pages
18,746 rows sorted by text descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
date (date) >30 ✖
- 2019-09-12 78
- 2021-07-06 50
- 2021-03-11 47
- 2019-12-18 45
- 2016-01-05 40
- 2017-07-18 40
- 2021-09-07 40
- 2018-07-10 39
- 2010-06-15 38
- 2010-07-27 38
- 2016-02-16 37
- 2017-07-05 37
- 2018-06-05 36
- 2018-05-09 35
- 2012-06-06 34
- 2017-11-07 34
- 2020-07-21 34
- 2021-03-16 34
- 2021-07-20 34
- 2021-11-16 34
- 2005-05-17 33
- 2006-12-05 33
- 2020-05-19 33
- 2005-07-19 32
- 2007-01-02 32
- 2007-12-04 32
- 2016-02-02 32
- 2016-03-01 32
- 2017-06-06 32
- 2018-07-11 32
- …
Link | body | date | page | text ▲ | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2017-01-03.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2017-01-03 | 11 | with an employee present; the Alameda County Fairgrounds requires guns to be tethered; his biggest concern would be smash and grab or middle of the night thefts, which is why cameras and safes would be required. Mr. Michaan stated the firearms would be displayed in closed glass cases, similar to jewelry; workers staffing shows would unlock the case, show the item, take it back and lock the case; one item is shown at a time; noted the building does not have windows, so there is really no way to have a smash and grab; further stated the vault was approved by ATF, is metal lined and has a secondary alarm system. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the vault is fixed to the floor, to which Mr. Michaan responded the vault is a small, high security room which he built to house multimillion dollar items. The Assistant Community Development Director stated the protocol for displaying guns is addressed under Condition 10, which requires a security plan to be submitted to the Police Chief; read the condition. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether security measures are needed because the firearms are still operable, to which the Police Chief responded that he would assume so. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Mr. Michaan has run the auction house for 15 years without ever requesting to sell firearms, to which Mr. Michaan responded in the affirmative; stated the opportunity arose since Greg Martin approached Michaan Auctions; Greg Martin split from Butterfields and ran an auction house, which was sold with a non-compete clause; the non-compete time has expired and Butterfields sold its property in San Francisco; Greg Martin approached Mr. Bradly with the opportunity, which would allow Michaan's to expand. In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding high capacity guns, Mr. Bradley stated that he is not aware of any older guns with high capacity. Vice Mayor Vella noted as time passes, the date of guns older than 50 years would change and move towards the age of multi chamber guns; inquired whether or not t… | CityCouncil/2017-01-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2022-04-05 | 12 | with an analysis; stated that she does not have enough information to decide whether or not she would support the program. Councilmember Knox White stated the motion is to have staff come back with a budget request for a program; Council could approve the budget request in order for the program to launch. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the motion; stated the matter is worthy; she would like an outline for similar programs from other jurisdictions. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Herrera Spencer. The Police Captain stated that he currently does not know of any programs and will do research. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for initially limiting the program to one cage per household; stated the opportunity will allow for one working car per household; the program is one way to prevent thefts; however, units are still stolen after cages are installed; the cages are not an end-all for catalytic converter thefts. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is hesitant to limit the cages to one per household due to multiple people each needing a car to get to work; inquired the cost per cage. The Police Captain responded the cost ranges between one hundred to a few hundred dollars each; stated costs depend on installation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would be supportive of directing staff to come back to Council with a proposal; the motion sounds like a program is being put into the budget. Vice Mayor Vella stated the direction is for staff to provide a budget proposal with options; the matter is not a preemptive blank check budget request. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council will have a menu of options to select from. Councilmember Knox White responded the motion is for a budget proposal; stated staff can bring multiple options; staff will bring something that is actionable during the budget discussion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: … | CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf,29 | CityCouncil | 2021-03-16 | 29 | with a policy that focuses on safety related citations. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated citations are given out for street cleaning violations; blocking driveways or parking in front of fire hydrants; there is also not paying the meter; she would like to hear back from staff; if the City is going to have meters, people need to park far or pay; she would not want to ask the Police not to enforce the law; she would like clarification; a clear message should be sent to the Police Department; there should be opportunities on ways to address penalties or an educational component. Councilmember Knox White stated the motion was for traffic enforcement, not parking enforcement; parking citations are issued by separate employees; he does not see parking enforcement as part of the conversation; he agrees with writing citations for parking problems. The City Clerk stated the motion is to direct staff to identify traffic enforcement policy focusing on safety related and diversion issues and working with the Transportation Commission; reporting back on UBI, catalytic converters and anything else to avoid crimes; while the Review Committee will take time, staff can review some other implementation; and one addition. Councilmember Knox White stated the addition was legislation for catalytic converters; regarding the Review Committee, staff should bring back a report to Council on how they would proposed to move forward. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Interim Police Chief would be part of the staff looking into matters, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated the first part of the motion is really about traffic; he and Councilmember Herrera Spencer were addressing vehicles whether moving or not, he would like to amend the motion to state vehicles, not just traffic; the City has ordinances implicated in the topic of criminalization of poverty that are vehicle related; it … | CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf,23 | CityCouncil | 2014-12-02 | 23 | with a modification to be consistent with the Del Monte Master Plan ordinance which limits 380 units and maintain all the public benefits. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstentions: Councilmember Daysog - 1. (14-506) Resolution No. 14990, "Approving and Adopting an Amendment to the City Of Alameda's Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2014-2015." Adopted. The Assistant City Manager and Interim Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the additional 5% means increasing the reserve by 5%, to which the Interim Finance Direction responded in the affirmative. In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Manager stated contributions could go toward paying off long term unfunded liabilities, including Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and PERS Smoothing, which is an increase in the premium; staff would be required to return to Council for approval on such a proposal. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would support setting aside $3 million for OPEB and PERS obligations. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether allocating funds for the Emergency Operation Center (EOC) is premature. The Public Works Director responded with the breakdown of the funds for the EOC training and supplies: 1) training for all employees; there are 33 employees for each of three shifts; the City would contract with California Specialized Training Institute run by Office of Emergency Services (OES); 2) laptops, the EOC is currently structured in the basement using old technology; new EOC software would cost $125,000, including maintenance and configuration; the total cost would be $255,705. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft thanked the Public Works Director for his oral report; stated other departments were able to itemize expenditures in the staff report; the public deserves to be informed about where money is being spent; that she would like to have seen the … | CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2021-04-26 | 15 | with Vice President Saheba that developers had to be specific about everything else and that they can also be specific about the proposed art. Director Thomas said it would be part of the Design Review Approval for the project. He then discussed the process and when the staff could bring something back to the Planning Board. They would not be approving the art because that would still be with the PAC. Board Member Ruiz asked if the Community Development Director's role would be struck out in this iteration. Director Thomas said it would. Staff Member Butler said if they were talking about location then the PAC was fine with that. She then said they could add that it be the Planning Director who it would go back to. Board Member Hom and Director Thomas said it depended on the conditions. Staff Member Butler and Director Thomas discussed the language in the provision about moving the location of the on-site art and what wording was unnecessary and what the role of the Director needed to be. President Teague suggested striking a part to cause the process to fall in line with how other changes are handled. Board Member Hom agreed and said letting the regular process to govern made sense. He was in favor of simplifying and deleting parts of the wording. Staff Member Butler was concerned that with the new iteration it would not come back to the PAC at all. After much discussion, it was decided to continue this item to the next meeting to revise the language. Board Member Curtis wanted the language to give the most flexibility to the board to get things done quickly. Board Member Hom wanted language that made it clear that money in the in-lieu fund was meant for maintenance for public art on public property. Staff Member Butler also said they would clarify the language around the City Manager's expense limit. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 15 of 18 April 26, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-01-21.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2020-01-21 | 14 | with Tetra Tech, Inc. for Post Construction Project Closeout and Second Amendments to Agreements with BKF Engineers and Park Engineering, for the Cross Alameda Trail (Main Street to Constitution Way) Project, in a Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $145,633. Accepted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (20-041) Recommendation to Accept the Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan, 2020- 2025. The Library Director made brief comments. Ruth Metz, Ruth Metz Associates, gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there will be expansion of the West End branch library. The Library Director responded the property is land-locked and the surrounding properties are privately owned; stated the walls cannot be pushed outward; the West End branch library was renovated in 2010; a larger library presence is needed as Alameda Point develops; the goal is to establish a library branch at Alameda Point; noted the West End branch could be repurposed into something else or become the new seed and tool library; the building can always be found useful by the library program; physical expansion of the building is not possible. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether expansion of operation hours and activities would be possible. The Library Director responded in the affirmative; stated there is no way to install sound barriers within the building; many programs are hosted after-hours as to not disturb patrons wishing to participate in quiet activities; a goal is to increase operating hours at all three library branches; increasing hours will return during the budget process due to expansion of staffing needs. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated library use continues to grow and expand; the library has remained relevant during changing times. Acting Mayor Knox White inquired whether the tracking of visits only includes web visits or visits to the reference desk, to which the Library Director responded all web visits. Acting Mayor Knox White stated moving the library catalog to Alameda Point at a larger building could yield a different structur… | CityCouncil/2020-01-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-02-21.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2017-02-21 | 14 | with No Extension Options with Williams-Sonoma, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, for Building 169, Suite 102 Located at 1680 Viking Street, Alameda Point. Introduced. [In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c - Existing Facilities.] The Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance approving a lease and authorizing the City Manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a 3 year lease with no extension options with Williams-Sonoma, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, for Building 169, Suite 102 located at 1680 Viking Street, Alameda Point. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated there are 10,000 visitors every month and that is how people are finding Alameda. On the call for the questions, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (17-133) The City Manager announced there have been concerns about the number of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) vehicles on Webster Street; there is a customs office at Mariner Square and the vehicles are just employees going to lunch and not for any other reason. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (17-134) Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda, invited the public to a presentation on the Struggles of African Americans for Housing in Alameda on February 28th at the College of Alameda Student Lounge. COUNCIL REFERRALS (17-135) Consider: 1) Directing Staff to Provide an Update on the Negotiations between the City and the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) at the March 7, 2017 City Council Meeting; and 2) If a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has not been Reached between the City and FAAS, that Council Provide Direction to Staff on the Terms of a MOU between the City and FAAS. (Mayor Spencer) Mayor Spencer made brief comments. Stated she was looking forward to robust discussion about FAAS; similar to the discussio… | CityCouncil/2017-02-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-05 | 6 | with Municipal Auditing Services and the business associations. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of authorizing collection of delinquent business license fees via the property tax bills. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-265) Public Hearing to Resolution No. 14100, "Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. Adopted. The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponent Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution confirming the BIA Report and authorizing levying the annual assessment fee. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-266) Public Hearing on the proposed fare increase for the Alameda/Oaklar Ferry Service and recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a one-year extension of the Blue & Gold Fleet Operating Agreement with the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, adopt associated budgets, and approve the proposed fare increases for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service; (07-266A) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a one-year extension of the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating Agreement with the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry, and adopt the associated budgets; (07-266B) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a second amendment to the amended and restated Ferry Services Agreement with the Port of Oakland to extend the term for one additional year at a cost of $79,1591 and ( 07-266C) Resolution No. 14101, "Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Funds, Including Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Regular Meeting Alameda City Council… | CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-09-15.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2009-09-15 | 3 | with Measure WW; a legally binding contract could not be provided until completion of a full review next year. Mr. Rasmussen stated the number one question asked right now from other cities is whether projects are consistent with Measure WW. Mayor Johnson stated knowing what can and cannot be done is important i that she has heard that there is more certainty about the project funding. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City would have to control and manage the project. Mr. Rasmussen responded control and management would be the City's fiduciary responsibility. Mr. Collins stated EBRPD would enter into a contract with the City and would look to the City to provide assurances that the project would be properly constructed. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether EBRPD would require the City to manage the project. Mr. Collins responded EBRPD would require the City to be the project administrator stated EBRPD would be satisfied if the City elected to retain an agent to fulfill the requirements. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City would be required to comply with requirements imposed on projects that received public money, to which Mr. Collins responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the facility would have operating requirements. Mr. Rasmussen responded the facility would need to be available for public use; stated school use after school hours would not be allowed. Mayor Johnson requested an explanation of school use. Mr. Rasmussen stated the facility would need to be available to the public after 3:30 p.m. on week days and all day on Saturdays. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would have on-going obligations. Mr. Rasmussen responded that he assumes operation would be turned over to the Boys & Girls Club; stated EBRPD would have to review Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 15, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-09-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-11-15.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2016-11-15 | 7 | with Macks Craic Inc. (dba Mack5) for Construction Management Services for the Cross Alameda Trail through Jean Sweeney Open Space Park and to Appropriate $160,000 to the Cross Alameda Trail Project Budget from the General Fund Available Fund Balance. The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the funds are only for the Cross Alameda Trail within the park; inquired whether the funds will cover the gap between a few segments of the trail. The Recreation and Parks Director responded the funds are for both; stated a portion covers the gap; Public Works is additional funding to ensure the gap is completed above and beyond what is proposed under the grant. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is being done for the gap. The Recreation and Parks Director responded the proposal includes: green paint on the road and a protected two-way bike lane. The Base Reuse Director stated options are still being reviewed; one definite plan is a protected two-way cycle track. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Transportation Commission is looking at a crossing path being added in the area. The Base Reuse Director responded staff is looking at a mid-block crossing; stated the Housing Authority is seeking grants for said project; funds from Measure BB will also be utilized for dedicated transit lanes; staff is trying to accommodate a crossing as part of a later phase. Mayor Spencer stated that she met with Housing Authority and Public Works staff and they are working on the details of the proposed project; there is housing at Independence Plaza and seniors have a difficult time crossing the street; stated solving the problem is important. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to issue a notice to proceed with the project. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he strongly supports the project. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. REGU… | CityCouncil/2016-11-15.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2015-04-09.pdf,3 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2015-04-09 | 3 | with Alameda Backyard Growers. Encinal Boat Ramp design will go to bid soon. Longfellow Park received a grant to help replace the playground poured-in-place surfacing. Jackson Park Bench will begin renovation soon. The community raised $6,500 and staff is working with contractors to get estimates. CIP funds will repair pathway asphalt on Shoreline Park, and irrigation at Neptune Park later this year. Chair Delaney commended Amy's staff on the annual Egg Scramble. He asked about how the effectiveness is evaluated by program. And did any staffers go to the CPRS conference? Director Wooldridge stated that evaluation surveys are provided to participants and parents for most programs. She reported that we received some complaints from parents on the egg scramble due to bad parent behavior, so staff is reviewing other options. Most recreation staff went to the annual CPRS event for one-day and Shawn Smith attended the full 3-day conference. 8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL: None 9. ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: Challenger League presentation, Mastick's annual report 10. SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Delaney adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m. 3 | RecreationandParkCommission/2015-04-09.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf,11 | TransportationCommission | 2021-07-28 | 11 | with AC Transit on this issue. He also wanted the city to create educational materials on how pedestrians should dress when walking around at night. Chair Soules reminded everyone that school started on August 6 and that meant many people figuring out new morning commutes. She encouraged everyone to reach out to bring awareness in the community to help everyone stay safe. She then thanked Vice Chair Nachtigall for her hard work as Vice Chair. Vice Chair Nachtigall thanked everyone and said it had been an honor. She concurred with everyone being aware of children going to and from school and parents figuring out school pick up and drop offs. 8. Adjournment Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:38 p.m. TC Meeting Minutes 11 July 28, 2021 | TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf,26 | CityCouncil | 2021-09-07 | 26 | wireless hotspots for years in order to help people who do not have internet access; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 18 | CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2019-05-28 | 6 | windows. He said they need the remaining space to support the modules when they are shipped. He added that they have ten foot ceilings in the rooms. He said it is not feasible or desirable to increase the window size further. Board Member Rothenberg asked what the purpose of ten foot ceilings would be. Mr. Leach said they have a narrow bay design to maximize views of the water and that the increased height is appreciated by the customers and requested by Marriott. Board Member Saheba said the concern is the amount of solid on the exterior, not the amount of glass on the interior. Board Member Teague moved approval of the 35 foot setback. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Board Member Saheba moved approval of the parking lot configuration. Board Member Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Board Member Teague moved approval of the building structural design with the requirement that the exterior palette materials and colors return for further review. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. Board Saheba said he is supportive of approving the footprint and height of the building. Staff Member Thomas said he is hearing that at least one commissioner would like to keep the size of the windows open for discussion, and to see how the ground floor clerestory windows will look. He said that it is not uncommon for developers to submit building plans and then revise them during the plan check process. Board Member Curtis said that if there is a structural reason why the windows cannot be any larger they would possibly be putting in an impossible condition. Staff Member Thomas said the ground floor is not modular construction and therefore the developer believes that adding the clerestory windows there will not present an engineering problem. He suggested approving the building massing, but bringing back the architectural elevations. President Sullivan asked if the suggestion would approve the articulation on the front which is very different from the back of the building, an… | PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2008-04-28 | 10 | windows in a normal prototype store, and that there were store windows at the store entrance, as well as within the store, containing mannequins. He did not believe it would be possible to create additional store windows. He noted that they wished to put their best foot forward in the Centre, and did not believe the PowerPoint presentation did justice to the colors and articulation that had been presented. He assured the Board that they would be able to present what the Board needed to make a decision. Board member McNamara expressed concern about the massing and bland color of the building, which she believed was already an eyesore. She liked the landscaping efforts throughout the center, and believed that it would be continued in this part of the project. Mr. Kyte noted that Harsch was very protective and critical of the center's design. He believed that the landscaping and the trellises on the south side of Bed, Bath & Beyond would have sufficed. He noted that they knew how to create a pedestrian amenity, and that they knew how to get people to flow through the shopping center, as well as to stay, linger and enjoy the experience. He noted that they would make every piece of this center right before it was completed. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed there was a solution to the Board's desire for display windows, as well as landscaping and the trellis. She believed that the Board's expectations were placed very high by the previous phases of the center. She did not want to see long expanses of wall, and that the public wanted a beautiful place to shop. She did not want to see a warehouse on the corner of the development. She inquired whether there were restrictions on the truck hours. Mr. Pool noted that Mervyn's had the same width with a recessed dock, and described the shift of the dock area in order to increase the sales area. He noted that the Mervyn's door accommodated two trucks. Mr. Kyte added that trash compactors were also included. Mr. Pool expressed concern that the posters that were initially very… | PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2013-05-13.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2013-05-13 | 5 | window schedule. She would like to see more visual interest in the vast spaces. She agreed the color choices should be left to the homeowners, but still have some level of consistency. She would like to see ideas for garden planting and landscaping together. She agreed on places for sitting, and street lights pointing downward, and more share of the street to bicycles and safety. She had a hard time with the fixtures in the landscaping, and fitting into the neighborhoods, its a bit hodge-podge. She loved the fact that landscaping is bay friendly. Board member Knox White asked about the process. Mr. Thomas stated he has prepared a list as they move forward for conditions and approvals. Board member Henneberry asked about the downward facing lighting and didn't this Board approve that previously. Mr. Thomas requested the Board adopt with the conditions being the Fifth Street elevations coming back, and color palette. Additional conditions being made but not coming back to the Board would be the HOA would not regulate colors, the Singleton cross-section be amended, the affordable housing portion, on block D make the changes, there is already a condition of approval on the lighting, bike parking, make sure benches are incorporated, and downward lighting, and the windows for SFR have no sandwiched grids. Specific issues on AS-1, AS-1.5, AS-1.1.7, more vertical variation in landscaping, Street C is a private street, but will connect. Board member Knox White requested specific changes to the bike lane being increased. Mr. Thomas noted the change. Vice President Burton commented adding a foot to the bike lane could add an additional foot to the front yard on residences. Mr. Thomas explained there is a 20' easement on the multi-use path on the western boundary. He asked if the request is to make it 10' asphalt for bike path and 5' on each side for landscape. The extra foot for bike can be from the landscape sides. Board member Alvarez-Morroni asked if there was a window schedule would this make the decision easier. Board … | PlanningBoard/2013-05-13.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf,17 | CityCouncil | 2015-03-03 | 17 | will review how much affordable housing will be included, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Project Manager stated staff and UPP are committed to involving Council in the process. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is flexibility to focus and evaluate Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) and move forward separately on the 200 APC replacement units. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated a phasing plan could be created to move APC units forward without the rest of the neighborhood. Expressed support for UPP; urged moving forward: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the City should take advantage of spending tax dollars that do not come from the General Fund; that he would to include a site planning alternative that caps the number of units to what exists today and preserves the neighborhood surrounding the big whites; the specific plan will be the foundation of how the site is zoned and what is built. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is pleased Alameda received the MTC Grant; staff intends to address sustainability issues in Main Street Specific Plan; she loves the urban agriculture element of the plan; inquired how and when does the Council offer input on development and evaluation of the alternatives; stated that she would prefer a process similar to Site A; she is looking forward to seeing item go forward. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is torn on the item; it would be ideal to put off more housing until Site A moves further down the road and Council has opportunity to evaluate traffic; on the other side, there are 200 substandard units that need to be rebuilt and relocated; the housing has the same infrastructure issues as commercial tenants at Alameda Point; that he likes the Vice Mayor's suggestions for site planning alternatives; if the APC was not included in the project, he would not be voting on the Main Street Plan tonight; he would li… | CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf,27 | CityCouncil | 2018-07-10 | 27 | will get people to submit proposals; questioned what the timeline and process would be if there are no applicants. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Matarrese's approach; stated waterfront property is diminishing on the Island; Council has heard arguments for more square footage for maritime uses; artist studios are permitted in other areas of the property and around the City; throughout the City, uses that do not need to be on the water are on the water, such as Recreational Vehicle (RV) storage; the developers can request a modification; she disagrees with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion to eliminate open space; she would like to keep the public open space along the Bay Trail; she is excited about the project; discussed housing development; expressed support for and discussed the 50/50 rental/for sale housing mix, the environmental aspect of the project, and the RFP/RFQ process; stated the project opens the waterfront to all. Councilmember Oddie stated that he thinks the project is exciting and was made better; he would like page 49 to say at least 50% rental, instead of ownership; expressed concern over modification being made by Councilmembers voting against an item. Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern over housing ratios; stated that she does not want an extra step slowing down housing; flexibility should be built in for where the market is going to ensure the project comes to fruition; the project is going to be a win for the maritime community, neighbors and future waterfront residents; there is intent to have a modern, efficient boatyard; hopefully, community members will make the RFQ/RFP successful; the project is an alternate way to fund necessary infrastructure, deals with mid-century sea level rise and creates a funding mechanism for the future; hopefully, the developer will continue to work with the City on traffic mitigation, such as additional crossings; she is ready to support the project with the minor changes, including removal of artist studio space in the commercial … | CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf,47 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-06 | 47 | will continue attempting to sell the tent; Mr. Geanekos might not be able to recoup the costs. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what will happen should the costs be able to be recovered. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded Council may request staff to draft a provision to stagger the rent recovery provision outlined in option B should Jims on the Course be able to sell back the event tent. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a provision to stagger rent recovery. Expressed support for the third amendment; stated that he is excited to continue partnering with the City to improve the golf course; city staff, Jim's on the Course and Greenway Golf have worked hard to find a path forward that works for all parties; he and Mr. Geanekos are committed to working together in a manner which is mutually beneficial and in turn, benefits the City; having more food and beverage options at the course will bring more patrons thus increasing business for both Greenway Golf and Jim's on the Course; having expanded offerings will provide an opportunity to bring in other Alameda food vendors during tournaments; the amendment will allow Greenway Golf to bring larger tournaments to Corica Park; outlined a ranking of 12th best course provided by Golf Magazine; discussed the annual golf tournament; stated having more choices at Corica Park will enable the annual tournament to come home to the City's golf course; discussed letters of support; stated that he hopes the amendment will allow Greenway Golf to host bigger tournaments in the coming years; urged Council support the amendment: Umesh Patel, Greenway Golf. Discussed operations of locations; stated many first job opportunities are provided at Jim's; the golf course has undergone many transformations since 2006 and the only stable factor has been Jim's on the Course; prior to 2006, a food and beverage cart provided limited service to golfers only; he has since invested large sums of money to improve kitchen facilities and dining areas; the full service restaurant can serve h… | CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf |
GolfCommission/2005-03-16.pdf,2 | GolfCommission | 2005-03-16 | 2 | will be used for the best interest of the golf patrons and staff of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. The schedule will be posted prior to each season; November through March and April through October. The seasonal schedule is subject to review annually. The number of marshals on staff will vary depending on the needs of the business. Staffing will include a cart attendant, a tee marshal for each course, and at least one (1) roving marshal for each course. Volunteer marshals shall work six (6) hours each week November through March. Volunteer marshals shall work eight (8) hours each week April through October. Volunteer marshals shall sign the Marshal Shift Log Book at the start and end of each scheduled shift. Volunteer marshals shall make every attempt to arrive on time for their scheduled shift. It is the responsibility of the marshal to find a suitable replacement when on leave. The work activities will include monitoring the pace of play: Monday through Friday tee times before 9:00am, the round should be 4 hours or less, after 9:00am 4.5 hours or less. On Saturday, Sunday and Holidays tee times before 8:00am, the round should be 4 hours or less, 8:00am - 11:00am, 4.5 hours or less, and after 11:00am 5 hours or less. The marshal's are to record one (1) finishing time each hour in the pace-of-play logbook and enforce CCGC golf course and USGA rules book policies regarding safe play and etiquette. Volunteer marshals shall receive the following Golf Complex benefits, playing privileges, including cart usage, Monday through Friday anytime. On Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays after 12:00pm and/or as business permits. Playing privileges, including cart usage, will be allowed Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays with a paid group. Mif Albright course and Driving Range privileges anytime as business permits (Limit 1 bucket per day). Employee food discounts during scheduled work shifts. (Approval of L&H). A Pro shop discount of 20% on non-sale soft goods. Special Orders cost plus 5% with prior management approval. The suggestion… | GolfCommission/2005-03-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-04-20.pdf,19 | CityCouncil | 2021-04-20 | 19 | will be reconfigured along Atlantic Avenue near Clement Street that will travel down to Grand Street; the designs expect that traffic will drop; staff has done a great job of explaining why roundabouts are going to help traffic flow through the Central Avenue corridor; the roundabouts will help to improve cut through traffic; expressed support for the staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether maps showing an open Sherman Street are available. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the presentation includes alternative designs; stated slide 31 shows different ways of providing access to Sherman Street; staff has taken Council direction from 2016 as well as the Vision Zero policy and has come forward with the safest alternative; staff has looked at a number of different ways to design the roundabout at Sherman Street; the City does not currently have the money to build the roundabout at Sherman Street; with the funding available, the City can currently build two of four roundabouts; staff recommends building two roundabouts at the most dangerous locations first; Council may have a discussion at a later time regarding the two other roundabouts. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the other roundabouts are considered safe in terms of professional engineering standards. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the safest option is proposed; stated the other options provided are safe, but not as safe as the one recommended; the worst case scenario is to leave the intersection as-is. Vice Mayor Vella stated the project has been before the Council a number of times and has been through numerous renditions with public input and comment; there have been a number of workshops on the matter with many designs; there is an eye specifically for safe multimodal transit; the project is the embodiment for Vision Zero; if Council is serious about implementing the policy, roads and infrastructure must be made safer for everyone, including pedestrians and other modes of tr… | CityCouncil/2021-04-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2021-09-07 | 13 | will be provided; expressed support for the needs of the paratransit program participants' being met. The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded staff is providing a recommendation for Eden Information and Referral, Inc. (Eden I&R) to provide a TNC concierge program; stated Eden I&R will act as the third party provider that will book trips for community members as well as providing monitoring and evaluation of trips; Eden I&R will help users through the process from beginning to end; the program targets the most vulnerable population; the program is replacing the former taxi subsidy program; the program is risk-averse and is the right time to provide the service. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the work of Eden I&R. Alison DeJung, Eden I&R, stated Eden I&R has been operating a similar TNC program for the City of Hayward for a little over one year; most of the other cities in Alameda County provide a similar program for profit called Go-Go Grandparent; the program is a natural fit and provides the same callers with third party assistance and scheduling; the approach is holistic; there are valid questions and concerns about liabilities with Lyft and Uber; the City Attorney for the City of Hayward offered to connect with the City Attorney for the City of Alameda. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not always had the best experience in using Uber; she would like to know how the drivers are being vetted and monitored; questioned whether there is a way to provide feedback from the consumer after each ride if a bad ride is experienced; expressed concern about the term of the contract. Ms. DeJung responded the concern over the feedback loop has come up in City Commission meetings; Eden I&R's goal for the transportation division is to implement a more robust feedback loop from clients. Lobsan Barrera, Eden I&R, stated the difference between Eden I&R and those using Uber and Lyft on their own is the attention provided; the program provides extra security for the client; the average pickup time… | CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2017-04-18 | 16 | will be difficult without management to oversee it; the immediate objective is to complete the back-log of fire inspections; the bigger picture is that it will be harder to expand and be fully functional without management. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the inspection fees are the same for a non-sworn and sworn inspector, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is an independent analysis of other agencies which indicate whether or not sworn or non-sworn positions is a good way of conducting the inspections. The City Manager responded the Human Resources Department contacted the other cities; using non-sworn inspectors works for the City of Fremont, but they have a bigger department; there are more factors which determine whether cities select sworn or non- sworn inspectors. The Fire Chief stated non-sworn Fire Inspectors do not have training or equipment and cannot be sent to an emergency. Mayor Spencer stated nine Fire Fighters live in Alameda, which is 10% of the total; other cities require Fire Fighters to live in the city in which they work. The City Attorney stated the resident status was a requirement in the past; the requirement is not legal. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Manager stated Alameda does not require Fire Fighters live in a close radius to the City; having such a requirement would cut back on the quality of candidates. Mayor Spencer inquired what is the difference in the estimated post-employment costs of sworn versus non-sworn. The Human Resources Director responded there is no additional cost; everything, including benefits, is included in the total salaries. Mayor Spencer stated additional revenue is estimated at $400,000 per year; inquired where is the difference going to come from. The City Manager responded $170,000 from the General Fund would make up the difference. Mayor Spencer inquired whether there would be no encroachment into General Fund with a non-sworn inspector, to which the City Manager responded in the affi… | CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf |
CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf,2 | CivilServiceBoard | 2012-06-06 | 2 | will be allowed to speak. The Board agreed on three minutes for each speaker. Mr. Riddle stated that the City recently instituted the Sunshine Ordinance. One of the provisions provides that for any item on the agenda, at the same time that the agenda is provided, all documents given to the Board should also be made available to the public. The ordinance is still in the process of being implemented and staff is still coming up to speed on the issue. In this case, given the appellant process that is involved, that has not happened. If anyone has an objection regarding documents given to the Board in less than the seven days required they should raise their hand now, in which case it would be Mr. Riddle's recommendation to the Board to continue this matter to such a time as seven days have passed to review the documents. If there is not an objection, Mr. Riddle would view this issue as the Board can proceed to hear the appeal. Mr. Gossman stated that the Union has documentation for the Board to review. The Union had previously contacted the Human Resources Department and requested information and also listed some concerns that they have regarding the testing. As of today, the Union has not received any written response from the City. There are eight questions, requests for information from the City. Mr. Gossman has received three answers; test scores, how long the list would stay open, and the rankings of the list. There is some information, he still has not received from the City regarding the request from over three weeks ago. Mr. Riddle stated that if Mr. Gossman would like to explain that information to the Board and if the Board believes that he should have that information and that they (Board) would like to have that information, then the Board can make that decision. Mr. Riddle stated that there are documents that are already in existence and have either been provided to the Board or will be provided tonight and whether or not folks have an objection to that happening tonight rather than 7 days ago. If you d… | CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf,8 | TransportationCommission | 2013-01-23 | 8 | will accommodate 6th through 8th graders. She recently has taken on the principal position at Encinal High School, but she is not new to administration. Her goal as an instructional leader is to keep students, staff and families safe. There are 1,100 students and they share the campus with a charter school. Whenever possible, she is outside to help youth cross the street along with two other administrators. At this point, her community needs help and there is an active parent and the Police Department has stepped up to support the cause. Yet, there is only one resource officer that is assigned to the youth and the officer has other duties within the City. She explained that Mr. Juhala has a very clear plan, and she would like the Commission to consider his thoughts. She also explained that she has worked with Staff Payne and corresponded frequently with her by email. Since starting at Encinal High School, what worries her is the fact that she has sent three electronic alerts to families about students being struck by vehicles. Commissioner Vargas explained that staff received a ten-page document proposal authored by Mr. Juhala. Jerry Juhala is the parent of an Encinal High School student and since October 2012 he volunteers as a crossing guard. He felt that the biggest issue was the congestion caused by cars entering into the school and the backup of vehicles trying to turn left onto Third Street from the east and westbound directions of Central Avenue. He mentioned that the City's plans to include an additional painted line in the crosswalks and the street divider was a good idea. However, the City's plan to include wheel stops and paint on the southwest corner will only increase congestion in the area since cars will not be able to get around a driver who wants to turn left onto Third Street. Additionally, he believed the City's decision to include a painted island near Taylor Avenue will back up cars heading towards the school as westbound drivers now have less space when trying to turn left or right onto Thir… | TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf,8 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-26 | 8 | wiggle room in case a problem arises; inquired whether a 15% contingency is adequate. The Development Services Director responded staff recommends reducing the contingency to 5% for the garage and 13% for the theater ; stated $250,000 has been budgeted for soil conditions; testing has been done; she hopes to add back the contingency after construction has started; she feels adequately protected. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated $5 million was to be set aside for the catalyst Webster Street project; the money is out of the budget now; inquired how the project would be funded. The Development Services Director responded there are a number of ideas for funding the project; stated $13.5 million was raised to retire the Marina Village infrastructure obligations; the Marina Village project had a repayment of $2.5 million to the General Fund load; $2 million was given to the Library Project another $2 million has been used in the operation of the theater project; staff has requested that the $1 million coming back from the Library project be distributed back to the theater project; other opportunities include replacing cash reserves and renegotiating the Catellus Project which has uncommitted tax increment and land proceeds. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the West End generated all the bond funding. The Development Services Director responded 48% came from Business Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) and 52% came from the West End. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog moved approval of directing further analysis of Scheme 2. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated various schemes were revisited because other options needed to be reviewed; the schemes need to be revisited in case the City is unable to value engineer the project back in line; possible cost savings are obvious and provide for more leeway in case there is a problem. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion. On the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners… | CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2011-12-14 | 6 | wider travel lanes. Fernside Blvd. has seven to eight foot bike lanes since it has the space. It depends on the user and needs of the road. It is why we call these guidelines because staff needs to use judgment based on the street conditions. We do not allow less than eight feet for parking lanes. The streets are mostly 36 feet, which means two ten feet travel lanes and two eight foot parking lanes. We want to maintain at least eight feet of parking lane and see where we can increase the bike lane width. Commissioner Bertken questioned if the guidelines will go to the Planning Board. He asked about having a public hearing on the guidelines. Once the City Council adopts the guidelines, then the staff follows the guidelines. Some items affect properties and developers. Staff Khan replied that the entire document will go to the Planning Board. The TC is a public hearing because this meeting is following all the rules of a public meeting. Commissioner Bertken - Usually the usual routine is to announce it as a public hearing. Commissioner Moehring - BikeAlameda has discussed this document as a larger group even though only a few representatives are attending the meeting this evening. Obaid said that he would take the TC member recommendations to the next level. Commissioner Bertken - He expressed concern that the meeting does not quite cover the ordinance details. Staff Khan replied that some portions of the guidelines will become an ordinance such as parking ratios and those items would be separately dealt with at the Planning Board or the City Council. Commissioner Bertken - He wanted to know which pieces would be subject to the City Council and would have more detailed review. Staff Khan will announce the date of the Planning Board meeting. Two different actions will be taken by the City Council - to approve the guidelines and to adopt City ordinances on specific items in the guidelines for parking and shower requirements. Commissioner Moehring - She wanted to know if the TC members will be making a recommendation … | TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-11-21.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2017-11-21 | 13 | why there have been changes in the crime rate. The Police Chief stated the data should include the month of December to have the full year of 2017 included. The City Manager stated the matter could be on second meeting in January. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS CONTINUED (17-697) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add New and Revise Existing Recreation and Park Fees. Continued to December 5, 2017. (17-698) Public Hearing to Consider: Amendments to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plans for Fiscal Years 2010-2011 through 2016-2017; Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications; and (17-698A) Resolution No. 15324, "Amending Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 CDBG Fund Budget to Include Prior Fiscal Year Unspent Entitlement and Program Income Allocations." Adopted. The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the funds were unspent. The Community Development Director responded more income was received in Fiscal Year 2016-17 than projected. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where the extra income is from. The Community Development Director responded from the repayment of the revolving loans; continued the presentation. Mayor Spencer inquired about the use of the ranch house at 2815 San Diego Road. The Community Development Director responded transitional housing for refugees; continued the presentation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the use of 2815 San Diego Road is direction from a referral, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired what the definition of refugees is; stated that she thought Council's request is for immigrant housing, not refugees. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 21, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-11-21.pdf |
GolfCommission/2006-05-17.pdf,4 | GolfCommission | 2006-05-17 | 4 | why the Chuck Corica Golf Complex is building a new clubhouse when the golf courses are in need of so much drainage improvement. The General Manager reported that he has contacted Kyle Phillips, the world- renowned golf course architect who worked on the Alameda Point project, to set up a meeting to discuss areas of the golf courses that can be redesigned to help the drainage. The idea is to put together a long-term improvement plan for the drainage problems on the courses and get some insight for a scope of work. 5-D Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Commissioner Sullwold. Vice Chair Wood mentioned that the mats at the Driving Range are in need of more rubber tees. 5-E City Council and Government Liaison, Commissioner Swanson. No report given. 5-F Front Entrance Beautification Project, Vice Chair Wood. Vice Chair Wood reported that he met with a structural engineer regarding the Fire Tower building at the front entrance of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. The engineer came up with an estimated weight for the structure and stated that there was no problem holding up the building or even adding additional weight. The main concern would be seismic issues. Vice Chair Wood also reported that he had met with Karl Danielson of The Dahlin Group to discuss what could be done to improve the tower. The General Manager stated that the contract with Dahlin has been approved and signed and they should be working on the cost estimates. When the cost estimates are completed they will be brought to the Golf Commission along with the financing package and proposed fee increases for approval. Vice Chair Wood also stated that the City of San Mateo should have a lot of background information regarding the construction of their clubhouse, including price and any add alternatives. The General Manager stated that the City of Alameda has not yet purchased the plans for the clubhouse from the City of San Mateo and once that is done all of the other information will be included. 5-G Golf Complex Restaurant… | GolfCommission/2006-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2015-01-21 | 7 | why some matters are Council referrals and why others should go into the queue; the matter would come back to Council to see the difference in the procedures. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with demoting the referral; neighbors indicated they did not receive a response before but there is a new Public Works team now. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not sure whether the Public Works queue system is widely known; perhaps the public discussion will help increase awareness. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Council referral as amended [demoting the referral to have Public Works add the matter to the queue and the matter would return to Council to compare the process to the Island Drive traffic study referral]. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City still has the Traffic Transportation Committee, which reviews requests for stop sings; noted there was a past controversy over the use of State warrants. The Assistant City Manager stated staff now completes the review with the immediate neighbors; if there is an appeal, the matter is elevated to the Transportation Commission (TC); if the TC decision is appealed, the matter comes to Council. Councilmember Daysog stated perhaps one issues is to improve is the way in which the City makes residents aware of the process. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated later tonight, Council would discuss an open house to improve communications. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (15-073) Consider Directing Staff to Collaborate with East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on Acquisition and Expansion of Crab Cove. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) (Continued from January 20, 2015) Vice Mayor Matarrese made brief comments on the referral. Stated a letter should be drafted to the General Services Administration (GSA); the letter should encourage GSA to cease the eminent domain and accept the Park District's last offer: Richard Bangert, Alameda. Stated that she suppo… | CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf,8 | TransportationCommission | 2016-05-25 | 8 | whole framework comes into place they would be able to provide a solution for everyone. Eric Schatmeier spoke as an Alameda resident and said he was in opposition to the staff proposal for three reasons: 1. The plan is inconsistent with the three elements the Commission specified should be a requirement for approval for any future plan; 2. The plan is technically flawed and incomplete and 3. He felt the plan was developed in a vacuum. He explained that in the proposal staff focused on one of the three elements included in endorsing the last plan and he wanted to emphasis the other two, which are maintenance and growth of ferry ridership and the provision of adequate parking at the ferry terminal. He felt if the plan is implemented in January 2017 as proposed there is a real danger of reversing ridership gains the ferry has achieved and pushing usage down that would result in eliminating 100 daily parking opportunities and then charging a fee for the few scarce spaces that would be left. He said the fee represents $40 to $80 per month added to regular ferry fares that are already higher than comparable BART and AC Transbay bus fares. He explained that he did not know of any demand modeling that would not predict the loss of ridership because of raising the fare 20-40%. The staff report explained that parking charges encouraged customers to look for alternative ways to get to the ferry station, but analysis, ridership surveys or demand modeling did not back up this assertion. Also, he said the plan does include what ferry customers who do drive would be willing to pay to park, what will result when various fee levels are implemented, or if there is a contingency plan to determine what the City and WETA would do to get ferry riders back if the program is scrapped because it failed. He stated that the Commission did not approve a principal that said provide adequate parking or shuttle services. The Commission focused on parking because the unfortunate reality is that shuttle services are not adequate alternatives. He… | TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf |
CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf,17 | CivilServiceBoard | 2012-06-06 | 17 | who were qualified to take the test. Or, would all of that be involved. City Attorney Kern stated that what Mr. Riddle was trying to explain is that the City Council as the legislative body decided to do this reclassification and restructuring. Then there is a testing process and what is being appealed is whether this testing process was set up fairly and administered fairly. Mr. Peterson stated that it could not be fair if two people did not qualify to take the test. City Attorney Kern stated that is part of the administration but the idea is not for this Board to go through and look at all of the applications and decide who they would have chosen. Mr. Peterson stated that he is not saying that, he is saying that two of them should not have been allowed to take the test because they did not have the qualifications. City Attorney Kern stated she hears what Mr. Peterson is saying so they can look at Mr. Peterson stated that is a fact City Attorney Kern stated apparently there was a Human Resources review, there was a supplemental question review, and the oral review and through all of those they apparently determined that the people met the minimum qualifications. Mr. Peterson stated apparently someone did not do their job. Apparently does not cut it. City Attorney Kern stated she does not have the applications in front of her. President Peeler stated sir, (Mr. Peterson), the Board is not arguing whether he is right or wrong. If the Board decides to investigate all of that would be included and asked Mr. Peterson to let the Board continue. Mr. Tsang asked who would do the investigation. City Attorney Kern stated the City Attorney's Office would hire a third party, someone from the outside. Mr. Tsang asked if they (City Attorney) would be paying them. Ms. Kern stated yes. Ms. Blumkin stated that they heard the first time was going to be a fair process. You were going to go outside and that did not happen, so how can we trust that they will not do it again. City Attorney Kern stated that it is up to the Board. She i… | CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf,48 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2019-09-12 | 48 | who live in my old neighborhood on and near Crist Street. Those that spoke primarily in opposition to having the playground were residents living in the immediate vicinity of the park, residents living within the 300' radius the city designates as the neighborhood needing to give approval. So, not all who spoke were from the immediate neighborhood (within the 300' radius), and many were from outside the immediate neighborhood, thus giving an inaccurate appraisal of the situation. I have printed out an updated map of Jackson Park and its surrounding residential neighborhood showing those residences opposed to having a playground built in the park. This map illustrates the overwhelming opposition this neighborhood has to the addition of a playground in Jackson Park. I addition I am including a copy of the Conceptual Master Plan of Jackson Park, drawn up twenty years ago, in hopes that the city would see fit to implement some of the improvements included in this plan, as well as seeing to much needed deferred maintenance this park sorely needs. | RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2020-04-07 | 7 | who can cover their rent but refuse to pay; the ordinance, as drafted, addresses his concern under Section 2 Provision 5; outlined the provision; expressed support for the emergency ordinance. Councilmember Vella inquired whether Centro Legal de la Raza is aware of the emergency ordinance and whether they aware each time it is changed. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated once Council takes action, staff will forward the new language and accompanying regulations to Centro Legal. Councilmember Vella inquired whether any evictions or tenant issues have been reported to Centro Legal aside from the laundry room issue. The Community Development Director responded that she has not heard any reports from Centro Legal; stated most staff are fielding calls and trying to provide resources. The City Attorney stated the City Attorney office has received a number of calls with many questions from landlords and tenants about rights and responsibilities; staff has worked to field calls to the best of abilities; in every circumstance, landlords and tenants have been able to reach a reasonable place through mediation; no direct action has been needed and no cases have been referred to Centro Legal. Councilmember Vella inquired whether the new information could be included in an Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) bill in order to help spread knowledge; expressed concern about only sending the information to a rent registry and not including commercial tenants. The City Manager responded that he has a request in with the AMP General Manager to have information in upcoming utility bills, but he has not received a response back; stated the request is possible in some form. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the action would be a request or a directive. The City Manager responded the action is currently a request based on printing timing. The Community Development Director stated a lead time on printing is needed; the City can work with AMP; stated staff will work with the Chamber of Commerce and other … | CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2016-11-01 | 7 | which would impede the City's ability to move forward with the Site A development; the City would have to buy Pacific Pinball Museum out of the year left on their lease; staff believes the proposal is the right thing to do under the circumstances. Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais. The Base Reuse Director stated there is not a lot of leverage when the tenant has a legal right to stay in a building and the City needs them to move to facilitate construction; the project gives the City more per square foot than before for a larger space; there were no users interested in the property; the lease can be terminated after a year. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Pacific Pinball Museum has twelve months left on the current lease, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City will be earning five times more than before. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City can unilaterally terminate the lease after one year, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated with 90 days' notice. Mayor Spencer stated the information was not in the report; in the future, including the information is important to keep the public informed. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he will support the project due to the fact that the lease can be terminated in one year; he understands the predicament the City is in; the lease is in the best interest of the City. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is any other tenant currently interested in the location, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the negative. Mayor Spencer stated that she will support the lease; the City needs to ensure people are aware that the lease can be terminated after one year. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to be consistent in the policies and not using buildings for large displays and uses that create minimal employment opportunities; she is willing to support the lease. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Da… | CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2005-07-20 | 3 | which would come from the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). This has been identified as a priority at the county level; the next step is to compete for funds at the state level. Alameda stakeholders have indicated that two of their high priorities are the horseshoe access ramp onto northbound I-880 and direct access onto southbound I-880. Commissioner McFarland asked if there is a weave problem at the proposed off-ramp on northbound I-880 and the existing on-ramp getting onto I-980. Staff Hawkins answered that the weave distance was evaluated and is not a problem. Staff Hawkins stated that we will need to weigh congestion relief benefits against the estimated costs, and this will impact on project phasing. Commissioner McFarland asked what environmental document is required. Staff Hawkins answered that the next step would be the environmental analysis and the project study report, if we go forward with all the project elements. Hopefully this could be done in two years. Commissioner Parker asked about the direct route from I-880 down toward the Broadway on- ramp, how that relates to the existing Jackson Street ramp, and whether it is possible to use the existing ramp to access the tubes. Staff Hawkins stated that using the Jackson Street exit would require drivers to travel through the produce district to get to the tube. They tried to have direct access from the Jackson Street ramp into the tubes, but that would have precluded access to Jack London Square or Chinatown. Commissioner Krueger asked if AC Transit is involved in any of these discussions, as the transbay buses would be impacted, as well local buses on Broadway. Staff Hawkins said that the analysis has accounted for the required turning radii of the buses, but that AC Transit has not been actively involved in discussions of the design. The study team has talked about identifying queue jump lanes to enhance access to the Webster tube. Staff Hawkins agreed that it is a good time to involve AC Transit in the project discussions. Public Comment… | TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2007-04-23 | 10 | which would be detrimental to the shopping center; Safeway agreed with that assessment as well. They believed the plan has progressed well, and acknowledged their effort to add the sidewalk. Mr. Bill Smith, 724 Central #9, noted that he had spent 20 years redesigning bicycles, and continued to work on alternative vehicles. He discussed charging stations for electric bikes and automobiles. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the applicant for their decision not to sell alcohol at the gas station. She appreciated the support of the east-west sidewalk. She did not believe the gas station for South Shore Center should be supersized, and noted that the previous gas station had fewer pumping sites. She noted that it was also busier, and meant more cars in the shopping center. She proposed that there be no more than 12 fueling stations with six pumps, and she liked the biodiesel proposal. She noted that the Dublin station had 12 fueling positions, and that there were usually fewer than three cars waiting to fuel. She inquired whether the hours for refueling from the big tanker trucks could be limited to off-peak hours, and whether the station should be a 24/7 station. She agreed with Mr. McKay's suggestion in his email that any light generated should be designed so it did not adversely impact the adjacent neighbors, and that additional landscaping should be added along the Otis Drive side of the lagoon to further shield neighbors on the other side of the lagoon. Board member McNamara noted that she had used the Dublin Safeway fuel center often, and enjoyed the orderly flow of traffic, which was a one-way flow. She remembered the gas lines of the 1970s, and noted that similar events may negatively impact the surrounding streets; she inquired how long the monitoring would continue. She added that traffic queuing was a serious concern for her. With respect to the emails on lighting impacts sent by residents of Laurel and Powell, she would like to know which landscaping v… | PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf |
CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2022-03-01 | 22 | which will allow time for conversation to occur with interested groups; the earliest increases would go into effect would be June 1st; the City Attorney provided workable solutions. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is proposing providing staff with direction to bring back the matter and not move forward at the current meeting, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is not easy; the initial discussion occurred when the pandemic had just begun, people were being forced to stay in their houses and jobs were being shut down; he does not see a scenario in the next 6 to 9 months where the same will occur again even with future surges and variants; he did not imagine the rent moratorium lasting two years; Council should honor the 60 day notice; Council committed to allowing landlords to bank increases; public comment received from landlords and tenants suggests a middle ground has be found; expressed support for the ordinance and ensuring a 60 day notice; stated that he would also like to have a 60 day notice instead of allowing the banked AGA as soon as the pandemic is over; when the pandemic is over, everyone will know the AGA increases will not be available for another 60 days; if a landlord raises rent 2.7% in June, any other banked AGA cannot be used until the following June; the increase being available for use does not mean landlords can release the banked increases; the system and rules are in place to allow the more phasing; the faster Council allows the 2.7% increase, the less likely people will wait until September 1st when a larger AGA will be in place; the longer Council waits, the more likely landlords will wait until a higher AGA percentage occurs; expressed support for Council acting tonight; stated that he is not supportive of delaying the matter. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the additional 60 day notice before banked increases can occur; expressed concern about payment shock; stated the current situation is di… | CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf,14 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-12-06 | 14 | which were responsive to the PRA request that were not produced prior to the complaint; she would add that the Commission makes no findings whether there was a violation of the PRA with respect to producing records from a Councilmember's personal account on the basis that, with the evidence presented, the City took steps to obtain the records but ultimately no analysis was able to be conducted as to whether there were any public records. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Vice Chair LoPilato stated the reason the motion is not concise is that the Commission needs to write the reason of decision statement, which should include all the basis for the findings; it can be a tighter motion, but the Chief Assistant City Attorney needs sufficient basis for the decision. Vice Chair LoPilato moved approval of sustaining the complaint on the basis of the violation that the City failed to produce records from the Agency Nextdoor account. In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry regarding the cure and correct, Vice Chair LoPilato stated the Commission could address recommendations on both issues; suggested seeing if there is consensus on the sustained part first. Chair Tilos stated he would be agreeable without a cure and correct. Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she thinks there is a very specific cure and correct the Commission could issue with respect to the finding; the cure and correct can be discussed after everyone is aligned with the finding. Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 5. Vice Chair LoPilato stated to ensure the scope is narrow and case law is not being manufactured, a reference should be made that the City Attorney's office referred to a record produced on October 28th; the Commission relying on that as opposed to the Commission making an independent finding of law as to whether or not it was a record is significant; further recommended that the City consider mainta… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2015-01-06 | 6 | which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated that he did not want to shop for a boat before receiving approval to accept the grant funding. Mayor Spencer inquired whether accepting the grant funding requires the City to pay the difference in cost at some point, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the difference would have to come from the General Fund or additional grant funds could be sought. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Council is being asked to approve a range, to which the Police Chief responded in the negative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether an open ended dollar range may come back to Council at some point. The Police Chief responded the purchase would have to come back to Council. The City Manager stated if the boat costs $90,000, the State would pay $80,000 and the City would pay $10,000. Mayor Spencer inquired why the report does not include an estimate for the cost of the boat. The Police Chief responded that he did not want to shop for a boat until the grant was approved; stated a boat could not be purchased without the grant. The City Manager stated the Police Chief will go shopping after he receives acceptance from the State; the transaction is not completed until the matter returns to Council to approve the amount above $80,000; if the Council does not authorize spending the funds, the City would walk away from the grant. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City is not committing to the difference, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative. Submitted a letter; stated a coalition was formed to clean up dilapidated boats; approximately $8 million was spent on the cleanup; agencies involved made it clear maintaining the estuary would fall on the cities; the County opined that the estuary is the responsibility of Alameda and Oakland; expressed support for purchase of a boat that can operate in various weather conditions: Brock de Lappe, Alameda Marina. Expressed support for the grant: Mark Omel, Ballena Isle Marina. Stated what was cleaned up is… | CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 4 | which the Planning and Building Director responded in the affirmative. The Planner III stated concerns were raised about the height of Building 300; the Applicant redesigned Building 300 to lower the height; concerns were that Building 500 was plain and did not have some of the architectural details of the other renovated buildings; the Applicant added murals along the center courtyard as well as additional windows, trellises and landscaping; the changes were well accepted by the Planning Board; one of the Planning Board members who voted against the project in November voted for the project in December. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Opponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Dorothy Reid, Alameda; Tim Erway, Alameda; Holly Sellers, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 January 2, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2021-10-05 | 12 | which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the units are part of an affordable project. The Development Manager stated any affordable housing helps keep people housed and prevent homelessness, which is a key part of the Plan. Ms. Wehrman stated a list was not created; action steps are to complete analysis; regarding locations, proximity to amenities is included for housing sites. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated lists being presented should be clear to the public; data related to Alameda's unhoused population is useful; questioned whether the goals are related to Alameda or would be recommended for any city; stated that she would like to spend more time on what the goals mean for Alameda; everyone supports the first goal, but she needs to know what it looks like and how it is going to apply to Alameda; the Plan is very general and should include more specific asks; she is concerned about providing housing and services that is based on the data; the goals are vague; Council should be weighing in and making decision about specific properties; inquired what Council is being asked to approve. The Community Development Director stated staff has been exploring specific projects, including scattered sites, emergency transitional housing, the bottle parcel and the Marina Village Inn, and will come to Council in the near future; staff is gearing up for Homekey project and funds; a provider has to be selected; the City needs a partner to do the projects. The Economic Development Manager stated the specific action steps included in the Plan are generalized; staff will return with more specifics. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is a Housing Authority in Alameda; inquired whether the City is creating its own Housing Department, to which the Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated State and County funding is available to the City; staff is looking at opportunities available to the City. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Housing Authority used to … | CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2011-07-12.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2011-07-12 | 13 | which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the items are related but not bound. Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the City would continue to have an operational golf course with 45 holes while the [Harbor Bay] project goes through the regulatory process, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired how many votes are required under the Charter since the proposal involves a land transfer. The City Attorney responded a written memorandum on the matter would be provided. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the clarification would be provided prior to September, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. The City Manager noted the direction tonight only requires three votes; it may be that the land transfer may require four votes depending on the reading of the Charter. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the vote tonight does not bind the City to anything other than directing staff to go forward and negotiate, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan - 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:29 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 13 July 12, 2011 | CityCouncil/2011-07-12.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-06-19.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2018-06-19 | 11 | which the City Clerk responded one day. Vice Mayor Vella stated drafting an argument should be done publicly; the goal is to have all Councilmembers put out something that is united. The City Clerk stated the subcommittee could have more time if a special meeting is scheduled and the agenda would not have to be published until July 3rd. Vice Mayor Vella stated the point is the published document might not be the final draft; this is Council's ordinance that is being challenged; she is fine with the process. The City Clerk stated if Council authors a rebuttal argument, it will not have the same luxury of coming back at a regular meeting; a decision would have to be made regarding the rebuttal. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the decision on a rebuttal argument could be resolved at the July 10th meeting, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated he is fine with having a special meeting to give more time, but he will not volunteer to be on the subcommittee; who will sign the argument should be decided today. In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, Mayor Spencer stated that she does not intend to sign anything until she can review the language; she was not given the same opportunity last time. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Matarrese and Vice Mayor Vella would be a great team. Councilmember Matarrese and Vice Mayor Vella agreed to be on the subcommittee. Stated that she is happy that Council would write an argument; a number of laws are changing at the State level; discussed the need for data collection: Catherine Pauling, Alameda. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of directing the subcommittee to draft a ballot argument in opposition; inquired whether the subcommittee would also draft the rebuttal. Councilmember Matarrese stated he is fine with drafting the rebuttal; Councilmembers do not have to sign the argument if they do not like it. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Councilmembers would have the first right of refusal to sign both, to which … | CityCouncil/2018-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-01-02.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2018-01-02 | 4 | which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is currently an existing plan for what will be built. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 2, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-01-02.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2013-01-02 | 5 | which the Acting City Planner responded in the affirmative. The City Manager stated the amount was not cumulative because the City has a certified Housing Element. 2,400 units plus an additional 1,500 to 1,700 units would have been required if the Housing Element had failed to pass; the Housing Element is five years late; even if 2,400 units are not built, the amount goes down to 1,700. Councilmember Chen inquired how the City would have future developers comply with capacity requirements. The City Manager responded the limit will probably not be reached in the next 12 to 18 months; the City will receive the deeds for Alameda Point, which has additional land that can be designated for housing; the City does not control financing, markets, demand and macroeconomics. Following Mr. Spangler's comments, Councilmember Daysog stated Alameda needs to move forward with the Housing Element; encouraged embracing non-Measure A compliant multi-family housing; stated the project should not get caught in the crossfires of the East Bay Regional Park issue. Councilmember Tam stated the project provides a balance of affordable housing in an era without redevelopment funding; to penalize the site for the actions that the East Bay Regional Park District has taken to undermine the Housing Element is not appropriate. Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.] * Councilmember Tam left the dais at 8:12 p.m. and returned at 8:15 p.m. (13-008) Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Housing and Community Development Needs Statement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Plan for FY 13-14. The Community Development Program Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Stated the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) recommends all funding be given to safety net services: Cyndy Wasko, SSHRB. Outlined services provided by the Family Violence Law Center and urged Council to consider funding t… | CityCouncil/2013-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2011-01-25 | 14 | which the Acting City Manager responded the meeting would be very late. In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about a date shortly thereafter, the Acting City Manager responded March 1st is the next meeting. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the matter could be added to the March ARRA night, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that she would check to see if Kemper is available. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a special meeting could be held, to which the Acting City Manager responded Council could be polled. Councilmember Tam inquired whether February 16th would work. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Clerk could poll for February 16th Councilmembers indicated availability. Mayor Gilmore stated the preferred date is February 16th; March 2nd would be the alternate date depending on Kemper's availability. Mr. Van Winkle inquired whether Wadsworth's attendance could be considered since the company is a critical member of moving forward. In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding a reason to do so, Mr. Van Winkle stated Wadsworth is going to advise Junior Golf how it will work, including renovation; renovation plans need to work together; waiting until March 2nd might allow Wadsworth to attend. Mayor Gilmore stated Wadsworth could be invited either date. Councilmember Tam suggested Mr. Van Winkle share the plans with Wadsworth. Mayor Gilmore stated the Council direction is to bring the matter back on February 16th or March 2nd Ms. Sullwold inquired whether she could request that information on the Kemper proposal be provided to the Golf Commission, to which Mayor Gilmore responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether more direction could be given on the information that would be provided back; that he is not sure everyone wants to go said direction, but both options [27 and 36 holes] should be reviewed; data would be provided to the Golf Commission; that he would like to understand what will happen to the other 9 holes if the 27 hole option is chosen; he want… | CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2014-05-27.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2014-05-27 | 3 | which should be required. She asked about Phasing. She liked the Pubic Art presentation. She wanted to know where the low-income units will be. She further wanted sea level rise be addressed with this development. Mr. Thomas stated the phasing will be all built within a year. This site will be above the flood plain even with sea level rise, and this is a condition of approval. Board member Knox White commented on the Universal Design units needing kitchens, there are two designs but seems this could be better designed. In multifamily units the parking issues need to be addressed and connect with the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. He thought the buildings could vary more across the seven designs, and some look identical and are side-by-side. President Burton agreed the Universal Design issue could be looked at more closely, but wasn't sure how much could be done. He suggested looking at a parking solution. He commented on the site level where the fire access is a bike and pedestrian connection, but looking at the plan its stated as only turf-block. The streetscape is odd with a clumping of trees, and asked if this was intentional. The multifamily housing has a wedge on the plan, and he doesn't understand what is going on there, and looked like individual units are prominent but wants to see an overall sense of a building. He asked if there are any setbacks in the windows, and the three different types of siding were questioned. He further asked about elevations throughout the project. Mr. Thomas commented on the multifamily buildings, and the ones facing the water, and the flow of building design with the Del Monte development. President Burton requested the design come back to the Board. Ms. Kathleen Livermore, City Staff, talked about the ground floor accessibility for the additional 24 units in the development, and commented that If kitchens are added downstairs, a parking space per unit will need to be omitted. Board member Alvarez-Morroni stated aging in place suggests all living space at the gr… | PlanningBoard/2014-05-27.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-18 | 9 | which probably would not be feasible South San Francisco and Berkeley are new ferry services. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether existing service is a focus of the WTA. Mr. Castleberry responded the WTA does not have any authority over Alameda services; the WTA's only legislative mandate is on new services. Councilmember deHaan stated there are benefits and disadvantages in being first with a new service; inquired whether schedules are the WTA's forte. Mr. Castleberry responded the WTA looks at schedules as low fruit; schedules can be done at a fairly low cost to make the mode better for the riders. Councilmember deHaan stated he appreciates the WTA's efforts to help market the City's ferry services i inquired whether the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) would always be a player for the WTA's funding stream. Mr. Castleberry responded MTC administers Regional Measure 2 funds MTC would touch 90% of the WTA's operating funds. Councilmember deHaan inquired how the WTA would be better at working with MTC for farebox relief. Mr. Castleberry responded MTC reviews and evaluates services separately; MTC does not evaluate bus companies on a route-by-route basis; the WTA believes marketing is not just for one route, but for both. Councilmember deHaan stated he thinks the City could do the same thing as the WTA. Mr. Castleberry stated that the WTA would put all resources in the farebox relief because the farebox ratio is unfair. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she thinks that staff does a wonderful job of running the ferry services; she needs incentives from the WTA, such as having more access to funds and having the opportunity to improve the ferry services, before considering turning the ferry service over; she does not see any reason to turn the ferry service over to the WTA; inquired whether route timing would be systemized; stated that she is interested in having ferry connections to buses and trains for the South San Francisco and Redwood City ferry Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 July 18, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2008-03-04 | 6 | which led to excessive bank erosion; the award of a contract had to be suspended until a Council meeting could be held; further erosion occurred; the intent of the proposed revision is to mitigate a similar situation. Vice Mayor Tam inquired what was the cost [to repair the erosion]. The Public Works Director responded $150,000 at the time and approximately $300,000 to $350,000 later. Councilmember Matarrese stated a twenty-four hour notice is needed for an emergency Council Meeting; someone could start the work for $75,000 and then a Council meeting could be called to get approval. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the sub-committee has requested the City Attorney's office to reference the definition of what constitutes an emergency which is taken directly from State law. Mayor Johnson inquired when an emergency would end; stated normal requirements could be in place after a certain number of days of the expenditure. The City Manager stated the City Attorney could review restrictions in terms of number of days or require that the matter come back for Council confirmation by the next regular Council meeting. Mayor Johnson stated that defining when an emergency ends is necessary. Councilmember Matarrese stated inserting language to have the matter come back for Council confirmation is a good idea; a quorum may not be available; the intent is to be able to address a catastrophe. Councilmember deHaan stated the City Manager has authorization up to $75,000; inquired whether past emergencies have warranted a City Manager to make decisions immediately. The Public Works Director responded there have been numerous sewer backups; stated the situation at Washington Park was just under $75,000, but could have been more if the large Palm tree was lost. Councilmember deHaan stated things could change ten years from now; the $75,000 threshold has been in place for many years; the numeric value does not have a lot of value. Mayor Johnson stated that the dollar amount should be set by ordinance, not the Charter. Regular Meeting Alameda… | CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2012-07-17 | 5 | which is where ABAG becomes involved; ABAG is the regional governing entity for the Bay Area; ABAG works with all the cities to allocate the units among the various cities; Alameda is no different than any every other city; all cities are concerned about traffic and have difficulty accommodating more housing; ABAG comes up with formulas on how to distribute units; the formula is very complicated and takes into account regional policies such as reducing greenhouse gases, preserving farmland, and access to transit; ABGA gave Alameda just under 2,100 units; the Housing Element was written for said number; the State sent Alameda a letter in 2009 indicating the City failed in the last round and received a penalty, which added 374 units. Councilmember Johnson stated Alameda previously appealed an ABAG number and won at the ABAG level, but ultimately lost at the State level. In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding challenging the number, the Planning Services Manager stated the City has not done so since 2006; challenges are very difficult; some other city has to accept the units if ABAG takes the housing units away from Alameda; ABAG has to allocate all units and cannot tell the State the number is too high. Discussed legal options under State and environmental law: Ken Peterson, Alameda. Discussed complicated language and public noticing of the Housing Element; and protecting Measure A: Mary Anderson, Alameda. Following Ms. Anderson's comments, the City Attorney explained the State's authority over housing; stated the government has a hierarchy with most power at the federal level, then, the State, then, local levels; California has Charter cities and general law cities; general law cities are created pursuant to statute and can only do what the legislature authorizes; Charter cities have more power; the State constitution allows for Charter cities as long as matters in the Charter are of municipal interest; for matters of Statewide interest, the State preempts the Charter; regarding the Housing Elemen… | CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2017-10-17 | 4 | which is the City Attorney's recommendation; having an open process allowing everyone to apply and be considered is good; there should be time to allow the investigation to occur. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (17-603) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action) (17-604) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code § 54957; Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Jill Keimach; City Attorney - Janet Kern; and City Clerk - Lara Weisiger Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding Litigation relating to allegations made in City Manager Jill Keimach's October 2, 2017 letter to the City Council, which did not identify the Mayor or any individual City Councilmembers as being accused of potential wrong doing, the City Council unanimously voted to follow the City Attorney's advice to cause an independent investigation of allegations arising out of the October 2nd letter from the City Manager; and regarding Performance Evaluation, the City Council voted unanimously to follow the City Attorney's advice to postpone all three performance evaluations and that at the next convening of the closed session, agendize assistance that may be needed to continue the evaluations. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2016-01-05 | 14 | which is one way of confirming the range of 4-8%; the CPI is an important number which speaks to the 8% threshold; all data points confirm Alameda is on the right track with the 8% range; Alameda is dealing with lasting effects of income inequality; he does not think it is fair to increase rents 8% every year; a cumulative rent increase of not more than 12% over 2 years is a better approach; certain policy remedies could be triggered with the cumulative method; mom and pop landlords play by the rules and their needs should be addressed; there is a role for government to regulate when excesses occur in the free market; the Council's role is to fit solutions to problems; that he favors Ordinance 1 modified, including: 1) there should be just cause for landlords who play by the rules, 2) small mom and pop landlords should be exempt from Ordinance 1, 3) relocation assistance should be offered for tenants who cannot afford the rent increase; 4) he would like to combine proposed Ordinance 1 with Alternative Option 1 to include binding arbitration, and 5) rent increases should be dealt on a cumulative basis. Councilmember Oddie stated the matter is serious and will impact many people no matter what Council chooses to do; Option 1 does not provide tenants with additional protectio, it just shifts the burden onto the landlord to file a request for a rent increase; if the landlord is intent on raising the rent, Option 1 is non-binding; Option 3 has the most tenant protection and limits evictions based on certain causes, which is a protection that does not exist today; Option 2 is the most fair to everyone; Option 2 provides a binding mechanism if an increase is over a certain number; he does not believe every single rent increase will be 8% every year; there needs to be a provision to collect data; returning in a year to compare and fix problems would be helpful; he would like Option 2 changed; the 50% exception for non-just cause evictions should be lowered to 25% as clever landlords will use the loophole; disincentives c… | CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2015-11-18 | 2 | which is in the northern waterfront area and a new development will be built in the area. She said last week she went to an AC Transit hearing and summarized the need for restoration of the Line 19. 4. Consent Calendar 4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27, 2015 Commissioner Schatmeier stated he had a change to Item 5b discussion of the Central Avenue Complete Streets proposal. He said that the minutes state Webster Street and Central Avenue eastbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large amount of vehicles turning right onto Webster Street. He explained that he meant to say was westbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large number of vehicles turning right onto Webster Street and he was concerned about how that would be treated. 4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - July 22, 2015 Commissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes of May 27, 2015 with the corrections provided by Commissioner Schatmeier and approve the minutes of July 22, 2015. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. 5. New Business 5.A. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans Staff Patel presented the quarterly report and introduced Rochelle Wheeler, Alameda Public Works, to present an update on the Cross Alameda Trail. 5.B. Recommend City Council Approval of the Central Avenue Concept Including Safety and Other Street Improvements Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, presented the report and introduced Staff Payne to discuss the public outreach, staff recommendations and next steps. Jennifer Ott also presented Jean Finney, Deputy District Director of Caltrans District 4, who spoke at the end of the presentation. Commissioner Vargas said having worked with Caltrans there are design manuals and guidelines and there are design exceptions for similar facilities that Caltrans has granted with lane widths of 10.5 feet. Jean Finney replied yes and the standard width for this type of roadway is 1… | TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2021-06-01 | 16 | which has not yet been analyzed, she would like to include all recommendations made. The City Attorney stated the prior recommendation from the OGC of 2020, was brought to the OGC of 2021. Vice Mayor Vella inquired what would occur in the interim, to which the City Attorney responded if Council does not adopt the proposed ordinance, staff would operate in status quo. Councilmember Daysog stated that he believes the Sunshine Ordinance and OGC have been one of the most important legislations to come out of City Hall; outlined those who spearheaded the legislation; previously meeting materials were delivered the Thursday prior to the Tuesday meeting; the Sunshine Ordinance assures the public is served by understanding how City Hall can operate in a transparent manner; the goal is to put reasonable rules in place to allow for meaningful community input; he is not convinced the OGC process is broken; there have been 17 OGC complaints since 2013; three of the complaints have been in 2021 alone; of the 17 complaints, the OGC has made a determination on seven with the remaining 10 being withdrawn; there does not appear to be an inundation of work requiring Council to transfer the OGC responsibilities to a Hearing Officer; expressed support for staff's analysis of a Hearing Officer being required; stated staff is making a professional judgement; he is satisfied with the current status of the OGC; the structure of OGC meetings is a separate issue; there is a balance between an imperfect process, which is citizen-led and slower, and a faster, more accurate process which is led by City staff; expressed support for the citizen-led process; stated people can raise issues regarding government transparency through the OGC, which is not just a court of appeals; the OGC is a place where residents' issues can be tried by peers within the OGC; the City should keep what it currently has; if the OGC is improved, the improvement should be at the margins. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was not on the Council when the deci… | CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf,15 | CityCouncil | 2017-04-18 | 15 | which did not communicate; inquired how Alameda would make sure relevant departments could communicate with each other. The Fire Chief responded the Fire Department is cross referencing with other departments to make sure nothing is missed; staff is reviewing all business licenses to make sure inspections are done, and assigning inspection dates so none are missed; the Building Department uses the same program for tracking permits; if an issue arises, the Fire Department will be alerted and can get involved. In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated the two agencies using non-sworn staff as Fire Inspectors are Oakland and Fremont. In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated the City has a non-sworn Code Compliance Officer and Fire Inspections are done by fire companies. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether adding two Fire Inspector positions is enough to get through the back log, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated having two inspectors and an additional Fire Captain would help the Code Compliance Officer do follow-up; he is concerned about not having a full-time Fire Marshall; he will come back to Council after the end of the Community Paramedic program to make a request for a management position. Vice Mayor Vella inquired how much Alameda receives in Ground Emergency Medical Transportation (GEMT) funds, to which the Fire Chief responded $275,000 per year on average; he expects to continue to ask for reimbursements. Councilmember Oddie inquired what does the City lose as a community by not having a full time Fire Marshall, to which the Fire Chief responded the City loses the management aspect; there is no one to explain policy and give direction; the position is important enough that it should be stand alone; a lot of technical information comes from the position; the City would be missing out on regional meetings a Fire Marshall would attend to be informed of fire prevention and new codes. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether not ha… | CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf,15 | CityCouncil | 2016-10-18 | 15 | which Mr. Vlaming responded it depends on the type of work being done. Mayor Spencer stated the Council negotiates contracts with employees that work for the City and determines benefits; inquired who determines the relevant union master labor agreement; inquired whether the City is relinquishing input on what employees are getting paid. Mr. Vlaming responded in the negative; stated the projects are covered by prevailing wage rate determinations; there are different classifications for different types of construction work; the affiliate unions and their applicable local master agreements are the agreements negotiated between the affiliate union and the traditional bargaining party. Mayor Spencer stated the PSA does not require the workers to be union workers; inquired whether the City gets input into the union master labor agreement or could the worker receive better benefits than City employees. Mr. Vlaming responded the agreement does not require employees to become a union member but employees do have to be dispatched by particular union; the benefits would be under the particular labor union agreement; the employees under a particular contract are entitled to the prevailing wage and benefits specified under the particular contract; the relationship to City employee's benefits are very different. Mayor Spencer inquired how non-union workers get jobs. Mr. Vlaming responded anyone can use the union referral procedures; stated the contractors are responsible for hiring; the contractor goes to the applicable union hall and requests workers. Mayor Spencer inquired if a worker is not in the union where would the worker be placed on the list. Mr. Vlaming responded when a worker signs up and pays the association fees, they do not have to become a member; the list is in chronological order. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City has input in the union master labor agreement; inquired who negotiates the agreements with the union. Mr. Vlaming responded the negotiation is with an employer association, which is a group of… | CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf,24 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-15 | 24 | which Mr. Ratto and Ms. Moehring responded in the negative. Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Chair Johnson stated that a requirement should be added regarding spending a certain percentage of grant funding on marketing and promotion. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion with inclusion of a policy for promotion and evaluation for GABA [in addition to PSBA and WABA; stated the issue is a policy decision; a return is needed if the City invests approximately $225,000 in tax dollars; the return can be predicated on 50% of grant funding going to promotion; evaluations need to be performed. Commissioner Gilmore stated the measurement [of success) would be difficult for GABA because GABA is spread across the City. Chair Johnson stated customer surveys could be performed. Commissioner Matarrese stated business license fees are calculated on gross; increased performance could be reviewed. Councilmember deHaan concurred that an evaluation needs to be performed. Commissioner Tam stated sales tax revenue has been flat for many years; a better measurement would be the return to the City; business districts take care of the street maintenance and advertising, which the City cannot do; she does not want measurement tied directly to producing a business tax increment. Commissioner Matarrese stated that business license tax and sales tax revenues are a bottom line measurement. Commissioner Tam clarified that the motion is to fund recommended levels to all three business districts; inquired what would be the threshold for advertising and promotion. Chair Johnson responded 50%; stated GABA can advise how their success would be measured. Commissioner Gilmore stated GABA is different from PSBA and WABA ; PSBA and WABA are spending an incredible amount of money on advertising; GABA has never spent 50% of grant funding on advertising. Eric Kos, GABA President, stated that he has been GABA President Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 5 July 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2012-01-09 | 7 | whether there was additional analysis conducted in order to know if the Target store would reduce every grocery stores' base operations such as reducing store hours or the number of employees. Mr. Thomas replied that Amy Herman would be able to explain more about the urban decay analysis. The objective of the analysis was to see if stores in the City would close due to the construction of Alameda Landing's retail center and the conclusion was no. Amy Herman. ALH Urban and Regional Economics and author of the Alameda Landing Urban Decay Analysis, explained that Mr. Thomas gave a good summary of the findings. The report's findings indicated a low impact level of impact that was not severe enough to cause stores to close and some stores show an over performance to industry averages. Furthermore, the standard of decay is the closure of a store for a long enough period of time to which conditions of decay (blight) would start to materialize. Board member Kohlstrand referred to the staff report on page 7 (indicated by red arrows) and attachment 1. She wanted assurance that the buildings fronting 5th Street, which showed according to the cross section a wide sidewalk between the two buildings and between 5th Street does not have cars parked in that area. Mr. Thomas replied that parking is not intended for that area, but the markings may show a form of public art or other demarcation of the sidewalk leading people up to the water. Board member Kohlstrand referred to the staff report on page 6b, section C to the upper left hand side. She wanted to know if the bike lane is really inside the sidewalk. Mr. Thomas stated the illustration contained a typo and the sidewalk and bike lane were mislabeled. President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 4, Buildings D and H and exclaimed that either side of the passage way did not have bicycle parking. Mr. Thomas replied that staff could create a condition to include visitor bicycle racks for Buildings D and H. Mr. Whiskeman was willing to include bicycle racks near Buildings D and H and… | PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2010-11-16 | 11 | whether there is a way to ensure adequate funding to review impacts if said situations occur; further inquired whether the School District has been consulted throughout the process. The Transportation Coordinator responded staff has been working with the School District on developing Safe Routes to School maps; stated routes have been identified and are updated on an on-going basis. Councilmember Tam stated students are encouraged to use bicycles; students would travel longer distances to mega schools; students might be dropped off which would result in conflict between vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians; inquired whether the issue could be accommodated in the Bicycle Plan, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the beach has bike racks; stated in 1999, she was assured that the beach had bike racks; that she has not seen any. The Transportation Coordinator responded that he is not aware of any. Mayor Johnson stated bike racks are needed at the beach. *** Councilmember Tam left the dais at 10:45 p.m. and returned at 10:48 p.m. * * The Public Works Director stated bike racks are budgeted in this year's Capital Improvement Project fund. Vice Mayor deHaan stated improvements have been made over the years; inquired how improvements could be captured. The Transportation Coordinator responded the Bicycle Master Plan has a table that summarizes completed projects over the last ten years. Speaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda. The Public Works Director stated staff has been working on concerns, which are addressed in the handout submitted by the Transportation Coordinator. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the proposed bicycle/pedestrian bridge is possible, but not likely; stated that he does not believe anyone would give the City $60 million or provide an operator to open and close the bridge; the City can spend a fraction of the amount and have more bikes cross the estuary; a land-side shuttle is the cheapest, most realistic, and efficient method. The Tran… | CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2018-07-24 | 11 | whether the work been reviewed, Mr. Slack stated a RCT would be responsible for collecting electronic data in the field or doing field sampling; the activities at Hunters Point were a group, team effort covering each other; operations were not independent; the employee would not have had an impact [in Alameda]; data was being gathered to characterize, not clear sites; the areas have several feet of clean soil on top of the site; even if the employee collected data, the site was never cleared and still has institutional controls. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether someone checked the work back then, to which Mr. Slack responded a deep analysis was done to determine where the employee did the work; the conclusion was drawn that the work done did not have an impact on anything that was cleared. Stated the presentation is disturbing; read from a July 2001 Bay Guardian article; expressed concern over the Fleet Industrial Supply Center annex having a drum of depleted uranium ballast overflowing, everything TetraTech did before 2002 being unreliable, and Shinsei Gardens: Anonymous Speaker, Alameda. Expressed concern about a new nuclear research and development company on the former Base; stated the Navy should admit it cannot clean the site: Robert Todd, Alameda. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Shinsei Gardens, the Acting Assistant City Manager stated environmental work was done in the area, which has protections and engineering controls; the land has been through the regulatory process and is safe for residents. Mayor Spencer inquired whether or not regulations allow digging, to which the Acting Assistant City Manager responded that she does now know. The Acting City Manager stated staff would review the matter. Mr. Megliola stated that he would be happy to provide details; his recollection is indoor air testing was done and a sub-slab depressurization system was installed to ensure safety. Mayor Spencer requested the information be shared with the public; stated the City is not leasing to the nuclea… | CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 13 | whether the tenants have to work in Building 8 or if they would be allowed to work in the City. Ms. Kahn responded that a business license goes with the address and cannot be carried to another address. Stated the project will benefit the Alameda Point; the developers will be putting $8 million into the building before the lights can even be turned on; selling the building is the best option for the City; the tenants would like to give back to the community with apprenticeships and internships for youth: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce. Stated Building 8 is an adaptable building; he has worked on many large buildings like Building 8 and it takes a while to rehabilitate the large buildings: Dick Rutter, Alameda. Stated that she is a banker and the option to purchase makes sense from a finance standpoint; it is creating jobs, which creates an economic engine for the City and tax revenues; urged Council to approve the project: Kari Thompson, Chamber of Commerce. Stated Epic Middle School is a stem school; all the students take engineering design and fabrication; there is a need for space in Alameda for students to work with skilled craftsmen as they prepare themselves for the workforce; read a letter from Florine Roper urging Council to support the project: Francis Abbatatatuono, Epic Middle School. Stated that he leases a space from Mr. Hendrickson why he transformed and cleaned up a once dilapidated building; Mr. Hendrickson will apply the same dedication to his work and tenants for the adaptive reuse of Building 8: Brandon Canchola, Treasure Island Woodworks. Read different statements from tenants and community members of Berkeley regarding the Berkeley Kitchen Project; urged Council to support the project; stated Mr. Hendrickson will apply the same vision at Alameda Point: Adan Martinez, City of Berkeley, Economic Development Manager. Stated that he works on behalf of landlords and tenants; he supports the project because warehouse and manufacturing space is needed; velocity and demand are present in the … | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf,19 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-20 | 19 | whether the $1.6 million Vehicle Replacement Program is a substantial increase from the past. The Finance Director responded the vehicle replacement amount has been $150,000 to $200,000 in the past, except for the years when an ambulance was replaced. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated vehicle replacement was neglected because of budget constraints; inquired whether catch-up could be done during the next fiscal year. The Finance Director responded an equipment replacement reserve is part of the General Fund budget; vehicles that should have been replaced were set aside in favor of keeping public safety vehicles current. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether vehicles would be replaced with alternative fuel vehicles, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Alameda Power and Telecom is investigating natural gas for three vehicles. The Public Works Director stated Council authorized the City Manager to submit an application for four electric vehicles which would replace three existing vehicles on the vehicle replacement listi a recommendation was made to have an all electric vehicle for the Information Technology Department also. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated vehicles should be replaced with vehicles that are appropriate for the use. The City Manager/Executive Director stated having a Managed Vehicle Replacement Program is advantageous. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the 2006-2007 Capital Improvement Program included anything for parks. The City Manager/Executive Director responded three parks were budgeted in 2005-2006; stated the parks will be improved in the current fiscal year the Turf Management Program will help determine where funds will be applied. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 5 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 20, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2016-12-08.pdf,2 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2016-12-08 | 2 | whether more homeless would come to Alameda because we build a reputation of having good programs. Vice Chair Delaney also asked if the City Council requested any other measurements at the December 6th meeting. Director Wooldridge said yes, the staff is requested to bring back a status report every 6 months to the City Council. Vice Chair Delaney applauded Director Wooldridge's efforts for taking on this large project. Commissioner Limoges said it seems like a modest investment right now but if the issue isn't managed then it could become a larger problem, especially as resources become stretched. Overall it is good that the City is taking on the homeless issue. He expressed concern about the homeless that are sleeping every night at Crown Beach. Director Wooldridge said that she would let Operation Dignity know so they could also post flyers at Crown Beach to let the homeless know where to get help. Commissioner Limoges inquired if there was to be a decision to put a sanctioned tent city on the old camp ground at Alameda Point, who would make that decision. Director Wooldridge said that would need to be a policy decision by the City Council. REPORTS A. Recreation Commission Reports Vice Chair Delaney attended the City Council meeting on December 6th where they gave recognition to Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District long time board member representing the City of Alameda. Mr. Delaney said he was one of the most dedicated individuals he knew and it was a very rewarding evening. Vice Chair Delaney also attended the Woodstock Park neighborhood meeting on December 1st. He said there were many wonderful people who were happy about the Woodstock Park design and he commended Recreation Services Specialist Dennis McDaniels for doing a good job. The Alameda Rotary Club donated $30,000 to the playground renovation project at Woodstock Park. Commissioner Limoges attended the retirement event for Director Doug Siden at the Dunsmuir estate and was astonished about the 60 years of dedication and service of the two reti… | RecreationandParkCommission/2016-12-08.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-07-14.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2020-07-14 | 13 | whether members are amenable to the meeting ending at 12:00 a.m. Councilmember Vella responded that she is ok with the midnight stop time. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the meeting going until midnight and no later; the rules of order referral and Stopwaste brief should be continued to the July 21, 2020 meeting. The City Attorney stated the Council must set a date and time specific to continue the items. The City Clerk stated a 7:02 p.m. start time is available; should the items not be heard, the items will push to a September meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the rules of order item may be continued to September. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of hearing the evaluation after the current matter discussion and ending by 12:00 a.m., with the remaining items being continued to a future meeting [July 21, 2020 at 7:02 p.m.]. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is no doubt in declaring racism as a public health emergency; the matter is important and necessary; expressed concern about the timing; stated there are many topics covered in the declaration; many of the topics were delegated to a steering committee on June 29th; the unbundling services, review of Police Department policies and practices, Police Department accountability and oversight and addressing systemic and community racism and anti-racism topics originated from a proposal created by Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember Vella; the steering committee proposal will be heard on July 21st; if adopted by Council, will be community-led and centered on Black voices; the steering committee has met twice; questioned whether Council should limit to the scope of community members' input or if Council should listen to input from those that understand the experience of being Black in America; stated the declaration can be made fuller and more complete; … | CityCouncil/2020-07-14.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 12 | whether leasing or purchasing the land; the work being done now on the EIR and zoning will make the property more valuable when the City goes to market; time and entitlement risk will be off of the table; doing the EIR and zoning first was part of the City's strategy; most cities have raw land and do an RFP to figure out what to build, which is a beauty pageant; then developers sharpen their pencils to provide real numbers and cities are stuck because the community feels things were promised in the RFP process; the City is not being vague and is clear about the general uses; staff wanted to present a modest approach which recognizes the City cannot predict where markets will be in 15 or even 10 years; the document creates many different envelopes and scopes to allow the City to respond to market signals and proceed with projects which will financially benefit Alameda. President Burton stated one concern is how infrastructure will reach sites; the City Manager has indicated the City will finance and install trunk lines and developers will pay for individual super pad infrastructure; inquired whether a mechanism would require developers to contribute a fair share of trunk lines costs so that the City could recoup at least some of the costs. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the mechanism will happen in many different ways, such as through lease payments or land sale costs; businesses will have to pay for backbone infrastructure maintenance going forward; the State does not currently have Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs); community benefit districts options were discussed in the MIP; the Governor vetoed IFDs for this year; however, the Governor is likely to sign something next year; Alameda and Concord attempted to get some type of financial mechanism together to deal with the infrastructure at both bases; staff is reaching out to other cities with similar issues and is hopeful some financing mechanism will be approved next year. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether staff is analyzing how much… | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-05-05.pdf,26 | CityCouncil | 2020-05-05 | 26 | whether a grant program can be opened for those in the three highest language categories; stated the outreach will be very useful; the grant application process does not work when applicants are submitting via Microsoft Edge; expressed support for adding language stating: "please do not use Microsoft Edge;" stated the response to the program has been tremendous. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the deadline is May 7th, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the City could work with a gofundme.com campaign; inquired whether the City should put money into WABA's gofundme.com campaign. Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the negative; stated there is interest in starting an Alameda Business gofundme.com campaign; should the City promote the campaign, with a list of 190 possible applicants, the following businesses would be considered to receive funding after the grant fund cutoff; noted little staff time would be used; stated work and fundraising would be from the private sector. Councilmember Vella expressed concern about changing the criteria; expressed support for changing the criteria if a second round of applications are done, prioritizing businesses that have taken a harder hit in the potential second round, and conducting a lottery; noted many financial issues for businesses are related to cash flow; expressed support for the City loaning money to the program, and pursuing public/private funds, which look at grants, non-profits and different donors; stated a gofundme.com campaign would be appropriate; she would like to consult with the City Attorney's office to further understand the legality of collecting and administering funds; expressed support for promoting the opportunity on social media and websites; noted individual gofundme.com campaigns have been successful; stated that she would like to get to businesses that may not have the same social media following as others; expressed support for looking at businesses with multiple locatio… | CityCouncil/2020-05-05.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-11-14 | 6 | whereas the code applies to expansions of existing buildings within a certain time period. Mr. Knowles noted the credit was not generated by the 25% rule, but by the loss of space. Mr. Tai concurred. President Cunningham inquired where the $26.00 per sq. ft. and the 250 multiplier originated. Mr. Tai responded that it derived from averaging real estate transactions over a period of time and was prepared by the Development Services Department. He noted the rate of $26.00 was looking at transactions that occurred after 2003, but staff was recently told this figure may increase significantly prices and transactions of real estate are looked at in recent times. President Cunningham inquired where the 250 multiplier derived from. Mr. Tai responded that it is a flat figure that is embedded in the code requirement and noted that it is the area of land required for each parking space. Board member Kohlstrand inquired if the color palette for the building would be the same as the other building. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. He noted that the building would look almost identical with the exception of the parapet at the top. President Cunningham inquired if Public Works had any comments on the layout of the parking since it is one directional. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. President Cunningham inquired if this is in keeping with trash collecting since it was a previous concern on this parcel. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. President Cunningham noted he was concerned about granting this Variance, as it would compound the problem. He noted the residents stated there was no parking downtown and the whole idea of having in-lieu fees was to help the city pay for a parking structure. He noted if the City is not collecting revenue, this would encumber the City more. He also noted it would put the goal of building a parking structure further away from being achieved. Board member McNamara noted the issue she is having is if the intent of having the in-lieu fee available is to look for either a replacement or… | PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-04-16.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2015-04-16 | 3 | where Bayport Municipal Services District funds are going. Mayor Spencer inquired whether information on staff vacancies could be presented by each department, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Regarding the General Fund expenditures by department, Vice Mayor Matarrese requested staff to provide an explanation of the difference in the increase between the Police and Fire budgets at a future meeting. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to see a historical perspective from 5, 10 and 15 years ago of the percentage for each department to show if the percentages have stayed the same or if some departments have grown and others are shrinking over time; that she would like to see the percentage for Recreation and Parks. The Assistant City Manager stated staff would attempt to do so; noted Recreation and Parks was taken out of the General Fund to better account for programs, so it will be difficult. Mayor Spencer noted she is also interested in the percentage for Police and Fire. Councilmember Daysog requested that the General Fund proposed expenditures by department FY 2015-16 pie chart be reviewed; stated that he is having a hard time reconciling the numbers; the ratios are different in staff report Exhibit 1. Regarding the PERS rates, Councilmember Oddie requested staff to provide a comparison to other cities. Vice Mayor Matarrese requested a chart showing the difference between the pay as you go and the amount if the MOUs are approved. Regarding the three new positions, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like to see alternatives; that he will not vote for a budget which increases positions, which includes a PERS burden; the private sector uses contract organizations for Information Technology (IT); he would like alternatives which do not involve hiring someone. The Assistant City Manager stated that she is not sure a comprehensive analysis can be finished by budget completion. Councilmember Daysog stated staff would have to make a strong case for the positions; provided an … | CityCouncil/2015-04-16.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf,9 | TransportationCommission | 2013-09-30 | 9 | when the project was approved and essentially the City had no real transit strategy for that project. He said since then every residential project approved has some form of a TDM program and the key is paying for transit. He said it is handled in a number of different ways such as having shuttles or buying Easy Passes from AC Transit in perpetuity. Moreover, the City requires that the Home Owner Association (HOA) cannot vote the TDM policy out. He explained based on the long-term strategy for the west end that Alameda Landing would go first. They have to setup a Transportation Management Association (TMA) and Target is paying annually towards public transit services. He went on to say that eventually it might make sense for Alameda Landing and Alameda Point to merge as one TMA. Also, he said part of the strategy is to insert businesses and HOA members into the TMA board and they can adjust the program as necessary. Essentially, they are building a citywide TDM through each project that they approve. Regarding parking around businesses, he felt as a community, we could decide to adjust because business parks at Alameda Point have to pay for parking, whereas older developments do not. Jennifer Ott stated that there are examples of area TDM plans such as Stanford University and Bay Meadows and Joe Daisa could provide more examples. Staff Payne explained that the City has a preliminary TDM/TSM plan in place and the City has an abundant supply of free parking making it difficult to implement the measures. Boardmember Köster asked how much population is needed to support a true TDM plan. Jim Daisa replied there is not a rule of thumb because the program would be tailored towards the population. However, the employment is just as important as the residents. He said Jon Spangler made a good point on how high density residential attracts self-selective people who want to move towards public transit services. Boardmember Köster asked who is responsible for educating the public about the transit services. Jim Daisa replied … | TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf,17 | CityCouncil | 2017-07-05 | 17 | when the infrastructure is complete. The Base Reuse Director responded the money is credited when the developer finishes 50% of the infrastructure. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City would not receive new money; and whether money would be paid early and credited when the infrastructure is done. The Base Reuse Director responded $150,000 pays for the City's transaction costs. Mayor Spencer stated the money is to offset costs that the City is bearing. Vice Mayor Vella inquired what are the cost and timing of the infrastructure. The Base Reuse Director responded the cost is approximately $43 million for infrastructure; the total cost for Phase 1 is $80 million; the timing is the developer has to start construction on infrastructure within 30 days of close. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there are any infrastructure costs that the City will be responsible for in the event that the project does not go through. The Base Reuse responded in the negative; stated there are performance bonds if the developer defaults. Mayor Spencer inquired if the performance bonds are per phase. The Base Reuse responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Phase 1 and Phase 2 could be built with the 800 units of housing and there is no guarantee Phase 3 would be built. The Base Reuse responded in the affirmative; stated the developer could not meet the requirements for Phase 3; continued the presentation. Mayor Spencer inquired if Phase 3 is not built, how would the City receive the $4 million. The Base Reuse responded if the developer defaults on Phase 3, the City will not receive the infrastructure. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City could lose 80% of the money under the new proposal. The Base Reuse responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation. Mayor Spencer inquired what is the total number of market rate housing units for Phase Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 July 5, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf,19 | CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 19 | when staff comes back with issues discussed tonight, Council should discuss the pros and cons of having more housing on the water and embedded in that discussion is the overall number of housing units which will be initially constructed; the issues dovetail because deciding to have more housing on the water raises the question of whether to spread units over more areas. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (13-427) The Assistant City Manager presented the results from a survey for naming options for Alameda Point; stated the community favored Seaplane Village and Seaplane Lagoon. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 19 Planning Board September 25, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-14 | 12 | when he and his fellow board members joined this board they swore an oath to protect the City Charter as much as he had issues with Article 26. Board Member Rothenberg asked about the legal bindings of the resolution with and without the references to Article 26 suggested by President Teague to be struck. President Teague said it would be a different message altogether and once it went to City Council they would have more room to work in. He added that this was just a recommendation and he believed that with the proposed edits the resolution had a better chance of being approved by the City Council. Board Member Cisneros summarized her understanding of the intent of the original wording and noted that keeping the language would bring the issue of Article 26 to the forefront. President Teague and Board Member Hom exchanged comments on the suggested wording. Board Member Hom asked how important it was to mention Article 26 in the resolution. Director Thomas explained that this is ultimately the Planning Board's resolution and understood that how the board was conflicted with the issue. President Teague made a motion to approve the Draft Resolution to the City Council with the following modifications. In the title remove everything after "and finds that the City Charter", also strike everything in the "therefore" paragraph, and in the "be it" paragraph strike the word "further". Then in the 2nd bullet add the wording "contrary to the City Charter Article 26 as necessary to comply with State Law". Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0 with Vice President Saheba and Board Member Curtis absent and Board Member Ruiz abstained. 7-C 2021-1018 Public Hearing to Receive Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update. President Teague opened public comments. There were no public comments. President Teague closed public comments and opened the board's discussion. Board Member Ruiz asked if only one of the two volumes were available for … | PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf |
CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2018-06-05 | 21 | whatever necessary to create a robust, full and complete rent registry discussed tonight and modify the fee study next year, if something is brought back and implemented. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the motion includes the survey; inquired what is meant by robust. Councilmember Oddie responded that it means a complete inventory of every rental property and the rents in the City, which both the landlords and tenants are requesting. The Acting City Manager inquired whether the rent registry would track increases in rent and evictions, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative; stated the registry is the only way to get a true picture of how many people are getting rent increases and by what percent. The Community Development Director stated changes would be measured on an annual basis to provide a comparison of the status of individual units. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the registry would be public and anyone could look up rent history by address. Councilmember Oddie responded legal staff would have to tell Council. The Assistant City Attorney stated the ordinance would have to be modified to require the landlord register the unit; there would have to be a Request for Proposals for a vendor; the ordinance requirement could possibly include provisions about confidentiality; options would be provided. The City Attorney stated the matter would not return to Council before November when a decision is made about putting the rent provisions in the Charter. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated a Charter initiative will be on the November ballot, which was done by landlords, and puts the rent stabilization ordinance in the Charter; if it passes, the Council could not make amendments and a vote of the people would be required; an amendment to the ordinance would not be brought back until after the election in November. Councilmember Oddie stated the work would still be the same; either the Council could change it or propose changes to go forward at an election. The Community… | CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2019-03-05.pdf,19 | CityCouncil | 2019-03-05 | 19 | what to expect. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there will be 15 minutes of public comment at the beginning. Councilmember Vella stated there will not be specifically agendized talking points, it will be free-form discussion about general priorities; discussed a previous workshop. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the previous budget workshop; stated the upcoming priority setting workshop is not similar; it is a good time to hold a workshop. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he is glad the meeting will be recorded; expressed support of discussing how Council would like to work together; outlined previous Council functions; stated that he would like to spend time discussing how this Council would like to work together as a body, how to work with staff, and how to work with Boards and Commissions; discussed setting the agenda and ensuring the agenda translates well to readers; stated that he would like the workshop to focus on team building. Councilmember Vella expressed concern related to the magnitude of the one-day workshop; inquired if there is an opportunity for Council to hold another workshop to follow-up. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the facilitators are highly recommended; stated there is a lot to discuss in one day; facilitators are able to efficiently manage conversations; another workshop is possible, if Council feels there is a need; discussed previous workshop difficulties. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is excited about the workshop; collaboration is a two-way street; workshops should be held every year; staff needs guidance from Council priorities. Councilmember Daysog stated this is an opportunity to discuss high-level qualitative and quantitative concerns; outlined his issue of strengthening public trust and how to relay that topic to Council. Vice Mayor Knox White suggested Council consider holding a half-day workshop quarterly or every 6 months; stated that he would like to ensure next steps are captured at the upcoming workshop. Councilmember Vella expressed support. Councilmember Oddie expressed g… | CityCouncil/2019-03-05.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf,15 | TransportationCommission | 2015-11-18 | 15 | what studies are needed and he wanted to hear from Staff Patel about his perspective on some of the technical issues that are involved. Jennifer Ott replied that they hired Kittelson and Associates who performed the traffic analysis. So, Staff Patel could talk about what Caltrans might inquire about, but she would like Kittelson and Associates to talk about what analysis was performed. Commissioner Vargas stated that Caltrans was looking for additional traffic studies in order to grant the City design exceptions. He explained they only cover the part between Webster and Sherman Streets, which is a state route, and the rest does not need approval but falls on the City. However, for continuity sake he asked staff to talk about the studies Caltrans is inquiring about and the studies that have been done so far, including what are the challenges this project has from an engineer's perspective. Staff Patel replied since this project is only a study they have not done detailed traffic operation analysis. However, from Caltrans' or the City's standpoint staff is conducting analysis on each and every traffic signal along the route and the proposed signals along the route. Yet, that level of detail Kittelson and Associates may have done as an overview. He explained that design exceptions usually go to the headquarters, which is why staff ended up having this route under the City because they were asking for a standard shoulder width and the City did not have the standard width. Commissioner Miley asked staff if the traffic and operational analysis include a review of shifts in vehicle traffic or only show the Central Avenue traffic or also movements to other streets. Staff Patel replied that staff would look into the shifts in vehicle traffic. Commissioner Miley asked staff when the plan would go over to engineering for detail design. Staff Patel replied staff reviewed the conceptual plan and made comments, but the plan is turned over to engineering for detail design when the final plan is approved by the Transportation Co… | TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2010-01-06 | 11 | what is the assessment of capital needs. Mr. Vest responded the south property has a lot of capital needs, such as irrigation and the pump station; stated 80% of the greens need to be redone; the driving range needs to be re-covered; tree work is needed. Mayor Johnson inquired what was the condition [of the Course] when Kemper took over. Mr. Vest responded the course was rough; stated the greens had bare spots and were diseased; the course has drainage issues; irrigation lines break daily. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Golf Course was considered to be in acceptable condition when Kemper took over, to which Mr. Vest responded in the negative. In response to Mayor's Johnson inquiry regarding capital projects, Mr. Vest stated the sprinkler system and pump station are in dire need of repair. Mayor Johnson inquired what the costs would be, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded the sprinkler system would be approximately $1.5 million. Mr. Vest stated the pump station would cost approximately $140,000. Vice Mayor deHaan stated said information will be provided at the time of the [operator] selection process. The Interim City Manager stated staff worked very hard to get all reports done for tonight's agenda; going through supplemental information provided by vendors responding to the RFP while preparing for tonight's agenda was not humanly possible because of the short holiday week and extra meeting; hopes are to have a recommendation come to Council the first meeting in February. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the RFP has five different operational configurations; that he does not know what the best set up would be; the RFP should have been revisited since little interest was generated; the Golf Course will be closed forever once it is closed and will not be replicated anywhere; every golf course is having problems; the community has prided itself to reach out to every individual sport; moth balling the Course as a passive park would cost $30,000 per year. Mayor Johnson requested clarification on how much t… | CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2019-07-22.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2019-07-22 | 8 | what is happening. He asked that the approval be postponed until after the appeal and until the plans accurately reflect what is expected. Madlen Saddik said this will be a great hotel which Alameda needs. She said the Chamber of Commerce supports the project. Pat Lamborn said she supports what Brian and Ed have said. She asked the Board not to approve the project until the plans reflect the changes. She said the changes regarding the landscape screening are very important. She said the community does not like the solid grey structure. She said the project is over-parked. She said the plants do not reflect the community input. She asked for a delay. Dave Ross thanked the Board for all the work they do. He said there is no such thing as perfect. He said waiting costs money. He said the neighbors signed disclosures when they purchased their homes that say they lived next to a business park. He asked the Board to approve the project. Robert Leach, applicant, said he respects the residents who oppose the project. He said this will be the nicest hotel in Alameda. He said they have not asked for variances and have complied with every requirement there is and have tried to listen and accommodate as many changes as possible. He said they have a qualified landscape planner and a union labor agreement in place for construction and operations. He said the neighbors liked the blue color, but that they believe the tone on tone design will keep the hotel from becoming dated. President Curtis closed the public hearing. President Curtis said the project complies with the zoning requirements, BCDC, and every regulatory issue there is. He said they can only focus on the design and landscaping. Board Member Teague asked if there is a problem with the Board taking action tonight while the appeal is pending. Staff Attorney Chen said the appeal does not affect the Board's action tonight. Board Member Teague said he is in favor of the project. He said he slightly favors the non- blue color option, and would not oppose the brick if that… | PlanningBoard/2019-07-22.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-20 | 16 | what is being incurred currently; maintaining the building will be a budget line item of a couple hundred thousand dollars per year; the question is how to relieve other burdens at Alameda Point and move forward. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has a couple of concerns; philosophically. he does not believe Andrew Carnegie envisioned giving the City an office building; the Carnegie should not be used as an office building; form a practical point, there are too many unanswered questions regarding the building use and consolidating City services from City Hall West without reviewing all options; he inquired about an Oak Street property at one point ; there were rumors about the property being for sale; he never received an answer; looking at said property should be reviewed; the Recreation building is not fully utilized; said issues should be reviewed first; his other questions are regarding financing; the project costs are almost double what was initially anticipated; questioned whether the building would always have to be used for Planning and Building if permit revenues are used to finance the debt; questioned whether tax increment can be used to pay debt service; further stated the funding source, as well as the Master Plan, should be determined first; there is an option to complete the work regardless of use, particularly if tax increment can be used; the elevator has to be completed regardless of use; phasing would allow expensive items to be completed; the lighting information is interesting; there should be further study; the building is to important to rush to a decision at this point. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she appreciates the presentation addressing public access and the use types that have been considered; staff and the architects exercised a fair and balanced due diligence process working with the museum; deterioration will continue the longer the building remains unoccupied and not renovated the building is a vital historical asset that needs to be preserved; the timing and available funding… | CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2006-08-01 | 6 | what big box retail does to the Bay Area; City staff needs to be unbiased. Councilmember deHaan stated he placed the matter on the agenda because discussion needs to go forward now; proposals will be before Council and have already been before the Planning Board; the City is trying to capture off-island sales leakage many studies have been conducted; the June 7 Alameda Landing study specified that the leakage was not that big and does not constitute a large box format; the drawings show four 225,000 square foot boxes; he would like to start reviewing the opportunity of an ordinance, recommendation, or proposal control is needed on a level that is manageable for the City; additional entitlements are requested and would be a problem; the studies indicate that big boxes have an economic impact on local business; there are wage and benefit concerns ; he would like to have more dialogue on the matter and would like to have the leakage study go back to the Economic Development Commission (EDC) for further discussion to determine what is really needed; he would like to have the matter continued. louncilmember Matarrese stated the Economic Development Strategic Plan Task Force (EDSP) had the same discussion in 1999 ; the Strategic Plan states that Alameda does not want to have big box retail; discussion was mainly focused on Walmart, the Home Depot and COSTCO, which are warehouse stores; the Strategic Plan is being updated; concurred with Councilmember deHaan's suggestion; EDC review is a good idea; stated that re-establishing the goals of the Strategic Plan is good after seven years; big boxes should be defined; there are concerns with how employees are treated and the drain on the public health system. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated a shopping center study was conducted in the last two years; the study addressed the need for anchor stores at shopping centers; several stores on the list could have been anchor tenants but had minimal approval from Alameda residents; the EDC needs to review anchor stores being big box stores; … | CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf,7 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2018-02-05 | 7 | what Rosenberg is recommending and the current rules to make sure nothing missing; for meeting hours, Chair Dieter's list recommends midnight; she saw it was 11:00 p.m., then midnight and back to 11:00 p.m.; she thought the current time is 11:00 p.m. now. The City Clerk stated midnight is not reflected as the time in the Sunshine Ordinance; amending the ending time and the 10:30 p.m. vote to consider remaining items would require an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Foreman stated it does not matter if the Commission proceeds as he is suggesting or as the motion is suggesting, except he does not see a way to not go through article by article; he opposes adopting the proposal; the review needs to be done as a group; he is willing to support the motion, but he is still going to want to go through every item. Chair Dieter stated the Commissioners all like Rosenberg's Rules of Order; the Commission wants to make sure it has not missed anything for only the special rules; she went line by line through it; suggested coming back again with the special rules to give Commissioners an opportunity to study the resolutions to see if anything has been missed. Commissioner Foreman stated the suggestion makes sense; that he would be more comfortable and the Commission might save time. Chair Dieter stated there is a motion and a second; perhaps the Commission should take a vote. Commissioner Henneberry stated that he has a timing question; the Commission is scheduled to meet twice per year; the next meeting is October; however, the Commission can meet in the interim if there is a reason to meet; inquired whether a vote of the Commission decides scheduling. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. The City Clerk stated the Commission's meetings are typically held the first Monday; in the past, the Commission met the next month to continue review. Commissioner Foreman moved approval of tabling the motion until the next meeting in the next 30 days. Chair Dieter inquired whether the meeting would be held the first M… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2011-12-14 | 4 | what Lucy said. Alameda has every pre-qualification to be a world famous bicycle-friendly community yet the City needs infrastructure to match it. He had three points: 1) On the class I bike paths on page 4 - He would like to see 12 feet as the recommended minimum because these paths become multi-use paths. Twelve feet accommodates multiple conflicts, users, directions and speeds. Twelve feet should be the floor and should be the minimum for each side of the west span of the Bay Bridge. Golden Gate Bridge is ten feet and seems too narrow. 2) On Page 34 regarding in-street bike corrals, earlier in the year we had conversations about having them in front of businesses such as Stones Cyclery even on a trial basis. Park Street is going to need more bike parking due to the elimination of the parking meters along Park Street totaling about 100 de-facto bike parking spaces. 3) Class II bike lanes - such as Central Avenue between Willow Street and Oak Street is 5.5 feet - if you recommend an effective door zone of five feet between the bicycle tire and the parked car to allow for sudden doors to be opened, then need to place bicycle tire on the bike lane line on the Central Avenue bike lane. It says something about the current practice as three feet yet they are talking about changing it nationally because the average door on an SUV is four feet when open. Bicyclists need one foot between the door and the bicycle to ensure that the bicyclist is predictable and safe. He recommends an increase in the width of bike lanes and at least a four-foot door zone. Commissioner Tribuzio asked about loop detectors and if they are the same as the ones at intersections for vehicles. Staff Khan replied that loop detectors detect the metal of a car and staff increases the sensitivity to detect bicyclists. Cameras are becoming more common such as on Webster Street and eventually on Park Street to ensure better detection of bicyclists. Commissioner Tribuzio asked about bicycle racks. The guidelines showed two kinds - U shaped and the ring … | TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2019-12-12.pdf,15 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2019-12-12 | 15 | wetlands confer an immense benefit for wildlife by providing habitat for aquatic, amphibian, terrestrial, and avian species alike. Coastal wetlands are also notoriously efficient mechanisms for carbon sequestration and storm water filtration, thereby mitigating anthropic environmental impacts on a local and global scale. In addition to the environmental benefits DePave Park can provide, constructing a shoreline wetland can establish critical ecosystem-based adaptations that would augment Alameda's resilience to global climate change. As one of the largest low-lying regions in the Bay Area, Alameda must prepare for the impending effects of sea level rise. Wetlands function as natural sponges that trap and slowly release surface water, rain, groundwater, and flood waters and distribute these waters more slowly over the floodplain, thereby lowering flood heights and dissipating storm surges. DePave Park can serve as a buffer between Alameda and the Bay to mitigate gradual and storm surge inundation to populated areas. The additional benefit of replacing the impermeable land cover currently at Alameda Point with a porous ecosystem will create immediately observable improvements. The proposed park is an investment towards Alameda's future resilience in the face of climate change and rising sea levels as well as its ecological role in the Bay. More importantly, the park will restore a sense of place and community that has been lost from this corner of the island. Therefore, Baykeeper strongly recommends that the Alameda Department of Recreation and Parks prioritize DePave Park for development. Thank you for your consideration. You may feel free to reach me at 510-735-9700 x114 or cole@baykeer.org if you have any questions. Warmly, CBB Cole Burchiel Field Investigator and Science Associate 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800 Pollution hotline: 1 800 KEEP BAY Oakland, CA 94612 WATERKEEFER'ALLIANCE FOUNDING MEMEBER www.baykeeper.org (510) 735-9700 | RecreationandParkCommission/2019-12-12.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2021-06-14 | 3 | were warranted. For the Harbor Bay Club, he thought it was a moot point since it was already zoned for housing. William Smith applauded City staff for proposing that the City of Alameda affirmatively further fair housing by allowing multi-family housing in all residential and commercial mixed-use neighborhoods. He discussed the many benefits enabled by multifamily housing in all residential neighborhoods. He asked that the Planning Board members reach across the generational divide between boomers and millennials on housing. He wanted to see Alameda affordable for the working and middle class. Charles Johnson discussed the Harbor Bay Club and its history. The club's purpose was to provide recreational facilities to the residents of Harbor Bay Isle and it essentially replaced open spaces in the confines of each neighborhood. He believed that removing this amenity from the planned development would be inequitable to the families who had purchased homes on Harbor Bay Isle. He discussed the many benefits of having access to the club and losing this amenity would be a huge blow to the 112 families who use it. Bill Pai, the Board President of Harbor Bay Isle, also discussed the importance of the Harbor Bay Club. Last month the CHBIOA Board unanimously passed a resolution opposing the city's Draft General Plan which if approved as is would rezone the land currently occupied by the club and shopping center to allow the construction of multifamily housing. He believed the city was already strained in dealing with its infrastructure and thought that an increase in residents and housing would further overburden the infrastructure. The CHBIOA proposed to see the club's land use changed to business and employment and encouraged the city to take advantage of Alameda Point for multifamily housing. Conchita Perales was concerned that the city was proposing a heavy increase in development in existing residential areas while reducing or removing parking requirements. She said if the City Council failed to appeal the RHNA numbers t… | PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2007-09-26 | 4 | were used, including comparisons to different non-ferry modes of transportation. He recommended that the street transit fare box average of 27-28% be used, as well as the recovery ratio for the highway system by CalTrans. Chair Knox White inquired whether Objective 3 on page 16 (Integrated Ticketing) included any discussion between the City and Translink. Mr. Sanchez noted that it had been discussed with MTC, but there was no current implementation schedule or funding available at this time. Chair Knox White suggested adding that as a goal, stating that the region should start moving to a single fare card. Chair Knox White noted that Objective 3 on page 16 (Measure 2) read, "Transit schedules should be coordinated to allow easy, convenient transfers between ferries and land-side transit." He noted that it mentioned that the ferries ran at a 65-minute headway, and inquired whether that was because it was the shortest possible headway. Chair Knox White noted that Objective 5 on page 16 read, "The ferry system should provide ample reserve capacity in case of disruptions to land-based transportation systems." He believed that seemed to run counter to the cost-efficiency argument. He believed it would be interesting if the plan discussed that issue. Mr. Sanchez replied that the City has participated in the Spare the Air program, and cited the recent closure of the Bay Bridge and other heavy service days. They used additional carrying capacity from the contractor, Blue and Gold Fleet, which would meet that goal without having the additional carrying capacity on their books. Chair Knox White noted that on page 18, Service and System Evaluations, the total City expenses between FY2002-03 and FY2006-07 nearly tripled for the Alameda-Oakland Ferry Service; at the same time, the Alameda-Harbor Bay service decreased significantly. He inquired whether that was the City's portion of the fuel increases, and inquired whether the City would take on more expense for the Alameda-Oakland Ferry. Mr. Sanchez confirmed that the two con… | TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2014-03-10.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2014-03-10 | 7 | were approved. 7.C. Alameda Landing Residential Homes - Colors and Street Names. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing to consider the color and material boards for the residential units and the proposed street names for the residential portion of the property at the Alameda Landing Project, generally located between Stargell Avenue, 5th Street, and Mitchell Avenue. A final environmental impact report was certified for this project in 2007. Staff requested this item be continued to April 12, 2014 8. MINUTES: None 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: 9.A. Future Agendas - Mr. Thomas reported on upcoming agenda items. 9.B. Staff Communications - Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions - Mr. Thomas reported there were four approvals since the last meeting. Board member Knox White asked about the timeline for Del Monte. Mr. Thomas stated he will look at the timeline closer. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: 11.A. Report from Alameda Point Town Center Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee - None Board member Zuppan asked for comments on the Golf Course project. Perhaps that can come back to the PB. Board member Knox White stated it was a temporary structure. He asked about permits being pulled. Mr. Thomas stated there was a scoping session for an EIR for two different sites. The two separate application were packaged together. There has been a constant influx of emails, and a letter was sent for a special meeting on the rezoning. There was a letter from the applicant to withdraw the rezoning on Packet Landing. The only proposal now is a new club in the business park. There is no date set for the design review. The original EIR has been used for all the development for HBI. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 13. ADJOURNMENT: President Burton adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 March 10, 2014 | PlanningBoard/2014-03-10.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf,21 | OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-07-19 | 21 | went to the Council and bypassed the OGC; it seems the City Attorney's office has deeper concerns that have not been addressed; she believes there are underlying issues that the OGC should address before moving forward with other suggestions. Commissioner LoPilato stated one thing she heard at the June 1st meeting regarding the OGC's adjudicatory function is a suggestion that there could be improvements to the ways in which complaints are adjudicated; while there are big philosophical questions the Commission wants to dive into, she is concerned that keeping it abstract opens up having many complaints filed in the interim period while the complaint procedure is not being followed; there is a big picture question about who advises the Commission and what does that look like; she encourages moving forward with something that outlines what a complaint hearing should look like, what kind of documentation could be submitted, the timing and what the findings and options are; something could be prepared that begins to answer the questions and put forth a proposal; she would like to see what could be done tonight to be sure something is brought forward for the OGC to take action on at a future meeting. In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding whether there is interest in revising the complaint procedures, Commissioners concurred. Chair Tilos stated he would like someone in a neutral position provide guidance on how the OGC should weigh in, rather than having outside counsel tell the OGC how to weigh in. Commissioner LoPilato stated it might make sense to actually draft up what a complaint procedure might look like, acknowledging there is a desire for a neutral guidance and include expectations about what the docket and complaint hearing would look like; she would really like to get something moving forward and has already fleshed out some options; suggested creating a subcommittee to make some progress in the downtime. Chair Tilos stated he would support doing so. Commissioner Chen stated that she envisio… | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2021-02-08.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2021-02-08 | 3 | went into detail about how Article 26 coupled with the high cost of land makes building required housing difficult. Vice President Saheba believed that diving deeper into all these connected issues that surround housing would be beneficial. President Teague wanted to know how the energy usage had changed due to the pandemic and wanted to see reports that electrification would not be a barrier to development. He also wanted to see more information on rental vs sale for the Inclusionary Housing Program. He also strongly suggested that Alameda adopt the Efficiency Unit Ordinance that opts them into AB325. Director Thomas wanted to thank Mr. Pelegri-O'Day for all his work as he will be leaving Alameda. He said that the staff was very aware that all of these issues surround housing and that it's important that the board was picking out items that are important. He also assured Board Member Curtis that they are not closing down any roads, but more of road diets like reducing 4 lane roads to 3 lanes. He also said that they would start having budget workshops in May. 8. MINUTES 8-A 2021-635 Draft Meeting Minutes - December 14, 2020 Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 9-A 2021-636 Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions No board member wanted to pull any items for review. 9-B 2021-637 Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation Department Projects. Allen Tai, City Planner, said that at the next meeting there would be a presentation from the Economic Development Staff. The staff would also bring back the Objective Design Review Standards and proposed amendments to the Residential Open Space Ordinance. Then at the March 8th meeting, the staff would bring forward the Parking Ordinance with a more detailed Housing Element Annual Report. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Board Member Ruiz suggested looking at the defi… | PlanningBoard/2021-02-08.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-12-14.pdf,20 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2016-12-14 | 20 | went back to driving my car, it means that this has been going on for 10 years. If our transportation coordinators were spending half as much time as they are on bike lanes and streamlining those kinds of modes of transportation to just getting Paratransit to working the way it supposed to work, that would be great, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of outreach. Measure BB is my property taxes, I believe, I'm paying for this, it's not coming out of the sky. I would really like somebody to work on the Paratransit better. Elizabeth Kenny: Thank you. Gail Payne: And just to respond to that, you're speaking of the East Bay Paratransit, so that's a separate entity than the city, and that's why I'm not spending my time on it. Beth Kenny: I'd like to thank you again, Gail, for another informative presentation and I think that concludes our old business. Up next, we have Staff Communication. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Kerry Parker: So, yesterday I updated the website for the Commission on Disability Issues meeting for 2017, given the formula that we have of on the even months, we meet on the second Wednesdays at 6:30 PM, except August because Counsel Chambers is dark in August. So, the meetings for this next year is slated for these dates: February 8th, April 12th, June 14th, October 11th and December 13th. I just posted all of those today. What is not yet scheduled is our extra meeting, our retreat, and that's something that we're probably going to look at, at our next meeting, because we'll put it on the agenda. It's not on the agenda for today, so we can't really make any decisions about it. Kerry Parker: Also for that February meeting, we already have a couple of items on the agenda. Gail mentioned one of them, the Paratransit program will be giving their annual update, and I expect we'll meet the new staff person at that meeting, very exciting. At the February meeting, we're going to vote for the Chair and the Vice Chair, because we do that annually. Be thinking about that. If the incumbents want to go again, if there… | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-12-14.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2009-07-07 | 9 | well; stated rounds have increased substantial savings are anticipated; numbers can be presented at the next meeting. Mayor Johnson inquired whether any formal feedback has been received from golfers. The Recreation and Park Director responded Kemper Sports is conducting a survey; stated information should be available within a month; informal feedback has been positive. Mayor Johnson stated the Golf Course condition has improved. The Recreation and Park Director stated customer service has improved also. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Golf Course is in better shape and management has improved. Mayor Johnson stated maintenance workers are at the Golf Course on weekends. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Golf Course is running a deficit. The Recreation and Park Director responded the deficit is not as large as originally anticipated. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Mif Albright numbers can be provided. The Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative; stated numbers have been strong. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the projected deficit, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded the deficit should be half of what was expected. Mayor Johnson inquired what was the original projection, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded $700,000. Mayor Johnson inquired whether or not theft has occurred. The Recreation and Park Director responded Kemper Sports has done a good job on inventory control; stated inventory is performed on a regular basis. Mayor Johnson inquired about past break in issues, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded window break ins have not Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 July 7, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2017-10-12.pdf,4 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2017-10-12 | 4 | well. There were 100 golfers and 125 dinner guests. Bike for the Parks was on Saturday, October 7, 2017 and there were 465 riders. Commended Gene Oh and ARPD for all of their hard work. FOTP raised $40,000 from these two events. Congratulated Vice-Chair Tilos on his recent engagement. Vice-chair Tilos said he proposed under the Magnolia Tree at Longfellow Park, which is his favorite park. C. Recreation and Parks Director Report Mastick Senior Center Mastick's 30th Annual Thrift Shop Fashion Show and Luncheon took place on Thursday, September 21. There were 245 participants, (205 registered patrons along with 40 volunteers). Everyone enjoyed live music, lunch, raffles, the fashion show and shopping. The net revenue raised was $3,190.48. Commended Alameda Rotary for serving the meals. Mastick's 10th Annual Ice Cream Social took place on Wednesday, September 13. Over 150 members enjoyed ice cream sundaes and socializing. Admin Continuing management of Activenet implementation with "Go Live" anticipated in December. This effort is requiring coordinated efforts from every area of the Department. LimeBike launched its dockless bikeshare program which will include parks. Smoke and air quality Cancelled all ARPD outdoor programming such as Kidz Love Soccer. All youth and senior programs are remaining indoors. Parks Maintenance staff is currently limited with few or no staff in many locations due to the air quality. Normal routine maintenance concerns will be handled as soon as we can work outside at full capacity. Public art in Parks - Responding to artists that are interested in putting their art in the parks. One is under review with Sweeney Park Steering Committee and will then come to Recreation and Park Commission (RPC) in November for final review. Littlejohn Playground Obtained a CA housing related park grant which was matched with the California Parks and Recreation Society grant for Healthy Communities. It will be a national demonstration site. Resident input meeting on Wednesday, Oct. 25th at 6:30pm at Littlejo… | RecreationandParkCommission/2017-10-12.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2007-10-02 | 12 | welfare commission; urged that the results of the internal affair probe be released to the public. Mayor Johnson stated that the Police Department is preparing a report to Council that will be made public; internal affair investigation reports are not public. (07-487) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed volunteering. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07-488) Councilmember deHaan stated that Alameda Power and Telecom had a meeting regarding the Solar Rebate Program last week; the meeting was well attended; a policy will come to Council. The City Manager stated a policy will go to the Public Utilities Board in November with input from the meeting. Councilmember deHaan stated many people are interested in the program even though solar energy does not seem to be very efficient in Alameda. Mayor Johnson requested staff to look into the Navy's quarterly Partners Sustainability Meetings; stated that the Navy has done a lot of research on alternative and solar energy. (07-489) Mayor Johnson stated that she and Councilmember Matarrese met with staff and Oakland Council President Ignacio de La Fuente regarding the realignment of a train route and re-routing of more trains onto the track that crosses 29th Avenue; Alameda and Oakland are planning a workshop on October 11; Alameda motorists need to be able to continue on once over the [Park Street ] bridge; the issue is significant and affects Oakland Councilmember Kernighan's district; the purpose of the meeting is to inform Oakland and Alameda residents on what is known at the time. Councilmember Matarrese stated a railroad track is crossed when motorists proceed outbound on the Park Street Bridge said railroad track would have increased train traffic inbound; the train traffic would go through the neighborhood along Fruitvale Avenue and cross the off ramp to I-880 southbound onto Fruitvale Avenuel Councilmember de La Fuente's office found out about the situation when the Union Pacific Railroad sought permits for traffic diversion on 29th Avenue to start repairing the tracks. The City Man… | CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2020-02-04 | 14 | weigh-in on matters and provide opinions on issues; the null and void provision is meant to be said tool; null and void can supersede Council decisions and represents a power that is above the Council; noted the problem with null and void is that there is no basis in the City Charter; stated Section 3-1 of the Charter vests all power in the City Council; Section 3-2 states Council may delegate powers to commissions in a manner only consistent with the Charter; expressed support for being consistent with the Charter and for understanding the basis of how the null and void provision aligns; stated the City Charter Sections 3-1, 3-2 and 1-2(D) are vested in Council making rules and having powers; Council can delegate rules to commissions and boards; the rules cannot be delegated in a way that places the Council in an inferior position; the City should come up with a tool to address situations in which the public has not properly been noticed; null and void is not the only tool available; members of the public and the OGC can come up with a variety of other tools that checks the City Council if a decision is made that was not properly noticed; noted Council can create an ordinance which allows the OGC to flag situations that clearly show a decision being made which has not been adequately noticed; stated penalties could require a 4-1 Council vote in order to move the item forward; there will be times when the Council makes a mistake; when checks are created, it should align with the City Charter; there are many ways to create remedies similar to null and void. Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for Councilmember Daysog's comments; noted that he was previously on the Sunshine Task Force; discussed meetings developing the Sunshine Ordinance; stated each member of the Task Force desired the OGC to have teeth, not just alerts; the one violation yielded a battle-mode response from the City and prompted reconsideration of the null and void provision; stated there should have been an easy cure to the issue; that he agr… | CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf |
GolfCommission/2005-07-20.pdf,2 | GolfCommission | 2005-07-20 | 2 | week and is healing well. The staff gave out two-for-one coupon, to tournament groups inconvenienced by the work being done, which seemed to make the situation better. The area of the new practice putting green has been outlined and a survey of the underground utilities will be done this week to eliminate any line breakage during the irrigation trenching. The tree has been removed on #1 of the Mif Albright Course for the new hole and the new green on the new #3 hole was mowed out. The practice area will be opened as soon as possible and Alameda Power and Telecom has been called to come out and redirect the lights. The Jack Clark Course irrigation pump's motor broke and has been repaired. The course suffered minor damage during the replacement period. A problem also occurred with the Earl Fry Course pump and the repairs are being done. The new City Manager, Debra Kurita is scheduled to begin on August 1 and is scheduling meetings with the various departments over the next few months. The General Manager, Chair Swanson, and Commissioner Schmitz have scheduled a meeting with the Mayor, New City Manager, and Assistant City Manager on August 16, 2005 to discuss the new clubhouse project. The General Manager complimented the Junior Golf Club on their organization running the tournaments. The club has partnered with Junior Golf Resources to have the Junior Pro Shop open on tournament play days to distribute the golf equipment. The City Manager received a letter from Legends and Heroes requesting a meeting to discuss their contract. The comment was made that Legends and Heroes does not open the snack shack on #9 of the Earl Fry Course until 9:30 am or 10:00 am and it should be opened earlier. The question was raised whether the dead trees on #13 of the Earl Fry Course have been removed yet. The General Manager stated that they have not been removed yet. The suggestion was made to replace the garbage cans at the snack shack. The General Manager stated that they have been replaced and the restrooms were power washed. The G… | GolfCommission/2005-07-20.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2014-06-12.pdf,3 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2014-06-12 | 3 | website which includes much history including newspaper articles and legal documents. 7. REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION & PARK DIRECTOR A. Recreation Commission Reports: Commissioner Cooke commented on attending the May 17th California Association of Park and Recreation Commissioners meeting in Moraga. It was an interesting meeting, and well attended. Commissioner Sonneman commented on the T-Shirt League which had an amazing turn-out, great collaboration, and good community effort. Wooldridge commented there is still a need for volunteers, coaches and with each site having over 50 kids and a total of 335 children registered. Sonneman commented on the Russi family being an active park family, and condolences for the loss of Mr. Jim Russi. B. Friends of the Park Report (FOTP): Chair Delaney stated there is a new FOTP Boardmember and there is still room for more. June 20th is the first Starlight movie at Alameda Point, and FOTP will take more of an active role addressing the audience. September 15th is the Annual Golf Tournament and support in the way of raffle items has been great. C. Mastick Senior Board: Commission Brown reported that an upcoming meeting will include financial reporting and election of new Chair(s). She and her husband hosted a full bus on a trip to John Muir Woods and it was fun and well received. There has been a good trip program that has been instituted at Mastick for the past 15 years. She stated that the City Manager did a State of the City to Mastick members in May. She praised the staff and volunteers at MSC. D. Recreation and Parks Director Report: Director Wooldridge reported on behalf of Recreation Services Specialist Mariel Thomas who works with Mastick half of her time and handles role while handling enrichment classes the other half. She listed new classes, provided numbers on how many classes are provided and participation levels. Starting in July, the Commission will have two new Commissioners: Mario Mariani and Ruben Tilos and Chair Delaney is being reappointed… | RecreationandParkCommission/2014-06-12.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2011-01-26.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2011-01-26 | 3 | web site under the Public Works Department web page with the title "Transportation." Close public hearing. No action was taken. 4B. Election of Transportation Commission Chair and Vice Chair Staff Khan explained the work involved for a Chair and a Vice Chair. Open public hearing. Commissioner Moehring stated that she is not comfortable with nominating and electing a Chair and Vice Chair at this time because there are SO many new Transportation Commission members. She recommended having an Interim Chair and an Interim Vice Chair until the July meeting. Staff Khan replied that it is the call of the Transportation Commission members. Close public hearing. Commissioner Moehring moved to recommend electing an Interim Chair and an Interim Vice Chair until the July meeting. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Vargas moved to elect Kathy Moehring as the Interim Chair. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Tribuzio moved to elect Tom Bertken as the Interim Vice Chair. Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 5. Staff Communications Additional City CarShare Pod - Public Parking Lot on Santa Clara Avenue Staff Payne stated that a new City CarShare pod has been installed at Public Lot W, which is at Santa Clara Avenue by Webster Street and adjacent to the farmers' market on Tuesdays and Saturdays. The parking meter still needs to be removed at this spot. Commissioner Moehring stated that she appreciates this work. Additional Bus Shelters on Webster Street Staff Payne stated that three new bus shelters have been installed on Webster Street - one at Atlantic and the other two at Buena Vista, in both directions. Page 3 of 5 | TransportationCommission/2011-01-26.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf,5 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2016-06-08 | 5 | we're working hard to improve our bus system, walking and bicycling. Some of the challenges are that we still have gaps, especially in the bicycling system. We're trying to adapt to new technologies and it's changing daily, it's evolving, so that's hard to figure out. Gail Payne: More people in Alameda are using alternatives to driving than they ever did before. More people are taking the bus, more people are bicycling and walking, and more people are telecommuting from home. So, people are definitely open, more Alamedans are open to commuting in these different ways. Within Alameda, most homes and jobs are located close to a bus stop, there's a 37% increase in bicycle commuting over the past four years. And what's really difficult within Alameda is if you need to get around at about 8:00 AM, before or after, we really have a lot of students here, we have about 1,500 more students than we did a decade ago. And not only that, we have fewer neighborhood schools, we have more magnet schools than we've ever had, more charter schools. And these schools have a city wide enrollment. The neighborhood schools tend to have that catchment area around the neighborhood, around the school. Whereas the magnet schools, charter schools, they get students from all over the city, SO they're more apt to be driven to the school. They even get students from other jurisdictions as well, and more apt too, than local schools. So if you're trying to get around a town around 8:00 AM, you'll notice a difference, it's tough. Gail Payne: Bicycle facilities, we are going to be updating the bike plan soon. We're going to be constructing the Cross Alameda trail next year. And we are currently looking at the potential to have bike share here, like you probably see in other jurisdictions like San Francisco, East Bay is getting it later this year, I think. For transit ridership, most commuters take AC Transit. My favorite is the AC Transit Transbay, they are the work horses of it all, and they don't get enough attention. And the people also take BA… | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf,5 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2009-09-10 | 5 | we start doing this how are Alameda citizens going to feel about future bond issues for parks and that they cannot trust the fact that if they vote for the money to go to parks the money will be there. The Estuary Park and Alameda Beltline representatives look forward being able to have a bond issue to get money for Estuary Park and Alameda Beltline projects. Ms. Freeman would hate to see this idea put in jeopardy just because we want to give money that belongs to the people to a private organization. Joseph Woodard, Alameda resident, provided a copy of a letter that he sent to EBRPD protesting the monies being given to the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. For the record, at the Council Meeting on September 1, the number of speakers for and against the Boys & Girls Club receiving the money was about equal. The Alameda Boys & Girls Club managed to pack half of the Council chambers with employees and Board Members. The people speaking against the idea were not employees of anyone, but were private citizens. People who voted for the bond issue thought that it was to be used for parks. You have maintenance projects and certainly have new acquisitions that are very important. This opportunity is absolutely unprecedented with regard to the Alameda Beltline, where a large park space will be purchased for less than $1 million and now money is being proposed to be diverted to a private organization. This is unconscionable and hopes that the Recreation & Park Commission will do everything in their power to oppose it. Barbara Kerr, former Councilmember and Alameda resident, stated that a group went to EBRPD for a sub-committee meeting and after spoke to Mr. Rasmussen (grant manager). The committee was very sympathetic, but the grant manager was not. She expressed a criticism that this is something that needs to be remedied. Mr. Rasmussen was basing his decision on the Alameda Boys & Girls Club and only on what the Boys & Girls Club had told him. Ms. Kerr was surprised at his resistance. She recommends that the EBRPD, through what… | RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf |
CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2022-02-15 | 11 | ways of honoring Wilma Chan; Supervisor Chan has had an impact on many; discussed her experience in asking Supervisor Chan for advice on college selections; stated Wilma Chan has been a role model for many; renaming is the right thing to do and she is glad Council is taking action; expressed condolences to the family. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she whole-heartedly supports the resolution; stated the request comes directly from the family; it is important to honor the family's wishes; expressed support for adding residency information to the resolution; stated the information can be added to one of the last paragraphs; provided highlights of the resolution; stated many lives have been saved due to legislation Wilma Chan sponsored; it is fitting that Wilma Chan be honored; Council is looking at the matter with hindsight; at the time of the naming policy, no one anticipated the tragedy would occur; Council did not leave room for an exception to the policy; stated that she is forming an ad hoc subcommittee of Councilmembers Daysog and Knox White to go over the naming policy and return to Council with any recommendations. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council has the authority to make an exception to the current policy. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Council has wide discretion to deviate from the policy due to the policy being Council-adopted. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for placing the addition of long-time resident in the second to last whereas. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it should state: "Whereas Supervisor Wilma Chan, a long-time resident of Alameda, faithfully served the residents of her district.' Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over any misunderstanding of the term district. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the resolution states that Wilma Chan served on the Board of Supervisors and State Assembly; she thinks most people understand the terminology. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the resolution discusses which cities or … | CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2021-10-19 | 16 | way to verify signers are residents of Alameda; inquired whether staff will be asking for name and address within the City in order to verify and confirm residency. The Recreation and Parks Director responded the policy stipulates the signatures need to be 500 Alameda residents; stated a petition turned in with 500 random names and no addresses will be rejected due to non-compliance. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated when a company with a street named after it leaves, the City could waive fees for the new company; she does not think it is appropriate for a new company to pay to change the street name; the City has companies of all sizes which come and go. Councilmember Daysog inquired the process for verification of the 500 signatures; noted some instances only require a portion or sample of the signatures be verified. The Recreation and Parks Director responded the process is to be determined; stated staff does not have a method outlined in the policy; the petition is not being considered on the same level as an election; the petition is the start of a conversation that would include a five-step publically noticed discussion where the public can make their voices heard. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation with a change to the corporate street naming criteria to collect funds to pay for future renaming if the company moves off the street and direction to staff to work with the submitters of the two petitions having over 500 signatures to begin the process to submit an application for Council consideration for Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street would go through the process recommended by staff, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the 500 signatures should be residents of Alameda. Councilmember Knox White responded the signers need to make a best effort of having Alameda residents; stat… | CityCouncil/2021-10-19.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]) );