue responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Police Officers have been monitoring the area since improvements have been made as part of routine traffic patrol. Officer Rodrigue responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Police Officers have observed that the mitigations are effective, to which Officer Rodrigue responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Police Officers have observed the Crossing Guards stopping the bus at the crosswalk as it travels past. Officer Rodrigue responded that he has not observed buses stopping for the crosswalk; however, the Crossing Guards stop the buses passing through just like other vehicles. Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing. Opponents (Opposed to bus stops) : Geoffrey Kline, Appellant; Mina Katoozian, Alameda; Maggy Menendez, Alameda; Pat Owens, Alameda; George S. Wales, Alameda; Patty Rose, Alameda; Peter Muzio, Alameda; Liz Cleves (submitted photos and paperwork), Alameda; Diane Voss, Alameda: Kevin Dong, Alameda; Barbara Nemer, Alameda; Dan Pereira, Alameda; Jack Boeger, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda; David Howard, Alameda Bill Beltz, Alameda; Davina Vick, Alameda; Cheri Galan, Alameda; and Claudia Davison, Alameda. Proponents (In favor of bus stops) : Laura Thomas, Alameda; Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates; and Jon Spangler, Alameda Transit Advocates. Regular Meeting Alamed… | CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-03-20 | 6 | The Finance Director stated $56,600 has been expended for Capital Improvement Projects through February. Mayor Johnson inquired what was done with the $56,600. The Finance Director responded some money was spent for golf amenity projects; stated $54,600 was expended for the Clubhouse project. Mayor Johnson stated a capital improvement schedule needs to be established. Councilmember Matarrese stated the resolution is a good start; he likes the idea of recognizing the Golf Commission's role and responsibility and adding language to recognize keys points, such as directing staff and the Golf Commission to monitor the Golf Complex; recognizing the need to operate under a balanced budget is essential: a trigger point should occur when operating under a balanced budget is not possible; the Golf Commission should evaluate the matter and make a recommendation to allocate the money needed to close the gap; action is not driven by monitoring the budget and providing a monthly report; the Golf Complex is a City asset that generates revenue. Mayor Johnson stated that Council needs to establish an annual reserve for bad months; the reserve should be replenished in good months. Councilmember deHaan stated rainy days are the difficult portion of the equation; a monthly budget is needed with all elements taken into consideration. Mayor Johnson stated the Interim Golf Manager needs time to balance the budget and get things under control. the Clubhouse funding should be restricted; separate accounts should be established for operating reserves. The Finance Director stated Council could designate unrestricted reserve funds for a specific purpose; staff cannot set up a designated reserve without Council direction. Mayor Johnson requested that the matter come back to Council to address how much unrestricted funds would be needed. The City Manager suggested the recommended changes be made and the matter be brought back [of restricting funds for the Clubhouse] with the budget update in May. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 March … | CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-04-03 | 6 | survey ; the survey was very comprehensive ; she was pleasantly surprised at the number of responses; the website should be kept in mind when doing other surveys. The City Engineer stated credit needs to be given to the Transportation Commission; bus riders were given an option to obtain a hard copy of the report or use the website; impacted communities were targeted. Vice Mayor Tam commended the Transportation Commission and staff; stated twenty-two potential sites are listed on the survey; inquired whether a criteria would be used to determine bus shelter locations. The City Engineer responded twenty-four high priority locations were previously identified by Council. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the locations were based on ridership, to which the City Engineer responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated the list should be periodically reviewed by the Transportation Commission or Council if ridership changes. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated she that likes Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion regarding durability and maintenance. Councilmember Gilmore amended the motion to include that priority be given to shelters with the highest durability and least amount of maintenance. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-156 - ) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of a Planning Board decision to deny Planned Development (PD-05-0002) for 2241 and 2243 Clement Avenue (Boatworks Project) ; and (07-156A) Resolution No. 14080, "Upholding Planning Board Resolution PB-07-03 Denying Planned Development (PD-05-0002) for 2241 and 2243 Clement Avenue (Boatworks Project) " Adopted. The Planning Services Manager provided a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 April 3, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-04-17 | 6 | Mayor Johnson announced that the Introduction of Ordinance [paragraph no. 07-180] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approved of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ] (*07-170) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on April 3, 2007. Approved. (*07-171) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,149,429.28 (*07-172) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $125,000 to Sally Swanson Architects, Inc. for update of the City's Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan and Self-Evaluation Plan. ( *07-173) Recommendation to approve joining the Joint Powers Agreement known as the Bay Area Employee Relations Services (BAERS) . (*07-174) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $857,200, including contingencies, to Golden Bay Construction, Inc. for Repair of Portland Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal Year 2006-07, Phase 8, No. P.W. 08-06-18. (*07-175) - Recommendation to accept the work of Ransome Company for Site Improvements and Designed Mobile Systems Industries, Inc. for Modular Building and Foundation Improvements associated with the New Modular Building (Washington Park Community Center) at Upper Washington Park, No. P.W. 05-06-17. (*07-176) Recommendation to award a five-year Vehicle Tow Contract to Ken Betts Towing. (*07-177) - Recommendation to approve second amendment to Contract with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. increasing the amount by $25,000 for consultant services to assist with Ballena Isle Marina negotiations. (*07-178) Recommendation to reject Sole Bid and Resolution No. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 April 17, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-05-01.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-05-01 | 6 | Councilmember deHaan stated another measurement of success is when other municipalities use the Library as a model. The Project Manager stated a lot of municipalities have toured the Library. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she would like to add her commendations; the Library is a community center; she hopes the theater project follows the same level of success. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation. Mayor Johnson stated S. J. Amoroso Construction did a great job also; the City is glad to have them working on the theater project. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Matarrese - 1. ] ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA ( 07-203) Philip Tribuzio, Alameda, submitted handout, discussed the consequence of global warming. (07-204) Mike Sheppard, Frank Bette Center for the Arts, submitted handout, stated the arts are not tangential but are core to community development in America; encouraged Council to incorporate the arts in every possible aspect of policy considerations for the future of Alameda. (07 7-205 - ) John Olson, Alameda, stated that he would like to start a San Francisco Bay Center for wooden boats; encouraged Council support. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07-206) Mayor Johnson stated that she attended the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Conference in Washington, D.C.. ; four Alameda representatives attended the Conference, which was an effort to advocate for Alameda and the NCPA on power issues. (07-207) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she attended the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) General Assembly on April 19 in San Francisco; housing and regional priorities were discussed; there was a real focus on green building and green techniques. (07-208) Mayor Johnson stated that the Planning Board was looking at green building ordinances; requested an update on the matter ; stated the Waste Management Authority has green building ordinance Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 May 1, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-05-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-05-15 | 6 | that the largest percent achievable would be 20% [using public transit] ; the matter is how traffic will flow and move in an orderly fashion throughout Alameda, not Measure A; the Council needs further discussion of how to look at Alameda as a whole rather than individual parts; discussion is important and healthy. Following the last public speaker, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. * * Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:25 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciated everyone's civility. Councilmember Matarrese requested the City Attorney to answer the question about whether the Planning Board action was within the Board's legal authority. The City Attorney responded the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over amending or changing Measure A, which would be a Charter amendment and requires a vote of the people; stated the Planning Board also has no jurisdiction over advocating the changing of Measure A; the Planning Board can look at and talk about Measure A as long as it does not take an advocacy position; establishing a subcommittee for the sole purpose of looking at various ways a public forum could be structured is not outside the authority of the Planning Board; under the Brown Act, the subcommittee must report back to the Planning Board at an open meeting with public participation; the action the Planning Board took was within the Board's jurisdiction. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning Board's action that was appealed was legal whether the Board cannot take an advocacy position; whether the subcommittee would not make any decisions and would only make recommendations to the Planning Board; and whether the Planning Board would not make any decision about whether Measure A stays or goes because it is outside the Board's purview. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative to all of Councilmember Matarrese's inquiries. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether there are any constraints on the direction the Council can give regarding… | CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-05 | 6 | with Municipal Auditing Services and the business associations. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of authorizing collection of delinquent business license fees via the property tax bills. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-265) Public Hearing to Resolution No. 14100, "Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. Adopted. The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponent Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution confirming the BIA Report and authorizing levying the annual assessment fee. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-266) Public Hearing on the proposed fare increase for the Alameda/Oaklar Ferry Service and recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a one-year extension of the Blue & Gold Fleet Operating Agreement with the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, adopt associated budgets, and approve the proposed fare increases for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service; (07-266A) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a one-year extension of the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating Agreement with the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry, and adopt the associated budgets; (07-266B) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a second amendment to the amended and restated Ferry Services Agreement with the Port of Oakland to extend the term for one additional year at a cost of $79,1591 and ( 07-266C) Resolution No. 14101, "Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Funds, Including Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Regular Meeting Alameda City Council… | CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-19 | 6 | systems in place. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 911 calls can be made on cell phones [and are directed to Police Dispatch]. The Police Chief responded there is good news on the E-911 system; Nextel lines are not up and running the City is at the mercy of Nextel to make some technological changes; the City has done everything to be able to receive 911 calls. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other cell carriers would be able to interface, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson expressed condolences to the Police Chief on the loss of Lieutenant Cranford; requested that the Police Chief extend the City's condolences to the family. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (07-294) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated the Relay for Life event would take place on Saturday and Sunday; this week is Amateur Radio Week; today is the 73rd birthday of the Federal Communication Commission. (07-295) Cate Kuhne, Alameda, submitted handout stated that she received an eviction notice for living in an illegal unit; documentation shows that the building has been a ten-unit apartment house since 1945; staff is choosing to ignore said fact; she has appealed the eviction and has been advised by City staff that she has no rights; requested Council to review and investigate the matter and to schedule and hold an administrative hearing by August 19, 2007. Mayor Johnson requested an Off-Agenda report on the matter. Councilmember deHaan requested staff to find out where the landlord is in the process. (07-296) Patrick Lynch, Alameda, stated the owner next to his property was required to file a deed restriction; the deed restriction was recorded eighteen months agoi construction began approximately six weeks ago; the owner was required to protect the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 June 19, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-07-03.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-07-03 | 6 | the hearing. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Light District 84- 2, All Zones. Councilmember deHaan clarified that the motion was for the present assessment. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, Zones 2 and 3 [paragraph no. 07-322A] would be tabled to allow the ballots to be tallied. (07-323) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14132, "Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) " Adopted. The Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-324) - Public Hearing presenting the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. The Finance Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Mayor Johnson stated that the golf fees are fine; there is an Regular Meeting 6 Alameda City Council July 3, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-07-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-07-17 | 6 | language could be changed to require maintaining building heights between one and four stories unless allowed by the zoning. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many feet is four stories, to which the Planning Services Manager responded forty to fifty feet. Councilmember Matarrese stated the Del Monte building is the defining feature of the Northern Waterfront; the Encinal Terminals area would have substantial open space; a trade-off is not needed because of the Tidelands Trust and Bay Conservation and Development Commission requirements. Mayor Johnson stated that she was going up and down the Estuary on the Coast Guard Cutter tonight people are unaware of the inaccessibility of the area; she cannot wait until the waterfront is opened to the public; the General Plan should move forward; adjustments can be made later. Councilmember Gilmore stated developers should be put on notice as to what the community considers to be a general height limit. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter would be addressed in the zoning ordinance. The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the policy could be amended to remove the added Planning Board language; the policy should be moved to be placed at the beginning of the policies relating to the entire area, rather than under Encinal Terminals. Mayor Johnson inquired how high are the Wind River buildings, to which the Planning Services Manager responded four stories. Mayor Johnson stated the amendment should address height in feet, not stories; four stories is ambiguous. The Planning Services Manager stated the idea would be to move the policy to the general policy section and to state that heights would be limited to the specific height in feet comparable to the Wind River buildings. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Mayor Johnson regarding the need for the amendment to move forward; stated parking and Regular Meeting 6 Alameda City Council July 17, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-08-07 | 6 | at $80 per month; the lot would be surveyed; thirteen spaces would generate $1,040 per month and would cover the monthly cost in addition to paying PSBA $40 for administration; $960 would be generated from twelve spaces; PSBA Board of Directors approved covering the remaining $40 per month; the issue can reviewed after a year. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the spaces would be available to the public in the evenings and weekends. Mr. Ratto responded in the negative; stated most businesses are open seven days per week; Lots A and C do not guarantee a space; PSBA would pay for new signage indicating that the lot is a permitted lot. Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Councilmember Gilmore - 1. ] (*07-371) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Community Improvement Plan for the West End Community Improvement Project to Extend Certain Plan Time Limitations by Two Years Pursuant to Senate Bill 1096. Introduced. (07-372) Ordinance No. 2968, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 13-2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13-2 (Alameda Building Code) of Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) to Incorporate Specific Requirements for the Installation of Fire Extinguishing Systems. Finally passed. Steven Edrington, Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County, stated the Association supports the ordinance; the Oakland Municipal Code waives the sprinkler requirement if a hydrant is moved closer to the proximity of the building. Vice Mayor Tam moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Councilmember Gilmore - 1. ] REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (07-373) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of a Planning Board approval of Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001, Major Design Review DR05-0010, and Use Permits UP06-0003 and UP06-0013 allowing Regular Meeting 6 A… | CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-08-21 | 6 | Vice Mayor Tam inquired how much is estimated for a full time employee. The Recreation and Park Director responded fifteen hours per week would equate to half of a full time employee and would cost approximately $35,000 to $40,000 per year. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting. Proponents (In favor of the ordinance) : Cecilia Martinex, HOME Project; Audrey Lord-Hausman, Alameda Youth Collaborative; Antonio Jimenez, HOME Project Rachel Reed, Alameda Point Collaborative; Morgan Turner, Alternatives in Action (AIA) ; Patricia Murillo, AIA; Franklin Hysten, AIA; Alia Sydney Thomas, AIA; Michael John Torrey, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the meeting. Mayor Johnson stated the language should state that high school age students should live and be students in Alameda and that high school graduates should live in Alameda. Councilmember Matarrese stated the language should be "and/or" because there are residents who live in Alameda but go to high school elsewhere, and there are students in Alameda schools who are not residents. Vice Mayor Tam moved introduction of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Tam stated the Youth Commission should provide input on the type of support needed and ways to partner to secure funding for different policy issues; stated her motion includes the modifications to 2-19.3 on the Qualifications that states that a potential commissioner must be a resident of Alameda and/or attend a school within the City. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Council needs to give specific direction on some of the initial activity. Mayor Johnson stated a joint meeting could be scheduled. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Recreation and Park Department needs to advise Council if more resources are needed. Regular Meeting 6 Alameda City Council August 21, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-04.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-04 | 6 | Charter review would be a housekeeping effort to clean up language and clichés the City has been living with continually. Mayor Johnson stated Alameda Power and Telecom issues need to be reviewed; the Charter review should be an ongoing process. Councilmember deHaan stated that the City Attorney should be involved in the process because she understands the Charter very well; the City Manager needs to be involved also. Mayor Johnson stated that Council meeting dates and times should not be in the Charter. Councilmember Matarrese stated presupposing what Council will say when information comes back does a disservice; the list should start with non-substantive issues and lead up to more substantive issues; the entire list would not be placed on a ballot; Article 25 addresses Urban Renewal; Urban Renewal is an antiquated phrase; there would not be an objective review if some sections of the Charter were overlooked. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the first step is to form a Council sub-committee to review the Charter with assistance from the City Attorney and City Clerk; the sub-committee would list issues that may need further discussion by Council; the list and other housecleaning items would come back; Council can decide when, if, and how to deal with the issues; issues need to be identified first. Councilmember deHaan stated that the Charter is awkward at best; the City Attorney helps Council with interpreting the Charter. David Howard, Alameda, stated people are concerned that the Charter review will turn into a Measure A discussion; the process should be an open process. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she raised the Charter review issue after attending a League of California Cities conference; numerous cities are going through a similar processi issues should be identified first; she would like to get broad community input on areas that should or should not be reviewed; other cities have appointed a committee through an application process or have had each Councilmember appoint two members from the community; the… | CityCouncil/2007-09-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-11 | 6 | Listen Respect the work that went into this Alameda's Recent Successes Council members and staff brainstormed some of the successes of the City of Alameda over the last few years. New Library Restoration of Alameda Theater Recycling rate/energy conservation New developer in place for the former Navy property Focus on infrastructure Pre-hospital services Redevelopment projects Breakers at Bayport Parks improvements No traffic fatalities Review of telecom operations Revisions to street sweeping program Lights in crosswalks Ferry ridership Golf transition High performing Executive Management Team Increased transparency Federal grant awards Media outreach (web casting; press releases) Website "Access Alameda" Environmental Scan Deputy City Manager Lisa Goldman presented an environmental scan of factors influencing the City. (See Attachment B) Handouts of the PowerPoint were made available to participants. Some follow-up items from the PowerPoint were placed in the "issue bin." Those items are listed in the last section of these notes. An environmental scan provides data about factors that may affect the City of Alameda in the future. Although not a complete picture of the City of Alameda, these factors help provide a context for priority setting. Management Partners, Inc. 2 | CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-18 | 6 | Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not want the issue to be misconstrued as arbitrary; lowering carbon footprints will be mandated; 10% usage would cause problems with meeting requirements in the future. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*07-451) Recommendation to approve amendment to Consultant Agreement with EIP Associates, Inc. to increase the Contract amount by $57,925 for the completion of an Environmental Impact Report for Harbor Bay Village 6. Accepted. ( *07-452) Recommendation to appropriate $253,539 in Measure B Paratransit Funds for Non-Mandated Paratransit Program. Accepted. (07-453) Resolution No. 14144, "Authorizing the City Manager to : 1) Enter into an Agreement with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for Carl Moyer Program Grants to Replace Two Ferry Vessel Diesel Engines and One Diesel Generator, and 2) Conduct an Open Market Purchase of Two Ferry Vessel Diesel Engines and One Diesel Generator Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter, and Execute the Purchase Agreements. Adopted. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is supportive of the plans to replace the diesel engines with a more efficient system; State legislators approved the formation of the Water Emergency Transit Authority, which will eventually take over the Alameda and Vallejo systems inquired whether opportunities would exist to recover investments. The Public Works Director responded the current legislation is not clear on whether Alameda would be compensated for the investment; stated Alameda is strategically seeking cleanup legislation. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the local match is coming from Measure B funding. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated Measure B funding is earmarked for Alameda ferries; Measure B funds were not used when the ferry service was established in 1989; Alameda used funds that could have gone into street and sidewalk maintenance; the City is seeking reimbursement for said investment. Councilmembe… | CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-10-02 | 6 | to a multi-million dollar grant to build a parking structure for ferry riders. Councilmember deHaan stated Vallejo formed an Advisory Ridership Committee; inquired what methods would be used for outreach to the Alameda ridership. The Public Works Director responded today's newspaper article provided information to residents; stated a notice was sent to ferry riders late today informing the riders of tonight's meeting. Councilmember deHaan stated that a community workshop would be worthwhile. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the reasoning for the urgency of the Bill is known, to which the Public Works Director responded that he did not know. Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed flying vehicles. Scott Henning, Alameda, stated that Council's vote will have the appearance of agreeing with approving the Bill; residents need to have a voice in how assets are managed the Bill is proposing to give Alameda's assets to a regional authority where the City's voice is one of many regional cities; the big concern is that the Bill would transfer ownership Vallejo is in extreme opposition to the Bill and is questioning its enforceability; ferry riders have been invited to attend Public Hearings in the past; Council should consider not adopting the report until Public Hearings are held, the City Attorney provides an opinion on whether or not the Bill is enforceable, and an Advisory Ridership Committee is established. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Short Range Transit Plan is required to be adopted, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated that Council voting on the Short Range Transit Plan would not be supporting the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Legislation the questions are the same as when the WTA made a presentation. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of adopting the Short Range Transit Plan. Councilmember Matarrese stated that good suggestions have been made regarding public meetings; the cleanup legislation is an unknown. Mayor Johnson stated that lan… | CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-10-16 | 6 | City's stated the City would have to go to the major financers ; all parties would be motivated to find an operator. Mayor Johnson stated it is important to clearly state that the City cannot be looked to for additional money. The Development Manager stated additional language could be added to the Owner Participation Agreement that further clarifies the City's obligation to the project. Mayor Johnson stated the agreement needs to state that the City's contribution is $4 million, period. Councilmember deHaan stated that staff should consult with the City Attorney and come back with a locked, tight agreement questioned whether timing was a concern. The Development Manager stated that the City's $4 million commitment is made in a very clear resolution and is on the books; staff is looking for authorizatior to use CMFA to release the bonds; RCD needs to submit an application to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee by November 5. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the commitment to the project started with the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) adopting a resolution committing up to $4 million to the project; the City is first in line to have the $4 million reduced if RCD is successful in bundling other money RCD will be going to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board; an application has been submitted to the County for Home Funds; the schedule is ambitious. Mayor Johnson inquired when Council would have the opportunity to review Operation Dignity's management requirements. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded some of the management requirements are exhibits to the settlement agreement approved last year; stated a lot of protections are included the Owner Participation Agreement would reiterate the City's maximum $4 million commitment and stipulate that the City's commitment decreases first if other funding sources are identified. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he feels the two resolutions are fine; additional City protection could be in the third WHEREAS of the… | CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-06 | 6 | The Development Services Director responded staff has made the information available; stated enforcement will increase. Mayor Johnson inquired whether another ticket is issued after the first ticket, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is an extra fine for a second ticket. The Police Lieutenant responded a second ticket can be issued after twenty-four hours. Mayor Johnson stated that the time for the second issuance needs to be changed; credit card meters should be reviewed; changing parking to one hour in premium areas could be considered after the situation has been monitored. The Development Services Director stated the whole parking issue is an experiment; things will need to be tried and tweaked if necessary. Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated the issue belongs in front of the Transportation Commission first; revenues can be raised through stricter enforcement of illegal left turns. Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated that he supports the staff recommendation; the timeline needs to be met in connection with the opening of the parking structure; bike racks are needed; the City of Oakland has decimated its bike parking inventory by going to the computerized meters; he hopes that bicycle parking will be provided at necessary levels. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA). stated the PSBA Board voted overwhelmingly to support the staff recommendation; the proposed increase needs to be in conjunction with the opening of the garage he has had numerous conversations with repeat offenders; repeat offenders will be reported to the two new parking technicians and would be ticketed; PSBA looks forward to working with Council on determining how the additional revenue would be spent. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Alameda Avenue and Oak Street parking lots are full, to which Mr. Ratto responded there is one vacancy. Councilmember deHaan stated redevelopment funds from all over the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 November 6, 20… | CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-13 | 6 | on the work plan. The three methods are: 1. Off Agenda Reporting 2. Detailed Quarterly Reports 3. Formal Council Reports She then presented the staff's suggested new method of reporting on Council priorities: CMO Quarterly Report: Updates on the highest priorities reported-align to citywide policy objectives (referred to as the "Lisa Report") Department quarterly reports: Will sequence order of update by level of priority (highest priorities first, high priorities next, all remaining items to follow) and will include information on Hot Topics/ Emerging issues Council feedback on reporting formats: Use the "reasonableness rule" for how much information to include Need to discuss/consider the timing and schedule - streamline with other reporting cycles "Lisa's report" could be in bullet format - keep it easy to read Departmental quarterly reports are informative but lack context (in terms of departmental or city priorities); context will make more useful Goals and time lines are very important and need to be incorporated into quarterly reports Management Partners, Inc. 3 | CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-20 | 6 | membership and fundraising goals. Ms. Dileo stated that volunteers spend approximately 150 hours per week at the Museum costs would escalate by approximately $150,000 if the Museum had an Executive Director and Curator. Mayor Johnson stated that other non-profits hire full-time or part- time Executive Directors to make money ; sometimes it is necessary to spend money to make money. Ms. Dileo stated the Museum spent $50,000 to $60,000 on a large Museum study with no results. Mayor Johnson stated volunteers are needed, but money needs to be raised also. Councilmember deHaan stated that interfacing with the schools, Library, and City is valuable; Council is eager to see the Museum succeed; he would not like to see the City lose its history; China has 2000 years of history; the Meyers House is an important segment it is important to make the Museum sustainable for the long run; the Museum will always have a role; Council can discuss the budget and funding allocation. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 07-543 and Resolution Authorizing Open Market Purchase [paragraph no. 07-549 ] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ] (07-543) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on November 6, 2007; and Special City Council Meeting held on November 7, 2007. Approved. Councilmember deHaan stated that Council received an Off Agenda Report noting that $1.3 million was put into the parking structure; he would like to have said information added to the November 6, 2007 Regular City Council Meeting minutes. Regular Meeting Alameda Ci… | CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-12-04 | 6 | The City Manager stated that she was addressing when individual Councilmembers make a request. Councilmember deHaan inquired how many times individual Councilmembers have brought forward an agenda item in the last year; that he does not believe Council has done so. Mayor Johnson stated Council has done so a number of times, by consensus, under Council Communications Councilmember deHaan stated it [requesting a matter be placed on an agenda] has been done within Council Communications. with Council Referrals, Councilmembers would be prohibited from talking about matters under Council Communications. Mayor Johnson stated matters cannot be discussed under Council Communications. Councilmember deHaan stated in the past one individual Councilmember was able to put a matter on the agenda. Vice Mayor Tam stated there are provisions to do so [place a matter on the agenda] in the City's Municipal Code, provided that the matter is provided one week in advance. Councilmember deHaan stated said provision is no problem; that he does not think Council wants to stifle it [the provision] by bringing a matter to a vote initially to see if Council wants to discuss the issue; it [the proposal] is not fair and not in the best interest of anyone. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the proposal affects Council's ability to call for review any decision of a board or commission. The City Manager responded in the negative; stated the City of Fremont's model was designed to place a matter on the agenda that might require a change in work plans or a change in direction; the matter would be placed under Council Referral, rather than having Councilmembers raise the issue under Council Communications the formal structure would allow Councilmembers to place an item on the agenda so that staff could respond and provide information; when staff puts the item on the agenda, Council would have the information to determine whether it wants to move the item forward on the agenda. Councilmember deHaan stated it is no different if Councilmembers go… | CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-12-18.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-12-18 | 6 | styrofoam is not recyclable in Alameda's program and belongs in the gray garbage bins. Councilmember deHaan stated in-store recycle bins need to be the encouraging factor because the replacement material should not end up in the landfill; Acapulco and La Piñata have been using cardboard and aluminum for take out for ages vegetables are pre- packed in trays. The Public Works Director stated currently Trader Joe's brings said vegetables from outside the City and would be exempt from the proposed ordinance. Councilmember deHaan stated Trader Joes's should be encouraged to be observant; packing material needs to be segregated and disposed of in a good orderly manner. the issue should be addressed at some point. The Public Works Director stated future steps could be taken to address the issue. Councilmember Gilmore stated that cities should ban together and tactfully suggest that Trader Joe's change ways of dealing with pre-packaged vegetables. The Public Works Director suggested keeping the exemption regarding packaging outside the City in place for now; stated the issue could be brought back in a year and would allow enough time to work with businesses to make a change. Councilmember Matarrese stated packaging outside the City is self- explanatory; Lucky packages eggs in styrofoam; Section 4-4.6 (a) exemption could state foods packaged outside the City; a caterer could come to Alameda with prepared food and dish the food out in styrofoam containers; suggested that exemptions be granted up to one year from the date of the effectiveness of the ordinance and apply only to existing businesses. Mayor Johnson stated people need to understand that things that go into the landfill, even though recyclable, do not decompose very easily, if at all. Councilmember Matarrese stated styrofoam can break down and is recyclable, but the infrastructure is not there to handle it; eventually, infrastructure will need to be in place to recycle styrofoam. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 December 18, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-12-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-01-02.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-01-02 | 6 | Counci lmember deHaan stated all three scenarios have risk. Councilmember Matarrese stated San Mateo's golf course is the closest type to Alameda's San Mateo's per round production cost is $10 less than Alameda's inquired what San Mateo is doing differently. Mr. Getherall responded some municipalities included debt service, others did not. Councilmember Matarrese stated San Mateo is operating under the same constraints as far as salaries, etc; he has a hard time understanding how San Leandro produces rounds at $6.40. Mr. Getherall stated $6.40 is the cost to San Leandro; maintenance expenses accrue to the lessee. Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is money to be had so breaking even should be possible; management affects the bottom line. Mr. Singer stated some municipal golf courses lease or have some type of management contract in place; private vendors bring in management expertise. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether some management agreements do not have a fixed fee but are performance based where gain is shared if rounds go up, and pain is shared if rounds go down, to which Mr. Singer responded in the affirmative. Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission Chair, gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether consideration was given to moving the Par 3 to the 4th nine-hole course. Ms. Sullwold responded possibly; stated another idea would be to increase fees and have the increase be dedicated to capital improvements. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council would be getting an official recommendation from the Golf Commission. Mayor Johnson requested that Ms. Sullwold go through the recommendations. Ms. Sullwold stated recommendations were to: 1) use half of the Regular Meeting 6 Alameda City Council January 2, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-01-15 | 6 | The City Attorney stated the HAB considers two things when considering whether a structure with some historic benefit should be demolished: 1) whether the structure has historic value, and 2) whether refusing to grant the demolition permit versus restoring the structure would provide economic return to the property owner; Council would make the same findings suggested that Council seek further information from the Applicant for determination. Councilmember deHaan stated the HAB had no problem with demolishing the structure as long as the new structure had some redeeming value that would be conducive to the rest of the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the structure was determined to be historical. The Planning Services Manager responded no redeeming architectural qualities or historical relationship to a historic event or person were found. Mayor Johnson stated the HAB denied the demolition permit; she does not think there is enough information to make a finding tonight ; she does not think reconstruction costs are clear inquired whether the Planning Department has information on how many square feet would be reconstructed. The Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Department has the same information that is included in the packet. Mayor Johnson stated that doubling the size of the structure is not restoring the structure. The Applicant stated the main roof beam is 1" X 4"; the entire roof has to be removed to bring the roof up to code; the walls and foundation need to support the new roof; demolition costs would be less; working with the existing structure is expensive. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant would not get an economic return by demolishing and reconstructing the house. The Applicant responded the structure needs to be torn down to bring the structure up to code; stated a demolition permit would be needed one way or another. Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the square footage on the last application. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 January 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-02-05.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-02-05 | 6 | Mayor Johnson inquired whether a Citizen Advisory group would provide input to Council and staffing would not be necessary. The City Attorney responded that it could be done that way . Councilmember Gilmore stated several Task Force members are members of other commissions; constituting the Task Force in present form would be problematic. The City Attorney stated if a short-term committee meets for a longer period, it then becomes a Standing Committee; a Standing Committee is required to hold meetings in public under the Brown Act. Councilmember Matarrese stated priorities need to be used to measure what comes out of the overall City prioritization list and what has to be measured within the budget Planning Board members are overwhelmed and may not be able to meet on the issues; he likes the idea of a Citizen Advisory Committee. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a Citizen Advisory Committee could meet without City staff. The City Manager stated the Task Force could be dissolved and options could be brought back to Council regarding implementation of a Citizen Advisory Committee as well as Councilmember Matarrese's recommendation regarding the budget process and priority setting. Councilmember Matarrese stated issues are critical; Council will determine how critical the issues are when money and resources are allocated; behaviors need to change if goals are to be met; he likes the idea of reconstituting the Task Force. Councilmember Gilmore requested that the motion be restated. Councilmember Tam restated the previous motion: adoption of the resolution with direction for staff to provide feedback on how a Citizen's Advisory Committee can be established to help with the budget and priority setting process. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Gilmore thanked the Task Force; stated the Task Force has a great deal of passion regarding the matter. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council Meeting 6 February 5, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-02-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-02-19 | 6 | must get to the scene. Councilmember Matarrese stated Council is seeking alternatives ways that are cheaper ; inquired what risks are run if the purchase is deferred for a year. The Fire Chief responded the cost remains next year and becomes compounded with the purchase of other vehicles; the cost will be greater next year; the Suburban has 100,000 miles and could require expensive repair. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Tahoe has not been put into service for the intended use; the staff report indicates the vehicle has been tested; inquired what type of testing has been done. The Fire Chief responded street tests have been done by consumer groups, but have not been specific to fire service use. Councilmember Gilmore stated some equipment will not be on the new vehicle; inquired what is the minimum capacity needed for the new vehicle and whether the capacity could be met by other hybrids. The Fire Chief responded the Highlander was not considered, but could be reviewed; that he is not aware of other fire departments using Highlanders; both the Suburban and Tahoe are used for fire service and stand up to the required type of service. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether only the makes currently used in fire service were reviewed, rather than reviewing all hybrids. The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated that he does not know whether the cargo capacity configuration of the other hybrids would meet the Fire Department's needs. The City Manager stated in order to receive the vehicle during the current fiscal year the City must complete the purchase by February 22; further research would preclude the vehicle from being purchased in the current fiscal year. Vice Mayor Tam stated the vehicle needs to be replaced, however, she is not convinced that the capacity of the Tahoe is needed; as technology improves, communication equipment becomes more compact and multifunctional; options should be explored. Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates the staff effort to purchase a hybrid; the vehicle will last 10 t… | CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-03-04 | 6 | which led to excessive bank erosion; the award of a contract had to be suspended until a Council meeting could be held; further erosion occurred; the intent of the proposed revision is to mitigate a similar situation. Vice Mayor Tam inquired what was the cost [to repair the erosion]. The Public Works Director responded $150,000 at the time and approximately $300,000 to $350,000 later. Councilmember Matarrese stated a twenty-four hour notice is needed for an emergency Council Meeting; someone could start the work for $75,000 and then a Council meeting could be called to get approval. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the sub-committee has requested the City Attorney's office to reference the definition of what constitutes an emergency which is taken directly from State law. Mayor Johnson inquired when an emergency would end; stated normal requirements could be in place after a certain number of days of the expenditure. The City Manager stated the City Attorney could review restrictions in terms of number of days or require that the matter come back for Council confirmation by the next regular Council meeting. Mayor Johnson stated that defining when an emergency ends is necessary. Councilmember Matarrese stated inserting language to have the matter come back for Council confirmation is a good idea; a quorum may not be available; the intent is to be able to address a catastrophe. Councilmember deHaan stated the City Manager has authorization up to $75,000; inquired whether past emergencies have warranted a City Manager to make decisions immediately. The Public Works Director responded there have been numerous sewer backups; stated the situation at Washington Park was just under $75,000, but could have been more if the large Palm tree was lost. Councilmember deHaan stated things could change ten years from now; the $75,000 threshold has been in place for many years; the numeric value does not have a lot of value. Mayor Johnson stated that the dollar amount should be set by ordinance, not the Charter. Regular Meeting Alameda… | CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-03-18 | 6 | burned within an engine electricity is generated; the City has four contracts for landfill gas. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Ameresco would look to Alameda and Palo Alto if unexpected cost overruns occur. The Utility Planning Supervisor responded the Contract has provisions stated that he does not think a price increase would be allowed; the 6% satisfies the City and provides for a project that is under the projected wholesale market price; the developer would make a profit. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Contractor only has the option to decide whether or not the deal is a go based upon their financial projections as opposed to the City's financial projections. The Utility Planning Supervisor responded that the City could back out of the Contract if the price is too high. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff is satisfied with the Contractor's due diligence; further inquired whether the Contractor performed due diligence before the City entered into the Contract or afterwards. The Utility Planning Supervisor responded some work and evaluation was done prior to entering into the Contract stated the Contractor found out more after digging deeper; permitting and interconnecting issues were out of the Contractor's control the Bay Area Air Quality Board required the additional engines. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she does not want to be paying for an increase because the Contractor failed to do due diligence. The Utility Planning Supervisor stated the Contractor performed a good study; the City has worked with the Contractor three times; the Contractor is in the middle of a much larger project in Half Moon Bay the Contractor completed the Santa Cruz project without any problem. Councilmember deHaan inquired how many landfill gas projects the City has. The Utility Planning Supervisor responded the City has four active Contracts; stated two generators are running and two generators are under construction. Councilmember deHaan inquired what percentage of the City's Regular Meeting Alam… | CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-04-01 | 6 | would be informed if a project has to be delayed. Vice Mayor Tam stated the local action plan spans departments, while the telecom issue is just an Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) issue; inquired whether one project might be delayed if staff is shifted to another project. The City Manager responded said example could occur; AP&T is working on more than one project. Vice Mayor Tam stated AP&T staff is needed to work on reducing the carbon footprint inquired whether the same staff person might work on the telecom issue and the formation of the local action plan and whether said staff working on the telecom issue might delay the formation of the plan. The City Manager responded one could impact the other depending on workload; stated moving forward with the local action plan does require some of the same people [as the telecom issue]. having some of the same people work on multiple projects has been incorporated in the time estimates. Councilmember Matarrese stated there are a variety of issues from addressing the financial issue at AP&T to renovating Rittler Field, and Lincoln and Krusi Parks; said items do not belong on the same ranking sheet; getting a measuring mechanism for each item would be a far more productive use of time; the department work plans are excellent; some projects are interdisciplinary and can be separated out; the next step should be to get Microsoft Project or some other type of project tracking tool and assign due dates and resources; Council would need to make decisions about priorities if resources become impacted because more requests are added; finishing easily taken care of projects, which might be of less importance, might become important in order to get the project off the list. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the list is composed of items Council has directed staff to complete, to which Ms. Perkins responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated the presented workload should be looked at objectively and resources should be allocated; there are a finite number of… | CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-04-15.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-04-15 | 6 | Mayor Johnson inquired whether long time recipients are encouraged to seek other funding sources. Ms. Wasko responded the issue has not been a problem in the past ; stated the competition becomes more rigorous as funding becomes more difficult. Mayor Johnson stated that applicants should be advised to strengthen applications as soon as possible if it appears that funding will decrease. Ms. Wasko stated funding is for a two-year cycle; hopefully, the economy will improve. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the funding cycle is on an annual basis; stated an adjustment might be needed if funding is decreased. The Community Development Program Manager responded funding is on a two-year cycle and is contingent on satisfactory Contract performance. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether federal funding is annual, to which the Community Development Program Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether applicants are aware that the funding is received from the federal government on an annual basis and could be lower next year, to which the Community Development Program Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the SSHRB and staff have done a terrific job; non-profits make Alameda's community compassionate; she is glad that the SSHRB and staff have come up with fair and balanced recommendations Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (08-164) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's approval of a Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development Amendment for reduced parking, and a tentative map for the construction of ten new office buildings located at 2800 Harbor Bay Parkway within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the Commercial Manufacturing and Planned Development Zoning District Regular Meeting 6 Alameda City Council April 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-04-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-05-06 | 6 | REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (08-194) Recommendation to review Charter Amendments for the November 2008 Ballot. Vice Mayor Tam stated the subcommittee is recommending a cleanup package and is seeking Council direction on seven substantive changes outlined non-substantive and substantive changes. Regarding the seventh substantive amendment to Article 111, Section 15, the Public Works Director stated both Approach A [providing authority to staff to bind the City] and Approach B [requiring ratification by Council] would work; the concern with Approach B it that staff might not be able to get the contact to Council in time and the $75,000 limit could be exceeded. Councilmember deHaan inquired which approach is recommended [by the subcommitteel Councilmember Gilmore responded the concern with Approach B is that contractors may be hesitant to commit resources if there is a question as to whether Council would ratify the action at the back end; stated Approach A would give staff more flexibility; the subcommittee did not have a recommendation, but felt it was necessary to point out the potential disadvantage to Approach B. Mayor Johnson inquired whether having an ordinance would be better; stated there should be more flexibility in the Charter. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not see any practical difficulty with Approach B; getting Council together would not take long; he cannot see committing to huge job without polling Council. Mayor Johnson stated a time period is not noted; that she does not think Approach A is the best choice. Councilmember deHaan stated there was a lengthy discussion of Approach B in the past. Vice Mayor Tam stated a recommendation has been made not to have a specific provision in the Charter and deal with the matter by ordinance. The City Attorney stated that Section 3-15 requires competitive bidding; the Charter would need to be amended in order to forego competitive bidding in an emergency situation. Regular Meeting 6 Alameda City Council May 6, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-05-20 | 6 | Point presentations ahead of time in this electronic age. Mayor Johnson stated a report would be more appropriate. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM (08-211) Resolution No. 14209, "Appointing Arthur A. Autorino as a Member of the Planning Board. " Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of appointment to Mr. Autorino. Mr. Autorino thanked Council for the opportunity to serve on the Economic Development Commission (EDC) ; stated he looks forward to serving on the Planning Board. Councilmember deHaan stated Mr. Autorino left the EDC ; the EDC currently has one vacancy and two more are anticipated; keeping the EDC at full capacity is a top priority. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report [paragraph no. 08-214 and Resolution Approving an Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding [paragraph no. 08-220] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ] ( *08-212) - Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on April 1, 2008; and the Special City Council Meeting of May 6, 2008. Approved. (*08-213) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,142,477.91. (08-214) - Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending December 31, 2007. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 May 20, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-05-27.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-05-27 | 6 | Mayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan requested a formal policy restricting use of the General Fund reserve for one-time purposes. The City Manager continued the presentation. Mayor Johnson stated there is not a real reserve because there are outstanding obligations are not being paid for; the budget needs to acknowledge said obligations. Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to know the current amount of deferred maintenance what the City is facing should be included in the budget. The City Manager continued the presentation. Mayor Johnson questioned whether there is more that can be done now to balance the Golf budget requested a report on the status of using the reserves for operating expenses; stated there should be a report to the Council; further stated direction should be given to the Golf Commission that the Council expects the Commission to come up with a short-term - plan. Councilmember Gilmore suggested holding another joint meeting with the Golf Commission. Mayor Johnson stated two Councilmembers could work with the Golf Commission if scheduling a meeting is difficult. The City Manager suggested that the Golf Commission could be invited to attend the Council meeting when the Master Plan is presented stated staff would provide suggestions and ideas about how to move forward. Councilmember Matarrese stated the Golf Commission reports to Council; the matter should be placed on an agenda and the Council should vote to give direction for the Golf Commission to establish a short-term plan by a certain time. Mayor Johnson requested that the Golf Commission be informed that the matter is being placed on a Council agenda; stated the matter needs to be brought to the Council very soon; stated giving direction should be placed on the second meeting in June. The City Manager stated the matter would be put on the issue bin; staff would determine the best way to follow up; continued the presentation. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 6 May 27, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-05-27.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-03 | 6 | through the end of August; suggested that staff continue to work with the estate and levy fines on the property tax bill to help the City recover costs incurred. Mayor Johnson stated that the matter should be brought back at the first City Council meeting in September Council expects blight and health and safety issues to be remedied by September. The Building Official stated that citations stop if property owners work with the City. Councilmember Matarrese requested that staff research the cost of bringing in a crane and semi-truck to remove the trailers; stated a decision could be made in August on whether to continue to fine or attach the abatement cost [to the lien]. Mayor Johnson stated Council should consider removing the trailers sooner than August because of health and safety issues. Mr. Russum stated the administrator's resources could be used to remove the trailers if costs are provided. Mayor Johnson stated the estate has the responsibility to deal with the blight and danger, not the City. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of creating a lien on both properties and not issuing any more citations on the Lafayette Street property until the matter is brought back at the first City Council Meeting in September for review. Mayor Johnson stated Council would expect the daughter to take care of removing the trailers in the near future. Councilmember deHaan stated that he is not comfortable with assessing the entire $9,750 on the Lafayette Street property; intervals of the citations are peculiar. Mayor Johnson stated the case initiated in 2001; the property has had a lot of neighbor complaints; the Police and Fire Departments have been called numerous times; inquired whether citations were issued in compliance with the ordinance. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated citations could have been issued more frequently. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that further Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 June 3, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-17 | 6 | Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (08-271) Public Hearing and related actions regarding Alameda Ferry Services : (08-271A) Resolution No. 14221, "Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Funds, Including Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Reserve Funds for the Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for the City of Alameda Ferry Services, and to Enter into All Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds for Fiscal Year 2008- 09. " Adopted; (08-271B) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a third amendment to the amended and restated Ferry Services Agreement with the Port of Oakland to extend the term for one additional year at a cost of $83,117; (08-271C) Public Hearing on the proposed implementation of a fuel surcharge for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, and recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a one-year extension of the Blue & Gold Fleet Operating Agreement with the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, and execute an amendment to the Agreement to extend the term through June 30, 2010, adopt associated budgets, and approve the proposed fuel surcharge for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service; and (08-271D) Public Hearing on the proposed implementation of a fuel surcharge for the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry and recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a one-year extension of the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating Agreement with the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry, and to execute an amendment to the Agreement to extend the term for one additional year, adopt associated budgets, approve Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Budget Adjustment and Measure B allocation, and approve the proposed fuel surcharge for the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry. The Ferry Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired where is fuel bought. The Ferry Services Manager responded the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry (AHBF) is fueled by a truck in San Francisco; the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service (A… | CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-01 | 6 | skateboards and BMX bikes barreling down from the top level of the parking garage the intent is to have an ordinance that would allow the Police Department to issue tickets; motorized wheelchair and golf cart users would like to use bike lanes; the matter should be evaluated. Mayor Johnson stated the matter would require a separate ordinance; directed staff to bring the matter back for Council consideration. Councilmember deHaan requested that the City Attorney review changes that have occurred [with the ordinance] over time. The City Attorney stated in the early 1940's the City adopted an ordinance prohibiting riding bicycles in all parks; in 1989 the ordinance was amended to permit bicycles and roller skates in parks except where posted; the ordinance was updated between 1999 and 2001 to address the Skate Park. Ms. Dimusheva requested that the new language be read. The City Attorney stated the new language reads "It shall be unlawful when and where posted for any person to operate or ride a bicycle or skateboard propelled wholly or in part by muscular power within or upon any public park, playground, or school property, in the City or parking lot, parking structure owned or leased by the City, except that a person may ride a bicycle to and from bicycle racks or lockers provided within any City parking lot or parking structure. The use and operation of skateboards, roller skates, and in-line skates shall be authorized at the Skate Park at Alameda Point. All person using, operating, or riding a skateboard, roller skates, or in-line skates at the Skate Park at Alameda Point shall wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads at all times. Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of final passage with amended language allowing bicycles, skateboards, etc. at parks and other facilities unless otherwise posted and allowing bicycles to go to and from the lockers and racks in the parking structure. Vice Mayor Tam encouraged the community to participate actively as the Transportation Commission develops the Bike Master Plan relating to … | CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-15 | 6 | say points would be gained by dropping the amount a few dollars. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether lack of elasticity is typical, to which Mr. Below responded definitely. Mr. Below continued the presentation. Vice Mayor Tam requested clarification on projected revenue generation; stated the City would expect to receive $4.1 million by using the $5.40 per $1,000 value calculation. $14.50 per $1,000 of value would generate $6.9 million. The Deputy City Manager stated $6.9 million would be added to the $4.1 million. Vice Mayor Tam stated $4.1 million is based on a conservative assumption that real estate turnover would continue at the current level. The Deputy City Manager stated that she did not make any market slowdown or turnaround adjustments. The City Manager stated the $4.1 estimate is less than what was anticipated for last fiscal year; assumptions were made that the transaction volume would stay the same. Councilmember Gilmore stated Council knew that the budget would need to be revisited in three months all realistic cuts have been made that would not greatly affect the level of City services. Mayor Johnson inquired how the budget is affected by mutual aid response costs. The City Manager responded State mutual aid costs are reimbursed at the overtime rate. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the State reimburses the City for overtime incurred within the City when mutual aid calls are requested. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City is reimbursed at the City's rate, not the State flat rate. The City Manager responded information would be provided. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a list of comparables [tax rate for other Alameda County cities] . Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 July 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-08-05 | 6 | Mayor Johnson requested that the Council be provided updates on the status of certification; stated the matter should be wrapped up and finalized. In response to Councilmembe: Matarrese's inquiry regarding the timeline, the Library Director stated the Request for Proposals (RFP) process should take four months. Councilmember Matarrese noted that the library service is not free; stated the survey indicated that people value the service and are willing to pay for it; requested that the information on the LEED certification include the estimated certification date. Councilmember deHaan stated $16 million would be needed in the future; hopefully, $2.5 million would cover costs including the electrical and heating systems; inquired whether there would be State level grants. The Library Director responded the Strategic Plan puts the City in a better position than most should there be a State construction bond. Ms. Page stated that her calculations are that less than half of the funding would be needed for the makeover; the infrastructure and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements are the big unknowns; another city had to install sprinkler systems, which added costs; encouraged Council to go forward with an RFP as quickly as possible. Proponents Honora Murphy, Alameda; Karen Butter, Library Board Member ; Luzanne Engh, Alameda Free Library Foundation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a prioritized list has been prepared in the event the $2.5 million is not sufficient, to which the Library Director responded not enough is known about the structural and system issues. Mayor Johnson suggested that the staff recommendation be modified to include language about beginning to develop a plan that would come back to Council for review; stated the Council would need to set priorities. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City should not over invest in the West End library building since it is not the future West End library; the plan for what would be executed to meet the short term goal should come back to Council i that he wo… | CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-08-19 | 6 | there is no decline in play. Ms. Sullwold responded in the affirmative; stated the approved budget anticipates a 10% decline in play. Mayor Johnson stated the goal is to break even; the Golf Commission should consider a surcharge for maintenance and infrastructure costs; the Golf Course cannot continue to deteriorate. Ms. Sullwold stated that she would be concerned with imposing a $2.00 surcharge after adopting the fee increases; the Request for Proposals (RFP's are due on August 27, 2008; good solutions might be provided; a surcharge would not generate enough money needed for capital improvements. Mayor Johnson stated a lot of people want to leave things as is. Ms. Sullwold stated that she is hearing a lot of resistance to privatization; that she feels the Golf Course needs a strong manager on a full-time basis. Mayor Johnson stated operating costs need to be covered as well as long-term maintenance and infrastructure improvements. Ms. Sullwold stated that she has not heard a lot of negative feedback on the proposed fee increases. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the golf courses have always had separate fees. Ms. Sullwold responded in the negative; stated separate fees were initiated in April, 2007; a consultant suggested separate fees because the Earl Fry Course is the premium Course; the consultant thought that the Earl Fry fee increase would transfer more demand to the Jack Clark Course; the problem was that there was not enough of a fee differentiation; Golf Digest sent a letter to the Golf Course stating that the Jack Clark Course is recognized as one of the top one hundred municipal courses in the country. Vice Mayor Tam requested clarification on the $700,000 Golf Course estimated shortfall for the next fiscal year; inquired whether the fee structure was examined to bring fees up to a level that the market could bear and would close the estimated operating gapi further inquired whether the surcharge was intended for maintenance, operation, and capital improvements. The Interim Golf Manager responded… | CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-09-02.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-09-02 | 6 | have been cut up because of legislators' self-interests. Councilmember deHaan stated that he supports the Proposition. Vice Mayor Tam stated the matter is an issue in Alameda; the Proposition is a substantial improvement; that she was involved in the 2000 redistricting processi everything was done behind closed doors and there was no transparency; the two-thirds vote requirement is one of Sacramento's gridlock symptoms the Proposition is a good step forward; San Leandro, Berkeley, and Hayward are supportive of the Proposition; supporting the Proposition is appropriate for Alameda. Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of endorsing Proposition 11. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Johnson stated closed-door meetings happen at the State level all the time; inquired whether anything can be done about the matter. Ms. Quick responded the State League of Women Voters addresses the issue often. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not understand why governments are afraid of being open; Alameda is very open. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (08-376) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed the open meeting process. (08-377) - Mary Rudge, Alameda, thanked the League of Women Voters for the hard work; stated women were not able to vote ninety years ago. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (08-378 ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Youth Advisory Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Lamont Carter; stated nominations would be continued for remaining vacancies. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 September 2, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-09-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-09-16 | 6 | Planning Board in June. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant is requesting added height. The Planning Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the added height would not exceed the height limit for the property's zoning district. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the compromise has been discussed with the Applicant, to which the Planning Manager responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson stated the process is odd. Councilmember Gilmore stated the back of the house has an addition from some prior lifetime and is not architecturally significant; the [back of the] house faces the estuary and cannot be seen from the street; that she is trying to understand what is the motivation in requiring the condition. The Planning Manager stated the condition would remain consistent with the Planning Board recommendation to achieve a condition that is architecturally compatible with the existing house. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter went back to the Planning Board recently. The Planning Manager responded that the matter went to the Planning Board in June for Design Review and went to the Planning Board earlier in the year when variances were requested. Vice Mayor Tam stated the Planning Board stipulated that the structure should not exceed thirty-feet in height regardless of any architectural detail; staff indicated an architectural detail would exceed the thirty-foot height by nine inches a condition is proposed to bring the height back under thirty feet which is in conformance with what the Planning Board gave as a general condition. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Applicant would still need to clip the top of the house. The Planning Manager responded the house would need to be clipped by approximately nine inches. Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the reason for raising the building. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 September 16, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-07 | 6 | The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the project was 545,000 square feet originally, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated the square footage increased by 112,000 square feet; Target would have increased the square footage by an additional 49,000 square feet; inquired whether the square footage was included in the Environmental Impact Report for Target. The Supervising Planner responded the EIR specifically addressed the change from 657,000 square feet up to 706,000 square feet and included the 49,000 square feet; stated full build-out impacts have been discussed. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 49,000 square feet has been approved. The Supervising Planner responded the 49,000 square feet has not been addressed to date; stated the matter is before the Planning Board. Councilmember deHaan stated a parking structure was discussed during the Target era; inquired whether double deck parking was discussed for the Mervyn's site. The Supervising Planner responded the issue was discussed after Target left; stated some of the square footage was shifted to Mervyn's. Councilmember deHaan inquired how the issue fits into tonight's discussion. The Supervising Planner responded that the most recent plan, which includes Kohl's proposes a shopping center for up to approximately to 681,000 square feet which would require construction of a parking structure. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 680,000 square feet is the breaking point for a parking structure], to which the Supervising Planner responded the breaking point would be before reaching 680,000 square feet. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents (In favor of Appeal) : Eugenie Thomson, Appellant Brenda Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 October 7, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-10-07.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]) );