pages
941 rows where page = 7
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: body, date, text
date (date) 927 ✖
- 2007-07-23 2
- 2007-11-13 2
- 2008-04-01 2
- 2011-12-14 2
- 2012-06-06 2
- 2013-07-24 2
- 2015-10-07 2
- 2016-06-27 2
- 2018-07-23 2
- 2018-11-07 2
- 2018-12-17 2
- 2019-01-23 2
- 2019-12-18 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
- 2005-02-10 1
- 2005-02-14 1
- 2005-02-15 1
- 2005-02-23 1
- 2005-02-28 1
- 2005-03-01 1
- 2005-03-03 1
- 2005-03-14 1
- 2005-03-15 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
- 2005-05-12 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
- 2005-07-05 1
- 2005-07-19 1
- 2005-07-25 1
- 2005-08-02 1
- 2005-08-04 1
- 2005-08-08 1
- 2005-08-16 1
- 2005-08-22 1
- 2005-09-01 1
- 2005-09-06 1
- 2005-09-12 1
- 2005-09-20 1
- 2005-09-26 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
- 2005-12-06 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
- 2006-02-13 1
- 2006-02-21 1
- 2006-02-27 1
- 2006-03-07 1
- 2006-03-21 1
- 2006-03-22 1
- 2006-04-04 1
- 2006-04-10 1
- 2006-04-18 1
- 2006-04-24 1
- 2006-05-02 1
- 2006-05-08 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
- 2006-08-14 1
- 2006-08-15 1
- 2006-09-05 1
- 2006-09-11 1
- 2006-09-19 1
- 2006-09-25 1
- 2006-09-27 1
- 2006-10-03 1
- 2006-10-09 1
- 2006-10-11 1
- 2006-10-17 1
- 2006-10-23 1
- 2006-10-25 1
- 2006-11-13 1
- 2006-11-15 1
- 2006-11-21 1
- 2006-12-05 1
- 2006-12-11 1
- 2006-12-13 1
- 2007-01-02 1
- 2007-01-08 1
- 2007-01-16 1
- 2007-01-31 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
- 2007-03-06 1
- 2007-03-12 1
- 2007-03-20 1
- 2007-03-26 1
- 2007-03-28 1
- 2007-04-03 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
- 2007-06-25 1
- 2007-07-03 1
- 2007-07-09 1
- 2007-07-17 1
- 2007-07-25 1
- 2007-08-07 1
- 2007-08-21 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
- 2007-12-06 1
- 2007-12-10 1
- 2007-12-12 1
- 2007-12-18 1
- 2008-01-02 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
- 2008-05-12 1
- 2008-05-20 1
- 2008-05-27 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
- 2008-07-14 1
- 2008-07-15 1
- 2008-07-23 1
- 2008-07-28 1
- 2008-08-05 1
- 2008-08-11 1
- 2008-08-19 1
- 2008-08-25 1
- 2008-09-02 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
- 2008-11-24 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
- 2009-04-07 1
- 2009-04-21 1
- 2009-04-22 1
- 2009-04-23 1
- 2009-04-27 1
- 2009-05-05 1
- 2009-05-19 1
- 2009-05-27 1
- 2009-06-02 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
- 2009-09-01 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
- 2009-11-17 1
- 2009-12-01 1
- 2009-12-02 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
- 2010-02-11 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
- 2010-07-27 1
- 2010-09-07 1
- 2010-09-21 1
- 2010-09-25 1
- 2010-10-05 1
- 2010-10-19 1
- 2010-11-03 1
- 2010-11-16 1
- 2010-12-07 1
- 2010-12-15 1
- 2011-01-04 1
- 2011-01-10 1
- 2011-01-18 1
- 2011-01-19 1
- 2011-01-24 1
- 2011-01-25 1
- 2011-02-01 1
- 2011-02-15 1
- 2011-02-23 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
- 2011-05-03 1
- 2011-05-17 1
- 2011-05-19 1
- 2011-05-31 1
- 2011-06-07 1
- 2011-06-21 1
- 2011-06-28 1
- 2011-07-05 1
- 2011-07-11 1
- 2011-07-12 1
- 2011-07-19 1
- 2011-09-06 1
- 2011-09-20 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
- 2011-12-06 1
- 2011-12-12 1
- 2011-12-20 1
- 2012-01-04 1
- 2012-01-09 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
- 2012-03-06 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
- 2012-04-23 1
- 2012-04-25 1
- 2012-05-01 1
- 2012-05-08 1
- 2012-05-14 1
- 2012-05-15 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
- 2012-08-27 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
- 2012-11-28 1
- 2012-12-04 1
- 2012-12-10 1
- 2013-01-02 1
- 2013-01-14 1
- 2013-01-15 1
- 2013-01-23 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
- 2013-05-07 1
- 2013-05-13 1
- 2013-05-21 1
- 2013-05-28 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
- 2014-01-09 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
- 2014-03-10 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
- 2014-05-20 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
- 2014-07-29 1
- 2014-07-30 1
- 2014-08-25 1
- 2014-09-02 1
- 2014-09-16 1
- 2014-09-22 1
- 2014-10-06 1
- 2014-10-21 1
- 2014-10-27 1
- 2014-11-10 1
- 2014-11-18 1
- 2014-12-02 1
- 2014-12-16 1
- 2015-01-06 1
- 2015-01-20 1
- 2015-01-21 1
- 2015-01-28 1
- 2015-02-02 1
- 2015-02-03 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
- 2015-04-01 1
- 2015-04-07 1
- 2015-04-13 1
- 2015-04-16 1
- 2015-04-21 1
- 2015-04-22 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
- 2015-07-21 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
- 2015-10-26 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
- 2016-02-16 1
- 2016-02-22 1
- 2016-02-24 1
- 2016-02-29 1
- 2016-03-01 1
- 2016-03-15 1
- 2016-03-23 1
- 2016-04-05 1
- 2016-04-11 1
- 2016-04-19 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
- 2016-07-19 1
- 2016-07-25 1
- 2016-08-08 1
- 2016-09-06 1
- 2016-09-07 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
- 2017-02-17 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
- 2017-04-07 1
- 2017-04-10 1
- 2017-04-12 1
- 2017-04-18 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
- 2017-06-12 1
- 2017-06-14 1
- 2017-06-20 1
- 2017-06-26 1
- 2017-07-05 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
- 2017-09-19 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
- 2017-12-11 1
- 2017-12-13 1
- 2017-12-14 1
- 2017-12-19 1
- 2018-01-02 1
- 2018-01-03 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
- 2018-03-20 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
- 2018-06-19 1
- 2018-06-25 1
- 2018-07-10 1
- 2018-07-11 1
- 2018-07-24 1
- 2018-08-06 1
- 2018-08-15 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
- 2018-10-08 1
- 2018-10-16 1
- 2018-10-22 1
- 2018-11-14 1
- 2018-11-27 1
- 2018-11-28 1
- 2018-12-03 1
- 2018-12-04 1
- 2018-12-10 1
- 2018-12-18 1
- 2019-01-02 1
- 2019-01-15 1
- 2019-01-16 1
- 2019-01-28 1
- 2019-01-29 1
- 2019-02-04 1
- 2019-02-05 1
- 2019-02-11 1
- 2019-02-14 1
- 2019-02-19 1
- 2019-02-25 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
- 2019-04-02 1
- 2019-04-15 1
- 2019-04-16 1
- 2019-04-22 1
- 2019-05-07 1
- 2019-05-09 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
- 2019-10-08 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
- 2019-12-03 1
- 2019-12-09 1
- 2019-12-12 1
- 2019-12-17 1
- 2020-01-07 1
- 2020-01-13 1
- 2020-01-21 1
- 2020-02-03 1
- 2020-02-04 1
- 2020-02-10 1
- 2020-02-18 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
- 2020-05-19 1
- 2020-05-20 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
- 2020-07-07 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
- 2020-10-06 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
- 2021-01-14 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
- 2021-04-08 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
- 2021-05-10 1
- 2021-05-11 1
- 2021-05-18 1
- 2021-05-20 1
- 2021-05-24 1
- 2021-05-26 1
- 2021-06-01 1
- 2021-06-10 1
- 2021-06-14 1
- 2021-06-15 1
- 2021-06-28 1
- 2021-07-06 1
- 2021-07-07 1
- 2021-07-12 1
- 2021-07-19 1
- 2021-07-20 1
- 2021-07-26 1
- 2021-07-28 1
- 2021-08-02 1
- 2021-09-07 1
- 2021-09-13 1
- 2021-09-20 1
- 2021-09-21 1
- 2021-09-22 1
- 2021-09-27 1
- 2021-10-04 1
- 2021-10-05 1
- 2021-10-11 1
- 2021-10-19 1
- 2021-10-25 1
- 2021-10-27 1
- 2021-11-01 1
- 2021-11-02 1
- 2021-11-13 1
- 2021-11-16 1
- 2021-11-30 1
- 2021-12-02 1
- 2021-12-06 1
- 2021-12-07 1
- 2021-12-13 1
- 2021-12-21 1
- 2022-01-04 1
- 2022-01-10 1
- 2022-01-11 1
- 2022-01-13 1
- 2022-01-18 1
- 2022-01-26 1
- 2022-01-27 1
- 2022-02-01 1
- 2022-02-07 1
- 2022-02-14 1
- 2022-02-15 1
- 2022-02-28 1
- 2022-03-01 1
- 2022-03-10 1
- 2022-03-15 1
- 2022-03-28 1
- 2022-04-05 1
- 2022-04-11 1
- 2022-04-12 1
- 2022-04-19 1
- 2022-04-28 1
- 2022-05-03 1
- 2022-05-10 1
- 2022-05-17 1
- 2022-06-07 1
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf,7 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2011-11-02 | 7 | Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011 Time Comment Marker Response First, underground bacteria and other microbes degrade many contaminants, often an important component of natural attenuation. However, initial site conditions may include contaminant levels that are so high that they are toxic to the very microorganisms that, with more dilute concentrations, would readily consume the contamination as food. Thus, following an initial phase of active cleanup of the higher concentration zones, natural attenuation can proceed more effectively. Second, with initial high contaminant concentrations, the effect of natural attenuation often is not discernible. This is because of the inherent variability of sampling and analysis. A simple example illustrates this point. With an initial contaminant concentration of 10,000 micrograms per liter (ug/L) and an inherent sampling variability of plus or minus ten percent, duplicate sampling and analysis of the same groundwater could yield analytical results anywhere between 9,000 ug/L and 11,000 ug/L. Say for discussion purposes, that natural attenuation reduces the contaminant concentration by 10 ug/L each year. This rate of natural attenuation would be difficult to detect in a reasonable period of time by sampling. On the other hand, after an initial phase of active remediation that reduces contaminant levels, to say 300 ug/L, then analysis of duplicate samples would yield results between 330 ug/L and 270 ug/L (+/- 10%). Now, natural attenuation at a rate of 10 ug/L would be both meaningful and discernible by sampling and analysis. 37:25 Planting trees will not be allowed. Gardening and fruit Restrictions on digging are used sparingly at Alameda Page 5 of 5 November 7, 2011 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf,7 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2012-01-04 | 7 | affordable housing; stated the need would not go away. Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson stated the City receives allocations from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); without said money, houses cannot be built regardless of the allocations. The City Manager/Executive Director stated redevelopment has been the primary economic development program in California; without economic development, there is no money for schools or work force housing; that he predicts the State would replace some functions but would do so in a centralized, clunky way rather than in a flexible, nimble, and local manner. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired how other municipalities are handling the issue, to which the Housing Development and Programs Manager responded Alameda would be the first to act on the matter. The City Manager/Executive Director stated that redevelopment pays for police officers, half of the Mayor, Council, and Auditor's salary, which otherwise would need to come from the General Fund; everything would have to made up from the General Fund; the City has never honeycombed redevelopment. Mr. Mandelman stated the landscape is rapidly changing and the law is drafted poorly; there will be many messy situations over the next months; the City would be taking on responsibility to manage some of the chaos by becoming the successor agency; management would be done by an unfriendly Oversight Board. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta inquired whether another path or second best approach might be adequate but would not be as good as the one recommended tonight. Mr. Mandelman responded tonight's recommendation is the only way to go if the City wants to be a successor agency; stated otherwise, the Governor would appoint County residents. Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated Council has tried for a number of years to get Alameda Point from the Navy so that the City could have local control and have a say in how things move forward. The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated the City would want local control over the Alame… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-04 | 7 | separation because there is a small addition at the rear of the house which might result in less than a 5-foot separation; a smaller detached garage might require a modest variance. Mayor Johnson inquired what was the square footage of the garage, to which the Supervising Planner responded approximately 300 square feet. Mayor Johnson inquired what was the square footage of a typical garage, to which the Supervising Planner responded a one-car garage would be approximately 200 square feet. Mayor Johnson inquired why the garage was larger than a typical garage, to which the Supervising Planner responded that the residents wanted storage. Mayor Johnson inquired when the original garage was demolished, to which the Supervising Planner responded possibly a few years ago. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was a deck variance involved. The Supervising Planner responded that the deck required a variance because it is 28 inches from the grade decks 12 inches from the grade or less are allowed to encroach into yards decks between 12 and 30 inches require a -foot separation from the side and rear property line; there is an opportunity to modify the deck by either reducing the height, which would result in a deck that is not level with the house, or by reducing the size of the deck to provide the required set back. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a height limit on backyard fences, to which the Supervising Planner responded the limit is 6 feet for a solid fence and 8 feet for a fence with 2 feet of lattice on top. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was an 11-foot fence in the yard, to which the Supervising Planner responded that staff is not clear who owns the fences that surround the property. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the fence issue would be pursued regardless of tonight's decision, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing. Proponents (In favor of appeal) : Fred Hogenboom, Alameda, and Ursula Hogenboom, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alame… | CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-18 | 7 | Acting Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council would not be taking action tonight; public testimony would be taken and the matter would be continued to the February 1, 2005 City Council Meeting ; the two meeting nights constitute one meeting; stated speakers can speak at tonight's meeting or on February 1, but not at both. Proponents: Regina Tillman, Alameda; Steven Garner, Alameda; Frank Skiles, Alameda Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Ron Salsig, Alameda; Wendy Horikoshi, Alameda; Janet Gibson, Alameda Unified School District; Reginald James, Alameda; Eve Bach, Alameda; Carl Halpern, Alameda;Mary Green Parks, Alameda. Opponents: Dominic Pasanisi, Alameda; Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Fern Wallace, Alameda; Bernie Fitzgerald, Alameda; Melinda Samuelson, Alameda; Steven Edrington, Alameda [submitted handout] ; Carol Martino, Realty World Martino Associates; John Sullivan, San Leandro; Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association; Thomas S. Cooke, Manager, Bonanza Apartments; Carmen Lasar, Alameda: and, Monica Getten, Alameda. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the City Attorney provide an analysis of existing State law which might overlap with the proposed ordinance, particularly landlord and tenant relationships stated that there is plenty of State law protecting individual tenants in contracts with landlords; he is concerned that there is not much protection for the community; there is significant impact on the community and the schools when owners choose to wipe out a large complex; the matter is not about rent control he has never supported rent control, which has always been a failure; there has never been a complaint about rent being too high, only complaints that rent is too high for the services not being delivered. Acting Mayor Gilmore requested information on how many properties have 40 units or more and the total number of units in the "West End Atlantic Corridor Area", and requested staff to provide information on how the ordinance would work in the absence of rent control. (05-041) Ordinance No. 2934, "Amending the… | CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 7 | net services special consideration should be given to organizations that provide education along with services; a disaster preparedness kit should be provided to low-income families. Robert Bonta, SSHRB, stated the SSHRB was pleased to weigh in on the public service needs employment, transportation, and child care are needed in addition to improving access to affordable housing; services are not being maximized; he hopes that SSHRB'S four focus areas guide in the decision making. Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that extraordinary maintenance issues are coming up for the Housing Authority facilities the final Town Hall Meeting is scheduled for Thursday. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the meeting's focus was to gather information about extraordinary maintenance. Mr. Torrey responded that extraordinary maintenance is part of the focus information on proposed improvements is provided to residents; resident input is requested. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Mayor Johnson inquired whether extraordinary maintenance funding was available. The Acting Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated Housing Authority reserves and bond funds would pay for housing complex repairs; a physical needs assessment was conducted and approved; the physical needs assessment determines the type of improvements needed over the next 20 years. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the SSHRB did a terrific job in developing criteria; the criteria used to measure the performance of the organizations receiving the grants should align with the SSHRB's four focus areas to ensure that the money is well spent and goals have been achieved; improving access to affordable housing should include upholding anti-discrimination laws individuals need to be provided with an avenue to bring discrimination issues to the proper authorities; SSHRB'S criteria needs to be incorporated into the measurement of success to ensure that contractors know what is expected. Councilmember deHaan in… | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 7 | Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that the matter be sent back to the Planning Board for proper notification. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened the Regular City Council Meeting at 10:21 p.m. * Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance [paragraph no. 05-058] would be heard before the discussion regarding options for relocation assistance [paragraph no. 05-059]. (05-058 - ) Recommendation to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance establishing a Theatre Combining District in Chapter XXX, Development Regulations. Lars Hanson, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) , stated that PSBA supports establishment of the ordinance. Mayor Johnson announced that the following speakers are in favor but would not comment Pauline Kelley, Alameda Abigail Wade, Regency Antiques; Nick Petrulakis, Books Inc. ; Elizabeth Pinkerton, Dog Bone Alley; Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, Robb Ratto, PSBA. Councilmember deHaan moved to approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether accepting the staff recommendation allows the Central Cinema to continue operating, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05-059) 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). Proponents : Mosetta Rose London, Alameda; Donald Cummingham, Alameda ; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant Association (HITA) ; Motoe Yamada, Alameda; Emily, Lin; Michael Wharton, Alameda Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 7 | Counci lmember Daysog inquired whether neighborhood park directors would remain, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. The Interim City Manager completed his review; stated the total reduction in department budgets is $2,770,363; added to reductions in non-departmental areas, the total reduction is $6,295,983 the budget expenditure cuts and decreased revenues have no impact on the General Fund reserves for the fiscal year. Mayor Johnson stated there was a $1.2 million deficit in December; inquired how the deficit has reached $4.8 million. The Finance Director responded the budget adopted July 20 had expenditures exceeding revenues by $1.6 million; revenues decreased another $2 million because the 911 fee and Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Return on Investment (ROI) were not adopted by the Council, resulting in a $3.2 million deficit; Council actions to appropriate funds for the City Manager recruitment, Interim City Manager, Chinatown agreement, and other activities had an approximately $256,000 impact. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether hiring additional Firefighters would have an impact on overtime. The Interim City Manager responded that the five Firefighters would start the academy March 15; there would be a cost of $322,000 in salaries for the five Firefighters in the academyi there will not be a net benefit for the current fiscal year. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be an impact in future years, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired the amount of the reserve that was required to be set aside. The Interim City Manager responded there is a $2,453,743 set aside for accrued vacation and $1,444,000 for post employment health; the total accrued liability is about $3.5 million of the reserves. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the general reserves are about $10 million. The Interim City Manager responded that after removing the $3.5 million required in set aside and removing loans to other funds, the amount remai… | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 7 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 6:40 P. M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. (05-008) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: 1435 Webster Street (Webster Parking Lot D - APN 074-0427-005-01) ; Negotiating parties : John E. Farrar Living Trust and Community Improvement Commission Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission gave direction to Real Property negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission March 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 7 | (05-120) Public Hearing to consider a Citywide Zoning Text Amendment ZA04-0001 to review and revise Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-6, Sign Regulations, clarifying current regulations and establishing internal consistency with various Alameda Municipal Code sections with the primary focus on regulations pertaining to Window Signs and (05-120A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) by Adding a New Section 30-6 (Sign Regulations) to Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) Introduced. The Supervising Planner gave a brief report. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a medical office not in a commercial area is allowed to have a temporary sign, to which the Supervising Planner responded A-frame and I-frame signs are not permitted anywhere in Alameda. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed ordinance was for all retail areas, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Proponents: (In favor of ordinance) : Robb Ratto, PSBA; and Sherri Stieg, WABA. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the City does not have the resources to walk down each business district street to enforce the ordinance; the City is counting on and expecting PSBA and WABA to help clean up the signage in town. Councilmember deHaan stated that some of the retailers are going to have a rude awakening; enforcement of the proposed ordinance needs to be implemented fairly. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the proposed ordinance is primarily for signs facing outward and not inside signs, to which the Supervising Planner responded that signs which are part of the interior décor would not be considered to be a sign. Councilmember deHaan stated that tonight is monumental; thanked staff for all of their work. Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance. Regular Meeting 7 Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-04-05 | 7 | The Acting City Manager responded that the Fire Marshall determined that there were some Fire Code problems and notified the property owner; stated a report from the Fire Marshall indicated the problems were repaired with the exception of the fire alarm system and elevator. The Project Architect stated that agreements have been developed with the Building, Planning and Fire Departments regarding the level of upgrades that need to be satisfied. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Department was under a deadline for the project. The Supervising Planner responded that there is a statutory deadline under the Permit Streamlining Act; stated that once a project has been deemed complete, action needs to be taken within [60 days]. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the approval for the Community Center was via the Permit Streamlining process and whether there are other aspects of the overall project that would be subject to the Permit Streamlining process. The Supervising Planner responded that all discretionary permits are subject to the Permit Streamlining process which includes the Design Review and the Planned Development amendment for the Community Center and the new garage buildings. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are issues other than what is being addressed tonight that are subject to the Permit Streamlining process. The Supervising Planner responded that the structural issues are not part of the Permit Streamlining processi stated the structural and plumbing issues are not under the Planning Board's purview. Mayor Johnson stated the Building Code Appeals Board reviews building code deviations. The Supervising Planner stated that the Building Code Appeals Board addresses instances where a building permit is not issued because of a technical requirement when the applicant believes that an alternate method for construction would be appropriate. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 April 5, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-04-19 | 7 | year reprieve; suggested a Town Hall meeting be held regarding the ferry system in three to four months; stated that some riders feel out of the loop regarding ferry issues; noted that a Town Hall meeting would provide a better sense of timetables for improving ferry services and costs issues; suggested a more formal way of communicating with riders be developed by the Transportation Commission or an adhoc committee that reports to City Council. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog; suggested that the Town Hall meeting occur soon; stated that the city cannot afford to lose the ferry service; traveling across the Bay Farm Island Bridge would affect commuters and is unacceptable: stated that informing commuters that everything will be done to keep the ferry in service is an urgent matter and maintains credibility for transit solutions at Alameda Point. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is in favor of having the Town Hall meeting sooner, but that it is important to collect information for presentation. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not see any advertising for the ferries; noted that fuel cost issues should be investigated; stated that the City will not lose the ferry service; that there is a long-term possibility that the Water Transit Authority will operate the ferries; the City needs to continue operating successfully until then; there should be a Council briefing on the state of the ferries and then a public workshop. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the maintenance issues are important; noted if the ferry is out of service, commuters find other means of commuting and it is difficult to get them back once habits have changed. Councilmember Daysog suggested that the Council Meeting be the Town Hall meting. Councilmember deHaan stated that there was a fare box increase of 25% and 40% is needed; the capacity of the ferry service and parking limitation is a difficult dynamic to solve; that the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service was successful because parking spaces were increased and ridership … | CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-03 | 7 | (05-212 - ) Rob Siltanen, Alameda, submitted a letter requesting that the Alameda Point vision include sensible traffic solutions, middle class housing, and a small town Alameda feel. (05-213) - Jon Spangler, Cross Alameda Trail Steering Committee, stated that Saturday, June 4, is National Trails Day there will be a trail walk between Main Street and Webster Street. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05-214) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she and Councilmember deHaan attended the Association of Bay Area Government conference regarding casinos last week; there appears to be a one size fits all negotiation strategy there is no recognition of the obvious differences between urban and rural casinos; the Governor' S negotiator promised that the Governor would take a hard look at Indian tribes looking to have land restored; the negotiator was not aware of anything pertaining to the Koi proposal on Swan Way; stated tribal lobbying efforts have not made it all the way up the ladder. ( 05-215 ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is a special June election for a Measure A parcel tax; the tax would allow the School District to extend the current parcel tax; requested that Council give direction to place the matter on the next City Council meeting agenda; stated there is a gap in School District funding a County Financial Advisor would be required if the School District slips into financial disarray; the City does not need a County person advising how money is spent. (05-216) ouncilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned that the reservation shopping battle has just begun; some cities want to move forward with casinos because of economic woes. (05-217) Councilmember deHaan requested staff to review costs and funding sources to centralize City administration particularly the Public Works and Development Services Departments. Mayor Johnson stated that she would support the idea. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he assumed that the matter would be addressed with the budget and the ten-year outlook. (05-218 ) Mayor Johnson requ… | CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-12 | 7 | Mayor Johnson stated that she is not sure the Council needs legal advice on hiring an attorney; that she does not agree that the City Attorney has control over what the outside attorney would do. The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney would hire the outside attorney to interpret the City Attorney' S contract. Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has directed the City Attorney to sign the Agreement with changes; inquired whether there would be a problem. The Assistant City Attorney stated any additional matters for which the Council requests [outside counsel's services would have to go through the City Attorney. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had any problem with the modified Agreement that the Council directed the City Attorney to sign. Councilmember Daysog stated Mr. Hartinger's letter [Agreement ] is addressed to the City Attorney; the word "you" refers to the City Attorney. Mayor Johnson stated that the second "you" in paragraph 1 refers to the City Council; the Council needs to determine Mr. Hartinger's intention; the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest if the outside attorney working for the Council had to go to the City Attorney for advice. The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope is very narrow; the Council would need to stay within the scope. Mayor Johnson inquired whether "you" in the sentence "provide legal services for additional matters that you request... refers to the Council or City Attorney. Mr. Hartinger stated the Agreement is addressed to the City Attorney; the City Attorney is the conduit through which retention would occur. * Mayor Johnson called a recess at 5:47 p.m. and reconvened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. (05-224) - Adjournment to Closed Session to consider : Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators Arthur Hartinger of Special Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 12, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 7 | onto Grand Street to travel to South Shore; drivers try to find the easiest path; for example, changes on Buena Vista Avenue are causing Pacific Avenue to become a major road; everything has secondary impacts; that he understands the concerns about a four- way stop; however, a measure of control is needed [at Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street] The Public Works Director stated Councilmember Daysog's idea has not been reviewed; data could be analyzed; staff reviewed the traffic characteristio on Sherman Street; the average daily volume along Sherman Street is 5,500 vehicles at Buena Vista Avenue, 3,100 at Pacific Avenue and 2,500 at Santa Clara Avenue the grid system is designed to filter people and is working; both Sherman Street and Santa Clara Avenue are minor streets; traffic volumes on Santa Clara Avenue are higher than Sherman Street; since volumes on Santa Clara Avenue are acceptable, then volumes on Sherman Street must also be acceptable. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Santa Clara Avenue is wider than Sherman Street, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. stated Santa Clara Avenue is designated as a minor street in the General Plan. Mayor Johnson stated Sherman Street should not be treated the same as Santa Clara Avenue as far as traffic loads. The Public Works Director stated that he agrees there needs to be a strategic plan; the all-way stop is the best option for now with the funding available; noted Council approved funding to complete a Pedestrian Plan tonight, which is an element of the TMP . Councilmember Matarrese stated the City should do anything possible to decrease the volume of traffic on Sherman Street; the character of Sherman Street is different than Santa Clara Avenue; the biggest problem is the excessive speed on Santa Clara Avenue; suggested the Police Department put together a program which tickets people traveling above the speed limit on Santa Clara Avenue to slow down traffic; stated most of the accidents are probably cause by excessive speed, rather than… | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-07 | 7 | Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council needs to be careful with the WTA taking over the Harbor Bay ferry or any of the ferries; the Blue and Gold ferry, and to some extent the Harbor Bay ferry, are locally controlled; the WTA might decide to have the ferry leave from somewhere else. Mayor Johnson stated the level of service and location can be negotiated. On the call for the question, Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *05-271) Resolution No. 13848, "Approving the Paratransit Service Plan and Applying for Measure B Paratransit Funding. Adopted. (*05-272) Resolution No. 13849, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase from Cogent Systems, Inc. Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter, of Cogent Automated Palm/Fingerprint Identification System Upgrade in the Amount of $37,815. " Adopted. (*05-273) Resolution No. 13850, "Adopting an Agreement for Participation in Alameda County Operational Area Emergency Management Organization. Adopted. (*05-274) Resolution No. 13851, "Designating All Alameda Fire Stations as Receiving Points for Surrendered Babies Under the California State Health and Safety Code Section 1255.7 known as the Safely Surrendered Baby Law. " Adopted. ( *05-275) Resolution No. 13852, "Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held November 7, 2000. " Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (05 5-276 - ) Ordinance No. 2941, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to Increase the Composition of the Recreation and Park Commission from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-7.2 (Membership; Appointment; Removal), 2-7.3 (Qualification; Voting) of Section 2-7 (City Recreation and Park Commission) . " Finally passed. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.… | CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-21 | 7 | The Public Works Director stated that the Council could make a motion to adopt the resolution and give staff two weeks to resolve the issues; if the issues are not resolved, a lien would be placed on the properties. The Acting City Manager requested that the two written communications presented to Council tonight be included with the speakers' requests for staff review. Councilmember deHaan stated better communication regarding the new contract requirements is needed; inquired whether collection through property taxes has been done before. The Public Works Director responded that collection of payment through property taxes has not been done in the seven years he has been with the City. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether it is the City's responsibility to determine how outstanding bills are resolved. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated that delinquent accounts would be included in the next rate review in a year and a half; any garbage fees that are not collected is passed on to the rate payers; rates would be increased because the City is required to compensate ACI for the service. Mayor Johnson stated that the problem is that everyone who pays their bill subsidizes those who do not. The Public Works Director stated that 23 residents on the list included in the staff report have paid. The Acting City Manager suggested that the Council adopt the Resolution with direction for staff to resolve issues of concern raised by residents tonight and provide a status on said claims within two weeks. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution, including the Acting City Manager's suggestion [to direct staff to resolve issues of concern and provide a status on said claims within two weeks]. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 June 21, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-28 | 7 | understanding of the Council's direction. The City Attorney stated that the direction from the Council was to provide a proposal that addresses issues regarding the Charter, Council oversight in order to provide a threshold to limitation of the City Attorney's current budgeting authority, and to address other issues discussed, i.e., an RFQ panel of attorneys. Chair Johnson stated the Council does not intend to limit the dollar amount; the Council could spend $800,000 on one case; the focus is on hiring outside counsel. The Acting City Manager stated that sometimes it is not known how much money will be necessary for hiring outside attorneys in cases where the City gets sued; usually there is a proposal from a consultant advising what the cost will be when other departments hire consultants; the Council would like to be advised who the outside counsel would be. Chair Johnson stated it is not necessary to have a dollar amount in contracts; the Council needs to be advised who the attorney is that would handle the matter. Councilmember Daysog stated that it is not in the interest of the public for the Council to be involved in every single hiring decision; there should be a threshold. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council does not want to be involved in every single hiring decision. Chair Johnson stated there would be a greater awareness and sensitivity to hiring outside counsel; there have been instances where the Council has questioned why outside counsel was hired; the issue is not a dollar limit; stated the Council could discuss the type of issues that should involve the Council; the City Attorney could address the matter in her proposal. Councilmember deHaan requested a summary of litigation and the estimates for finalization; requested that the Council receive advanced notice when the amount of a consultant's contract is anticipated to increase. Councilmember deHaan stated that all managers should be able to provide the Council with an on-going ledger. Chair Johnson stated that the task of providing the le… | CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-05 | 7 | after five years of leasing at a fair market value or prorated cost; urged the Council to be more fiscally conservative. (05-336) - Deborah James, Alameda, thanked the Council for the West End Teen Program; noted that Goodwill offers free on-line computer training stated there is also a teen center at Alameda High School. Mayor Johnson stated the Alameda High School teen center is at the Veterans Building; suggested information on computer courses be provided to the Recreation and Parks Department also. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05-337) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee and Transportation Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Lee Perez for appointment to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee and John Knox White and Eric Schatmeier to the Transportation Commission. (05-338) Councilmember deHaan inquired when the infrastructure budget would be presented to the Council, to which the Acting City Manager responded in August. Councilmember deHaan inquired when the 10-year budget would be presented to the Council. The Acting City Manager responded in August; stated he cannot provide an exact date because the 10-year forecast model is being prepared in conjunction with the outside auditor; the Public Works Director is preparing the infrastructure budget for the second City Council meeting in August. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:01 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 7 July 5, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-19 | 7 | REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (05-360) - Resolution No. 13879, "Appointing John W. KnoxWhite as a Member of the Transportation Commission. " Adopted; and (05-360A) Resolution No. 13880, "Appointing Eric Schatmeier as a Member of the Transportation Commission. " Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented the members of the Transportation Commission with Certificates of Appointment. (05-361) Public hearing to consider revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance, with respect to building height limits and number of stories exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions to existing residences, the definition for replacement-in-kind off-street parking regulations and reconstruction of non-conforming residential structures; and (05-361A) Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). Introduced. The Supervising Planner gave a brief overview of the proposed revisions. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the 'replacement-in-kin definition would apply to the design guidelines and solve problems that residents are having at Harbor Bay when replacing aluminum-sliding windows. The Supervising Planner stated that the guidelines state that materials that are appropriate for the style of the house should be used. Mayor Johnson stated residents should not have to go to the Planning Board to replace windows because of staff's interpretation of the guidelines; Harbor Bay residents are not getting permits because they have been told aluminum-sliding windows are not allowed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 July 19, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-08-02 | 7 | immediate need and the Council did not meet for two weeks the reporting [approval of hiring outside counsel] would occur at the next regular City Council meeting; a special meeting could be called if the matter was extremely urgent. Mayor Johnson stated the language in the resolution should be clarified to reflect Councilmember Matarrese's comments. The City Attorney stated that she would have to retain outside counsel in order to start litigation. Mayor Johnson stated the Council understands said issue, which is the reason for the $35,000. Councilmember Matarrese concurred; stated the $35,000 threshold allows the City Attorney to do so [retain outside counsel]. ; inquired whether $35,000 was a reasonable amount to get the ball rolling on a big case. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interpreting the exercise of the City Attorney's responsibilities within the $35,000 threshold in two ways: 1) the Council is trusting the City Attorney to exercise professional responsibility in evaluating the cost ahead of time if said evaluation deems that the matter would be less than $35,000, the City Attorney has the authority to move forward; 2) the Council is trusting the City Attorney to use her professional background and experience to make the decision to bring the matter to the Council when the cost would be more than $35,000. Mayor Johnson stated that there is an accountability issue; Council would have questions if a case were estimated to cost $5,000 and it ended up costing $80,000; there is a check and a balance; the reporting requirements, limitations on hiring outside counsel, and the Public Utilities Board delegation should be addressed separate; the resolution should not read: "limitations on spending outside counsel budget; limiting spending is not the intention the City will have to spend whatever amount needs to be spent; the delegation or approval of the hiring of outside counsel under certain circumstance is what is being addressed; requested that the matte… | CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-08-16 | 7 | redevelopment dollars cannot be used for infrastructure improvements that are generally covered by the General Fund Capital Improvement Budget inquired whether redevelopment dollars could be used under certain circumstances. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative; stated redevelopment dollars cannot be used to pay for street resurfacing; pass-through agreements with the County preclude the City from using redevelopment project tax increment on certain projects, such as Estuary Park. Councilmember deHaan inquired what projects have been obligated with the $47 million bond issue. The Development Services Director responded the projects include the new Library and matching funding for some grant money for Webster and Park Streets; there was an existing obligation as part of the construction of the Marina Village Project $13 million went to capitalize the payments on the long-term obligation to repay the infrastructure improvements made at Marina Village years ago. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $200,000 was used for intersection remediation at Otis and Park Streets. The Development Services Director responded that money for intersection remediation came from regular operating tax increment revenues, not bond money. Councilmember Daysog stated the report states that project results in a net cost to the CIC; that he understands Mr. Kelly's comments regarding estimated CIC costs; the $13 million bond will be paid from the increase in tax increment in the redevelopment area, not the project itself; the staff analysis compares the estimated CIC costs against the estimated CIC revenues, which results in a $7 million negative. Mr. Kelly stated there is a cost; however, the City will own the historic theater, the parking garage and the land underneath the theater; the City is buying assets. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the purpose of edevelopment is to generate value; inquired whether the City would collect property taxes if the City owns the assets. The Development Services Director … | CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-09-06 | 7 | Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how the dry rot issue should be handled from a construction standpoint. The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that rotted wood needs to be removed; new members could be attached if termite damage has been repaired; termite repair can be more than 30% of a house. Mayor Johnson stated the Appellant should have been referred to the HAB to get a demolition permit when the rot was discovered. Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the implication in upholding the five-year stay. The Supervising Planner responded the Appellant would need to provide a landscaping plan and maintain the site for five years with no building on it. Councilmember deHaan stated there are other dynamics occurring; inquired how many similar projects there are in the City. The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there are three projects subject to the ordinance. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether one project was resolved, to which the Acting Planning and Building Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated the bubble has been lost in the interpretation of the ordinance; he is concerned with retaining the architectural design; the scale seems to be imposing on the neighborhood; inquired what the adjacent houses look like. Mayor Johnson responded that the adjacent houses are both two-story structures; that she does not recall the houses being close to 3,400 square feet. The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the adjacent houses are approximately 1,500 square feet each. Councilmembei deHaan stated that there are multiple dwellings that are expanding and becoming disproportional to the adjacent housing; inquired whether the HAB reviews the issue. The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that the HAB would address the issue if a historical structure were involved. Councilmember Daysog inquired what floor area ratio was being Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 September 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-09-20 | 7 | part of the Film Commission; noted a small city does not really need a Film Commission; the City Council should be aware of what is happening within the community. Mayor Johnson stated a Film Commission should hopefully pay for itself and create other benefits for the community. Ms. Garcia-Sinclair inquired whether $9,000 was for website development Mayor Johnson responded $9,000 was for initial marketing materials and the website. Ms. Garcia-Sinclair encouraged hiring local residents for background acting. Liam Gray, Alameda, stated that he supports a Film Commission; the Film Commission could dovetail on San Francisco's efforts to be a digital Hollywood; the bridges, beach, and quaint streets are perfect locations for productions. Mayor Johnson directed the City Clerk to send applications to the speakers. Councilmember deHaan moved to approve the staff recommendation and adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05-462) Transmittal of Task Force report concerning strategies to prevent mass termination of tenancies from large apartment complexes and to create additional affordable housing opportunities Former Acting City Manager Bill Norton provided an overview of the Task Force Report. Mayor Johnson stated changing codes would encourage more condominium conversion; subsidies for affordable units need to be paid; inquired whether the units could be retained as rental units. Mr. Norton responded that currently the condominium conversion Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 September 20, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-10-18 | 7 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 18, 2005 - -5:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:00 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-492) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiator : Beverly Johnson; Employee: City Attorney. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the labor negotiator. 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 October 18, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-11-01 | 7 | Robert Doumitt, Alameda (not present) ; Robert McKean, Alameda; Sherri Stieg, WABA; Walt Jacobs, Chamber of Commerce (not present) ; Kyle Conner, Applicant; Harry Hartman, Alameda (not present) i Nancy Brandt, Alameda; Michael Torrey, Alameda; Frank George, Alameda. ; Melody Marr, Chamber of Commerce (read list of 14 people in favor of the project) ; Duane Watson, Lee Auto Supply. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Daysog stated that people can always agree to disagree but should not be disagreeable; Councilmembers he has worked with since 1996 have all had the interest of the community in mind; the community must move forward regardless of tonight's decision; he has always focused on the dollars and cents of a project he has reservations with the proposed alternative; other cities are doing other things El Cerrito has purchased a historic theater and is contracting with a company to run the theater Orinda is working with a non-profit group to preserve its historic theater; he will support the Appeal because of the dollars and cents issue; 30 cents per square foot would generate $3 million versus 60 cents per square foot generating $6 million over the life of a twenty year project; stated he respects the other Councilmembers' opinions. Councilmember deHaan stated seven downtown parking sights were reviewed in October 2002; the sites were narrowed down to three: the Elk's Club, Longs, and Bank of America; the report showing that Video Maniacs was one of the sites is in error; inquired when the Video Maniacs site came into play. The Development Services Director responded that Video Maniacs was considered as a site in a parking analysis prior to October 2002; the opportunity was shifted to Long's there was additional dialogue combining the two sites; the shift went back to the Video Maniacs site when Long's no longer wanted to work with the City. Councilmember deHaan stated that Video Maniacs was identified as a parking structure before the cineple… | CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-11-15 | 7 | site was considered a blight a local resident has expressed concern with semi trucks parked overnight at Blanding Avenue ; garbage, boxes, and shopping carts are left on the street the intersection of Blanding Avenue and Broadway is dangerous ; efforts should be made to spruce up the area and review traffic. Councilmember deHaan stated that Oakland has a problem with a growing street community near the Bridgeside Shopping Center and should be notified that the situation is not tolerable. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Port of Oakland has been trying to correct the situation. Mayor Johnson stated that Alameda and Oakland police should work cooperatively on the situation. Councilmember deHaan stated activities on Clement Avenue and Grand Street should be given attention. (05-545) Councilmember Daysog requested an update on the hiring process of vacant department head positions. (05-546) Mayor Johnson stated that Saturday's electronic recycling was a great successi money is made on the event; suggested increasing the event's scheduling to every six months. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:32 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 7 November 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 7 | drawing down on the reserves; inquired whether deferred maintenance has grown experientially over the last four years. The Public Works Director responded that unfunded estimates keep growing. Councilmember deHaan inquired how the deferred maintenance growth could be lessened by utilizing available dollars and General Fund reserves. Councilmember Daysog stated that first turning first to the reserves was critical. the reserves have been built up by not funding capital infrastructure maintenance; the build up was done for a good reason because of the Base conversion; drawing down on the reserves needs to be done prudently; half of the 25% reserve is already designated, leaving the actual amount of the reserve at 8% to 12%; suggested revisiting the Henry Gardner Plan; stated lease revenue bonds were issued at Alameda Point in 1999 and were shifted over to pay for infrastructure; there should be a way to issue redevelopment bonds and shift budgetary dollars so that the capital dollars could pay for improvements. Mayor Johnson inquired whether shifting of the budgetary dollars could be done. Councilmember Daysog responded that the matter could be explored with caution; he is not sure about raising taxes; he is willing to explore adjusting the property transfer tax for inflation; stated a report on sources and uses of funds has been presented; requested a detailed plan outlining the problems and timetables for paths, sidewalks and streets; stated he would continue to push for broader community involvement in the process; moving forward was important. Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated sidewalks are needed on the beltline side of Ralph Appezzato Parkway. Mayor Johnson stated that the Board of Realtors would like to discuss the transfer tax with staff. The City Manager stated that an election would need to be held because taxes are involved; stated that she would be happy to meet with the Board of Realtors. Councilmember deHaan stated that there is a broad range in the amount of transfer tax in other cities; the City … | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-20 | 7 | field space being taken away at Lincoln Middle School. The Public Works Director responded the School District discussed the matter, not the City. Mayor Johnson stated that the City received the grant; the Safe Routes to School project was very controversial i it would take a lot to convince her that there is a need to take open space away from schools; she was concerned about how much grant money was spent in considering whether field space should be taken away or not. The Public Works Director stated that consideration for taking away open space was never envisioned and that staff did not discuss the matter in depth. Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to review the financial portion of the Safe Routes to School grant at a later date. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether both projects would be seamlessly executed when the grant was received, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*05-586) - Resolution No. 19315, "Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the Salary Range for the Classification of Plan Check Engineer. " Adopted. (*05-586A) Resolution No. 13916, "Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Development Services Division Manager, Golf Services Manager, Golf Course Maintenance Superintendent, and Building Official. Adopted. (*05-586B) Resolution No. 13917, "Amending Exhibit A-1 of the Executive Management Compensation Plan Established by Council Resolution No. 13545 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 13626 and 13689, to Establish a Five-Day Workweek Alternative with Corresponding Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Assistant City Manager and Planning and Building Director. Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (05-587 ) Recommendation to authorize a letter of welcome to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 December 20, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-01-03 | 7 | clearly defined. The Community Development Manager responded a substantial quarterly report is submitted which documents every case that SFH has taken under advisement; the scope of work is very clearly spelled out ; the details have not been worked out for the proposed increase in funds but can be provided once the scope of work has been finalized. Mayor Johnson stated that the Contract details should be provided to the Council to ensure that the City is getting its money' S worth; disappointing service was provided to the Harbor Island Apartment tenants; the Council thought that SFH could have done more to help. The Community Development Manager stated the issue would be part of the discussion when the scope of work is refined. Mayor Johnson inquired whether SFH's previous Contract included providing aid to the City with the Harbor Island tenants, and whether SFH was remiss in doing so. The Community Development Manager responded that the Contract would be reviewed and information would be provided to Council; staff feels that SFH was in compliance in terms of the number of people contacted; stated that communication could have been better. Councilmember Matarrese stated that caution should be exercised in establishing criteria by the number of contacts made; emphasis should be on the outcome of the contact; the money is not well spent if the contacts are not helping people. The Community Development Manager stated that more information would be provided to the Council. Mayor Johnson requested that staff provide a sample of SFH's quarterly reports. Councilmember deHaan inquired what the proposed funding would cover for the Webster Neighborhood Improvement Project. The Community Improvement Manager responded the proposed funding would cover Phase I, which includes the streetlights, tree planting, curb cuts, striping, bus shelters, signage, and possibly an engineering consulting contract for the pedestrian corridor Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 January 3, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-02-07 | 7 | Kathryn Neale Manalo, Alameda Chapter, Network of Spiritual Progressives, urged the return of the National Guard. Pat Flores, Alameda, urged the Council to speak out by passing the resolution. Noel W. Folsom, Alameda, commended Councilmember Matarrese for bringing the matter to public attention; urged the Council to adopt the resolution. Carl Helpern, Alameda, stated that he was in support of the resolution; the California National Guard was not intended to be an army operational force and should be brought home. Councilmember Matarrese stated that Alameda is the appropriate place to address the issue and vindicates the controversial vote that occurred four years; there is a difference between a no-cost conveyance and hundreds of millions of dollars of clean up that cannot be done; the City needs to beg for money from the Corps of Engineers to repair the seawalli Alameda's Marine unit was deployed; the National Guard and Coast Guard deployment directly impact Alameda; requested the Council to place the resolution on the next City Council agenda. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the resolution language could be discussed if the Council votes to place the matter on the next agenda, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to hear comments on the wording of the resolution. Mayor Johnson stated the Councilmembers could make comments at this time; public comment would be heard when the resolution is brought back; stated that a Senate Hearing addressed concerns with the State levels of the National Guard; the percentage of National Guard troops in Iraq was approximately 40% and is currently down to approximately 30%; the National Guard has a two-year time limit for activation; she supports the resolution with regard to the National Guard; she does not believe that California is prepared to deal with a natural disaster; stated she is a little less comfortable with locally dealing with the troop levels, although spending money in Iraq has an impact on l… | CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-02-21 | 7 | Counci lmember Daysog inquired whether the pool associations had an opportunity to weigh in on the long-term policy. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the pool associations and other groups were notified of meetings. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the pool associations participated in the meetings, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the pool associations could be contacted directly to ensure that the policy has been received, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative. The City Manager stated that the preference is to bring the policy back to the Council as a resolution with suggested changes. Mayor Johnson requested that Council resolutions be added to the compliance checklist in staff reports. Councilmember deHaan stated he would like to receive feedback from others who might be impacted by the policy. Mayor Johnson stated staff could send notice inviting participation in the process. (06-085) Adoption of Resolution Calling Upon Steps to Withdraw Our Reservists, Coast Guard Units and Members of the California National Guard Troops from Iraq. Not adopted. Proponents (In favor of Resolution) : Mark Irons, Alameda; Diana Morrison, Alameda; Dorothy Kakimoto, Alameda; Mary Abu-Saba, Alameda; Tom Matthews, Alameda; Richard Hofmann, Alameda Democratic Club; Deborah James, Alameda: Kathryn Neale Manalo, Alameda; Paula Rainey, Alameda; Jasmine Tokuda, Alameda; Norah Foster, Alameda; Allen Michaan, Alameda; Neil Garcia-Sinclair, Alameda Irma Garcia-Sinclair Alameda; Carl Halpern, Alameda; Susan Galleymore, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda: Pat Flores, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda; and David Teeters, Alameda. Opponents (Not in favor of Resolution) : Richard Myshak, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Dr. Alice A. Challen, Alameda; and Robert Todd, Alameda. Mayor Johnson thanked the speakers for the courtesy and respect Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 February 21, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-03-07 | 7 | Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed amendment included non- dwelling structures, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed amendment was prompted by a previously addressed garage issue. Councilmember deHaan responded house additions and design are an on-going concern; the proposed amendment would allow the aesthetics of older homes to be proportional to the existing rooflines when additions are made. The Supervising Planner responded the proposed amendment would address main structures, not accessory structures. Councilmember Daysog stated a Harbor Bay homeowner wanted to build an addition without a setback; neighbors were concerned that sunlight would be lost without the setback. The Supervising Planner stated neighbors would be notified because issues would go through the Design Review process. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Customer Service Initiative Committee was working on other issues. The Supervising Planner responded staff would be meeting with the Committee tomorrow; the Committee is working on clarifying the building process for the public. Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-120) Public Hearing to consider two parcel maps, PM 05-002 and PM 05-003, Marina Berth Condominium Conversion - Marina Village Properties; (06-120A) Resolution No. 13932, "Approving Parcel Maps, PM 05-002 and PM 05-003, at Berth Gates 8 through 11 at Marina Village. Adopted; and (06-120B) Resolution No. 13933, "Granting a Non-Exclusive Facilities Easement and a Non-Exclusive 8-Foot Wide Ingress and Egress Easement between the City of Alameda and Alameda Real Estate Investments within Lot 7 of Tract 6096. " Adopted. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 March 7, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-03-21 | 7 | MINUTE OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -MARCH 21, 2006- -5:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:40 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (06-135 ) Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director. Employee Organization : Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees Association. Al Fortier, Journey Lineworker, Local 1245, stated he was concerned with the lack of progress made negotiations have been going on since December 2004; one tentative agreement was reached and was rejected by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) ; two meetings have been held since January 26 for a total of four hours; strike sanction has been granted by the local union, the Alameda Central Labor Council and the International Office of IBEW; a table agreement would be in the best interest of the City and IBEW; requested that the Council give the City's negotiating team the direction necessary to provide an acceptable table agreement. Gary Fenton, Journey Lineworker, Local 1245, stated he has been in the electrical trade for thirty years; IBEW is asking for a fair contract; IBEW's wages and medical benefits did not put the City in the current financial position. (06-136) Conference with Property Negotiator; Property : Ballena Isle Marina; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Ballena Isle Marina LLP; Under negotiation: Price and terms. (06-137) Public Employee Performance Evaluation. Title: City Attorney. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the Council obtained briefing and gave instructions to labor negotiators; regarding Conference with Property Negotiator, the Council obtained briefing and gave instructions to re… | CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-04-04 | 7 | consideration of the project; she prefers that the buildings are set back from the waterfront so that the trees and berm are visible; the open space feeling is more consistent with the way the business park was planned. Mr. Eves stated that Alameda is a water-oriented community; every Phase 1 property owner has a view; Phase 2 owners would also have views. Mayor Johnson stated the plan maximizes the views from the buildings and also creates an open-space feeling; the designs are nice. Councilmember Matarrese stated the buildings all have good views buildings cannot be moved without compromising someone's view; some of the green space that comprises the swale and the berm could help contribute to the maximized use of the waterfronti a public area would provide three picnic tables suggested placing more picnic tables along the front strip to provide people activity in the green space; stated commercial condominiums are important to the City and allow ten small owners to own space instead of just lease. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated a small business cannot own business property in Alameda unless housing stock is converted. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated if the buildings were moved up to the property line, tonight's discussion could be addressing how to screen the buildings from the view of people walking by; an effort has been made to site the buildings appropriately and maximize the views; she likes the design. Councilmember deHaan stated that the layout maximizes the views: he would prefer to see a change in the façade from one vista to another; he would like to see more design; the buildings look like lined up boxes; he would like to see some brick treatment. Mr. Eves stated the project is the 34th Venture Corporation Center projects have been immensely well received; the buildings move forward and back with the goal of clearly distinguishing different companies; the desire is to give the buildings a corporate feel while providing individuality. Councilmember deHaan stated that more desi… | CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-04-18 | 7 | the internal policies; the matter will be brought back to Council. Councilmember Daysog requested information on the process of bidding out goods and services stated it is important to know that there is a competitive process and that the City receives goods and services at the lowest price and best quality. Mayor Johnson requested that the bid process be brought back to Council as a separate agenda item. Councilmember deHaan requested information on how much revenues have increased. Mayor Johnson requested that the matter be brought back to Council with incorporating the internal purchasing policy into the resolution; stated that the Finance Director has been instrumental in the improvements made. David Kirwin, Alameda, stated the Council should lead the unification of Alameda; he would prefer to have major redevelopment projects placed on a ballot. Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated that PSBA is in favor of the proposed resolution; the staff report referenced a partnership between the City and the Chamber of Commerce; PSBA, the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA) should also be involved in the partnership; requested a meeting with the Finance Director to discuss improvements that have been made; suggested the City consolidate paper purchasing. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA ( 06-209 - ) David Kirwin, Alameda, inquired when the Civic Center scale model would be prepared; stated that currently the project costs are approximately $30 million without financing costs. Councilmember Matarrese stated the theater cost is not $30 million; requested clarification on the costs. The City Manager stated that the theater, parking structure, and Cineplex costs are approximately $28 million; the historic theater is the largest component because of restoration costs. Councilmember deHaan stated that the historic theater cost is approximately $13 million; the parking structure cost is approximately $9 to $10 million. The City Manager stated that a model should be completed by June Regu… | CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-05-02 | 7 | missing piece; stated the City does not provide direction. Councilmember deHaan stated the City should encourage teaming with other companies; a "Hire Alameda" philosophy is also important; traffic would lessen with a "Hire Alameda" philosophy. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 2, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-05-16 | 7 | The Finance Director stated property owners are billed even though the Municipal Code states that the property owner is responsible for applying and paying for a business license; an annual renewal is sent out in April once a business license is on file. collection is attempted through July 31, at which time the business license becomes delinquent delinquent notices are sent out again in March; parcels with unpaid business licenses as of June 30 are placed on the tax roll; Public Hearing notices are also sent. Mayor Johnson stated the total amount of uncollected license fees is $5,629.28, $9,536.77 with late charges; efforts are made to work with the business community; the City appreciates what businesses do for the community. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 16, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-06 | 7 | prior to starting negotiations. The Public Works Director responded some talking points have been established; stated a date has not been set for negotiations with WTA. Councilmember Daysog stated he does not recall receiving any input after Closed Session discussions; concerns were raised regarding guarantees for both services; requested feedback regarding concerns before direction is given to negotiate. The Public Works Director stated a baseline should be established within a certain period of time; WTA needs a chance to respond. Councilmember Daysog stated negotiations could be set up by providing WTA with some broad conceptual points. The City Manager stated the Council would be updated in terms of the talking points. Councilmember Matarrese stated he would prefer to authorize the City Manager to set up negotiating dates, but not enter into negotiations until after Council discussions. Councilmember deHaan stated he would like to have WTA provide a full business plan as part of the Council discussions. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with direction to bring the matter to the Council prior to the initiation of negotiations in order to allow discussion of the City's position and to obtain background information and plans from WTA. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated he was more comfortable with Council direction but would abstain from voting on the matter. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember deHaan, Matarrese, and Vice Mayor Gilmore - 3. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog -1. [Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. ] (06-295) Review of Policies regarding the Naming of City Facilities. The Acting Recreation and Park Director provided a brief Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 June 6, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-07 | 7 | not be estimated until the design plans were developed; previous estimates did not include land acquisition or architectural engineering; outlined the project phases; stated project costs are unknown until bid documents are prepared. Commissioner Gilmore stated the handout from Commissioner deHaan outlining budgets shows the large increase has been for the historic theater, which is the most complex part of the project filled with the most unknowns the other two pieces are new construction. Commissioner deHaan stated another option would be to decrease the theater project to a single floor and take two floors off the parking structure; the cost would decrease from $33.7 million down to $28.8 million. The Development Services Director noted disabled access would have to be added to the historic theater. Commissioner deHaan stated Option 5 could be considered, with caveats, such as satellite parking areas and using the entire Video Maniacs site for the cineplex and retail. The Development Services Director stated most cost overruns are with the historic theater; noted satellite parking would involve dealing with land acquisition again. Commissioner Matarrese stated that he appreciates the information from Commissioner deHaan and speakers; there seems to be support to tone down the parking garage and cineplex in favor of funding the renovation of the historic theater; $11 million is not the best bid; the bid should be rejected and the City should negotiate a lower price; he would entertain the idea of a better price being obtained through modification of the other two components [garage and cineplex] 60 days would give staff an opportunity to review; a different project would probably result with Option 1. Commissioner Daysog stated there seems to be a cafeteria approach to the project bonds have been issued on the entire project; $17 million was identified for the project with $9 million slated for rehabilitation of the historic theater; $17 million was part of the $42 million bond total; the total bond will cost $… | CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-20 | 7 | ACI and the City were provided. Councilmember deHaan stated the City should not do ACI's work; the City should be the mediator as a last resort. The Public Works Director stated ACI has 20,000 accounts ; seventeen of the fifty-nine delinquent accounts have been paid. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the City required that ACI open and maintain a customer service branch in Alameda she would be concerned if people are advised to contact Public Works. The Public Works Director stated the letter advises customers to contact Public Works regarding City requirements. Councilmember deHaan stated there were seventy-two delinquent accounts last year; inquired how many liens were removed. The Public Works Director responded thirty-four accounts went to lien. Mayor Johnson stated ACI should handle the issues to every extent possible; ACI should not be sending residents to Public Works to resolve accounts. Councilmember Matarrese suggested moving forward with the staff recommendation minus the two accounts brought to Council attention; stated Public Works should review the two cases; an update should be provided if there are deficiencies in the way that ACI is handling the matter; review of the process will be ongoing as long as there is a lien process. The Public Works Director stated a written communication was also received; inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese' S direction would include said communication. Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired what was the process for keeping track of an owner's address, to which the Public Works Director responded the address is obtained from the Assessor's Office. Mayor Johnson stated owners should be informed to notify the City if there is a change of address ; notices might be missed otherwise; the City should not have to keep track of landlord Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 June 20, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-05 | 7 | reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Alameda Naval Air Station, direction was given to Real Property Negotiators; regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, Council received a briefing from Labor Negotiators and gave direction on settlement parameters; regarding Fruitvale Railroad Bridge, Council received a briefing from Real Property Negotiators and gave direction to Negotiatori regarding Existing Litigation, the CIC received a briefing from Leal Counsel and gave direction on settlement parameters; and regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council received briefing from Legal Counsel and gave direction. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 12:30 a.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, Alameda 2 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-18 | 7 | The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation. Steve Castleberry, Water Transit Authority Executive Director, provided a Power Point presentation. The Ferry Services Manager provided a brief presentation. Councilmember Daysog inquired why the specific guarantee period was five to seven years instead of fifteen to twenty years for maintaining current service levels. The Ferry Services Manager responded Council could specify a fifteen or twenty-year period. Councilmember Daysog inquired why the City could not get ferry services and funding back if the WTA reduced service levels. The Ferry Services Manager responded he did not want to commit the City to take back ferry services if grant funding fell short of actual operation expenses during the intervening years. Councilmember Daysog stated the WTA is receiving some core funding ; the City should get back the boats and revenue if the WTA does not perform. Councilmember deHaan stated the condition of the ferries might deteriorate and the City would need to get additional funding to bring the ferries back into operation. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City needs to be protected; the City should have the option to take back the ferry services if trips are reduced below what the City is accustomed to at the end of the guarantee period, rather than the original number of trips at the time of transfer; the City cannot afford to go back to the original service levels because of Alameda Point build out; he would like a real guarantee that the City would get the boats and funding back in order to maintain the service level the City needs in the event reductions are ever proposed. The Ferry Services Manager inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese meant that if there were ten round trips per day at the time of transfer and the WTA increases the trips to fifteen round trips per day, the trigger point would be whether the WTA proposed to reduce the round trips to below fifteen, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore state… | CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-26 | 7 | a commitment for construction and permanent financing; the Bank of Alameda extended the commitment for six months; the developer has raised $2 million of additional equity and is trying to finalize the construction bids; the developer is planning to apply for permits in early September. Councilmember/Commission deHaan inquired whether staff received documents verifying that the financing is in place. The Development Services Director responded the City has a copy of the loan commitment; the appraisal and placement of the equity into the loan are the only contingencies left on the loan commitment Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the Cineplex and the parking garage property line has been pushed four to five feet on Oak Street and dog legs out. The Development Services Director stated the sidewalk dog legs out i the City performed a survey of the property; the property showed that the public sidewalk encroached six feet onto the private property; originally a bulb out at the corner and removing the parking on the City's portion of the parcel was contemplated for a variety of traffic safety and pedestrian concernsi originally, the bulb was to be fourteen feet wide and would now be ten feet wide the average downtown sidewalk is eight feet wide. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the sidewalk would be four-fee without the bulb out. The Development Services Director responded the sidewalk would be six feet because the property line would be set back two feet. uncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is concerned about the massive walls in the area; inquired why substituting surety bonds was pulled off the agenda and whether the matter was relevant to tonight's discussion. The Development Services Director responded that the staff recommended that the $200,000 offset come from the division's operating fund for salaries. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether tonight's discussion on the theater budget included everything, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. … | CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-08-01 | 7 | particularly at Alameda Landing other land uses that focus on generating jobs for young adults should be considered; decisions need to be held on whether the City should focus on big box retail or quality retail that residents want; he would encourage conversation on what the City wants for current and future residents at Alameda Landing; economic opportunities exist other than retail, such as Clif Bar and Rosenblum Winery expansion the data does not show a strong demand for available, household consumer spending at big box retail; available, household consumer spending is in quality and specialty retail; there are a variety of options; time needs to be allowed to make the right decisions rather than making a wrong decision that the City cannot recover from. Councilmember deHaan stated the City needs to decide what sacrifices it would be willing to make if discounters need to draw 50% or more in sales from off-island spending; traffic corridors would be impacted; the Southshore anchor tenant was Trader Joes, which is a small grocery store; he would welcome similar stores to the City because good service and revenue are generated he welcomes more information on the matter. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she has heard arguments that big box retail stores would bring in other desired retails, such as Ann Taylor; she would like the EDC to review the accuracy of said arguments. Councilmember deHaan stated that the June 7 study notes that Ann Taylor Loft, Chicos and Old Navy are willing to come to Alameda Landing without having a stand alone Target; 40% of Walmart and Target customers shop at both stores; discounters have more customer outreach; more congestion would be generated. The City Manager stated that staff would provide an update on what is the EDSP process. Councilmember Matarrese stated he wanted to make sure that the process includes the Transportation Commission and the Planning Board. Councilmember Daysog stated the Alameda Landing process has taken a long time; a decision should be made as soon as possible ; … | CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-08-15 | 7 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -AUGUST 15, 2006- -5:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:40 p.m. Roll Call - Present : ouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Absent : Councilmember Daysog - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (06-400) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation (54956.9 i Number of cases: Two. (06-401) Conference with Property Negotiatori Property 1150 Ballena Boulevard; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and Mission Valley Properties, dba Ballena Shores LLC; Under negotiation: Price and terms. (06-402) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee organizations : Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Management and Confidential Employees Association, and Executive Management Group. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, Council was briefed on the disputes and provided instructions to staff; regarding Conference with Property Negotiator, staff provided information on the status of proposed terms of negotiations, and Council provided instructions to staff; regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the labor negotiator explained the status of proposals involving Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees Association, and Council gave parameters for subsequent negotiating sessions. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council August 15, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-05 | 7 | The AP&T General Manager responded the cost covers fuel and does not include labor and maintenance. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the total cost is closer to $50,000, to which the AP&T General Manager responded the cost is around $50,000 to $60,000. Councilmember deHaan stated the amount might be reasonable for disaster preparation; the generators have not been used very much; the viability of using the units has not been discussed; the matter should be researched further to better understand the asset. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the $30,000 is spent only when the generators are operated, to which the AP&T General Manager responded the money is spent on testing. The City Manager stated the matter would be brought back with additional information. Councilmember deHaan stated the additional information should include more detail on whether the units could be made mobile, whether the City should look into alternative, smaller generators that are more mobile, and whether the units [proposed for sale] have a place in disaster preparation. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like information on the useful life and evaluation from an economic perspective. The AP&T General Manager noted only line workers can move the generators. Councilmember deHaan stated perhaps easier connection points could be set up in various spots throughout the City; the matter should be researched further. (06-439) Resolution No. 14008, "Amending Exhibit A - Compensation Plan Established by Council Resolution 13545 and Amended by Resolutions 13626, 13689 and 13977 to Establish a Five-Day Workweek Alternative with a Corresponding Salary Range for the Classifications of Library Director and Recreation and Parks Director. Amended ( including title) and adopted; (06-439A) Resolution No. 13009, "Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Principle Executive Assistant, Purchasing and Payables Coordinator and Supervising Animal C… | CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-19 | 7 | The Supervising Planner responded San Leandro's ordinance language was used; additional research was done on how Albany, South San Francisco, and San Carlos administer exception ordinances. ouncilmember deHaan inquired whether said cities were satisfied with the outcome. The Supervising Planner responded no problems have occurred with San Leandro's implementation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) , stated one of WABA's goals is to encourage new and existing businesses to flourish; WABA is in support of the proposed ordinance. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the present ordinance. The Supervising Planner responded the present ordinance does not have a parking exception provision. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there could be a change for restaurants. The Supervising Planner responded possibly; stated a change in hours of operation would not qualify for an exception because there would not be a long-term change to the structure. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was tiering and whether only offices would be affected. The Supervising Planner responded some restaurants could request an exception if a large cooking area took up a lot of space. In response to Councilmember deHaan's statement regarding a study, the Supervising Planner stated a study needs to be approved by the Public Works Director. Councilmember deHaan stated other cities must have set up some type of standards inquired whether playbooks were used. The Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated review is made on a case-by-case basis. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 September 19, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-03 | 7 | Counc: lmember deHaan inquired whether the City could pursue another grant. The Recreation and Park Director responded the City applied for the second round of funding; stated the State reduced the total amount available in the program to $1 million Statewide. Councilmember deHaan inquired where the Estuary Park funding would come from. The Recreation and Park Director responded the City is always looking for funding opportunities; stated State sources are unlikely; a definite plan is not in place. Mayor Johnson stated the Council set aside $1 million in a general open space fund; Council always has the ability match money for a grant application. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Debra Arbuckle, Alameda, stated she wants to ensure public involvement in the process; the public is willing to write grants. Mayor Johnson suggested a stated a Task Force be established to formalize community involvement. Councilmember Daysog stated that he liked the idea of a Task Force. Mayor Johnson stated Estuary Park and the Beltline are not competing; Council would find money to match a grant application. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Task Force idea is good and would help staff identify community resources, particularly grant writers. *** Vice Mayor Gilmore left at 8:58 p.m. returned at 9:00 p.m. *** Ms. Arbuckle stated the Skate Park is a good example of community involvement. Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed site clean up and open space uses. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Matarrese stated the property should have an open Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 October 3, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 7 | Mayor Johnson stated other residential structures in the area are not as dense as would be allowed in R-4 or R-5; other uses in the areas are the reason for the zoning. Councilmember deHaan stated the original proposal included 42 duplexes with 84 units on 7.2 acres; 2.4 acres were added; 4.2 acres were extracted for open space; now over 300 units are proposed; inquired how long the owner has been in control of the property, to which the Supervising Planner responded 20 years. Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the likelihood of getting the additional 5.8 acres from the other area. The Supervising Planner responded the City's ability to get the land comes down to the City's ability to purchase the land; stated the City's goal should be to purchase the land; the applicant is open to discussing the land purchase. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City looked at the 10 acres immediately off Clement Avenue for grant purposes at one point. The Supervising Planner responded the City submitted a grant application to the State for money to purchase Estuary Park. Councilmember deHaan inquired where the land is positioned, to which the Supervising Planner responded where the land is shown on the General Plan. Councilmember deHaan stated that he saw a setback off of Clement Avenue. The Supervising Planner stated he was not aware of one. Councilmember Daysog stated tremendous pressure exists to build and convert industrial sites into residential sites on both sides of the Estuary warehouse land value is approximately $2.2 million per acre, manufacturing is approximately $2 million per acre, and flex space is approximately $1.9 million per acre; the gross residential value is approximately $8 million to $11 million per acre; lessons need to be learned from Oakland; the density is too high; the Collins' numbers are more consistent with the other side of the Estuary [Oakland] Council needs to have serious discussions on the numbers desired, if rezoning is considered; he cannot vote on the matter until he is sure that… | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-11-21 | 7 | transfer to individual, adjacent property owners ; the Army Corps of Engineers is concerned that individual transactions would result in a checker board. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would need to negotiate with individual property owners if the City does not want to accept the property, to which the project Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation of the PGP inquired whether the City would become permit central for the Army Corps of Engineers. The District Counsel responded the land transfer is not connected to PGP necessarily; stated a PGP is issued by the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act; Water Boards, localities, cities, and counties often want control over regulatory activities; the City would need to get some type of real estate interest, such as an easement, lease, or license which would expire after a certain period of time; the permit could be extended for five years; the Public Works Department would be permit central for docks and other structures along the waterfront; the Army Corps of Engineers would work with the City to help structure the PGP : ; only certain activities fit within the PGP . the Army Corps of Engineers would help the City define what would be allowed and ensure activities are not environmentally damaging; the statute states that the Army Corps of Engineers has enforcement authority when things are not going well. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the moratorium goes away with the PGP , to which the District Counsel responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson thanked the Army Corps of Engineers for the information presented stated residents have a high level of interest in the issue; the main issue is the ability to perform on- going maintenance and repair. Councilmember Matarrese stated it is important to have a strategy for the Congressional delegation to start working on enabling legislation for the Northern Waterfront redevelopment area, including but no limited to, the Fruitvale Avenu… | CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2006-12-05 | 7 | Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she is not convinced that any second- story addition would provide the Appellant with sunlight within the specified areas of the home i she would be hard pressed to deny the project based solely on a shade issue because the zoning ordinance allows for second-story additions; she encourages the two neighbors to work out the situation. Mayor Johnson stated the important factors are the size, scale, and architectural style of the neighborhood; a tree can cause shade. Councilmember deHaan stated an opportunity exists to go back towards the fence to gain approximately fifteen feet. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of sending the design back to the Planning Board for consideration to make the addition more compatible with the single-story characteristics of the neighborhood; i.e., setting the second story back in a fashion that would not affect the appearance from the street. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated specific direction is needed to review the entire shading issue, the front house being set back, and the addition moving over toward the wall of the house closest to the property line. Councilmember Matarrese stated the current design is not compatible with the adjacent buildings the Appellant stated the second-story addition would be acceptable if pushed back from the front; the neighbors can work on the shading issue. Councilmember deHaan stated the shading issue is easily identified because existing housing has similar conditions; a lot of analysis would not be necessary. Councilmember Matarrese stated he would be hard pressed to turn the project down because of the shading issue; the Applicant and Appellant are encouraged to work things out to ensure that a certified design is presented to the Planning Board. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-593) Recommendation to adopt Amendment No. 1 of FY 2006-07 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan and to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute grant agreements and r… | CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 7 | on Otis Drive to the rest of the shopping center; the Acting Planning Director determined that the plan was appropriate and administratively approved the plan; the public, Transportation Commission, and Planning Board want an east/wes sidewalk; staff will go back to the Planning Board in the next few weeks with a plan to show what is feasible. Councilmember Gilmore stated she was on the Planning Board in 2003; the project was conditioned nine ways to Sunday hours were spent discussing pedestrian access; the Planning Board made it very clear that there should be a sidewalk from Office Max along the back side of the business; technical reasons may have prohibited said sidewalk: an administrative decision was made but never came back to the Planning Board; the Planning Board feels that conditions do not matter if the conditions are changed without coming back to the Planning Board; parking lot trees were extensively discussed; the conditions of approval state that Eucalyptus trees are prohibited; the landscaping plans show Eucalyptus trees; she feels very uneasy in allowing the Applicant to go ahead with plans based upon Council conditioning said plans after what has occurred. The Planner III acknowledged that the Acting Planning Director's administrative decision should go back to the Planning Board; stated landscaping is an on-going processi staff is working with the Applicant to determine what is or is not approved under the current PDA; Eucalyptus trees were denied when the new Walgreen's was built; the Shoreline area gets overlooked in the new PDA application because of Target the Shoreline area redesign is part of the application which would remove the car wash and Big 5 and includes more restaurants, public plazas, and public art. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the timeframe for the redesign of the area. The Planner III responded a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be presented in a couple of months stated design workshops are scheduled with the Planning Board; a hearing would be scheduled shortly… | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 7 | Councilmember deHaan stated he has heard complaints that the Bayport sidewalks are not wide enough; inquired whether the proposed sidewalks would be wide enough. The Supervising Planner responded public sidewalks have a five-foot minimum width. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Bayport's sidewalks have a five-foot minimum width, to which the Supervising Planner responded some Bayport sidewalks are less than five feet wide. Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the basic selling price for the Bayport homes. Mr. Lachman responded each phase has been different because of income; the first sixteen homes sold for $273,000 based on 110% of area medium income; the other sixteen homes sold for $236,000 based on 100% of area medium income; the new phase would be $212,00 based on 90% of area medium income. The Supervising Planner stated that the Homeowners Association would cover all maintenance, including the path. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she dislikes the third story pop- upsi she appreciates Mr. Rutter's and Mr. Buckley's research; she prefers the Murano project roofline; the Planning Board does not like slider windows in developments; windows that have dividers between two slabs of glass do not provide the detail and definition for the project's caliber; she would like to add a condition that would require windows to have dividers raised outside of the glass. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore; stated that he does not see the need for the east/west paseo that cuts from the alleyway through Hibbard Street to the parkway; every house could be considered waterfront property; the market rate and affordable houses are dispersed; the development is better than previous developments; staff could work with the Applicant on the third floor design; the existing asphalt path does not touch the Marina Cove development because of the wooden dock; the paseo condition is not needed as long as the asphalt is maintained and matches the proposed treatments in the round areas at the foot of Hibbard… | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-02-06 | 7 | Counci lmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinances. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Vice Mayor Tam - 1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (07-057) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs for Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief Power Point presentation. Mayor Johnson stated she would like to know more about the East Bay Community Mediation (EBCM) services. The Community Development Program Manager stated training services are provided; staffing is on a volunteer basis; volunteers are certified through a 40-hour training program. Mayor Johnson inquired whether volunteers are required to provide mediation services. The Community Development Program Manager responded in the negative; stated experience has shown that volunteers have a personal commitment to provide mediation services. Mayor Johnson inquired whether other cities use EBCM. The Community Development Program Manager responded in the affirmative; stated funding would be one-time. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Teen Center would qualify for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The Community Development Program Manager responded the West End Teen Center is funded through the Boys and Girls Club. Mayor Johnson stated she was referencing the Teen Club in the Elk's Lodge basement; the Teen Center needs improvement. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated funds are for public services, not physical improvements; staff can research the matter and bring it back to Council in April. Mayor Johnson inquired whether tonight's discussion was for the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 February 6, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-02-20 | 7 | the Planning Board would take action on the final EIR; inquired what would happen if the Planning Board approved the final EIR. The Supervising Planner responded the Planning Board would have the option of certifying the EIR and approving or denying the project stated a workshop could be scheduled to discuss responses. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Board decision could be appealed to Council, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there would be opportunities for the public and Planning Board to comment on the final EIR, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: louncilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes : Councilmember deHaan - 1. Councilmember deHaan stated the scope should have gone to the Planning Board; that he cannot support the staff recommendation. (*07-081) Recommendation to allocate $347,000 in Measure B Funds and award a Contract for Design and Construction Administration Services in the amount of $102,695, including contingencies, to Baseline Engineering for Grand Street Bridge and Ballena Boulevard Bridge Repair and Resurfacing, No P. W. 11-06-24. Accepted. ( *07-082) Recommendation to authorize installation of Stops Signs to replace Yield Signs at the intersections of Adams Street and Peach Street; Post Street and Washington Street; Calhoun Street and Peach Street, Fairview Avenue and Cornell Drive; Bayo Vista Avenue and Cornell Drive; Harvard Drive and Windsor Drive; Cambridge Drive and Windsor Drive. Accepted. ( *07-083) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for installation of Countdown Pedestrian Signal Heads and Audible Pedestrian Signals, No. P.W. 01-07-01. Accepted. (*07-084) Resolution No. 14068, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for Repair of the Main Street Ferry Terminal Pier, an… | CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-03-06 | 7 | There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. In response to Mayor Johnson's request, Cesar Pujol, AC Traffic Engineer, provided a brief presentation. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Willow Street is wide enough for two buses to turn at the same time. Mr. Pujol responded the bus stop would need to be on Otis Drive because a left turn could not be made; stated it is always easier for a bus to stop before making a right turn rather than turn and stop afterwards. Councilmember deHaan stated Shoreline Drive is used for the Express W going to San Francisco inquired whether Shoreline Drive ever had other bus service and might have a higher ridership. Sean Diest Lorgion, AC Transit Transportation Planner, responded Shoreline Drive had bus service at one time; stated buses were rerouted during the 2003 service cuts; the bus schedule has approximately 50 minutes of running time; higher costs are incurred with higher running time. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether ridership or running time is more important; stated Shoreline Drive is adjacent to a higher density area. Mr. Lorgion responded another bus would be needed if more time was added to a route; stated a different part of the route could be cut. Councilmember Matarrese inquired why the bus would not stop after the crosswalk on Sandcreek Way. The Program Specialist II responded sufficient space is not available in the westbound direction; stated the eastbound direction has a loading zone. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the distance between the crosswalk and bus stop on the opposite side of the street from Lum School. The Program Specialist II responded he did not have the measurement; stated the distance would be less than the other side. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Lum School Principal Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 March 6, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-03-20 | 7 | Fiscal Year; inquired whether Council could propose that the restricted operation fund is whatever the amount is between now and the end of the Fiscal Year; Council could have further discussions before any more money is spent. The Finance Director stated the net loss is $112,000 through Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 March 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-04-03 | 7 | Proponent (In favor of appeal) : Robert McGillis, Philip Banta Associates. Opponents : (Not in favor of appeal) : Joseph Woodward, Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) ; Dorothy Freeman, EPAC (provided comments) ; Virginia Dofflemyer, EPAC ; Rebecca Redfield, EPAC. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Vice Mayor Tam stated that 4.8 acres were rezoned for residential use; inquired whether the remaining 4. 6 acres would be part of the MU-5 Specified Mixed Use Area envisioned for the ten-acre Estuary Park along the northwestern waterfront. The Planning Services Manager responded the vision is for continuous shoreline access along the entire northern waterfront stated larger, active waterfront parks would be along the waterfront trail; the ten-acre Estuary Park is part of the 1991 General Plan; a portion [of the park] could be on the northern end of the site. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Applicant was aware of the plans. The Planning Services Manager responded the Applicant was aware of the rezoning that occurred in December 2006; stated that he is not sure whether the Applicant was aware of the Estuary Park concept adopted as part of the 1991 General Plan. ouncilmember Matarrese stated that the project does not conform with the General Plan; the rezoning last fall was to implement the General Plan. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution to uphold the Planning Board's decision and deny the appeal. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember deHaan requested an update on the implementation of a Task Force to address the Estuary and Beltline Parks. The City Manager stated an update would be provided. Councilmember deHaan requested that funding options be provided also. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 April 3, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-04-17 | 7 | 14082, "Authorizing Open Market Negotiation of Contract Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter and Purchase of a Modular Recreational Building and Site Improvements at Bayport, Project No. 83110100, and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement. " Adopted. (*07-179) Resolution No. 14083, "Vacating a Portion of a Ten-Foot Wide Power Easement and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed Within Parcel 2, Parcel Map 2542 (Alameda Towne Centre) " Adopted. ( 07-180) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Subsection 23-6.2 (Operation of Power Boats) of Section 23-6 - (Harbor and Tidelands) of Chapter XXIII (Parks, Recreation Areas and Public Property) by Repealing Subsection 23-6.2 in Its Entirety and Adding a New Subsection 23-6.2 (Operation of Power Boats) that Incorporates Speed Limits for Vessels Propelled by Machinery in an Estuary or Channel and Continues the Prohibition of Power Boats in Lagoons. Introduced. Jim Silver, Alameda, stated the Estuary is highly policed; he does not feel ticketing is needed; warnings are adequate. Timothy Corfey, Alameda, stated police presence is not excessive on the Estuary; he has an issue with the speed limit speeds are difficult to determine. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed ordinance would be enforceable by other agencies that patrol the waterways, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated that she received a call from someone associated with the Oakland Strokes an incident occurred on the waterway during practice yesterday; the Oakland Strokes strongly support the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Gilmore requested clarification on how the speed limit is gauged. The Police Lieutenant stated the speed limit is gauged by the distance away from a launch ramp or a dock; the ordinance does not prevent a boater from driving any desired speed down the center of the Estuary as long as they are not within one hundred feet of a dock; the Harbors & Navigation Code is used for repeat offenders the Distr… | CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-05-01.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-05-01 | 7 | models; Alameda is one of the few cities that has not adopted a green building ordinance. The City Manager stated the matter is in the process of being analyzed; information will be provided. Mayor Johnson stated the goal should be to have an ordinance by the end of the year at the latest. (07-209) Councilmember deHaan stated the former Naval Base sea level is twelve feet; the seawall is approximately six feet and gets broached during heavy storms which is of concern and should be reviewed. (07-210) Councilmember deHaan stated the San Francisco Maritime Museum was interested in renting space to renovate ships at one time the matter has been discussed and could continue to be discussed. (07-211) Councilmember deHaan stated that he is requesting a review from the Planning Board on the discount fuel station Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ; the matter should dovetail with the Target EIR and be reviewed as a whole; he would like to see the review done at the Planning Board and Transportation Commission level, not Council level; the [gas station] negative declaration accepted by the Planning Board should be reviewed as a whole [with the proposed Target]. not as a part. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan was requesting a Call for Review for the negative declaration by the Planning Board, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated there is a timeframe for the Call for Review processi a Call for Review has to come to Council within three Council meetings. Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have the matter married with the Target EIR. Mayor Johnson stated there was another recent Call for Review. Councilmember deHaan stated that he did that one, but it is more of a discussion. Mayor Johnson stated it is a Call for Review; inquired when the matter would come to Council. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 1, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-05-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-05-15 | 7 | The City Attorney responded there are no constraints on the City Council to condition the Planning Board's action; Council can uphold the appeal, deny the appeal or make a different recommendation to the Planning Board and remand the decision for the Planning Board to do in a different way. Councilmember deHaan stated the Council determines how individual elements move forward, which has an impact on the overall development of Alameda: the overall development of Alameda should be reviewed; Measure A is a segment of it (development) ; Measure A could be discarded if there were a limit on the number of overall housing units and design were different ; there needs to be an understanding of what might be built out and how impacts will affect the City; the Council should look at how the overall growth of Alameda is going to be built out and understand all the segments together and the TMP's impacts decisions should start being made as a big picture; the Measure A portion is going to be and has been discussed, maybe not in the proper context, in the Station Area Plan; that he has not seen what the Station Area Plan next meeting will look like, which is important to him; the first meeting started off on the wrong foot; another three meetings will be held, which is a good starting point; MTC's funding provided a great opportunity since the City could not afford the staff time and effort; that he would prefer looking at the overall picture and making a determination of how the City will handle this [development] as a whole; the other [ formation of a subcommittee] should be put on the side and the appeal should be upheld because the Planning Board has a heavy agenda for the next three or four months. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not disagree with Councilmember deHaan's comments; questioned whether the normal process is to start with the Planning Board and then have the matter come to Council; stated that she agrees there should be an overall strategy, which has been done in different areas; there should be a compreh… | CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-05 | 7 | 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 2007- 2008. " Adopted. The Ferry Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the City's contribution to the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, to which the Ferry Manager responded approximately $600,000. Mayor Johnson stated that the Port of Oakland is cutting its contribution from $83,000 to $79,000; inquired why the contribution is lower. The Ferry Manager responded the Port of Oakland argues that there are no non-port revenues; stated money is taken from the [Port s ] General Fund; payments are made for security and maintenance of the Clay Street ferry terminal as well as providing free parking for ferry riders. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the proportion of riders who board the ferry at Jack London Square versus Alameda. The Ferry Manager responded approximately 420,000 riders take the Alameda/Oakland Ferry; stated approximately 53% come in and out of Jack London Square; the vast majority [of Oakland riders) are excursion riders who pay the maximum walk-on rate. Mayor Johnson stated that the City should be more resistant to the Port of Oakland's 5% cut; she would be surprised if every budget line item was cut 5% the Port of Oakland is getting a good deal for $83,000 and should be expected to pay a fair share. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the 5% cut was because of airport revenue losses, to which the Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was an overall loss; stated the airport is not the majority of funds generated by the Port of Oakland; further inquired what are the plans for increased ridership on the Alameda/Oakland Ferry. The Ferry Manager responded ridership is already up 3% for the current year; stated advertising on AC Transit buses and participation in four free transit days for Spare the Air day would continue. the Alameda/Oakland Ferry … | CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-19 | 7 | Oak trees during construction; the owner has not taken any steps to protect the Oak trees; he does not see how the City can pass an inspection on the foundation since the recommended techniques were not used; the deed restriction requires that the landscaping be maintained in a weed free condition; the weeds are six feet tall; deed restrictions are an instrument that the Navy would like to use to transfer contaminated property to the City; the Navy will not be able to use a deed restriction to transfer property with residual contamination to the City if deed restriction requirements are not enforced by the City or complied with by the property owner. Mayor Johnson requested that staff review the matter. Councilmember deHaan requested an Off-Agenda report. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07-297 ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Civil Service Board, Commission on Disability, Film Commission, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board, Housing Commission, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, and Social Service Human Relations Board. Mayor Johnson nominated Linda McHugh to the Civil Service Board; Jeannette L. Copperwaite, David Duffin, Liam B. Gray, and Orin D. Green to the Film Commission; Steve R. Fort, Margaret Hakanson, Roberta Kreitz, Audrey Lord-Hausman, and John Robinson to the Commission on Disability Issues; Ronald Kahn to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board; Nancy Gormley, Senior Tenant Seat, to the Housing Commission; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and Gina Mariani to the Planning Board; Katina Huston to the Public Art Commission; Mike Hartigan to the Library Board; Cathy Nielsen and Henry Villareal to the Social Service Human Relations Board. (07-298) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the memorial service for Ed Dankworth; Mr. Dankworth served on the Social Service Human Relations Board and was very active in contributing to causes related to children, protection for seniors, and health care with Alameda Family Services; requested that the me… | CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-07-03.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-07-03 | 7 | outstanding issue pertaining to golf policies. Councilmember deHaan stated periodically concerns are raised regarding fees; inquired whether said concerns are tracked and categorized; stated people had disputes with building fees; the matter was put to rest because there was a misunderstanding. The Finance Director responded records are kept within the department that collects the fee; stated departments could be surveyed. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Finance Director was aware of any concerns [regarding fees], to which the Finance Director responded that she was not aware of any concerns in recent times. Councilmember Gilmore moved acceptance of the Master Fee Schedule. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember deHaan stated a 7.4% increase could be testy; he hopes that a vigil will be maintained on the matter. (07-325) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Agreements and Documents for Termination of the Ground Lease and Execution of a Master Lease that Divides the Leasehold Estate that is the Subject of the Lease into Three Separate Leasehold Estates to Ballena Isle Marina, LP, a California Limited Partnership, of Real Property Held Under Lease By and Between the City of Alameda and Ballena Isle Marina, a Limited Partnership. The Development Services Director gave a Power Point presentation. Vice Mayor Tam stated the rent escalation is phenomenal inquired whether the estimate is conservative and one that the City could expect. The Development Services Director responded that Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) is very conservative in the estimates stated the estimates are attainable. Bob Wetmore, KMA, stated the gross revenue is what drives the projections; the number of slips would be reduced from 500 to 370 but would not change the rates; the City would get a percentage of the gross. Regular Meeting 7 Alameda City Council July 3, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-07-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-07-17 | 7 | Mayor Johnson stated developers need to be prepared to mitigate to the fullest extent possible when building units on a truck route. The Planning Services Manager stated mitigation would not be a sound wall. Mayor Johnson stated that setbacks and buffers might not allow as much development. Councilmember deHaan stated a park is hidden along the shoreline; the park would be opened up; the handling of the truck route is a concern; parking would become extremely important ; positive steps have been taken with Littlejohn Park; the truck route would dissipate if the project moves forward; inquired whether the Planning Services Manager had any comments on information submitted by former Councilmember Kerr. The Planning Services Manager responded that an additional policy could be added to the beginning of the document that would provide direction for the consideration of zoning amendments to address the parking question; the General Plan should not state one thing and the Zoning Ordinance state something else; the General Plan should make it a high priority Regular Meeting 7 Alameda City Council July 17, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-08-07 | 7 | the demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the property with a twenty-four hour gas station located at 2234 Otis Drive. The property is located within a Central Business and Planned Development overlay zoning district (C-2-PD) ; and (07-373A) Resolution No. 14139, "Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Board's Approval of Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001 Major Design Review DR05-0010, and Use Permits UP06- 0003 and UP06-0014. Adopted. The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents (In favor of Appeal) : Debra L. Banks, Alameda (submitted handout) . Opponents (Not in favor of Appeal) : Deborah Kartiganer, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson, Kawakami; Mike Corbitt, Alameda Towne Centre. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Mayor Johnson stated the public is concerned with the loss of the Chevron Gas Station at the former South Shore Center the Planning Board requested that a gas station be located at the Alameda Towne Centre; previously, four different gas stations were located at the former South Shore Center. Councilmember deHaan stated the highest retail leakage has come from the loss of gas and service stations the proposed gas station is similar to the Nob Hill high-volume, discount gas station; the public is concerned with the Otis Street corridor; Alameda Towne Center is approximately 60% full and would be impacted further as the Town Centre grows; a mitigation requirement addressed installation of a signal at a future date; the location is not the best for the future; the intersection would become very active; the Otis Street corridor serves the shopping center and traffic through the island; he understands the community's continued concern; he is not happy with the location; the number of tankers has not been confirmed; larger tanks should be considered. Councilmember Matarrese stated Safeway provided a range for tanker movement ; inquired whether said range … | CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-08-21 | 7 | Mayor Johnson thanked the Recreation and Park Department, Ms. Lord- Hausman, and the Youth Collaborative. Councilmember deHaan stated youth outreach was not successful with the Community Reuse Plan for Alameda Point because there was not an organized body that could speak for the youth; the Youth Commission would provide a voice. On the call of the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*07-403) Ordinance No. 2969, "Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease of Vacant Properties at 2300 Alameda Avenue, 2304 Alameda Avenue, and 1224 Oak Street with Thompson Properties (Lessor) for a City Parking Lot. Finally passed. (*07-404) Ordinance No. 2970, "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. " Finally passed. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (07-405 - ) Resolution No. 14142, "Supporting a Diplomatic Approach to Ending the Iraq War and Bringing Our Troops Home. Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the resolution was discussed on July 3, 2007; tonight's resolution includes additional wording at the advice of Mayor Johnson and Vice Mayor Tam. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting. Proponents (In favor of resolution) : Carl Halpern, Alameda Pease Network; Karen Green, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda; Pat Flores, Alameda; Noel Folsom, Alameda; Fern Kruger, Alameda Pease Network; Paul Owens, Alameda; Mary Abu-Saba, Alameda Pease Network; Dorothy Kakumoto, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Ana Rojas, Alameda; Bonnie Bone, Alameda; Debra Arbuckle, Alameda; Susan Sperry, Code Pink; Scott Corkins, Alameda: Paula Rainey, Alameda; Allen Michaan, Alameda; Susan Battaglia, Alameda. Opponents (Not in favor or resolution) : Ed Abbey, Alameda, Richard W. Rutter, Alameda; Robert Wood, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the meeting. Regular Meeting 7 Alameda City Council August 21, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-04.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-04 | 7 | advisory in nature. Mayor Johnson stated that the process should be open; a Council sub-committee should deal with cleaning up the Charter first and working with the City Attorney and City Clerk; public meetings would occur when items are brought back to Council. Councilmember deHaan stated hopefully the public will provide continual feedback. Mayor Johnson stated that it would be very helpful to have the public well informed regarding Charter provisions people do not understand limitations. Councilmember deHaan stated the Charter drives many Council decisions. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of Council appointing two Councilmembers to a sub-committee to review the Charter with input and advice from the City Attorney, City Clerk, necessary Department Heads, City Manager and public; the structure would be to clean up outdated language and issue spot items that the sub-committee feels would benefit from a floor discussion by the Council and the public. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember Gilmore were selected to serve on the sub-committee. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (07-426) Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee, submitted letter; stated the City Council decided to create a Task Force for the Beltline park development in November 2006; Council decided to combine the Beltline and Oak Street Estuary Park projects in the same Task Force; there will be an unnecessary delay in looking for funds to purchase the Oak Street Estuary Park property if a Task Force is not formed for two years; a Task Force needs to be created in order to initiate the work. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not recall Council deciding to delay creation of a Task Force for two years. Councilmember deHaan stated that Council decided to defer the matter [ on August 21, 2007]. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 September 4, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-09-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-11 | 7 | City of Alameda Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - September 11, 2007 Environmental Scan Factors Data for the following factors was provided for this environmental scan. Demographics City budget City revenues Largest property tax payers Largest employers Strengths, Weaknesses (Limitations), Opportunities and Threats The Council and Executive Management Team brainstormed the City of Alameda's strengths, weaknesses (limitations/constraints), opportunities, and threats. The purpose of this discussion was to identify those areas which the City wishes to foster and build upon, and those areas and issues for which the City must plan and create new approaches. Strengths Good Executive (City Manager) Good grasp on finances Financial depth and transparency Strong department heads who work cooperatively, with good communication Conservative fiscal approach-having reserves Listening and responding to the community Good employees have been recruited Openness of communication Weaknesses (Constraints/Limitations) Loaded staff with many things that have to be done City is victim of own ambition and capable people High dependency on other agencies (no City control) Many things coming to the plate at the same time Bureaucratic processes Perception that not everything is open Lack of revenue to do everything needed or desired Explaining public process Ability to attract and retain employees for certain positions (i.e. AP&T) Lack of succession planning Employee development Competing for federal money Flexibility to meet changing needs Opportunities Changing land uses Changing demographics Full Executive Team Marrying old and new priorities Reorganizing operations Community outreach New technology Reduce carbon footprint Look at how we do things-bringing in new talent Management Partners, Inc. 3 | CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-18 | 7 | funds come from Measure B, which are specifically earmarked for ferries; funding also comes from Regional Measure 1, which is toll bridge funds; Transportation Improvement Funds can be used for other activities; contributions are received from the Port of Oakland and Harbor Bay Business Park; Tideland funds have been used in the past. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the project would exhaust the $535,916 Carl Moyer grant funds and then rely on additional funds from Regional Measure 1 and Measure B, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are other uses for the funds. The Public Works Director responded the funds are for ferries. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the existing Measure B funds are proportional to what other cities are receiving without the ferry funds. The Public Works Director responded that Measure B funds are based on population and street miles; stated that money is allocated for paratransit and the Broadway/Jackson interchange. Councilmember deHaan stated that Alameda was in negotiations with the Water Transit Authority at one time. The Public Works Director stated Alameda wanted assurance that ferry riders would be well represented on any regional agency, current fares would be maintained, and hours would not be reduced there are concerns on whether Alameda would be represented on the new transit agency and whether the City would be compensated for the assets if infrastructure is taken away. Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the fare box ratio for the Harbor Bay ferry, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded 42.3% at the end of last fiscal year. Councilmember Matarrese stated considering carbon footprint implications is good even if the City delivers a ferry service to someone else; he is concerned about labor difficulties with Valley Power in San Leandro; he has heard that employee benefit packages are being reduced. The Public Works Director stated that he does not know if Valley Power is still on strike; staff is lo… | CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-10-02 | 7 | City of Alameda has not taken a position on the legislation. Councilmember Matarrese clarified that the motion adopts the Short Range Transit Plan; stated adopting the Short Range Transit Plan fulfills the City's responsibilities to Regional Measure 1; another motion could be made regarding Council hearing the [WETA] report. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a separate motion could be made, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of adopting the Short Range Transit Plan. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Matarrese stated suggestions have been made to hold public hearings with the point of establishing a Rider Advisory Group to ensure public input and to request the City Attorney's S opinion regarding the enforcement of the transfer. The City Attorney stated that a transfer cannot take place without fair market value compensation for any assets that would be transferred. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the City Attorney's comments presupposes that the legislation is enforceable but that the WETA would need to pay the City; Vallejo's Mayor is questioning whether the legislation is enforceable. The City Attorney stated the legislation purports and attempts to pre-empt Charter cities; said issue could be challenged. Bruce M. McBride, Alameda, stated that Vallejo has a tremendous ferry organization and has a dedicated ridership; most of the riders come from Antioch; Alameda is in a different situation than Larkspur or Vallejo; Vallejo does not pass under major airliner routes nor is juxtaposed to any international airports; the Alameda route has ninety percent of its transit immediately adjacent to major container ships; all ferry boats on the Bay have repair services performed at one facility in Alameda. Mayor Johnson stated that Council is not taking a position on the legislation. the issue is on going. Councilmember deHaan stated Mr. McBride brought up some good, solid points. Regular Meeting Alam… | CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-10-16 | 7 | Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated that she does not have a problem with the financing stream; all entities need to be aware that the City's commitment is $4 million, the City will not be on the hook for any overruns, and that the City's funds are the first returned if RCD finds additional funds. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the approved resolution includes said language i the language can be introduced in the Owner Participation Agreement when said agreement comes back to Council. Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have the City Attorney advise on the matter. The City Attorney stated that there would be no possibility that the City would have any residual liability to pay back the bonds ; the bonds are privately issued bonds ; the City would not be the borrower or the issuer. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the project's total budget. The Development Manager responded the total construction cost is approximately $16 million; $25 million touches the project over the course of the financing because of the construction and permanent financing flow. Mayor Johnson inquired whether $16 million is for construction, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether $16 million is a comfortable amount, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolutions with Councilmember Matarrese's proposed language regarding the $4 million cap. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam amended the motion with direction that 1) explicit language be added to the agreement that stipulates the City would not be responsible for repayment of the principal and prepayment premium as noted in Section 4 and 2) language be added to the resolution regarding the $4 million cap related to the Regular Me… | CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-06 | 7 | City were used for the parking structure; there might be a problem in separating the additional funds; the healthy way to handle the issue would be to put the money into the existing fund. Mayor Johnson stated that Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember Gilmore addressed the use of existing provions. The City Attorney stated the parking meter fund is not restricted by the area nor does the proposed resolution purport to restrict any part of the funds to any area. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed resolution addresses how the money might be used, not where the money is used. The City Attorney responded the proposed resolution sets the fee; the use of the parking fund is controlled by ordinance, which is very broad. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has no problem with raising parking violation penalties; timing should allow input and recommendations from the Economic Development Commission. The Development Services Director stated that the Public Works Department advises that it will take four to six weeks to change out the meter heads. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not feel the issue is at a level for the Economic Development Commission's consideration; parking fees are low and should have been changed years ago; parking fees should be adjusted on an ongoing basis; Council should move forward on the matter. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Transportation Commission has the authority to raise parking fees or penalties, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether said issues would ever normally go to the Transportation Commission, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan stated that Page 5 of the staff report states that approximately $180,992 will be used solely on parking and street improvements within the Park Street Business District with Council's approval. Mayor Johnson stated the resolution does not include said language; Council can clarify that the money would be put into a fund under the current ordi… | CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-13 | 7 | City of Alameda Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007 Consider modifying the current work plan template to make it a tool to provide updates rather than the quarterly reports-standardize the format Need to identify impacts/trade-offs of work plan activities A punch list approach to the status pending in process would be useful (and context will be helpful) Current quarterly reports are read or at least skimmed regularly and are helpful Provide info on the origin of the request (i.e. council directive) - either in the work plan template or in the quarterly report format The quarterly report is a "newsy report" - lots of narrative (some Councilmembers like that) Don't want to lose the lower priorities/ info by focusing on only highest/high priorities Possible to provide single packet to Council? Continue to provide easy to ready information Interest in keeping it as report Staff input on reporting process and formats: Bullets/outline approach would be good; staff receptive to summary format Would like a format that fits and meets more than one purpose; streamline it If ok to provide more of a summary approach, Council can ask for additional info Headings and bullet points Like idea of aligning to goals, objectives and timelines Final Council Direction on Work Plan Reporting: Report format will be created by EMT, and it will evolve Use the "reasonableness rule" for how much information to include Discussion of Highest City Council Priorities The Council had a short discussion of the highest priorities as identified at the September 11th Council/EMT workshop. The Council decided to discuss the priorities at a future Council meeting in order to refine them. Address telecom financial issue-implement plans/recommendations Work with the Housing Commission to develop an acquisition and development plan for expanding affordable housing opportunities using the remaining Measure A Guyton exemption (Alameda Hotel, Islander) Former Navy base redevelopment-secure conveyance of Alameda Point from Navy and nego… | CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-20 | 7 | Mayor Johnson stated minutes need to reflect what was said at the meeting. Councilmember Gilmore stated that Page 17 of the November 6, 2007 Regular City Council Meeting minutes states "the matter is not an inappropriate item to discuss during Council Communications" the double negative is confusing. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the minutes with the following corrections: Page 17 "the matter is an appropriate item"; and Page 9... "the vote would not have been 7 to 2". Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *07-544) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,857,184.79. ( *07-545) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report for period ending September 30, 2007. Accepted. (*07-546) Recommendation to accept the work of William P. Young Construction for the Ballena Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project, No. P.W. 05-00-09. Accepted. ( *07-547) Recommendation to award a Contract in the amount of $102,177, including contingencies, to Robert C. Terry, dba Comfort Air Mechanical Systems, for the annual heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems maintenance in various City facilities, No. P.W. 09-07-30. Accepted. (*07-548) Resolution No. 14159, "Authorizing Applications to the Caltrans Safe Routes to School Program for Fiscal Years 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 and the Use of City Matching Funds for Construction of Pedestrian Access and Street Crossing Improvements near Franklin Elementary School and Wood Middle School and for Purchase and Installation of Radar Speed Signs. Adopted. (07-549) Resolution No. 14160, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase from Berendo Solutions, Inc. of Los Angeles, California, Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for Electronic Citation Software. Adopted. Vice Mayor Tam congratulated the Police Chief on the grant; stated the staff report notes that the software would enhance the ability to capture data related to the Police Department's efforts to promote cooperative strategies to prevent racial profiling; she would … | CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-12-04 | 7 | to the City Manager and request the matter be placed on the agenda. Mayor Johnson stated the problem with that [individual Councilmembers directing placing items on the agenda] is that it gets into the area of one Councilmember directing staff. Councilmember deHaan stated the Councilmembers are not doing SO. Mayor Johnson stated agenda items have staff reports; one Councilmember directing staff to do necessary work, create a staff report and place the matter on an agenda is in violation of the Charter. Councilmember deHaan stated said situation has not occurred on the current Council's watch. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot remember said event happening that he has never gone to the City Manager and requested a matter be placed on the agenda; that he brings up the issue under Council Communications to get the consensus to agree to place the matter on the agenda. Councilmember deHaan stated big box is an example; there was not a full vote by the Council, however, bringing up and discussing the issue was still a healthy thing; that he wants to put matters on the agenda to hear more about the issue, costing staff hours is a different thing. Mayor Johnson stated that she has not gone to the City Manager and requested something be placed on the agenda; it sounds like Councilmembers have not done so; that she views the proposal as formalizing what is done now; the Council has always been very generous in complying with requests [to place matters on the agenda]. Councilmember deHaan stated there have not been problems in the past; that he does not foresee future problems questioned whether this [the proposal] is Mayor Johnson's recommendation Mayor Johnson responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan inquired who put the matter on the agenda. Mayor Johnson responded it was part of the workshop. The City Manager stated it was an outcome of the workshop ; part of the task to staff was to develop the form; due to the way the system is set up, a resolution is required to put a new section on Regular Meeting… | CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-12-18.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-12-18 | 7 | paper food service is not recyclable; only plastic and aluminum are recyclable. Mayor Johnson stated Alameda recycles food service containers. The Public Works Director stated said containers are placed in green bins which are composted. Mr. Knox stated polyethelyne is added into the compost output. The Public Works Director stated the compost meets the high standard. Mr. Knox stated some amount of polyethelyne will increase as more paper food service goes into the stream; extinguishing between corn plastic and oil base plastic is difficult. Mayor Johnson stated hopefully the industry will be able to help sort out the issue. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether contaminated pizza boxes are accepted. The Public Works Director responded said boxes go into the green bins. Mayor Johnson stated people need to be educated; inquired whether the pamphlet provided by is on the City's website. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff can work with ACI to include a pamphlet with the next bill cycle. Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with the following alterations to Section 4-4.6 Exemptions 1) 4-4.6 (b) include that the exemptions may be granted for up to a one year period from the date of enacting the ordinance and that exemptions will only be offered to existing businesses within Alameda, and 2) Section 4-4.6 (a) delete reference to prepared foods. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 December 18, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-12-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-01-02.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-01-02 | 7 | current Enterprise Fund for the banquet facility and driving range improvements; 2) explore leasing out five to six acres behind the south course; 3) consider closing and leasing out the Mif Albright land; 4) advertise; 5) mothball nine holes of the Jack Clark Course and run the Course as a twenty-seven hole facility; and 6) have the City stop taking Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), Return on Investment (ROI), and surcharges. Councilmember Matarrese stated tough decisions need to be made; the Mif Albright recommendation would be helpful. Councilmember deHaan stated the banquet facility, driving range priorities, and cost savings that could be derived from alternative methods were discussed. Ms. Sullwold stated the Golf Commission feels that the banquet facility and driving range were potential revenue generating improvements. Councilmember Gilmore thanked the Golf Commission for creative, out-of-the-box thinking; inquired whether the Golf Commission's recommends continuing on a parallel course; stated Council could decide to issue an RFP and also explore other options. Ms. Sullwold responded exactly; stated recommendations may not be feasible after hard cost estimates are obtained. Mayor Johnson inquired what the Golf Commission thought of NGF's priority to put money into the Golf Course first. Ms. Sullwold responded most of NGF's scenarios assume the banquet facility first; stated other recommendations follow. Opponents (Not in favor of the staff recommendation) : George Humphreys, Alameda; Joe Williams, Alameda; Alan Elnick, Alameda City Employees Association; James D. Leach, Global Perspectives; Don Peterson, Alameda; Connie Wendling, Alameda; Norma Arnerich, Alameda Ron Salsig, Alameda; Former Councilmember "Lil" Arnerich, Alameda; and Dan Gonzalez, Alameda. Mayor Johnson stated the Golf Course needs to be run like a business businesses advertise; there is a lot of room for improvement in managing the Golf Course. Councilmember Matarrese stated a decision should not be made tonight ; he does not like the ide… | CityCouncil/2008-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-01-15 | 7 | The Applicant responded the existing house is approximately 1,600 square feet. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the 1,600 square feet includes the garage. The Applicant responded in the negative; stated the updated plans are approximately 3,200 square feet. Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the lot percentage. The Applicant responded the lot percentage is within the 40% lot coverage. Councilmember deHaan stated that the house does not resemble a 1906 structure; a lot of change has taken place; homes are disproportionate in size near Lincoln School; efforts have been made to keep scale in neighborhoods. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the demolition permit can be coupled to major design review, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson stated that there is not enough information to make a decision; the bid needs to be clearer. The City Attorney stated that in order for the Applicant to support her assertion that there would not be an economic return on the property she would need to show that the cost of remodeling the existing house, bringing the house up to code, making alternations to bring the house back to the original historical value, and putting the house on the market would exceed the value of the lot with the refurbished house. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether said scenario is assuming that the house is historical. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the HAB could have refused to grant the request if the structure had historical value; stated the HAB could grant the request to demolish the structure if the Applicant was able to show an insufficient economical return on the investment. Councilmember Matarrese stated the HAB findings note "Even though the residence does not show identifying marks, it should be saved because it completes the cultural fabric of the neighborhood. Houses that are eclectic surround the residence and they are Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 January 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-02-05.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-02-05 | 7 | (08-055) - Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute an Amended Contract with the National Golf Foundation to provide Master Planning Services in an amount not to exceed $80,000. The Recreation and Park Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the status on budget and revenues. The Recreation and Park Director responded January was not a good month; stated the last couple of days have been better; the deficit was $300,000 at the end of December; new marking campaign efforts have been implemented to increase the number of tournaments. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether there is any hope of making up rounds, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded there is always hope. Mayor Johnson stated that the Junior Golf Program needs to be strengthened. The Recreation and Park Director stated some work has been done to bring the Mif Albright Course back to the original configuration. Mayor Johnson stated that golf instruction is critical; only eight people were at the driving range on Saturday; the driving range should be viewed as a golf promotion. The Recreation and Park Director stated Recreation Programs will be linked to the Golf Course. Councilmember deHaan stated wet weather kills Alameda's Golf Courses; Metropolitan Golf Links and Monarch Bay are very active one day after rain; both courses have great drainage; loyalty is lost when players cannot play; making the Golf Course playable is important. Mayor Johnson stated Metropolitan Golf Link's parking lot was full on Saturday and is directly related to the drainage. Opponent : Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission Chair. Councilmember deHaan stated a lot of information has already been presented and is a matter of embellishing said information; questioned whether utilizing marketing consultants would be worth the money stated the Golf Commission and staff could be supportive. The Recreation and Park Director stated the National Golf Regular Meeting Alameda City Council Meeting 7 February 5, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-02-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-02-19 | 7 | a strictly gas-powered vehicle would be a mistake. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates staff following the policy to move toward alternative vehicles where practical ; he also appreciates the capacity information brought up by Vice Mayor Tam; Councilmember deHaan noted that the Tahoe is in the first year of production; the Toyota has been in production for several years that he is leery of buying the first run off the production line. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with ouncilmember Tam about the vehicle needing to be replaced; she is pleased staff spent time to select a hybrid; inquired how long the purchase would be pushed back, a calendar or fiscal year. The Fire Chief responded a calendar year. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the purchase of a different hybrid would have to be a special order inquired whether the base vehicle is ordered and then equipment is added. The Fire Chief responded the vehicle is ordered from the dealer and a separate vendor adds the equipment. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Tahoe is special order because it is new or if all Fire vehicles are special orders. The Fire Chief responded the department tries to purchase most vehicles off of the State bid; hybrids are very limited on the State bid; specifications, including breaking and suspension needs, are prepared for the purchase of all Fire vehicles the specifications of other hybrid vehicles will be reviewed. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a Highlander would be purchased off the lot or special order, to which the Fire Chief responded it would probably be a special order. Councilmember Gilmore inquired the method used to purchase the Suburban to which the Fire Chief responded another department's bid was going to be used; the purchase would have been a special order. The City Manager outlined the processes used to purchase vehicles. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether or not there is a forecast as to how long it could take to find a replacement vehicle if the window of opportu… | CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-03-04 | 7 | The City Manager stated the dollar amount is not in the Charter. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the ability to override the bidding requirements is fine as long as a confirmation occurs within a given amount of time. Vice Mayor Tam stated the subcommittee will work with the City Attorney's office to prepare language to seek Council confirmation at the earliest opportunity following an expenditure. Mayor Johnson inquired who has the authority to bind the City in the event of an emergency, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded the City Manager. The City Attorney stated it is not uncommon for a City Manager to authorize an emergency contract, start work to protect things from getting worse, and then bring a contract to Council for ratification at the next available Council meeting; the City would only be obligated to pay for services rendered; if a contract is not ratified, the Contract would end. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether issues would be brought to the public for review and recommendations Councilmember Gilmore responded the subcommittee wanted direction from Council on whether any of the eight substantive revisions should move forward on the November ballot ; input is requested on the items that came up after the December workshop and on how to move forward with public discussions between now and the time Council has to vote to put the matter on the ballot. Councilmember deHaan stated that his current recommendation is to amend Section 2-11 to have consistency between boards and commissions; a future recommendation would involve the selection of boards and commissions and allowing Council to make nominations. Mayor Johnson stated that she would strongly oppose the recommendation. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is comfortable with the eight substantive revisions. Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative; stated he supports the November timeline. commended the subcommittee on efforts made. Councilmember Gilmore stated the subcommittee discussed voter Regular Meeting… | CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-03-18 | 7 | portfolio is gas, to which the General Manager responded between 4% and 5%. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the four Contracts are successful. The Utility Planning Supervisor responded in the affirmative; stated prices are more than competitive; Contracts were entered into at a time when the wholesale market was low. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City is looking at other landfill gas projects. The Utility Planning Supervisor responded Half Moon Bay is under construction; the City will partner with Palo Alto again. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Palo Alto approved the increase, to which the General Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated that Alameda and Palo Alto are on the forefront of innovative power production. The General Manager stated that the Environmental Protection Agency awarded Alameda and Palo Alto with the Landfill Methane Outreach Program award. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she appreciates the questions raised by Councilmember Gilmore; the increase is significant and includes some escalators. The General Manager stated the City is still under market price; the cost would be spread over twenty years. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the four landfills are active. The General Manager responded Half Moon Bay and Santa Cruz are active; Richmond is not. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City has options to continue to draw gas from the landfills. The General Manager responded in the affirmative stated the Contract is a take-and-pay Contract; the City has renewal rights. Councilmember deHaan stated that methane gas is worse than carbon Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 March 18, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-04-01 | 7 | implement the direction provided by the City Council; the intent tonight is to have Council conclude the discussion about the most important priorities, provide perspective as policy makers and expect staff to carry out the workload. Mayor Johnson stated things need to be prioritized because there is not enough staff for everything to be at the same level questioned whether the top ten projects can be prioritized while at the same time there is a work chart listing all of the items as suggested by Councilmember Matarrese; stated there is a concern that projects will drop off the list if not in the top ten. Councilmember deHaan stated the priorities have been established; the desire is not to lose the priorities; the priorities do not equate to individual workloads ; some tasks might take two months and are low staff resources; important tasks require high staff resources and cross department lines. Mayor Johnson stated the priorities should be looked at in an organization chart structure to see which tasks go with which departments. Councilmember deHaan stated the Library has the long-range plan and the facilities at Harbor Bay and West End, which should be worked on; Development Services has Alameda Point, Coast Guard housing, and a West End project, which are tougher tasks : AP&T's tasks to reduce carbon footprint and address telecom and are heavy duty items; Recreation and Parks has the Alameda Museum business plan that should be cleared in two months. Ms. Perkins suggested that Council go through the ranking and continued the Power Point presentation. Councilmember Matarrese stated the budget review and tracking task [Item 18] and strengthen revenue task [Item 17] should be combined into one task and ranked in the top ten given the current and future budget situation. Mayor Johnson stated another way to look at the list would be to have the projects listed under the overall policy objectives; some of the objectives might not be getting enough attention. Councilmember Matarrese stated all of the projects would… | CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-04-15.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-04-15 | 7 | (C-M-PD) ; (08-164A) Resolution No. 14198, "Upholding the Planning Board Approval of Final Development Plan, Mayor Design Review and Planned Development Amendment (File No. PLN 07-0061) at 2800 Harbor Bay Parkway. Adopted, and; (08-164B) Resolution No. 14199, "Approving Tentative Map 9689 (File No. PLN 07-0061) for the Subdivision of a 29.31 Acre Parcel into 14 Parcels fort he Development of 10 Office Buildings, Associated Parking, Landscaping and Other Improvements. Adopted. The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation and submitted a handout outlining three additional conditions of approval. Councilmember deHaan stated that 5,500 square feet is a good size for a restaurant and is almost twice the size of Applebee's. The Planning Services Manager stated that staff wants to provide the neighborhood with the ability to review potential restaurants; Council could consider a lower threshold. Vice Mayor Tam stated the staff report notes that the existing Business Park has an overage in parking; she sees the possibility of a spill over from the ferry parking lot into the proposed development; inquired whether shared parking would be possible. The Planning Services Manager responded the Ferry Terminal parking lot capacity is 225 cars and is full on some days. Councilmember deHaan stated the Ferry capacity is at 50% and only runs during commute hours. The Planning Services Manager stated the City is not prepared to buy the property to expand the Ferry Terminal parking lot; most ferry operators want better shuttle service, which would increase ridership. Councilmember deHaan stated satellite parking and shuttle services are important. The Applicant gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents (In favor of Appeal) : Tom Lynch, Alameda; Reyla Graber, Appellant Harvey Wilson, Residents for Responsible Development Regular Meeting 7 Alameda City Council April 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-04-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-05-06 | 7 | Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the intent is to forego competitive bidding, not forego Council approval of contracts over $75,000, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he prefers Approach B. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Council wants to include seven measures separate from the cleanup package on the November ballot and include Approach B, to which Council responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore stated that there would be a total of eight ballot measures; the first measure would include all the non- substantive cleanup language; the next seven measures would address substantive issues and would have individual initiatives. Mayor Johnson inquired whether all seven issues are substantive, not administrative, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore stated discussions involved opportunities for public input; the subcommittee suggested scheduling a meeting in May, June, or July, depending upon attendance at the first meeting the subcommittee was concerned there would be voter fatigue if too many measures were on the ballot; the subcommittee, with Council consent, suggested that the City Manager hold a workshop as early as January 2009 to address the remaining items; Council could discuss the issues, get clarification, and devise a plan for public discussion and input. Councilmember Matarrese stated the notion should be tested for adding three or four additional items as long as there is a public workshop on proposed Charter changes; the proposed revision requiring the appointment of departments heads to be on the advise and consent of Council is a modernization and transparency in government that provides checks and balances. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she respectfully disagrees; Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion is counter to the foundation of the Charter; Alameda does not have a strong Mayor or Council form of government; the citizens would be asked to change the way the City is governed. … | CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-05-20 | 7 | quarter. Mayor Johnson stated information should be provided anyway people have not had an opportunity to spend money in Alameda in the past. The Finance Director stated the number one category is restaurants and has been for two quartersi Monterey County is the only other area that lists restaurants as the primarily sales tax generator. Vice Mayor Tam stated the table on Page 2 shows the "All Other Areas" category at -9.4%; new businesses are coming to Harbor Bay Business Park; inquired what impact Harbor Bay Business Park has had in the "All Other Areas" category. The Finance Director responded the majority of businesses coming to Harbor Bay Business Park do not generate sales tax; said businesses are research and development type firms; Harbor Bay Business Park has not been included as a specific geographic area. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether hotel tax is a separate tax, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Tam stated the historical gross sales tax per capita Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 20, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-05-27.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-05-27 | 7 | Domenick Weaver, Alameda Firefighters Local 689 President, stated that he is in strong opposition of the Fire Department budget cuts; urged Council to hire full staff to control overtime. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, challenged Council to make the cuts as minimal as possible; stated the Police and Fire Department are essential to the business community Council should find a way to fund positions and have the Police and Fire Department at full strength in three years; urged the City to look into corporate sponsorships. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 27, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-05-27.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-03 | 7 | 7 June 3, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-17 | 7 | does not like to raise rates on public transit; ferry tickets are expensive already. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there has been an increase in ridership and what the increase is worth in dollars relative to the amount of money that would be raised in by a surcharge. The Ferry Services Manager responded that he does not have current figures; stated weather and other factors affect AOFS ridership significantly; AHBF is maintaining ridership; tickets are up to 768 for January, February, and March. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have numbers come back in real dollars that show what the impact of the surcharge would be versus the delta between ridership last year and this year; he wants to see whether there is a windfall [ in ridership] because fuel costs have increased. Mayor Johnson stated public transit ridership has increased. The Ferry Services Manager stated ferry ridership is up quite a bit; staff has not found another way to fund the increased fuel costs; the staff recommendation does not bring the full cost of offsetting the new fuel expenses; the proposal is to offset some of the increase by using the $241,000 Measure B reserve. Mayor Johnson requested more information on the proposed fuel surcharge stated the Contracts could move forward. Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the projected AHBF fare box ratio. The Ferry Services Manager responded 42% under the assumption that Council would approve the fuel surcharge and that ridership would remain the same. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the AOFS fare box recovery. The Ferry Services Manager responded presently 51% to 52%; stated the projection is 54%. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the Contracts go forward; have an analysis done as soon as possible; have numbers presented to Council; and defer the decision on the surcharge. Mayor Johnson stated Council could authorize the City Manager to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 June 17, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-01 | 7 | (08-290) Public Hearing to consider the proposed implementation of a fuel surcharge for the City of Alameda Ferry Services, approve the proposed fuel surcharge, and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary amendments to the Operating Contracts for the Ferry Services. The Ferry Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the Water Emergency Transportation Agency (WETA) would take over the ferries. The Ferry Services Manager responded new legislation requires that WETA adopt a transition plan by June 2009. The Deputy City Manager stated WETA needs to adopt a transition plan by July 1, 20091 the transition would take approximately one year. Mayor Johnson stated WETA authorized existing operators to use two new boats; inquired whether the new boats are more fuel efficient. The Ferry Services Manager responded both boats are under warranty for the first year; stated insuring each boat would cost approximately $30,000 to $35,000; additional house maintenance would be required the first year; the boats carry fewer passengers, but the overall footprint is approximately the same as the Peralta; the new boats are the cleanest burning engines on the bay . Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the interim operator would have to incur the additional costs. The Ferry Services Manager responded the issue is part of negotiations; stated the City does not want to incur additional expenses. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether a fuel surcharge would need to be considered as a result of the two new boats. The Ferry Services Manager responded in the negative; stated the staff recommendation is based on operating the existing boats; WETA would take care of any additional operating expenses. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Port of Oakland has been approached regarding an increased subsidy. The Ferry Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff met with the Port of Oakland's Director of Commercial Real Estate; the Director reported that sixty-eight positions are being el… | CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-15 | 7 | The Deputy City Manager responded real property transfer tax is only an option for Charter cities; stated currently, Albany's tax rate is $11.50 per $1,000 value; Albany voted to place a measure on the ballot to increase the tax rate to $14.50; Berkeley's tax rate is $15.00; Hayward's tax rate is $4.50; Oakland's tax rate is $15.00; Piedmont's tax rate is $13.00; San Leandro's tax rate is $6.00. Councilmember deHaan inquired when the tax was raised last. The Deputy City Manager responded initially, the tax was imposed in 1967 and was fifty-five cents per thousand; stated the tax was raised to $2.20 per $500 value in 1978; the tax was raised to $5.40 per $1,000 value in 1993. Mayor Johnson inquired whether an option could be to raise the tax rate on a step basis. The City Attorney responded a CPI adjustment is not recommended ; stated a step base would require a very specific number on a specific schedule. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a step percentage basis would be an option. The City Attorney responded percentages are not done for real property transfer taxes. The Deputy City Manager stated that Mayor Johnson was referring to $12.00 for the first $700,000 value and a different amount for the balance. The City Attorney stated such formula could be done. The Deputy City Manager stated a $12.00 tax rate would generate an additional $5 million for a total of $9. 1 million; Berkeley and Oakland make fifty cents of the $15.00 rate available to property purchasers for seismic retrofits; adding fifty-cents for seismic retrofitting would turn the tax into a special tax and would require a two-thirds vote. Councilmember deHaan inquired when Oakland's tax rate was increased. The Deputy City Manager responded that she did not know; stated information she has dates back to June, 2006. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 July 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-08-05 | 7 | the options. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of adopting the Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan and authorizing staff to initiate working on short-term improvements to the neighborhood libraries and bring the [implementation] plan back to Council for authorization to start. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated there is no deadline for use of Measure O money. Councilmember Matarrese stated Measure O has a finite period of time; more revenue could be generated if the City asks for an extension from the voters. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the RFP process would help generate estimates and establish various improvements that Council would review and prioritize, to which the Library Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired what would be asked in the RFP, such as interior or structural work. Ms. Page responded the list of short-term recommendations would be used as the basis for the RFP; stated the City could pick and choose the items. The Library Director responded the RFP would be for an architectural firm with structural engineering, some historical preservation and interior space planning experience in libraries. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the RFP would include interior and structural improvements. Ms. Page responded the short-term goals involve very little structural changes. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the electrical and HVAC system are included in the short term goals, to which Ms. Page responded in the affirmative; stated said items are mechanical systems. The Library Director stated the shell of the buildings would not change. Mayor Johnson inquired whether priorities would be set before going out with the RFP . Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 August 5, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-08-19 | 7 | $700,000 deficit; stated a fee structure that would totally eliminate the deficit was never examined. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the increase in play over the last five months could offset any potential decline as a result of the proposed fee increases. The Interim Golf Manager responded the increase in rounds was from the short course and was a direct result of fee reductions; stated the downward trend will continue for the next couple of years; the economy is in tough shape; further stated the original surcharge was not earmarked for capital improvements, but went back into the General Fund. The City Manager stated the original surcharge was established in 1991. Councilmember Matarrese requested a progress report for the last two months, including revenues and rounds by course; further requested continual tracking; stated that he would like to approve the increases, see how things go, and review the real numbers when the RFP's come back. The Interim Golf Manager stated that reports are provided to the Golf Commission each month; reports can be forwarded to Council. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the $700,000 shortfall had a write-off of $400,000 [in golf cart savings) The Interim Golf Manager responded $400,000 is not included in the next few years; some of the money should be made back; the monthly golf cart lease payment would go to the vendor in the next three years. Jon Hasegaw, Alameda, stated that he is against the fee increase; more people will come back to play if the fee is reduced. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the cost per round based on operations, to which the Interim Golf Manager responded just under $39.00. Mayor Johnson stated almost everyone is paying less than the cost per round. The Interim Golf Manager stated there are other revenue sources such as golf cart rentals and restaurant concessions; golf cart rentals generate approximately $20,000 per year. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 August 19, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-09-02.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-09-02 | 7 | (08-379 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated the Buena Vista Commons has eight new owners as a result of collaborative efforts with Alameda Development Corporation; Habitat for Humanity was the driving force; he hopes that additional partnerships will occur in the future. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 September 2, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-09-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-09-16 | 7 | The Planning Manager responded the Applicant wants to provide height in the garage area. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents (In favor of Appeal) : Patricia Baer, Alameda; Elizabeth Krase, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) ; Richard W. Rutter, AAPS; Nancy Hird, Alameda: Christopher Buckley, AAPS; Grinne Lambden, AAPS. (Opponents (Not in favor of Appeal) : JoAnne Chandler, Alameda: Jon Spangler, Alameda; Kexis Brownson; Alameda; Donna Talbot, Applicant (submitted handout) i James Rauk, Applicant. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicants are not asking for any variances and are not exceeding the thirty-foot height limit, to which the Applicant responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant was told that the Guidelines for Residential Design supercedes the Alameda Municipal Code. The Applicant responded that a Planner told her that the Guidelines trump the Code. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the thirty-foot height limit is the only Planning Board condition, to which the Applicant responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether tonight's recommendation is for the thirty-foot height limit, the one-foot height increase, and modifications to the back of the house, to which the Applicant responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff's recommendation is twelve inches and the Planning Board's recommendation is fifteen inches, to which the Planning Manager responded in the affirmative. The Applicant questioned the three-inch change. The Planning Manager stated the three inches is a compromise. Mayor Johnson inquired who worked out the compromise, to which the Planning Manager responded staff. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 September 16, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-07 | 7 | October 7, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-21 | 7 | highly rated securities with very limited maturity; the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) has a program that cities can use to set up irrevocable trusts to fund OPEB benefits. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the City would need to contribute more if the return is not 7.75%. Mr. Kennedy responded figures should not deviate very much unless staff levels significantly change or there is an unusual employee turnover. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the Fiscal Sustainability Committee's recommendation, to which Mr. Kennedy responded a straight thirty-year amortized schedule. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether outstanding loans from Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) are returning approximately 6% interest each. The Development Services Manager responded ARRA is paying interest only to the General Fund; stated the principle would not retire; AP&T is not paying anything on its obligation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether lease revenues are pumped into the General Fund as an interest only payment. The Development Services Manager responded a payment of $130,000 is made, which is 6% in interest. Councilmember Matarrese stated the interest comes from lease payments lease revenue is to go into infrastructure and maintenance at the former Base, but is going into the General Fund. Mayor Johnson stated Council needs to decide whether revenue should come to the General Fund or go into crumbling infrastructure that the City does not own. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether redevelopment funds would be protected from State raiding if revenues were put into the General Fund. The Development Services Director responded lease revenue funding does not have anything to do with tax increment received from the State; stated the law states that a city's General Fund can make the payment; ARRA is scheduled to make principle payments this fiscal year. Regular Meeting 7 Alameda City Council October 21, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-11-06.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-11-06 | 7 | Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much the Golden Handshake and medical insurance proposal would cost; further inquired whether the cost would come out of the Golf reserve fund. The Human Resources Director responded medical insurance would cost approximately $7,000 per year for single party coverage up to twelve months. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much the Golden Handshake would cost. The Human Resources Director responded the full cost would be approximately $482,000 if everyone took advantage of the Golden Handshake; stated costs are amortized over twenty years and are rolled into the employer PERS contribution rate. Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the impact of extending the same opportunities to MCEA employees. The Human Resources Manager responded MCEA employees are included in the $482,000 cost; stated medical benefit costs would be approximately the same. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Kemper Sports would handle payroll and Human Resource services, to which Mr. Luthman responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other department layoffs have been calculated, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan inquired what would happen after the interim period. The City Manager responded a long-term contract would be negotiated. Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to see a cost allocation breakdown. The Interim Finance Director stated cost allocations can be provided. Councilmember Gilmore stated staff recommends contracting management and operations to Kemper Sports; there is an opportunity to provide Golden Handshakes for ACEA and MCEA employees; the only difference between the proposals is medical care costs for MCEA employees. Adjourned Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 November 6, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-11-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-11-18.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2008-11-18 | 7 | City has to look at its position as a waterfront location and its flexibility to maximize the marine related services and recreation; restrictions could stymie development. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of granting the appeal ; stated that he would like to have the Economic Development Commission and Planning Board review the location's future to encourage water related businesses. Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to have staff review the square footage allocated to the other property owner [the Carriage House]. Councilmember deHaan stated that the Planning Board granted the Carriage House an additional 3,000 square feet in 2003. Mayor Johnson stated the Council did not make the decision. Councilmember Gilmore stated the restaurant struggled and changed operators; the Planning Board thought that losing one restaurant was not a concern because the Pasta Pelican and Chevy's were thriving; the area did not have any office space. Councilmember deHaan stated that he wants consistency in the decision making process. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the total office space square footage if the proposed office use is approved and the Carriage House built out to capacity. The Supervising Planner responded approximately 10,000 square feet ; stated the former Chevy's space is a little less than 6,000 square feet; the approval for the Carriage House is approximately 4,000 square feet. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 November 18, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-11-18.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]) );