alameda_minutes
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard | 2008-12-03 | 4 | | Special Minutes of the SSHRB, December 3, 2008 Meeting Deleted: DRAFT UNTIL Page 4 APPROVED Wright - Previously we've been creative, but according to recent interpretation from HUD there needs to be economic development / neighborhood development, and it cannot be planning and administrative costs. There is a need for a strong training component. Wasko - The Finance Project Program does substantial trainings that work with agencies to put together business plans to look for funding. Put a package together collaboratively. James - When I first got involved with the Koshland grant they were able to bring all these things together and it was much more vibrant. Wright - We have stricter parameters now but we will work on being creative. Biggs - If we will encourage collaboration, then we should have a way to support that. Villareal - The last bullet addresses the need for collaboration, on the other hand if we look at other paragraph - that paragraph could address the emphasis on collaboration. Nielsen - The need she is trying to address is hard to gather data on, but still important. Is there a way to emphasize that its really bad and emphasize the need to think creatively? Villareal - It is this further collaboration effort that we can build better collaborations. Motion - Wasko and Villareal will draft the needs statement including the discussed changes and review each others edits. M/S Soglin, Nielsen and unanimous. Staff provided a deadline. President Wasko will attend the Council meeting on January 6, 2009 for the public hearing. 3-C. WORKGROUP STATUS REPORTS: Item held to an upcoming meeting. 4. BOARD / STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Member James had the opportunity to attend joint meeting of the ACCYF and the Alameda Services Collaborative luncheon. He stated this was a good opportunity to see agencies and is interested in seeing different sites and programs. Member Biggs visited the Food Bank during their turkey handout. They had 50% increase in people getting turkeys this year, and there were many first timers. President Wasko stated she attended the Hospital Faire and all the gifts from China were present. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Jim Franz wanted to remind the Board of the Shelter in Place, Emergency Preparedness training happening Saturday, December 6th at Immanuel Lutheran Church. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn at 7:53 p.m. M/S Villareal, Soglin and unanimous. Respectfully submitted, Deleted: DRAFT UNTIL Terri Wright APPROVED Acting Secretary, Social Services Human Relations Board TW:sb G:SSHRB\Packets\2008\DEC08\MinutesSpecial F: SSHRB\2008\Agendas Packets | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-12-03.pdf |
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard | 2008-12-03 | 3 | | Special Minutes of the SSHRB, December 3, 2008 Meeting Deleted: DRAFT UNTIL Page 3 APPROVED Hurst - Housing, job training and sustainability, and financial resources. Wasko - Thank you and maybe we can engage volunteers to recreate the domestic violence task force. Julia Brown, Women's Initiative for Self Employment (WISE) and Deepa Patel - They are currently receiving funding from Alameda's CDBG program and these funds are help with their pre-training, and expect to start full course work in January. There is a need to support social enterprise because they of the possibility of job loss. The funding of micro enterprise is one of the only areas where there is job growth. Patel - Started her business with $150.00 after losing a job during the dot.com bust. She was without family support and no where to go, but knew she wanted to help others. She worked with a law firm on a project and it was suggested she becoming a consultant. WISE has helped her tremendously to grow her business, get a car and has been in business for 5 years, she has one contract employee and is looking for another. Without WISE support her business would have folded last year. Wasko - Congratulations on your business success and thank you for sharing your experience. Liz Varela, Executive Director, Building Futures with Women and Children (BFWC) - She would like to piggyback on what Mr. Franz said on maintaining the safety net services. BFWC truly works well with other safety net providers. The women who come to Midway are in many times in grave danger if they were unable to get shelter.. Midway is a great place to help people rebuild their lives. Varela handed out a story about women from their website. She supports the idea of starting the domestic violence task force again. Where there are funds lacking we should make up for in relationships. Wasko - Thank you Liz, and to all the speakers. Biggs - Given the shift in Federal administration, what does the future entail? Wright - HUD just lost their Regional Director. It's hard to know with the economy. Wasko - Pete Stark holds community meetings, CDBG people could talk to him about the formula. Spark is very responsive. Wright - it would be great to remove CDBG public service cap in times of extreme hardships. Wasko - Our next task is to rewrite the letter particularly with focus areas. Villareal - Let's not remove the "strengthening," perhaps something like - to continue to ensure they're doing all they can to better serve clients, or - strengthening and preserving would be a good way to, or - to strengthen Biggs - Perhaps make reference to the unprecedented strain. Nielsen - Broaden definition of 'at risk', people who have never before needed services until now? Soglin - Separate safety net paragraph and say primary emphasis in on safety net. Wasko - Do we currently fund collaboration? Jones - Red Cross is funded for the Services Collaborative. James - At the last meeting there was an emphasis on "collaborative'. Wasko - Soglin was suggesting collaboration in his comments. Soglin - Prioritizing safety nets, then other issues. Biggs - Can we be creative about technical assistance funding to grant writing? | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-12-03.pdf |
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard | 2008-12-03 | 2 | | Special Minutes of the SSHRB, December 3, 2008 Meeting Deleted: DRAFT UNTIL Page 2 APPROVED Wright - There is a level of duplication in the total, two service providers may count the same individual, but these are low numbers. Biggs - Can the language stating "strengthening safety-net services' be changes to providers are trying to maintain the services they have, preserving or maintaining the safety-net? James - How about "strengthening the current' safety-net? Wasko - Yes. Public Comment - Speakers: Jim Franz, Director, American Red Cross - Alameda Service Center: We have almost reached a time when we have to re-define the term "at risk". Recently, he spoke with a single mother who last year was making a great wage and providing for her family and is now on unemployment and her mortgage is behind as she was asking for assistance. Last year at this time they had served 800 meals for Thanksgiving and thought it was extraordinary. This year it was 930. People asking for assistance from the utility program continues to grow. The PG&E program is almost out of funds. The same holds true for the rental assistance program. Shelters throughout the bay area are in trouble due to the emergency shelter budget (EHAP) being eliminated at the Federal level. We expect to see pockets of poverty to move to central Alameda as we hear landlords aren't able to be as lenient as they used to be because they have to pay their mortgages. Food, rent and childcare are the basic needs this agency is battling. Wasko - Thank you for all the work you do. Laura Hurst, Family Violence Law Center (FVLC) - Here to ask for support to increase funding for domestic violence services. We are finding that victims are too scared to get a restraining order. They would like to house a domestic violence advocate in our police department as this would increase prevention in homicides and families from becoming homeless. Wasko - Is the FVLC thinking about shifting their funding? Hurst - No, there is a need for both and additional funding would augment legal services of other counseling and other services. Wasko - Is there a waitlist? We are trying to assess needs. Hurst - Not sure there is a waitlist, but they often find that departments are under reporting domestic violence. Biggs - How many individuals have you served this quarter and how much is for advocate? Hurst - FT is $40k., PT advocate would be enough in Alameda. She doesn't have the numbers from the past quarter. Soglin - In places without an advocate, does training help? Hurst - Yes. We've trained all Alameda Police officers, and also doing county-wide patrol officer training. Soglin - What are the ways APD supports domestic violence and how are they organized? Hurst - The violent crimes unit coordinates with us and because of staffing levels they prioritize felony cases. Wasko - Does the City still have a domestic violence task force? Wright - No, but staff has been trying to work with FVLC to coordinate with APD and we are considering reconvening the domestic violence task force. James - What are the other needs of people being victimized? | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-12-03.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2022-01-18 | 11 | zone residential areas: Madlen Saddik, Alameda Chamber of Commerce. Stated that she is in favor of the Encinal Terminal project; stated only two of her 14 employees live in Alameda due to the lack of affordable housing; the project offers much needed affordable and middle housing and will help meet RHNA numbers; expressed support for the public access to the waterfront; urged Council to move forward with the project: Kelly Lux, Alameda Chamber of Commerce. Expressed support for the Encinal Terminals project; stated that she supports public access to the waterfront; the current conditions are dangerous and the project is a wonderful use of the space: Michelle Morgan, Alameda. Expressed support for the land exchange and development of the Encinal Terminals site; stated the site is key for residential development, which will further Alameda's ability to meet the RHNA obligation; the City will receive a useful waterfront; the site is ideal for waterfront residential development and a public shoreline; expressed support for a water shuttle landing; urged the project showcase waterfront design; urged Council to approve the land exchange and development proposal: Betsy Mathieson, Alameda. Expressed support for the project; urged Council approve the Tidelands exchange; discussed the consequences of not approving the project; stated the City is coming out ahead in the exchange; he supports the kayak launch and public trust idea; he would like to see the developer increase the density by replacing the townhomes with mid-rise buildings; expressed concern about parking: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Questioned whether the planning for the project has taken into account other potential units being built in Marina Village of it the project is being considered in a vacuum; stated the project has the potential to transform the area; the project gives the City a good chance at meeting the RHNA obligation; expressed support for the project; urged Council approval: Bill Pai, Community of Harbor Bay Isle. Expressed support for the project; stated that he applauds the emphasis on the RHNA obligation, Housing Element and ramifications of non-approval; discussed his experience with the RHNA obligation process; stated HCD has changed its stance on non-compliance with RHNA; HCD has already taken action against cities for non-compliance and will likely impose fees; urged Council take the project and run with it: Matt Regan, Bay Area Council. Expressed support for the project; stated there is no real reason to reject the project; discussed the shape and value of the project site; expressed concern about not supporting the project; stated the vote for the project should be unanimous; the City is not losing anything of value; the project provides benefits to many; he supports a water taxi for the site: Josh Geyer, Alameda. Stated the project offers workers career pathways, apprenticeship opportunities and healthcare benefits; an agreement has been made; he supports the partnership; the project is well thought- out and will play a vital role in the City; it is important to support the land exchange and title settlement agreement; the project will directly improve the lives of hundreds: Vince Sugrue, Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 104. Stated approval of the project is important to Alameda historic preservation; the project will provide 589 housing units which can be applied towards RHNA; if the project is not approved, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 18, 2022 11 | CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 16 | zero to one vehicle includes children. Mr. Daisa responded in the negative; stated the statistic is actually 50% of households. Mr. Daisa stated providing a rapid transit system that serves the entire residency and employees achieves an additional 4% ridership, or 6% or even 8% more ridership from existing residents or employees; the percentages can reduce the cars in the tubes and bridges by 600, 900 or 1200 in each peak hour, which is equivalent to increasing the capacity of the tubes by 15% to 30%; if 8% can be achieved, 30% capacity can be gained in the tube, which is the equivalent of adding a lane to the tubes; there is a way to gain capacity through transit operations; the ferry service is in two phases; phases one and two of the development use, the current Main Street terminal ferry service the new ferry terminal is constructed in phase three and the two systems from Oakland and from the Seaplane Lagoon are bifurcated; SunCal has done a financial analysis and will talking to staff and WETA tomorrow; showed maps indicating the existing system and the system after phase three to five; stated an onsite full time TDM Coordinator position Is included Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is a kiss and ride zone. Mr. Daisa responded a spouse or significant other drops you off, kisses you goodbye and says go make money and I will pick you up when you get back; continued the presentation; stated BRT is not just another bus and is really a light rail train on rubber wheels; new vehicles, new systems and new technology make BRT work; BRT targets choice riders, not transit-dependent people who always use transit; choice riders are people who own cars but want to choose to use a good, comfortable form of public transportation because it works for them and is attractive; BRT have dedicated lanes on either on the inside or the outside of the street; in SunCal's proposal, lanes are probably on the outside; BRT has very nice stations, which are attractive, comfortable, high- amenity facilities and use real-time technology like BART, so riders always know how long the next bus will be to the minute; BRT has fast boarding; tickets can be purchased before getting on the bus and there is loading at both doors; the buses can trigger the signals to move through signals faster; if a dedicated lane is not being used, buses can bypass congestion at the worst intersections and get a jump on cars; SunCal has a pretty comprehensive pedestrian, bicycle and trail network that integrates and connects with the existing Alameda system and provides facilities for the rest of the Island at the recreational and transportation level; TDM is a series of programs, measures, incentives, or even disincentives to change peoples' travel behavior; a whole series of programs have been around for decades; TDM works great in some circumstances, and does not work great in others, which is why projects have to have a menu and need flexibility to apply appropriate measures and adjust measures over time; SunCal proposes a tier series of measures, which is simply a menu; SunCal would work with staff on implementing measures at different tiered levels; measures will be monitored Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 15 Community Improvement Commission July 7, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
GolfCommission | 2020-07-14 | 3 | young golfers in, as well as discussions with the junior golf board. The goal is to use the later part of the afternoon to allow juniors and other golfers of any age to allow them to play only three holes with an instructor. 7-B Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report Amy Wooldridge stated that Jim's on the Course had reopened the outdoor patio, but then had to close last Saturday due to Alameda County being added to the State's watchlist. The restaurant is still open for takeout at this time. 7-C Recreation and Parks Director Report Amy Wooldridge stated that they are moving forward with an agreement amendment with Jim's on the Course which will go to City Council on September 15. Once it's published to the public, it will be discussed at the September 8 Golf Commission for their feedback to be brought to the Council. Last Tuesday, City Council awarded the parking lot repair project to Redgwick Construction, and are now coordinating with Greenway and the City Manager, working on the required utilities to get the best possible product. The funds were set aside in 2018-2019 from citywide projects in the Capital Improvement budget, not the golf fund.. Amy was asked when the project would start, and she stated that she would let them know when she finds out. 8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A moment of silence was held in honor of Nancy Wehr prior to adjournment 9. ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - September 8, 2020 Greenway Report Jim's on the Course Report Recreation and Parks Director Report 10. ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:10 p.m. The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the Brown Act. 3 Golf Commission Minutes-Tuesday, - July 14, 2020 | GolfCommission/2020-07-14.pdf |
GolfCommission | 2011-02-23 | 13 | you're fertilizing so many times, you would be able to do that from one year to the next, but when a $25,000 pump breaks down and you add $20,000 to the cart barn, so you have over $100,000 with no money budgeted to do that, it's just more deferred maintenance is what it is." Lisa Goldman: "The cart barn allows you to make more in revenue, right?" Mr. Lillard: "Right, because you can send the carts out twice." Bob Sullwold: "In evaluating getting into a 30-year lease with Kemper, there are responsiblities here. Number one, why is there this over budget number? The other possibility is they are not operating as efficiently as they promised they would. The expenses are higher because they're doing a bad job managing the enterprise. You need to know the answer to that before you decide to do business with that enterprise." 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment) None 7. OLD BUSINESS None 8. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance Department showing a surcharge payment for January 2011 of $5,749. The year-to-date total to the General Fund is $58,562 for FY 2010/2011. 9. ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA Status Report on Long Term Lease and Mif Albright Negotiations including Golf Commission recommendations, if any Update on Golf Complex Finances 10. ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. 13 Golf Commission Minutes-Wednesday, February 23, 2011 | GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2016-12-14 | 9 | you guys to think about, that signage really is a big disability issue. It's relatively cheap to do, and it could have a big impact on everybody's lives here. Thank you. Elizabeth Kenny: Thank you very much. If you could just state your name into the mic when you talk. Thank you. JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: Hi, my name is JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko, and I am a member of this community of disability people, and you brought up an amazing point that I had not really processed through. My disability is muscle spasms, and when I get really stressed, or the weather is cold, heat and ice are paramount to my quality of life and it never occurred to me that if the energy went out, where would I go? I would just panic at home. But going to the police department, fire department, the hospital to have that bit of information. I've been plagued with this for 20 years and it's just really vital to have that and so I appreciate that you provided that. And the other concern I have, when that information came out about providing information, being a person with a disability and wanting to have somebody know that I need help. Maybe some objectives on why are people afraid about providing that information. People pay for services that seniors and people that live by themselves that they pop a button and emergency, your calls are checked in. JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: There's creative energy and there's got to be a way to overcome that obstacle, because yes, I was intimidated and even in my complex I've talked to you a few minutes ago. Ilive at the Willows, 201 units. There was a point where the office asked us to submit information about "In the time of an emergency, provide us with what you needed." And I didn't trust our management, so I did not submit my information. And there were some valid issues about why I didn't trust them, but as a society and a community, that bridge has to be made, because I need to know where I go. At that time, my husband worked the graveyard shift, so I was home by myself at night, he was sleeping, if anything ever happened during that time. There were a couple times when I had to call the police and it was really scary, because I was like, "Well, I can't get to the door because I'm immobile and so how are we going to make this happen?' JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: And everybody has issues and there's got to be a way to invite people. It's a small group and there's got to be a way to just bridge that gap. Somehow to do it through the newspaper. Next Door is really good. Is that a bell telling me I'm done? Okay, but Next Door is really helpful to communicate with my neighbors about challenges that come up. It's really important to overcome that just because they say no, don't shut it down. Think outside of the box. Sharon Oliver: So, we literally only had about four people register, and then a year or two passed, then we went, "Are they still out there?" And then we couldn't reach them. Then it was like, "Well, then the list is old." If we had hundreds of numbers, it would have been a different thing. We know we have got to update this list but we couldn't even get a hold of the four. JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: I know, that's true. Sharon Oliver: Yes, so we were like, "This doesn't have enough buoyancy to move forward." JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: Well, how about at the Senior Center? It just occurred to me, I'm dealing with some issues that our community, and inside the condo perhaps could reach out to the Senior Center and to get help. There was a point in our community in our society that the Gray Panthers were alive and well. And it's like what happened to that community of people? Does everybody know who the Gray Panthers were? Beth Kenny: Are. | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-12-14.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2021-05-04 | 12 | yield the desired result; expressed appreciation for the information provided by Mr. Katz; questioned whether the applicants completed the improvement work or whether the applications were merely submitted without work; stated that she would like to know the status of the repairs; she is concerned the formula not achieving the goal of maintaining the property; one of the not well-liked criteria is that repairs may be amortized beyond 15 years in order to keep the rent increase less than 5%; she would like to know some examples with real numbers of what the amortization looks like; 50% of the City's population lives in rentals; expressed support for staff returning with permit data for non-rentals; if non-rental repairs are low, then the issue is not rental property related; the CIP might be working and rental properties might have a similar repair rate; the goal is to maintain and to keep tenants in properties; Council is trying to move forward to find the right spot. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Mr. Katz stated of the nine submissions, one has been conditionally approved, one has been closed by the owner, one is still pending, and six have been denied. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the reason for denial. Mr. Katz responded that he would need to go back and review the individual cases to determine the reason for denial; stated it is most likely due to the various eligibility thresholds for CIP applications. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the response is instructive; part of the challenge is that Council will soon be engaged in budget hearings to discuss the City's use for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds; some of the funding will be directed to helping tenants and landlords to ensure the City is avoiding displacement; the City is also mindful of landlords suffering hardships due to COVID-19; Council will know more when there has been a chance to discuss and provide direction; Council is mindful of renter's concerns; expressed support for more detail being provided; questioned whether there is a way to incentivize landlords to perform necessary repairs; stated the program is elaborate and has many details; expressed support for a one-page executive summary document at the beginning of the CIP document; stated the information will go a long way to help people understand the process; expressed support for the document beinguser-friendly;stated the program is very complicated, which is one of the reasons the program is so infrequently used ; questioned whether enough information and direction from Council has been given for a motion to be made. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of giving direction to staff to come back by the end of the calendar year in working to address the varied comments from Council to allow for enough time before a program goes into effect. Councilmember Knox White stated a question has come up that some buildings have long and short term rentals; language should be clear that money spent on units being used for short-term rentals, similar to AirBNB, does not count towards the CIP; expressed support for any substantive maintenance cost benefitting one or a small section of a building and leeway being given by the Program Administrator to assign and assess the pass-through to ensure tenants not receiving the benefit of the improvements are not paying for the improvement. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 May 4, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2008-04-14 | 2 | years. Many options have been presented regarding modification of the Posey Tube and freeway exits on 1880. Caltrans has determined that one option, to cut through the Posey tube and create a "hard" right turn upon exiting the tube, is not feasible and was rejected because the tube is not a tunnel and enabling motorists to make a hard right turn could result in an increase of rear-end accidents. Another option considered was creating a new on-ramp at 6th and Market Streets. Although not as effective as the previous option this option is good for transit (bus/BART) connections and provides multiple options for vehicles. This study has a greater impact on Oakland since some property owners will be impacted by any proposed solutions. It will probably be 10-20 years before any construction will begin. It is challenging for cities to continue to rely on "building" their way out of traffic problems. Short-term successes in Alameda may be seen through project development conditions of approval. City Councilmember's from Alameda and Oakland meet quarterly to discuss transportation issues. This is an ongoing effort and will be a long process. Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft commented that transportation is a regional not just a local problem. We need to continue to pursue opportunities to get people out of their cars. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Andrew Thomas advised the Board of a pending design review item for a location (Kohl's) at Alameda Towne Centre (ATC). President Cook asked how the design fits in with the Master Plan Amendment. Andrew Thomas responded by saying Alameda Towne Centre's (ATC) Planned Development Amendment (PDA) allows for expansion of floor area. ATC can introduce new tenants through the design review process but cannot increase tenant space (square footage). President Cook requested the item be placed on the agenda for the next Planning Board meeting on April 28, 2008. President Cook inquired about the status of Clif Bar. Andrew Thomas responded that Clif Bar was concerned about the lack of food choice options in the area and their employees' ability to bike to work. President Cook mentioned the board would like to hear about these concerns from Staff and not from reading it in the newspaper. CONSENT CALENDAR: Page 2 of 7 | PlanningBoard/2008-04-14.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2012-05-08 | 16 | years to check in. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the key tenants indicated they want the proposal to move forward to have development that supports their businesses. (12-218) Councilmember Johnson moved approval of considering the performance evaluation on the closed session agenda [paragraph no. 12- after 10:30 p.m. Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember deHaan stated that he can support Vice Mayor Bonta's suggestion to give further direction to the City Manager to take a last look and have staff come back with options. Mayor Gilmore questioned whether the City Manager could come up with other options. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Councilmembers would be willing move forward if questions are better addressed. Councilmember Tam stated that she is not opposed to entitlement and getting something moving; she is concerned about going forward on a wing and a prayer. Councilmember deHaan questioned whether Council would go forward with a different option. Mayor Gilmore reiterated her concerns. Councilmember Johnson questioned whether status quo is risk free. Mayor Gilmore stated that she is willing to accept a certain amount of risk. Councilmember deHaan discussed reuse of buildings. Mayor Gilmore moved approval of directing staff to support existing tenants, help them to grow their business, look for long term leases, be opportunistic if opportunities come the City's way, and check back in one and a half to two and a half years; and having a discussion if something changes in the State legislature. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, with amendment to look at potential bonding for infrastructure to increase revenue from existing tenants. Mayor Gilmore agreed to amend the motion. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether bonding would be for maintaining Special Meeting Alameda City Council 16 May 8, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 17 | years and now has a change in use the Old County Health Center is back in public use; the process should move forward. Councilmember deHaan stated everyone is saying that it is time to get the community involved in understanding the opportunities to use the Carnegie Building and reviewing the feasibility of what has to be done to bring the building up to the necessary working level ; the Planning Department would be a great asset in making the determination. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of allocating $90,000 for a feasibility study to see how a One-Stop Permit Center would work and to determine what needs to be done to complete the necessary improvements. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Manager stated the process would be initiated; staff would come back to Council for approval if funds are not sufficient. Vice Mayor Tam stated the Americans with Disabilities Act access is important and should be part of the feasibility analysis. Councilmember deHaan concurred with Vice Mayor Tam; stated a process needs to be established on how to engage the public. Councilmember Matarrese stated the public needs to be asked about the Carnegie Building use and one-stop permitting details. Councilmember deHaan requested that a community input process be established to consider other possible uses of the building and to determine what type of individuals to involve and to establish a timetable. The Planning and Building Director stated proposals would be solicited; a Contract would be brought back to Council for approval ; a detailed, public outreach process would be provided. (07-013) Ordinance No. 2957, "Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA- 06-001 Substituting Office, Retail, Health Club, Residential and/or Mixed Uses for Approximately 77 Acres of Previously Entitled Office/Research and Development Uses. " Finally passed; (07-013A) Ordinance No. 2958, "Approving Development Agreement Amendment DA-06-0002 to the Development Agreement By and Between the City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation, Dated June 6, 2000, as Amended. Finally passed; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 January 2, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2006-10-03 | 12 | year. Mayor Johnson requested that the matter be brought back to Council in six months to make sure that the fee schedule works as intended. Councilmember Daysog read the resolution paragraph addressing administrative adjustments. Mayor Johnson stated the intent is to make fees more predictable; she hopes that the fee schedule works as intended. Councilmember deHaan stated past, hard issues have been tackled, particularly the flat rate; he hopes that a proper estimate can be given for time and materials. The Building Official responded efforts are made to provide proper estimates; deposits should cover the full project. Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the percentage for local fees on new residential construction. Te Building Official responded a Bayport home is valued at $350 to $400 based on square footage. fees are about 4% of the value. ouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion should include direction to bring a report back to Council in six months to make sure that the fee schedule works as intended, especially with feedback on commercial fees. The City Manager clarified that the fire inspection and alarm fees are not included in the resolution. Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan agreed to amend the motion to incorporate Councilmember Matarrese's comments and clarification that fire inspection and alarm fees are not included in the fee schedule. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (06-504) - Jimmie Lee Marks, Alameda, stated he was representing the Encinal Alumni Association: the end of 3rd Street has no name ; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 October 3, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf |
GolfCommission | 2008-11-19 | 4 | year-to-date total to the General Fund is $58,587 for fiscal year 2008/2009. 10. ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA Update on monthly pass sales Update on marketing for weekday play Update on the rate increases. 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 7:32 PM. The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. Chuck Corica Golf Complex Page 4 11/19/08 Golf Commission Minutes | GolfCommission/2008-11-19.pdf |
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard | 2015-02-26 | 2 | year, it will be held at Alameda High School and the committee would welcome participation from SSHRB Members. The Oakland / East Bay Gay Men's Chorus (OEBGMC) is scheduled to perform, and other event components are currently being discussed. It was also suggested that the Board / ATAH might help organize a Gay Pride Month event in June, which would include the reading of a proclamation. The discussion returned to Member Williams' idea to have a table at the Park Street Spring Festival coming up in May. It was agreed that a brief survey, asking passersby to share what they perceive to be our community's needs, should be developed. It was suggested that we could hang our SSHRB banner and add balloons and food to help draw attention to the booth. Staff shared a copy of a SSHRB brochure that had been used in the past. Members would take turns staffing the booth during the two-day event. Member Williams offered to create a draft survey and work on updating the brochure. Member Blake left at 8:00 p.m. A motion was made to: 1. Reach out to the AHMDC and offer the Board's support in planning and executing its event. 2. Explore holding a Gay Pride Month event in June, which would include the reading of a proclamation. 3. Develop a community needs survey, update the SSHRB brochure, and participate in May's Park Street Spring Festival. M/S Williams / Hyman Unanimous (6-0) President Biggs continued the discussion of future activities, reminding the Board of the commitment to undertake a second homeless count in late July. Member Williams shared information regarding Berkeley's Bay Area Rainbow Day Camp, a program whose mission is "To empower gender expansive youth to practice gender self-determination in order to live authentically and joyfully within their communities" She asked that the Board help get the word out regarding this program, and consider supporting them in other ways. Member suggestions included asking ARPD to include information regarding the program in its flyers or on its website, distributing its flyer at the Park Street Spring Festival, and helping them raise funds, possibly with an OEBGMC concert in June. While the camp is in Berkeley, it welcomes all gender expansive youth, including those in Alameda. Questions included how we the Board might identify the number of gender expansive youth in Alameda, if other agencies are aware of this program, and if there is a process to refer youth to the program. Member Sorensen reminded the Board that the Jam at Neptune Beach in June is also an opportunity to publicize SSHRB and conduct the survey. A motion was made to: 1. Have a presence at the Jam at Neptune Beach event in June similar to the one being planned for the Park Street Spring Festival. 2. Explore opportunities to publicize and support Berkeley's Bay Area Rainbow Day Camp for gender expansive youth, including holding a fundraiser in June to create camp scholarships for Alameda youth. M/S Hyman / Sorensen Unanimous (6-0) 4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA 2 | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2015-02-26.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2005-04-19 | 7 | year reprieve; suggested a Town Hall meeting be held regarding the ferry system in three to four months; stated that some riders feel out of the loop regarding ferry issues; noted that a Town Hall meeting would provide a better sense of timetables for improving ferry services and costs issues; suggested a more formal way of communicating with riders be developed by the Transportation Commission or an adhoc committee that reports to City Council. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog; suggested that the Town Hall meeting occur soon; stated that the city cannot afford to lose the ferry service; traveling across the Bay Farm Island Bridge would affect commuters and is unacceptable: stated that informing commuters that everything will be done to keep the ferry in service is an urgent matter and maintains credibility for transit solutions at Alameda Point. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is in favor of having the Town Hall meeting sooner, but that it is important to collect information for presentation. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not see any advertising for the ferries; noted that fuel cost issues should be investigated; stated that the City will not lose the ferry service; that there is a long-term possibility that the Water Transit Authority will operate the ferries; the City needs to continue operating successfully until then; there should be a Council briefing on the state of the ferries and then a public workshop. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the maintenance issues are important; noted if the ferry is out of service, commuters find other means of commuting and it is difficult to get them back once habits have changed. Councilmember Daysog suggested that the Council Meeting be the Town Hall meting. Councilmember deHaan stated that there was a fare box increase of 25% and 40% is needed; the capacity of the ferry service and parking limitation is a difficult dynamic to solve; that the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service was successful because parking spaces were increased and ridership improved. Mayor Johnson stated that she has never seen the parking lot full; noted that more riders are needed; stated that ridership went down significantly after the dock closure. The Acting City Manager stated that staff worked very hard and came up with a solution that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 April 19, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2015-04-29 | 9 | year projection, which compares OPEB pay go and the trust fund; the trust fund would work starting in 2019, but would go to $0 by 2034; the idea he has relates to the 1079 retirement account, on which the City currently spends almost $2 million annually; the trust fund is undercapitalized and needs an additional source of revenue; the 1079 fund should be reviewed as a supplement; figures staff provided on the salary increases have calmed him down; the trust fund needs to be comprehensive, improved more and supplemented. Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether staff could comment on the scenario proposed to take funds from the 1079 plan as premiums go down. The Assistant City Manager stated the amount is not going down very much. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's request, the Assistant City Manager explained the 1079 plan; stated the annual change could be researched. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the line item could be extended at the same amount and any difference could go into the trust; inquired whether doing so would be separate or precluded from the action tonight. The City Manager responded the issue is separate; stated the 1079 plan is funded by the General Fund; as the figure goes down, the money becomes available and Council could decide to use it to fund the City's $250,000 annual contribution or additional pre- funding; labor could be re-engaged about the City adding the funding and ask what they are willing to give. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter should be discussed as part of the budget. The City Manager responded the amount is not a big ticket item and is not going down enough to have an impact; stated as the amount decreases, it should not be used on additional programs, but should be used to address long term obligations. Councilmember Daysog the amount was $4 million in 2003 and is down to $1.8 million now; the amount should be locked in and the difference should be used. The City Manager noted the Council might want to use the funds for PERS smoothing. Councilmember Daysog stated figuring it out takes time. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Manager stated nothing needs to be negotiated as long as the City is meeting its obligations to the retirees; that he is suggesting labor should be engaged if Council wants to use the funds to supplement the OPEB trust. Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not want the idea used to open bargaining Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 29, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2006-04-18 | 4 | year funding; allocation adjustments would need to be made based on the funding received. Councilmember deHaan stated some projects are long-range, such as the Woodstock to Webster Street Project. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated only social service contracts are on the two-year funding cycle. Councilmember Daysog stated the two-year funding cycle provides an element of stability for non-profits; he supports the two-year funding cycle. Mayor Johnson stated she is happy the Woodstock to Webster Street Project has CDBG funding; the Council supports the project and feels strongly about moving forward as quickly as possible. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation Councilmember Matarrese thanked the SSHRB for recommendations; stated the SSHRB would be tapped to monitor the progress; decreased funding is a possibility next year. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1. ] (06-207) Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Adjust Appeal Fees to the Planning Board and City Council; and (06-207A) Resolution No. 13945, "Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Fees Charged for Appeals to the Planning Board and to the City Council. Adopted. The Building and Planning Director provided a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated that San Jose's flat fee is $1,925 plus time and materials; she does not like the current system and would prefer a flat fee; cost recovery is not an issue for her; detailed accounting would need to be provided to the appellant if the City were to charge for time and materials. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how many appeals were filed in 2005, and whether the time charged was for salary or hourly employees. The Planning and Building Director responded that 13 appeals were filed in 2005; stated the average cost was $1,061; the $100 per- Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 April 18, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2018-03-20 | 7 | year assumptions. Ms. Mayer stated the information will be included in the budget workshop. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the transfer tax includes the recent transfer tax from Site A. Ms. Mayer responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the amount will be added in. Ms. Mayer responded the transfer tax will be added; stated the actuals were based on June through December 2017 and Site A had not occurred. Vice Mayor Vella inquired when the budget workshop would be, to which the Acting City Manager responded the end of May is the possible date. Vice Mayor Vella inquired where public employee raises are posted. The Human Resources Director responded the salary schedules are posted on the City website. Mayor Spencer inquired whether retail stores closing is being taken into consideration moving forward with regards to sales tax. The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative. Ms. Mayer continued the presentation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why there is an increase in expenses in year 2041. Ms. Mayer responded the increase is based on actuarial science. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the information assumes staffing levels. Ms. Mayer responded the information is based on the City's employment base at the time of the actuarial evaluation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the $203,000 expenditure for Council referrals, the cannabis program and the North Housing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would be paid by the cannabis licensing and application fees. Ms. Mayer responded the expenditure funds upfront cost before the fees are collected. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the $75,000 for the Emergency Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 March 20, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-03-20.pdf |
TransportationCommission | 2012-11-28 | 7 | year and they are around $400,000 short. She asked staff if they considered phasing as part of the project. Staff Payne replied staff should have the funding without seeking additional grants. A large number of monies would come from Measure B Bicycle/Pedestrian pass through and Vehicle Registration Fee pass through monies. Staff Naclerio replied that the City is looking to construct this project within the grant deadlines. Until the bids come in, the City will not know what funds are needed. The City recently received Vehicle Registration Fee monies. If used, then City would have to reduce its resurfacing project funding. Commissioner Schatmeier echoed the tremendous effort made by staff to pull all of the community's comments together. He spoke about a public comment regarding signage. He wondered whether the Commission would see appropriate wayfinding signage included in the project. Staff Naclerio said signage requested by tonight's speaker is not included in the project currently. Commissioner Schatmeier questioned the bus shelters on Webster Street and Park Street. He assumed that the shelters were funded and maintained by the business association. Staff Naclerio replied no. Commissioner Schatmeier asked if the City maintains the shelters. Staff Naclerio replied yes the City erected and maintains them. Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the bus shelters should be constantly maintained or they would detract from the project. Commissioner Vargas encouraged staff to find additional funds for the project. He considered safety as an important factor for the project as well as personal safety while riding a bike and the bicycles themselves. Commissioner Miley made a motion to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Page 7 of 15 | TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf |
CivilServiceBoard | 2012-06-06 | 6 | wrongly laid-off on the basis of not having an equal opportunity through the process. Mr. Wong thanked the Board for their time and hopes they will make the right decision. Ms. Marcia Tsang, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator in charge of Fee Classes and Facilities Rentals, agreed with what Ms. Blumkin and Mr. Wong had stated. She highly recommends that the Board review how they selected current program coordinators and she believes it was not a fair process after hearing from the supervisor and managers that they used to work with and what they had been told in the office and how the process was done. President Peeler invited Chris Low, Senior Management Analyst, to provide his information. Mr. Low stated that he was providing information on the recent work force change implemented in ARPD, the subsequent recruitment and selection process, and personnel appointments to Recreation Services Specialists. Part of what has already been presented by Mr. Gossman, Ms. Blumkin, Mr. Wong, and Ms. Tsang is that yes, on March 2, 2012 the Human Resource Director informed Linda Justus, ACEA President, advising her of the City's intent to recommend and implement a reorganization of ARPD which included eliminating four Recreation Program Coordinator positions, creating a new classification of Recreation Services Specialist and finally recruiting and appointing three individuals to that new classification. Implementation of the work force change and filling of the Recreation Services Specialist positions would be the first steps of reorganizing ARPD toward a model of maximum cost recovery with no effect on front-line services. The parties met and conferred, in good faith, regarding the impacts of the reorganization on April 17, 2012. The initial information to ACEA was on March 2, 2012. On April 3, 2012, the City Council approved a work force change in ARPD by amending the ACEA salary schedule to include the salary range for Recreation Services Specialist. A number of folks who are in attendance today also attended that Council meeting. As a result of Council's action, on April 4, 2012 a promotional recruitment was posted. The Human Resources Department received six applications. Application materials were scrutinized to make sure that the folks who applied did meet the minimum qualifications for the Recreation Services Specialist and all were invited to participate in the selection process, which they did. The recruitment closed on April 11, 2012 and on April 12, 2012 the applicants supplemental questionnaire responses were redacted of any personal identifying information and sent to two external subject matter experts to be evaluated objectively. One of those individuals was named previously and she is with the East Bay Regional Park District. The second person who was not identified works for the Hayward Area Recreation District. Page -6- G:Personnel\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft | CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2021-06-14 | 2 | written communications had attachments that had not been included. He requested that for future meetings that the attachments please be included with the written communication. Zac Bowling thanked the HAB for their recent decision about the proposed development at the McKay property. He believed the decision was thoughtful and the HAB had considered all the facts and the true historical nature of the site. He also acknowledged that his friend Alfred Twu wrote a children's book "RHNA: The House that Makes New Friends" that explained California's housing needs and development. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 7-A 2021-1015 Public Hearing on the Alameda General Plan Update. Director Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4973464&GUID=3EA90382- 595E-46CF-ACBO-EC556F65D2AC&FullText=1. President Teague reminded both boards that this was not an action item. He then opened the public comments. Brendan Sullivan said he was pro-building and pro-housing. He wanted the General Plan to provide a clear strategy for prioritizing locations for RHNA mandated units. He recommended Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront as possible development sites. He also encouraged the City to get the Navy to lift the Alameda Point Housing Development Cap. He believed that upzoning historical neighborhoods should be a last resort. Carmen Reid asked that they not increase the two-story height limit. She believed that too many height increases in historic areas would degrade the area's sense of time and place. She also believed height increases in historic areas would encourage the disruption of architectural character. She believed it was very important for Alameda to maintain its historic character because it is the main attraction for living in and visiting Alameda. Zac Bowling mentioned an email he had submitted, he also echoed the comments made by Dylan Parson, Renewed Hope, and Bike Walk Alameda. He said since this plan spans 20 years it did a good job for the first 15 but was concerned with the nature of RHNA whether the City can actually catch up to the housing demand. He agreed with the proposed plans around Park St and the transit corridors and that the height increases Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 2 of 14 June 14, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2021-03-16 | 28 | write a memo indicating areas in which advice could be given along the lines the City Attorney mentioned to begin to address the issue that was raised by the Committee members about the criminalization of poverty. The City Attorney stated a section on the topic can be included when reports return to Council. Councilmember Knox White stated an issue somewhat tied to the matter is diversion programs and traffic enforcement, such as whether tinted windows need to be enforced when other drivers are speeding. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of directing staff to identify a traffic enforcement policy that focuses on safety related citations, as well as any diversion ideas within traffic enforcement and working with the Transportation Commission; in addition, he would suggest getting a report back on Universal Basic Income (UBI); he heard a lot of support for the conversation; he did not hear Council take up his idea for a catalytic converter rebate or other ideas to avoid crimes; noted the Review Committee will take a long time to get going and that he would like the City Manager to return with ideas in the short term about how the City will shift and change review of the practices of the Police Department so there is civilian review out of the City Manager's office; he does not know what it looks like and will leave it up to the City Manager; he would like a report back on the matter as well. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated catalytic converters are an important issue; she would like add that the City support making it so that catalytic converters cannot be turned in; other States are starting to do so and the legislature should be asked to look into making it illegal for scrap metal people to purchase catalytic converters. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to amend the motion to add the matter to the Legislative Agenda; he thinks there already are a lot of rules around it, but he is not an expert. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the catalytic converter shield rebate; stated that she is not sure if it was included in the motion. Councilmember Knox White stated he left it in the motion as something staff could come back with and ideas how to do, along with other crime prevention ideas. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the intent for traffic related issues which are not safety related, such as non-moving vehicular violations, whether Officers would not enforce violations; stated his intent is that the Officer still enforces it, but per the advice coming from the City Attorney's office something other than issuing a citation can be done; the Officers still need to inform people about violations. Councilmember Knox White stated his motion included direction for staff to come back Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 March 16, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2016-06-27 | 6 | would use. He said they would not have grey water systems but would have purple pipe installed with the project. President Knox White asked why some of the smaller streets have trees on only one side. Staff Member Thomas said that the street plan has been separated from the buildings and would be coming back for its own review and approval. President Knox White opened the public hearing. Karen Bey thanked the developer and team for a great project. She said she encourages approval of the designs for Blocks 6,7, & 10. President Knox White closed the public hearing. Board Member Sullivan said she was concerned with the California pepper trees and how they would be handled. She said the wooden panels on Block 7 did not look integrated and would not age well. Board Member Mitchell said he likes the changes to Block 6. He said Block 7 has a good design and is okay with the wood paneling. He said he has some concerns with how the utility boxes are ultimately handled. He said he liked the flexibility of the spaces in Block 10. He said he wanted to make sure there was drinking fountain access. He said he is ready to see all three move forward. Board Member Köster thanked the teams for all the work they have put into these buildings. He said he liked the design of Block 6. He said as you turn the corner there could be some more differentiation between units on Block 6. He said he liked how Block Approved Minutes Page 6 of 9 Planning Board Meeting June 27, 2016 | PlanningBoard/2016-06-27.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2007-12-10 | 2 | would take longer to define. He noted that such changes to the Building Code could take a long time, following a lot of community discussion. Board member Lynch suggested that there were avenues available to the leadership of the City that may be explored in addition to this effort. He noted that some cities that have adopted green principles and policies without having a green building ordinance. He suggested that the City leaders explore executive orders, in light of ordinances being passed, that while moving forward with public buildings, that they shall meet a certain threshold. He noted that department heads can issue policy papers that as new permits come forward, that define what they would be looking for that would be consistent with the Uniform Building Code as the process moves forward. b. Zoning Administrator Report Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 8-A. PLN07-0059 (Use Permit) - BurgerMeister 2315 Central Avenue. The applicant requests a Use Permit for extended hours of operations from 11 am - 2 am Monday through Sunday pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(a), and use of an outdoor patio for up to 24 seats pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(b). The site is located within a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theater Zoning District. (SW) The Zoning Administrator has referred this item to the Planning Board. This item was moved to the Regular Agenda. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was enthusiastic about the theater project in general, and believed that this restaurant would be a positive addition. She was concerned about extending the hours of operation to 2:00 a.m. She noted that the restaurant's website identified three other San Francisco/Daly City locations, all of which closed by 10 or 11 p.m. She understood the late closing was related to the theater, but was not sure that families would be out that late; she also inquired how late AC Transit operated in that area. She suggested that a closing time of 11:00 p.m. or midnight would be more appropriate for the Park Street district. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding the closing time for La Pinata, Board Member Lynch replied that it was open until 3:00 a.m. Ms. Wolter noted that the applicant requested the closing time. The public hearing was opened. Page 2 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2015-10-14 | 5 | would take a little bit more time; stated the criteria in Sunshine Ordinance Section 2- 92.9 was met. Mr. Klein responded the language specifies the response has to address by whom, when and how the request will be fulfilled. Commissioner Dieter stated that she is reading Section 2-92.9, which states a request to inspect or obtain copies of public records that is submitted to any department or anybody shall be satisfied no later than 10 business days unless the requester is advised in writing within three business days that additional time is needed to determine whether the request for records is likely to comprise a voluminous amount of separate and distinct writings. Commissioner Bonta inquired if Section 2-92.5 is being referenced, which indicates a request for information to any agent of the City requires the agent to respond to said request within three business days by providing or explaining how, when and by whom. Mr. Klein responded in the affirmation; stated said Section is the one in his complaint. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he thought the issue was frivolous when he first looked at it; however, the more he reviews it, the more he is a little bit concerned; he understand Mr. Klein received the documents in time; Mr. Klein is not complaining about that; he is putting himself in Mr. Klein's shoes; a response was due in three days; the response came in on the third day, which is perfectly okay; the response is clarification is needed; Mr. Klein wrote back less than two hours later asking the Attorney to tell him what is unclear; in hindsight from the 16th, Attorney Cohen could have very easily met the three day requirement and still could have asked for the extension; that he does not have a problem with staff asking for the extension; these are emails and over 400 pages, which might include privileged material; he has no problem whatsoever with the extension; if he were in Mr. Klein's shoes, he would say the Attorney is dragging his feet; he does not know why the Attorney was dragging his feet; it may be totally innocent; maybe he was just going away for the weekend, but he is dragging his feet; that he does not want the public or anyone asking for documents to feel like they have to drag the documents out of the City; he is concerned because clearly the three day timeline could have been met. The Assistant City Attorney stated when a complaint has been filed under the ordinance, the Commission hears the evidence and arguments and has to render a formal written decision on the matter; staff needs the Commissions direction. Commissioner Tuazon stated the way everyone communicates now with text and email is so easy to just write something that causes more questions; if he asks somebody a question through email, the response comes back with more questions or creates more problems instead of addressing the issue; people need to be very careful when answering an email; he is not saying that Mr. Cohen was reckless here; however, he did not address the whom, when and how. Meeting of the Open Government Commission October 14, 2016 5 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2015-07-21 | 7 | would read: "residential property means any housing unit including a room or group of rooms designed and intended for occupancy by one or more persons, or a mobile home". Councilmember Oddie inquired what data will Council receive in December. The Community Development Director responded Council would receive a quantitative study about impacts of rising rents for Alameda renters; stated the consultant will look at impacts by tenure, gender, age, and ethnicity; Council could direct staff on next steps in terms of policy recommendations, based on the quantitative data. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the analysis could include a moratorium if wide- spread rent increases are found, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to see a wide range of policy options for Council to address the issue. The Community Development Director stated the ordinance requires staff to report annually; staff will have data points in 12 months. Councilmember Oddie stated it makes sense for Council and the community to have more input in selection of members RRAC members; he would like a public application process with public interviews. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Oddie about the selection process; stated good, workable solutions are found if the Council and community work together. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved introduction of the rent increase ordinance with the modification to remove the definition of a housing unit and to include the definition of a residential property as stated by the Community Development Director ["residential property means any housing unit including a room or group of rooms designed and intended for occupancy by one or more persons, or a mobile home"]. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** Councilmember Daysog left the dais at 9:01 p.m. and returned at 9:02 p.m. *** Vice Mayor Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance creating the RRAC. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.] Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 July 21, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-07-21.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2022-03-01 | 7 | would not include the statutory language in the Use of Force policy and is including "or unreasonable." Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the section relates to Policy 300.3. Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; inquired whether the statutory language can be placed after: "or unreasonably impair." In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated the language is included in AB 490; the terms "reasonably" and "unreasonably" are used throughout policies based on different legal standards and reasons; questioned whether there is legal reason to object to or use the statutory language. The City Attorney stated that he has no concerns with Vice Mayor Vella's proposed changes; Council may insert the language as proposed. Councilmember Knox White stated Government Code Section 7286.5 contains the desired language. Vice Mayor Vella stated the text would read: "a law enforcement agency shall not authorize techniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxiation." Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the policy would read: "Officers are not authorized to use any restraint or transportation method that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxia or unreasonably impair an individuals' breathing,' to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. The Police Chief stated the positional asphyxia language was removed to address his concerns. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on concerns related to confusion. The Police Chief stated the direction of the original language was that terms, such as positional asphyxia, restraint asphyxia and excited delirium, all lead to an outcome that is dangerous to the public; regardless of the terms, his direction is that Officers not do anything which puts someone at risk; he does not want Officers to do anything which will restrict breathing; expressed support for adding the Council proposed language to the policy; stated that he originally utilized the term for consistency. Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for including the language of: "substantial risk of, or unreasonable stated that she agrees with the Police Chief swapping out terms relative to breathing. The City Attorney recommended adding definitional language from the statute if the term "positional asphyxia" is taken out; stated the definitional language provides a caveat that if an Officer places someone in a compressed airway situation, the person must be monitored; the added policy language should read: " without reasonable monitoring for signs of loss of oxygen. if the policy copies the statutory text, there is no need for change; however, the definitional language should be included; discussed an Officer effectuating an arrest with actions that create risk; stated the Officer's constant monitoring of the arrestee, comports with Fourth Amendment standards and should go back into the policy. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2022 5 | CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2020-05-06 | 4 | would not be comfortable trying to overturn the will of the voters with a democratic process by writing into the Charter something that would usurp the political voice of the constituents; the right to vote is very sacred and should be upheld to the highest extent possible; there have been a number of cases of political intrigue that have happened over the years; Alameda's Charter needs to stand up to Constitutional muster and Council needs to be thoughtful about what goes into it; being a Charter City there are a number of areas where Council can legislate, but there are also areas that are precisely and explicitly carved out under the Constitutions of the United States and State of California; suggested removing gender terms; stated language should be changed throughout; she is willing to support Vice Mayor Knox White's proposal; the term "influencing" is overbroad and important to deal with as there are a lot of things that are not ill-intended that could fall under influencing. Councilmember Oddie stated that he concurs with Councilmember Vella's comments; the issue is two and a half years old; he wants to frame his remarks about moving forward; he appreciates the language proposed by Vice Mayor Knox White, but wants to focus on what he thinks is the most important sentence in that the City Council may further implement the section by ordinance, resolution or its Rules of Conduct; the Code of Conduct needs to be brought back in order for the public to see the big picture; it outlines the levels of inquiry and discipline; keeping both together are critical to having the public understand that Council takes the issue seriously; implementing the recommendations of the Grand Jury in a way that improves City government is important; the Constitution exists to control the worst impulses of politicians; the Constitution has a due-process clause; one of the weaknesses in the alternative proposal is that there is a mechanism to remove someone just based on an accusation; he appreciates the statements made in the Jenkins report; quoted some of the language; stated an extra statutory recall provision is not appropriate; care needs to be taken in the future not to vest political power because there could be the tyranny of the majority; Council needs to protect the rights of any future Councilmember and the rights of their constituents; he looks forward to the Code of Conduct. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she concurs with Councilmembers Vella and Oddie and does not favor a recall election be a part of the modification; care should be taken to be non-partisan as possible; it should not be up to a City Council whether or not to pursue a special election; in addition to usurping the rights of voters to choose, special election costs need to be recognized; staying away from selective enforcement is important; she prefers a simpler and straight forward method of drafting regulations so it is easily understood and not ambiguous; addressed issues raised by public comment about the timing of the special meetings; stated direction was given to Council in July, 2019 at a public meeting with ample opportunity for public comment; the three Councilmembers who were able to vote accepted the findings of the Grand Jury and agreed to investigate and make amendments so the Charter delineates specific types of misconduct that constitute a violation, as well as outline an enforcement process; the Vice Mayor's proposed language changes do so; Council respects the right of the voters; Charter provisions need to be amended by a vote of the people; Council plans to meet in June to Special Meeting Alameda City Council 4 May 6, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-05-06.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2014-11-24 | 2 | would need additional support for users of the ferry. Mr. Ernst replied that all future landscaping will be drought-tolerant, and said that two crosswalks had been added to accommodate people coming from the ferry, and existing shuttles would be used to bring workers to the site. Board Member Tang liked the plans presented, and especially the color of the building. Board Member Burton said the building was attractive and a positive addition to the VF campus. He asked if the wooden deck could be continued all the way to the ground. He also noted about feedback from BikeWalk Alameda, and asked that bike parking be located in front of the front entrance. Board Member Knox White asked about some of the doors on the building plans, on North Loop Rd. Mr. Ernst indicated that the door was a required emergency exit. He asked Mr. Thomas about clarification about bicycle parking in the Draft Resolution. Vice President Alvarez appreciated that VF Outdoors is expanding their presence in Alameda. President Henneberry agrees with everyone's remarks. Board Member Burton motioned to approve with modification to the condition of approval for bicycle parking recommended by Board Member Knox-White. Board Member Knox White seconded the motion. The motion carried, 5-0. 7.B. 2014-1091 PLN14-0305-2350 Harbor Bay Parkway - Applicant: Mina Patel. The applicant requests approval of Final Development Plan and Design Review to allow the construction of 105-room, five story hotel. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 155332 In-Fill Development Projects. The Board motioned to continue this item at the Staff's request 7.C. 2014-1094 Parcel Map 10263- 2531/2533 Clement Avenue-PLN14-0363-Applicant: Clement Avenue Property, LLC. A proposed parcel map application to subdivide a 6,749 square foot property into two parcels, located approximately 153 feet southwest of the intersection of Clement Avenue and Broadway. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 155332 In-Fill Development Projects. Staff requests a continuance to the Planning Board Meeting of December 8, 2014. Board approved continuance. 8. MINUTES: Approved Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 November 24, 2014 | PlanningBoard/2014-11-24.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 9 | would make the City less competitive. Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the average public safety retirement benefit for 2% at 50. Mr. Bartel responded the benefit would depend upon retirement age; stated currently, the average pension benefit is approximately $100,000 and would drop by approximately 10%; the benefit would be substantially less by retiring at 50; generally, fire fighters retire closer to 55; police retire between 53 to 54. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any other municipalities are looking at different retirement plans other than PERS; further inquired what would happen to PERS [if cities withdrew from PERS]. Mr. Bartel responded very few; stated the challenge of pulling out of PERS is that withdrawal is very expensive; PERS has an efficient percentage of the City's assets going toward expenses; PERS administrative expenses are low; going to another plan would be amazingly more expensive; withdrawal costs would depend upon the withdrawal method; withdrawing and taking all asset liability would result in taking the City's market value of assets, not actuarial value of assets; the City would be 65% funded instead of 90%; PERS population is one-third State, one-third non-certificated school employees, and one-third public agencies; schools would not have the ability to pull out of PERS; the State would not pull out; one-third of assets would be pulled if all public agencies pulled out and PERS would still do just fine; the City would have the responsibility to provide the current benefit formula for current employees; withdrawal would be expensive and painful; that he is not aware of an efficient way to withdraw. The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (10-292) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14453, "Authorizing Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills." Adopted. The Public Works Director provided handouts and gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Opponent (Not in favor of resolution): Pom Il Song. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Mayor Johnson stated what has been done in the past has worked. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2013-06-04 | 4 | would make a motion to have staff review the issue and bring it back on the next agenda. The City Clerk responded said process is how referrals have been done in recent history. Mayor Gilmore inquired the status and timing on the Bill. Mr. Oddie responded the Bill has passed the Assembly and is currently in the Senate; there is time. Mayor Gilmore stated Council should stick to the process. Councilmember Chen concurred with Mayor Gilmore; stated staff should review the legislation and come back with a recommendation to the Council. Councilmember Tam moved approval of staff reviewing the resolution with the Council consensus of supporting AB1324, make any adjustments and bring it to the next possible meeting. Councilmember Chen seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 June 4, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-06-04.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2008-07-01 | 18 | would like to review the fee structure, particularly the $5 Junior fee; the Golf Course supports junior programs and seniors; the General Fund anticipates a $500,000 shortfall next year; the RFP process would take six months to a year; once something is contracted out, it is never gotten back; he was hoping to get more information on marketing and capital improvements for the existing operation. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of seeking both operation and management proposals. Councilmember deHaan stated full time management is needed in the interim period; some improvements can be made on a daily basis with current staff. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Councilmember deHaan's motion was to issue a RFP to secure a long-term and interim operator. Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative stated that he wished the original report had been included. The City Manager stated staff recommends a RFP for a long-term operator and an interim operator for operations and management. Mr. Singer stated the recommendation is for both operation and maintenance [to be contracted out ] because the maintenance cost structure is the biggest problem. The City Manager stated just doing management is not cost effective; the interim operator could reduce costs immediately and the [RFP] process would take 60-90 days. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she would second ouncilmember deHaan's motion with an amendment; stated more discussion is needed on whether there should be a passive park, recreational specific activity such as the Skate Park, or a national class tournament - type facility; said discussion should be tabled; that she is conscious that the General Fund will be impacted very soon with respect to potential shortfalls in rounds of golf for the next two years; that her amendment to the motion would be to proceed with the RFP for an interim operator in order to stop the hemorrhaging and directing staff to work with the Golf Commission on the Master Plan and seek community feedback on a long-term vision. Councilmember deHaan stated that he would accept the amendment to the motion regarding engaging the public to review uses of the property. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff is being instructed to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 July 1, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2012-04-03 | 9 | would like to restore the course; stated Greenway Golf wants to change the south course into a links course on the theory that a links course would drive traffic and bring in more golfers; Council needs to make a psychological and financial determination; Council needs to determine what would make golfers happy and which golfers would be happy. Mayor Gilmore stated the issue goes back to how to increase revenue; a links course might provide a marketing edge because of being new and different; some local golfers might be unhappy but having the convenience of driving five minutes to the Golf Course cannot be beat. Mr. Sams stated playing conditions are important; however; the most important thing is where golfers' friends play; many residents play with non-resident friends; golf courses have lost a lot of resident players because non-resident rates went up so high; both firms do an outstanding job maintaining golf courses. The City Manager stated the whole process has been different because plans for the Golf Course have been kicked around for at least six years; staff intends to bring a report to Council for a decision on May 15th Councilmember deHaan stated that he understood that the next step would be to submit the proposals to the review committee. The City Manager stated the proposals would be presented to the review committee [prior to May 15th]. Councilmember Tam stated the process started because Council wanted to find a way to preserve the golfing experience with a municipal golf course for residents and youth; Council had to find a way to generate revenue in order to preserve the golfing experience; having a golfing experience that benefits residents is important; that she would like to see a lower rate for residents and preserve lower rates for youth and seniors; the golf issue is similar to what the City experienced with the theater; people commented that they would be happy with just one screen and that multiple screens were not needed; however, multiple screens were necessary to make marketing viable; that she will rely upon staff to advise which option would be the best for the future. Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 10:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:18 p.m. * Vice Mayor Bonta thanked KemperSports and Greenway Golf for good presentations; stated both presentations are strong; the chart presented by Mr. Sams is excellent and clarifies projections; that he would like to have staff provide a similar chart comparing "green" management; ensuring that both companies would have the ability to fulfill promises is important, particularly on delivering front end capital improvements; Greenway Golf has a distinct vision, which is new and bold; that he has no idea whether Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 April 3, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2005-06-07 | 27 | would like to have a six month review; she does not want to bog down the process; the right amount of money needed for urgent matters should be set; the Charter also allows the Council to delegate the authority to other boards and commissions; the Council should consider delegating the hiring of outside counsel for Alameda Power & Telecom to the Public Utilities Board. Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not feel there is over spending in the City Attorney's office. Mayor Johnson stated that she is not suggesting changing the budget amount she is trying to follow the Charter. Councilmember deHaan stated that the budget began with focus on the General Fund; special revenue funds, capital projects, debt service, and enterprise funds also need to be reviewed. Mayor Johnson stated that all the funds are intermingled to a certain extent and have impacts on each other. Board Member deHaan moved adoption of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Resolution. Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the Community Improvement Commission Resolution. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the City Council Resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05-031CIC) - Recommendation to approve the Determination that planning and administrative expenses incurred during FY 2004-05 are necessary for the production, improvement or preservation of low- and moderate-income housing. Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 12 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2018-07-24 | 20 | would like to allow the use in the Commercial-Manufacturing (CM) zoning district; adult use should be brought back to Council; discussed the initiative; suggested a tax be addressed; stated the manufacturing RFP should be rolling; the cap on the labs should be lifted; there could be four or five smaller labs, rather than one or two large labs; the application on cultivation could also be rolling; business licenses should be required for delivery services, which may be the way of the future. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is okay with reducing the 1,000 foot buffer zone to 650 feet in certain circumstances, such as Ruby's Tumbling and Mathanasium, because children would not be unattended; the buffer zone should remain for all schools, recreation centers at parks and the Boys and Girls Club; she would consider amending the CM zoning to allow dispensaries, manufacturing and labs; outreach should be done to business parks; Alameda Point should not be included; she would not support expanding into C-1 at this time; the one mile dispersion should remain; she would not add recreational use without robust public input; expressed support for delivery services; inquired how staff would know and regulate businesses outside Alameda doing deliveries. The Economic Development Manager responded the honor system would be used; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 July 24, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2007-02-12 | 12 | would improve, and that some consequences would follow noncompliance of specific Board requests. Member McNamara inquired about the Big Box Retail Study, and noted that she had not heard anything further. Ms. Woodbury replied that no meeting had been scheduled yet, and that no funds had been budgeted to hire the consultant. City Council believed that many retail and leakage studies had already been held, and requested that staff compile existing information for the committee. After that, it would be determined whether there were any gaps in the information, and whether further study would be needed. Member Kohlstrand suggested moving Staff Communication to follow Oral Communication. Ms. Woodbury noted that could be agendized as an amendment to the Rules and Procedures. b. Future Agenda Items. None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anland Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the March 26, 2007 meeting. This meeting was audio and videotaped. Planning Board Minutes Page 12 February 12, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf |
TransportationCommission | 2013-09-30 | 7 | would have to coincide with the BRT proposal and it now seems the proposal will get done whether the redesign gets done or not. He proposed that the plan be its own separate priority project, especially since it is a huge priority for moving people around the west end. Boardmember Burton said he seconded Boardmember Knox White's comments about Lincoln Avenue. He felt we do not know what is going to happen 20 to 30 years out. Also, he asked about the $1.5 million dollars used for the proposal and wondered how it should it be spent. He felt the report did not refer to great projects of that scale and it is not fair for the Commission and the Board to ask for direction when they had not received concise options for projects that would fit within that framework. He would like to see more work done there. Boardmember Zuppan referred to the illustration and neighborhoods that are within the outer boarders of the City that have no transit service. She said the Clement Avenue option should be considered more and staff should look at pockets where the City is developing. Moreover, she was concerned about the lack of examples shown for the money that would be used. Lastly, she agreed with AC Transit's opinion to reserve or set aside lanes in both directions and it is hard for her to believe that there would not be a need, especially at major intersections. Boardmember Tang said he was concerned with the bus only lane and wondered if the City would implement limited service hours within the BRT lanes. Colin Burgett replied the BRT lanes would be open 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Nathan Landau replied limiting the hours of bus only lanes, similar to San Francisco would create tremendous enforcement problems. Boardmember Alvarez-Morroni said she was concerned with the funding deadline. John Atkinson replied that the remaining section of the grant is being passed through by BART and consolidated until November 2014. It should go through the construction process by that time, but they could go to the federal agencies to extend the deadline. He explained that Phase I was extended twice, so there is a possibility. Page 7 of 11 | TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2015-01-21 | 5 | would go back and put the item ahead of other things; the City Manager will tell the Council when the matter can be addressed; everyone has heard concerns that trying to get back and forth over the Bridge during commute time is challenging; no one is denying there is a problem; the City will try to address all problems as expeditiously as possible. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous vote - 5. (15-071) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Consultant Study to Determine the Feasibility for a Wetland Mitigation Bank at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Oddie) (Continued from January 20, 2015) Councilmember Oddie made brief comments on the referral. Stated wetland mitigation banks typically produce a better environmental outcome; creating a bank would create a business deal for projects; areas will not be protect by sea level rise; suggested asking California Fish and Wildlife to do a walk through and receive free advice before spending money: Richard Bangert, Alameda. Stated plans were passed to have wetlands at Alameda Point; obtaining information can never hurt; urged the Council to support the referral: Irene Dieter, Alameda. Councilmember Oddie stated a portion of the referral addresses consultants estimating the cost of removing the concrete by the west side of the seaplane lagoon; he supports Mr. Bangert's idea of an interim step if it would be helpful; the City is moving on Site A and is maybe not moving so fast on Site B; that he would like to see the City move forward on the wetlands and the park portion of Alameda Point as well. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would amend his referral to include the intermediate step, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative. The Assistant City Manager suggested revising the referral to: "an appropriate agency" so it is not restricted to one body because there may be another body that staff would like to approach. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the referral with amendments [directing the City Manager to conduct a consultant study to determine the feasibility for a wetland mitigation bank at Alameda Point, including the interim step of asking an appropriate agency to do a walk through and receive free advice before spending money]. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thinks the suggestion is a good idea; Vice Mayor Matarrese discussed the matter on the campaign trail; Mr. Bangert indicated a bank may not be right for Alameda; while gaining information never Special Meeting Alameda City Council 5 January 21, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2013-06-24 | 5 | would bring a lot of traffic in the tunnels that would impact her neighborhood. This doesn't feel like the right direction for Alameda. Jerry Serventi, WABA Design Committee, commented on the excitement of the development. He asked that landscaping be the first sight from the tube and it should say 'this is Alameda'. President Burton closed the meeting to public comment. Board member Knox White commented that this plan has been in the works for 18 months and without being rushed the board should take the time it needs to approve a good design. He further commented on the jaywalking issues and feels the lack of pedestrian and bike traffic coming onto the site is inadequate. He commented on guidelines in the General Plan and worries they are not making it into the project plans. There haven't been real talks with CalTrans on what can happen in planning. He asked if there was a need for the entire 7 lanes on Stargell and Webster. He stated it doesn't seem it be reasonable this will be back in two weeks. He expressed concerns that the transportation study staff report doesn't address pedestrians and thinks the City and applicant have more work to do. He does not support beer and wine at the gas station. Vice President Henneberry stated this is the City of Alameda, not the city of Target or city of In-and-Out Burger and the signage should reflect this. He asked staff if the Safeway at Southshore is 24-hour, and he agrees this site should not sell alcohol. He asked for public safety to address comments on fast food, banks and late night hours leading to crime. Sgt. Ron Simmons, APD Traffic Division, responded by saying whenever there is something new it draws more people to the area and leads to more crime due to the fact there are more people. He cannot comment on a preference for one business over another. Vice President Henneberry asked about the hours for the operation of the In-and-Out Burger use permit. He asked for the hours of operation for Jack-in-the-Box on Webster. Mr. Kennedy stated hours of operation being open at 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. This is their standard. Board member Tang asked if late night hours could be compared to other times as far as sales. Board member Alvarez-Morroni asked about crime at In-and-Out Burger sites. She further asked about moving it to the Mariner Square Loop side of the development instead. She asked about the signage issues and is the company opened to a different look. Mr. Kennedy stated they hire security if incidents arise. He stated they are always willing to work with the developers to look at different areas in the site plan. Where it is currently has a larger drive-thru lane. He commented that older stores with older signage are being Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8 June 24, 2013 | PlanningBoard/2013-06-24.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2008-01-15 | 10 | would be the result on the calculations by assuming a 4.5% medical inflation rate after 10 years. Mr. Bartel responded healthcare becomes 100% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) if healthcare continues to grow in the high single or low double digits and general inflation is 3% the scenario of doing nothing means having natural market forces controlling healthcare costs which results in private sector entities dropping healthcare coverage the end result would be 50% of the population uninsured something would need to be done; the actuarial accrued liability might be 30% higher if the grade is increased from 4.5% to 6% accounting standards suggest that an evaluation every two years for agencies that have more than 200 participants. Mayor Johnson stated a two-year evaluation is fine, but the chart should not go out as far as it does based on a 4.5% medical inflation number; assuming that the federal government will adopt a national healthcare plan is very optimistic. Mr. Bartel stated that he is reluctant to project beyond a ten year period in terms of actual dollars; he cannot predict what will happen ten years from now. Councilmember Matarrese stated that Pay-As-You-Go could be much more expensive than pre-funding with a fund that starts having a return from investments. Mr. Bartel stated Pay-As-You-Go is similar to how social security is funded today; a check is written when the payment is due; social security has a trust fund; the trust fund will run out in approximately 15 years; tax dollars will not be sufficient to pay for expected benefits; social security is funded by a quasi pre- funding; CalPERS and private sector retirement systems require that money be set aside so that there is money in a trust and the money will be there as people retire; the City has entered into a contract with CalPERS to pre-fund benefits. Councilmember deHaan stated many municipalities have addressed the issue. Mr. Bartel stated that he has performed approximately 150 evaluations; he predicted that four out of five of his clients would not do any pre-funding four or five years ago; he was wrong; the majority of his clients do not have the budget ability to pay the full Annual Required Contribution (ARC) immediately; he is convinced that most of his clients will either phase into paying the full ARC or adopt a standard of putting something aside so that Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 January 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2020-10-26 | 9 | would be the Alameda Municipal Power Solar Proposal and a residential project on Santa Clara. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS None. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Billy tried to speak but unfortunately they were having technical difficulties. 13. ADJOURNMENT President Curtis adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 9 of 9 October 26, 2020 | PlanningBoard/2020-10-26.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2006-12-05 | 21 | would be reviewed by the Planning Board and Transportation Commission before first phase development is approved; an annual reporting process also would be required to evaluate how the program is doing; flexibility is necessary for the TDM Coordinator to respond to user demand. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the Transportation Commission and Planning Board could set trip reduction goals and a measuring methodology. The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the business deal provides Catellus with some security as to the program cost; $425,000 must be provided to the TDM program for operations each year; the City does not have the ability to come back in three years and unilaterally request $600,000 Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired who determines how to use the $425,000. The Supervising Planner responded the Planning Board and Transportation Commission have the ability to review the TDM program for the first phase of the project; stated the program would be up and running once the first phase development is approved; the manager would oversee the use of the money. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether recommendations would be brought to Council. The Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated the site phase is at the Planning Board approval level. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether shuttle use would be contemplated in the TDM program. The Supervising Planner responded the idea was to establish a funding source for an annual operation and allow some flexibility for how best to use the money. *** Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog moved to continue the meeting past midnight. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 10 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2007-06-19 | 18 | would be reviewed at mid-year. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether some capital improvement funds could be used for the Meyers House to make the facility more available to the City. The Recreation and Park Director responded the Meyers House is partially funded through a trust fund established by the Meyers family stated the Recreation and Park Department subsidizes approximately $20,000 to $25,000 per year for the upkeep to the grounds and house. Mayor/Chail Johnson stated eventually roof repair would need to be done. The Recreation and Park Director stated a long-term plan needs to be developed. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she was on the Planning Board when the City Council accepted the Meyers House; a condition was that the Meyers House would not cost the City money. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the maintenance cost, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded $50,000 to $60,000 per year. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the City is subsidizing over half of the cost, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated previous discussions addressed not using the grounds more because of the lack of restrooms. The Recreation and Park Director stated no outdoor restroom facilities are available; the Meyers House is in the middle of a residential neighborhood; rentals take place a couple of times a year for wedding ceremonies and teas; parking is limited. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated residents are subsidizing the Meyers House; it is important to find a way for residents to enjoy the facility. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what are the hours of operation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 7 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 19, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2010-12-07 | 11 | would be provided, not a final lease document. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she does not have the sense that Council is requesting a document but wants business terms in the larger context to know whether the Mif Albright Course fits; an executable document is not needed. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note: under Council Communications, Vice Mayor deHaan amended his vote to abstain.] COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (10-593) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointments to the Housing Commission; Planning Board; Public Art Commission; and Transportation Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Dorie Lofstrom-Perez to the Housing Commission; Karen Lee to the Public Art Commission; and Thomas Bertken and Jesus Vargas to the Transportation Commission. (10-594) Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he reconsidered his vote on the Mif Albright Golf Course [paragraph no. 10-592 and he would abstain. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 December 7, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-12-07.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 24 | would be maintained by the developer and whether the MSD would be paid for by the project and would not be a burden of the City or residents, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated a commitment has been made to reutilize some of the buildings even if Clif Bar is not a tenant. inquired whether there is a market for the buildings. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded that Clif Bar is the identified tenant for the adaptive reuse; Catellus could continue the demolition of the warehouses if Clif Bar went away and there were not a replacement tenant ; currently, Catellus is not going in said direction but is looking at preserving more warehouses. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see some ensurance if the project performs better than expected; a trigger point needs to be established for getting additional funding if $425,000 is not enough; he would like to see some type of trigger point that shows an evaluation would be done against the agreed upon criteria after a defined period of time that allows additional money to be allocated up to a certain percentage for the TDM Program if the project is performing better than the Performa. The Supervising Planner stated the commercial development agreement could be brought back to Council in two weeks with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated it is important for the motion to have as much specificity tonight for the purpose of having the ordinance adopted in two weeks. Mr. Marshall inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese was making a connection between the project being more successful than anticipated and some additional burden on the TDM Program or whether the thoughts were independent. Councilmember Matarrese stated the connection is that there will be more traffic if the project is wildly successful. Mr. Marshall stated the challenging aspect is how to measure the TDM Program; a cap was established to understand the financial impact to the developer; an escalator is in the drafted document which is not insignificant : the developer seems to be hit twice with a percentage increase and an escalatori suggested that the escalator be deferred until the adjustment is made; additional language would need to be added to the underwriting to explain the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 January 2, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2008-04-01 | 6 | would be informed if a project has to be delayed. Vice Mayor Tam stated the local action plan spans departments, while the telecom issue is just an Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) issue; inquired whether one project might be delayed if staff is shifted to another project. The City Manager responded said example could occur; AP&T is working on more than one project. Vice Mayor Tam stated AP&T staff is needed to work on reducing the carbon footprint inquired whether the same staff person might work on the telecom issue and the formation of the local action plan and whether said staff working on the telecom issue might delay the formation of the plan. The City Manager responded one could impact the other depending on workload; stated moving forward with the local action plan does require some of the same people [as the telecom issue]. having some of the same people work on multiple projects has been incorporated in the time estimates. Councilmember Matarrese stated there are a variety of issues from addressing the financial issue at AP&T to renovating Rittler Field, and Lincoln and Krusi Parks; said items do not belong on the same ranking sheet; getting a measuring mechanism for each item would be a far more productive use of time; the department work plans are excellent; some projects are interdisciplinary and can be separated out; the next step should be to get Microsoft Project or some other type of project tracking tool and assign due dates and resources; Council would need to make decisions about priorities if resources become impacted because more requests are added; finishing easily taken care of projects, which might be of less importance, might become important in order to get the project off the list. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the list is composed of items Council has directed staff to complete, to which Ms. Perkins responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated the presented workload should be looked at objectively and resources should be allocated; there are a finite number of projects; some projects might be five years out because there are too many tasks for the current staff; said information needs to presented to Council and Council can make adjustments. Ms. Perkins stated Councilmember Matarrese's description is exactly how staff views their responsibilities to determine how to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council April 1, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2011-05-31 | 6 | would be engaged about doing a public-private partnership. Councilmember Johnson noted the City would not be locked into the direction without questions being answered first. The Acting City Manager stated Frequently Asked Questions information could be prepared. Mayor Gilmore stated community input should be solicited on the front end for the next budget; community members should consider how they would prioritize core services and provide suggestions; the City needs to build a budget based on the services the community values. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:02 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 6 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission May 31, 2011 | CityCouncil/2011-05-31.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2007-04-17 | 20 | would be difficult to do later, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative. Chair Johnson inquired whether other canopies could be added later, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Matarrese stated that he likes Alternative #1; inquired whether either alternative would have an effect on the ability to get a tree easement or put a vine trellis/mural on the northern wall. The Redevelopment Manager responded architecturally there would not be a problem. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a financial impact. The Redevelopment Manager responded the easement would have to be negotiated with Longs; stated that she does not know whether there would be financial implications. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether vines could be planted without obtaining an easement. The Redevelopment Manager responded external planters become a high maintenance issue because the plants tend to die. Commissioner Matarrese inquired what would be the option for making the northern side look decent. The Redevelopment Manager responded vines take five to seven years to grow; stated an alternative would be to architecturally retrofit the northern elevation in the future; additional funding would be required; another alternative would be to do a temporary vinyl mural : a mural could be placed on the three, middle bay windows to break up the façade and cover the slope. Chair Johnson stated hopefully more contingency money would become available and other options could be explored. Commissioner deHaan inquired why the marquee canopy price changed drastically. The Redevelopment Manager responded that she speculates the original bid was not correct; stated staff would negotiate to reduce the cost if the Commission decides to pursue the option. Commissioner deHaan stated the northern elevation treatment changed Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 April 17, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2006-12-11 | 15 | would be brought before the Board in the form of the Target PDA. 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook advised there was nothing new to report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Member Kohlstrand noted that there had been no meetings since her last report. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Member Cunningham was not in attendance to present this report. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATION: Mr. Thomas reviewed recent City Council action on Development Projects. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anlable Andrew Thomas Secretary, City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the January 8, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 15 December 11, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2009-10-20 | 21 | would be better reviewing the best way to spend money for the community as a whole is important. Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is glad money is being invested in the website which can be used as a tool to measure successi the internet has become the first search avenue; that he would like to receive an interim report and not wait until the end of the year to see how things are going; the City needs to be agile because of the current, unsettled financial environment; milestones need to be established. Following Ms. Marr's comments, Commissioner Tam stated the City is spending $250,000 in advertising between the four associations; having a coordinated effort in getting the most bang for the buck is important. Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation. Chair Johnson inquired whether Economic Development would work with the associations to pool resources. The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated efforts are being made to collaborate a holiday event also. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 5. (*09-44 CIC) Recommendation to Approve and Appropriate a $200,000 Brownfields Subgrant Agreement to Assist in the Fleet Industrial Supply Center Fire Cleanup. Accepted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (09-422 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 30-17 (Density Bonus Regulations) to Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Allow Density Bonus Units and Incentives or Concessions to Developers that Voluntarily Provide for Affordable Housing Units as an Element of Their Residential Development Project. Not introduced; and (09-45 CIC) Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 04-127 to Reduce the Inclusionary Unit Requirement Policy for Residential Developments in the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Project Areas from at Least 25% to at Least 15%. Not adopted. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2013-09-25 | 3 | would be added back; the Tubes and facilities previously accommodated the flow of 14,000 jobs; before 1997, when there were 14,000 jobs, there was not the current and proposed development in Oakland or sea level change issues as well other issues raised by speakers; requested staff to provide a contextual framework. The City Planner stated the State has established a very prescriptive way to do an EIR; staff and consultants will ensure additional information and context is available to the community, Planning Board and Council; the greatest number of jobs and population was in 1994; a lot of cars left Alameda Point every day; the Navy had ways of managing trips through staggered shifts, but traffic was still bad; staff's approach is to determine what the community can manage and to use different methods; new techniques have to be found for people traveling back and forth to new jobs at Alameda Point; a portion of the redevelopment at Alameda Point would get the City back to the jobs and population 20 years ago; transportation is one of the most interesting challenges; positive things are on the horizon, which other communities are doing; employers run shuttles because employees do not want to drive; companies at Alameda Point today want to start running shuttles; Marina Village is looking at doing a shuttle study; the younger generation is not rushing to buy cars, which will be part of the solution moving forward. Councilmember Tam noted the City's population only increased by less then 1% in the past 10 years. The City Planner stated people feel like the population has been growing faster because of driving habits; a challenge is getting the community to change driving habits; the City has been working with regional transportation agencies, such as the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) and BART regarding options and solutions; trips have be to reduced and alternatives are needed, such as a BART extension, which the City is still working on; BART recently attended the Planning Board meeting and wants to review the option. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Bay Area recently had a couple of opportunities to do trial runs of alternative means of transportation, other than cars, during the BART strike and Bay Bridge closure; the ferries saw tremendous increases in ridership; people will use other means of transportation; the ferries and AC Transit stepped up operations; the City Council and Planning Board receive lots of emails from people concerned about proposed developments and the impact of automobile traffic; encouraged everyone to think about their personal habits and ask themselves whether everything is being done to minimize car dependency; the public's help is needed; options reviewed for Alameda Point should be applied to the greater community as well. Mayor Gilmore stated transportation demand management plans and ways to minimize the impact of new development assumes the problem is Alameda Point; however, how the rest of the Island gets around is going to have to change; everyone should be thinking about taking shuttles and BART; the solution is going to have to be Island wide. Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 3 Planning Board September 25, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2021-12-21 | 11 | would be a shame. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does rely on staff recommendations. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated staff should be considering the equity aspect for the program; many suggestions have been provided about rotating slow streets; she has not heard of anyone volunteering for more car traffic; many people are happy to have less car traffic; the concern of increased car traffic is legitimate; the issue of equity is valuable; expressed support for staff taking the matter to heart. Councilmember Daysog stated slow streets barriers prevent through traffic; some streets want the barriers and have reasons just as valid as any other street. On the call carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. (21-849) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Agreement with Kittelson & Associates to Increase Compensation by $270,906, for a Total Aggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $345,876 to Continue Providing Technical Services Related to Roundabouts. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the work being performed includes rendering videos. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the contract is currently trying to identify where roundabouts can physically and practically work; stated the next step would be to narrow down the limited locations and start conceptual designs for the specific locations; then, staff can work on graphics and videos. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the contracted amount includes providing the rendering video or whether the contract includes more preliminary work, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the work is more preliminary. Mike Alston, Kittelson & Associates, stated that he has been working with staff on roundabout work throughout 2021; advanced alternatives are included further down the line; a task for visualization is included in the proposed scope of work. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the additional money covers visualization, to which Mr. Alston responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether visualization will be included for each roundabout. Mr. Alston responded the visualization is included for certain locations where a roundabout would be viable; once enough is known, the scope includes the task to visualize the proposed concept; multiple videos for roundabouts will not be made; however, if a viable location be identified, staff will develop a design for the location; if the location is presented to the Transportation Commission and Council, the visualization will be prepared. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 21, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2005-08-16 | 29 | would allow Catellus to explore a change in the current DDA. The Development Services Director responded that the amendment would allow Catellus to explore re-entitlement of the existing property. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a public process that would allow people to comment, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Matarrese stated that he wanted people to be aware that the matter would be publicly noticed and that Catellus would be given a year to provide more information. Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions Commissioner deHaan - 1. AGENDA ITEMS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 2:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 August 16, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf |
TransportationCommission | 2009-01-28 | 8 | worse than the conditions in front of the College of Alameda. He noted that Otis and Park was also a difficult intersection for pedestrians, even though it was an LOS C. He noted that Encinal and Park, which was a busy intersection and was not a good place to park, which was an LOS B. He believed that the City should step away from LOS D. He understood where the transit numbers came from, and suggested that a percent change along a segment would be more meaningful. He believed it would be difficult to come up with a specific number, and that change in the current level of service would be more meaningful in keeping the transit schedule. Commissioner Schatmeier requested further clarification on how a level of service could be assigned to transit, and noted that length of the corridors were an issue. He did not know what the baseline was, and noted that a bus could travel through Alameda at midnight than during the peak hour because there were not as many passengers, and not as many cars on the streets. Staff Khan noted that staff would examine peak period conditions, and noted that any ADA delay of the bus was not part of the discussion; that discussion meant travel time, and subtracting dwell time from the transit travel time. If a project increased the travel time with more cars, and if LOS was already E or F, staff would examine what else could be considered. Commissioner Krueger believed the length of the corridor had to be considered, and that the automobile arterial segments discussed the average travel speed, which must take the length of the corridor into account. He believed that should be taken into account for transit as well, and that the effect on the travel speed should be considered. Staff Khan stated that was correct, and that staff was looking at segments of approximately one- half to three-quarters of a mile. Staff Khan noted that when staff examined it, they had not run the arterial analysis at that point. He noted that it looked at signalized intersections, and that they inquired whether the model could be run on a street without signals. He noted that they may want to resort to the intersection, and that they were discussing the issue with Dowling. Commissioner Schatmeier inquired why the City would be tolerant of degradation of the LOS for automobiles, and believed there were impacts that should be described and responded to. Chair Knox White agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's comment, and noted that he would like to identify the impacts. Staff Khan noted that the Commission would like to examine: 1. Degradation for pedestrians, bikes and transit by a letter grade; look into how the thresholds were set, particularly D versus C, as well as for pedestrians and bikes; 2. The baseline for transit LOS D should be defined and addressed; 3. Travel speed is a better measure for transit than delay; 4. The intersection LOS should be evaluated for automobiles; and 5. Why the degradation of the automobile LOS should be allowed to degrade. 8 | TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf |
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard | 2013-04-11 | 2 | world strategies. Through this focused action, it hopes to empower the Greater Bay Area communities to stand up and say ENOUGH child sexual abuse! Ms. Kudarauskas explained that she would like to present the PP at a meeting on Non-profit EDs in preparation for the launch. Campaign materials will include trailers that hopefully can be run at the Alameda Theatre. Member Robles-Wong enquired about the campaign's capacity to reach non-English speaking Alamedans. Ms Kudarauskas shared that there will be the opportunity to train multi-lingual presenters. We will check to see in which languages the PP is available. Motion recommending the Board co-sponsor the Enough Abuse Campaign in Alameda, in partnership with Alameda Family Services. M/S Wasko/Villareal Unanimous 3-B. WORKGROUP PROGRESS REPORTS - Information - 30 minutes Assessment and Awareness Workgroup President Wasko said she was prepared to put together a "Survey Template" but wanted feedback from others regarding whether or not it was needed. The consensus was to provide basic information as opposed to a complete "How To" package. The next survey conducted by the Board will most likely be one dealing with Human Relations. Resource Sharing Workgroup Member Biggs announced that there was a meeting of non-profit EDs on March 20. President Wasko was there to suggest collaborative grant application opportunities, but the group expressed that they would like more time to gel as a group before taking on collaborative projects. They plan to meet again soon. Alamedans Together Against Hate Workgroup Member Villareal shared that ATAH met a few weeks ago and is in the process of drafting a letter to the Scouts that might also be shared with the media. He also announce plans for the upcoming 4th Annual Harvey Milk Day Celebration. Jim Franz has joined Henry as co-chair for the event. 4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA - Information - 10 minutes Member Robles-Wong announced that he is helping coordinate the Asian Pacific Island Cultural Festival at South Shore on May 19. One of the roles he is playing on the committee is recognition of Asian Pacific Island former armed forces members. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Information - 3 minutes per speaker 6. ADJOURNMENT B\PACKETS\2013\A 013\MINUTES April 2013.doc | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2013-04-11.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2006-09-19 | 13 | workshops should include a wide range of individuals and should be noticed and open. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing the Fire Marshal and other Department Heads, including the City Manager and Planning and Building Director, as needed, to take the matter back to a workshop open to the public and publicly noticed to resolve issues raised and bring other issues to the forefront, particularly to look at the equity and value, the threshold amount, and the way that the worth is calculated and projected across the project as well as looking at the on-going operating costs versus the benefit of the revised code. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that stakeholder comments should be noted and compared to what staff thinks is needed. Councilmember deHaan stated the cost of follow up needs to be placed in the equations. The Fire Marshal stated one and two family dwellings do not have on-going maintenance costs; inspections are performed by the homeowners. Mayor Johnson stated examples should include costs for different types of structures. Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on whether garages are part of the square foot determination. Mayor Johnson inquired whether garages are exempted for single- family homes and duplexes. The Fire Marshal responded garages would be required to have a sprinkler if attached to the dwelling. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a detached garage would need to have a sprinkler, to which the Fire Marshal responded only if the garage is more than 300 square feet. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-474) Ordinance No. 2952, "Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda from Open Space (O) to Community Manufacturing Planned Development (CM-PD) by Amending Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 September 19, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2006-06-07 | 4 | workshops and stakeholder interviews, and to get a read of the community to help Development Services direct resources. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the information from the last two meeting has been summarized and is available, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Commissioner deHaan requested said information. The Development Manager noted the information has been provided to Dr. Manross to assist him with developing questions. Commissioner deHaan stated that he would like to see the questions once developed. The Development Manager stated an Economic Development Commission (EDC) subcommittee would assist with drafting the questionnaire. Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be done with the data. The Development Manager responded the data with be reviewed, analyzed and presented to the EDC. Dr. Manross stated the information gathered would be tested in the community; there would be a return on the investment. The Development Services Director stated the survey would be an update to the EDSP, which provides the foundation; the survey would ensure the EDSP stays valid. Commissioner deHaan stated results should be presented to the community; his concerns are ensuring results of meetings held are included and the crafting of the questions; there is no hidden agenda for funding streams. Ani Dimusheva, Alameda, stated the best way to get the opinion of the community at large is to talk to the community; suggested holding a town hall meeting once a month at cafes throughout town; stated a study is not needed. Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation, with the change to cap the budget at $17,000 to allow staff and the consultant to determine how to proceed stated that he would hope for a higher sample size; however, increasing the time is acceptable. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 4 June 7, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2022-02-01 | 27 | workshop during a regular Council meeting; it is untrue that Council must discuss priorities at a workshop retreat; Council can start by reviewing prior Council priorities and set the matter as a regular agenda item; all Councilmembers are available the first and third Tuesday of the month. Vice Mayor Vella stated that Council discusses priorities at workshops in order to allow for a focus and deliberation on only the priorities; workshops have previously lasted several hours; expressed concern about having full agendas; stated taking away from the business of the City or ensuring the discussion does not occur at 11:00 p.m. is the reason to have a separate workshop; she will not be supporting the motion. Councilmember Daysog stated that he found the referral reasonable; the idea of having a workshop during a Council meeting starting at 5:00 p.m. is reasonable; Council has held workshops in areas which were not accessible or generally open to the public. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the motion be re-stated. The City Clerk stated the motion is to approve the referral to have the priority setting workshop held at a regular City Council meeting. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. (22-093) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (22-094) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (22-095) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the Vaccine Task Force's booster clinic at Mastic Senior Center. (22-096) Councilmember Daysog discussed the City Council/School Board Subcommittee meeting; stated the School District will be placing a bond measure on the June ballot. (22-097) Councilmember Knox White discussed the AC Transit Interagency Liaison Committee meeting; stated AC Transit Line 78 to the Seaplane Lagoon for the 1 year pilot program is coming to the end; the pilot program cannot be extended; public hearings will be held. Councilmember Daysog noted AC Transit is also working with the City on a bus pass for low income senior citizens and those with disabilities. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 1, 2022 27 | CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf |
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-08-02 | 2 | works; she is not convinced either way whether outside legal counsel is needed or whether it could be done in-house with City Attorney staff; if the Commission is not satisfied with the product, then the alternative could be tried; all attorneys are trained to argue multiple sides of any issue; she would like to see a neutral memo first. Commissioner Reid stated the Commission's task is to ask what is the best way for the OGC to serve the public; the OGC needs to ensure that someone who is bringing forward a complaint receives the best chance of being heard and understood; suggested having outside, independent counsel for the next few meetings to see what that would look like; stated the complaints heard this year already took the other approach with the City Attorney's office drafting resolutions, which had a lot of confusion; she would like to try the outside counsel approach, but would like to know a cost estimate first. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she does see the two paths as the most desirable; she is leaning towards the option of what the City Attorney's office proposed because it is an incremental step; there has actually never been a neutral memo come from the City Attorney's office; everything has always been viewed by everyone writing it as an advocacy piece; the City Attorney's office prefers to structure it with the Chief Assistant City Attorney providing advice to the Commission and having outside counsel when necessary; suggested leaning into trust and seeing what that looks like; the memos would be put forth publicly; the Commission would be very aware if they are not neutral; she would also like more guardrails in place and a commitment that the OGC would be receiving an instructional memo. Chair Tilos stated that he would be supportive of trying out a restructured process of having a walled-off Chief Assistant City Attorney, along with providing a neutral memo; it would be a marginal step towards building trust between the OGC and City Attorney's office. Commissioner LoPilato stated it is also possible to do both options, which would be a good trust exercise and be improvement to the support of the Commission. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she appreciates all the comments; she echoes Commissioner LoPilato's comment that the City Attorney's office has never provided a neutral statement, summary, memo or jury instructions; she understands the Commission's point about wanting some explanation of the case; concurred with Commission Chen's comments that attorneys are trained to both write advocacy pieces and to frame issues neutrally; she can definitely do both and it is something her office would entertain in the context of supporting the Commission in its adjudicatory capacity; she envisions that there would be support in terms of a neutral statement of the cases; generally speaking, the City Attorney's office is in charge of handling legal advice and representation in house; from time to time, outside counsel is hired for a variety of reasons; she does not know what the cost would be to use outside counsel. In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated it sounds like everyone, including the Chief Assistant City Attorney, is in alignment for the first piece regarding the Meeting of the Open Government Commission August 2, 2021 2 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2017-05-02 | 11 | working with to increase ecommerce; DABA is also working to expand its social media. Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated DABA, in conjunction with Rythmics, has submitted a grant to secure funds to support an art program that will include an art contest to decorate vacant store fronts, abandon buildings facades and fencing to improve the overall look of the downtown district. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is looking forward to different events that raise money; the street closures are an inconvenience to people who use AC Transit. Mayor Spencer thanked staff and everyone involved in the collaboration. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (17-295) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/HOME Partnership Investment Program Action Plan; and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications at Funding Levels Approved by Congress. The Housing Authority Director of Housing and Community Development Director (HADHCD Director) gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the 23 affordable housing units that were created under non-housing community development, are in a particular development. The Community Development Director responded the 23 units are for TriPointe inclusionary housing units at Alameda Landing. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what services were provided to the 273 homeless clients. The HADHCD Director responded the programs that specifically target homeless are Alameda Point Collaborative which provides job training Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why WABA was not consulted regarding the economic development and business strategy on the West End. The HADHCD Director responded that she concurs outreach should also be to WABA; she will make sure the email list is updated to include WABA. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the statement: "no CDBG funds will be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 May 2, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-05-02.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2005-08-16 | 13 | working with the Architectural Resources Group (ARG) to assess the building; ARG has worked with engineers and other specialists to determine what needs to be done to bring the building up to code and to repair, reverse and restore some of the damage that has been done; a lot of seismic work has to be done, such as reinforcing the concrete façade marquee area that is only held up by four redwood posts; fire sprinklers have to be installed; the electrical and plumbing work has to be redone the water in the basement is a combination of a leak from a storm drain as well as ground water intrusion. The Development Manager stated that the lobby carpet was replaced; the mezzanine carpet is torn; the lobby mirror, mezzanine mural, and light fixtures have been removed; the curtain has suffered water damage; the floor of the auditorium has been built up buffer walls have been installed along side walls; holes were made in the auditorium ceiling for lighting; there is significant water damage along the alley due to a storm drain. Councilmember deHaan stated the retail revenue would be received from the historic theater; inquired whether retail revenue would be received from the Cineplex. The Development Services Director responded in the negative. stated that the developer is building the Cineplex with his own financing and would receive the rents from his own retail space. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the rent revenue was significant to the developer to make the project work. The Development Services Director responded that the funding is part of the picture; the Cineplex retail is only 3,400 square feet. The Business Development Division Manager stated the revenue from the retail space counts toward the percentage rent the developer will pay. Councilmember deHaan stated one of the seven auditoriums in the new Cineplex has 78 seats; the historic theater balcony accommodated 150 seats; inquired what is the concern with renovating the balcony. The Development Services Director responded that the DDA allows the developer to use the balcony at a later point at his own expense if he chooses; the spaces are not soundproof, provide 62-64 seats each and would be used to show boutique films. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex building could Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 August 16, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf |
GolfCommission | 2005-05-18 | 3 | working with staff to organize and train the new volunteers. Also mentioned was that the old Junior Golf Resources container on Clubhouse Memorial Road has been removed. 4-B General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and operational activities for the month at the Golf Complex. Covered in the Head Golf Professional's report. 4-D Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich. Mrs. Arnerich reported that a tree ceremony is being held next weekend and mentioned that a number of trees on the right side of #13 on the Earl Fry Course are dying and need to be replaced. Mrs. Arnerich also thanked the players in the Commuter's Golf Tournament that donated their prize gift certificates to the Junior Golf Club. 5. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS 5-A Long-Range Planning and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson. Report previously discussed. 5-B Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Secretary Gammell. Commissioner Gammell reported that security has been fine over the past month and the Driving Range is doing well. Also reported was that the redesign of the Mif Albright Course looks good. 5-C Maintenance Status of Golf Complex and Capital Improvements, Vice Chair Santare. Vice Chair Santare reported that the two major Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) are currently the Clubhouse project and the Urban Runoff project. Also reported was that the golf courses are in good shape with the exception of some dead areas of grass. The question was raised concerning the Ladies tee on #14 of the Earl Fry Course and where it is suppose to be. The Head Golf Professional stated that the tee is located at the very front of the tee area before the water feature. The complaint was that the tee is often on the other side of the water, in the area where the yellow (drop area) tees are. 5-D Golf Complex Financial Report The total revenue from golf on the three (3) courses was down 22% for the | GolfCommission/2005-05-18.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2014-06-23 | 2 | working on this park plan for two years. The Commission have been involved in all of the community input processes. He stated the design can provide something for everyone in the community from active use, to passive use. Mr. Damian Mason, Alameda Backyard Growers, spoke on adding more details to the plan and design. One of those ideas was to reuse the cattails, but then to clean the contamination of oil on the site. He provided sketches of the community garden plots, tool storage, and composting. Ms. Ester Burlingame, lives next to the park and is supportive of the design plan. She questioned the 24' of path and the need for it being that wide. She is concerned the path may become a road in the future. Mr. Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, reported being in support of the park and the plan. The company will contribute $2 million to the project. He wanted to clarify the company's role in the park is strictly funding. Ms. Amanda Soskin, resident stated she is hopeful this plan and park is approved. She is concerned with parking at the park, and not on the streets. She reiterated Ms. Wooldridge's comments on safety and maintenance. Mr. Doug deHaan, spoke in favor of moving the plan forward and approve it. He wanted to recognize the champions of the committee who have worked tirelessly. He commended Ms. Wooldridge for her role. Closed public comment. Board Member Alvarez-Morroni thanked the public and Mr. Sweeney and stated this to be a wonderful tribute to his wife. She asked Ms. Wooldridge about the lighting of the park. Ms. Wooldridge reported there are two aspects for lighting, the cross Alameda trail will be lit and the pathway will have ground lighting. There is a Park Monitor program in place that will help. The large path will be for patrol vehicle use. Board member Zuppan stated being excited to see this back, and remembers Jean Sweeney being before this Board. She hopes there will be some kind of tribute to her. Ms. Wooldridge reported there will be educational markers throughout the park. Board member Zuppan is pleased but encouraged the City to fully look at the long term costs for maintenance costs. She thanked all who volunteered. Vice President Henneberry is pleased to see the BMX path gone from the plan. He supports approval. President Burton supports the great connections to the adjacent neighborhoods on the Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9 June 23, 2014 | PlanningBoard/2014-06-23.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 6 | working on a comprehensive strategic plan and there has only been one accident each of the last four years, Council should postpone review until information from the strategic plan is available. The Public Works Director stated there is a concern that since all way stop warrants are met , the City might open itself up to liability. Mayor Johnson stated there would be many more four-way stop signs if the City studied every intersection to determine whether warrants are met. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about whether the City Attorney wished to address liability, the City Attorney stated not in public; holding the matter over would not be a problem. Councilmember deHaan stated that he travels on Sherman Street; a number of accidents are probably not reported; that he has witnessed accidents ; lateral corridors are impacted when vehicles travel to the South Shore area; vehicles travel 40 mph down Santa Clara Avenue; crossing the intersection is a challenge; hopefully, traffic can be diverted [off of Sherman Street] at some point. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has data on whether peak traffic on Sherman Street has changed; stated there are probably younger families in the Gold Coast now; Sherman Street traffic volumes might be increasing because it is probably easier for workers to commute down Sherman Street rather than traveling down Constitution Way and Eighth Street. Mayor Johnson stated analysis of Councilmember Daysog's idea would be interesting to review and is why the City needs to pay attention to the impacts of stop signs; Constitution Way should handle more traffic; the City should be encouraging drivers to use Constitution Way; the City should review whether drivers are discouraged from using Constitution Way because of the traffic controls. Councilmember Daysog stated Constitution Way narrows down to one lane at Eighth Street there is a bottleneck on Eighth Street at Santa Clara and Central Avenues at commute hours, which makes it more convenient to use alternate routes, such as Sherman Street. Mayor Johnson stated the convenience created could be a result of the City's traffic controls and roadway configuration and is the reason the City needs to be strategic and design how people get around and off Alameda. Councilmember deHaan stated Sherman Street becomes a bypass to get Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 May 17, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2021-07-06 | 10 | working hard to get the program up to speed; expressed support for AFD beginning negotiations with the Felton Institute as soon as possible; stated that she would like the process to begin streamlined due to multiple agencies being involved; the program is a pilot and the City should determine what the program will look like; the recommendation does not exclude Alameda Family Services or any other agency from applying; she would like to act with expediency and many Councilmembers have voiced a preference for the Felton Institute to be engaged with the program relative to providing mental health services; an RFP does not need to be issued and would cause unnecessary delays at this point; expressed concern for engaging in hypothetical scenarios to end up with what is currently being proposed. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Felton Institute currently has patients in the City of Alameda. Mr. Gilbert responded in Felton Institute currently serves clients within Alameda County; stated the office holds a separate clinic where mental health professionals deal with emergency crises in Alameda County; an early psychosis program is housed in the Alameda office. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether everyone in Alameda would be able to receive services within the City of Alameda. Mr. Gilbert responded in the affirmative; stated the Felton Institute does not currently have staff working outside of a contract; the Felton Institute is an agency working with Alameda and other counties; staff can be allocated based on the funding. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is critical to offer mental health services within the City of Alameda; it is not appropriate to ask those seeking mental health services to travel to different cities for service; it is important to offer mental health services within the City of Alameda. Mr. Gilbert stated if the City pays for services, the services can be provided; clinical staff is working at the Atlantic Avenue office location on an early psychosis program, which requires additional professionals; a training center is also available at the Alameda location; the Felton Institute is not currently contracted nor funded with the City of Alameda to provide clinical support services. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the information kept in mind by Councilmembers; expressed concern about negotiating with one agency that does not appear to have current services within Alameda; questioned the cost for choosing one agency. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated none of the locations referenced by AFD are within Alameda; outlined the CAHOOTS model; stated that she is working on a proposal to use a floor or two of Alameda Hospital for other mental health uses similar to the CAHOOTS model. Continued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 July 6, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2021-05-04 | 23 | working conditions; she was impressed with how the situation played out; the communication was respectful; the change speaks volumes for the company; she is satisfied with the due diligence performed. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was Mayor at the time of the change in employment for ACI workers; every Councilmember supported the change, which was overwhelmingly supported by the community; she has looked at the numbers; since 2006, the rate for the smallest bin was $45 for the quarter; the annual rate of inflation since 2006 has been 1.89%, which would bring the cost up to $59; however, the current cost for the smallest bin is $132.20 per quarter; the result is a compounded interest of 6% per annum over time; the graph only shows the past four years; the rate increase has been more; if there is a 5% increase each year, the resulting fee would be $188 per quarter; the increase is a problem; people have a problem paying the fee; there are 15% lower rates for those that qualify as low-income or are senior citizens; the 15% reduction could help people in need; expressed support for Council looking at a higher percentage in reduction for low- income and for ACI making the discount clearer on the website; discussed ACI's website; stated many seniors and low-income qualifying people might not know about the discount process; she would like ACI's website to clearly indicate the discount; she appreciates the work performed; expressed concern about profits and ACI being a private company; stated it is impossible to know what the profits truly are; the percentage rate is high; many people are not earning a 6% increase over time; when long-term contracts are presented, clearly showing the numbers is important; expressed support for a one-page document clearly showing the formula; stated that she does not expect anyone to review a 30-page analysis document to figure out the contract increases; 5% is a significant increase; there is not enough consideration for the affordability of a 5% increase; the contract should have gone out for bid. The Assistant City Manager stated the rate changes over the past 15 years have included positive changes, such as recycling and compost programs and Senate Bill (SB) 1383; SB1383 deals with food waste recovery and composting; the programs are the right thing to do from an environmental perspective; the programs do have costs and are seen in rate changes over time; the 5% is a maximum and not a set number; the rate adjustments will be fully vetted and discussed in the context of the calculations mentioned earlier. The City Manager stated that he would like the discounts re-stated and clarified for the public. The Assistant City Manager stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer is correct; the 15% discount is available by contacting ACI; there is a rate stabilization portion of the agreement; Council is presented with delinquent accounts on an annual basis; there are not many delinquent accounts; Council has the opportunity to make decisions about how the City moves forward with said accounts. Councilmember Daysog stated the crux of the matter is the question of extending on a no- compete sole source contract to ACI or if Council should open the matter up to a competitive bid process; there are a number of other outfits which might be able to deliver services to Alameda; in order for him to evaluate the question and judge how to make the best decision, he needs to know that there is solid data provided to support the decision one Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 May 4, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2022-05-17 | 14 | worked through details to provide a good deal for Alameda. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated the City has worked hard to get where it is today; the City has gone through several renditions of the DDA and has had to amend it over the years in order to adjust to changing conditions and the market; expressed support for the work that has brought the project to its current state; stated that she will be supporting the matter. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supported the project in 2015; expressed concern about the project building units for the middle class to purchase; stated the possibility continues not to occur; affordable housing units being offered are rentals, not for purchase; housing units for sale are very expensive; homes will cost over $1 million and will not provide housing for the middle; discussed the cost of rental units at Alameda Point; stated inflation is the highest it has been in 40 years; Council is being asked to trust that staff will confirm affordable housing units will be built since the units are not being tethered to market rate or requiring a financial investment; the approach is wrong; expressed concern about aspects of the project; stated members of the armed forces will not be able to afford the housing units; the middle class will not be able to rent or purchase at Alameda Point; affordability is a problem; the City needs to offer housing for the middle to purchase; expressed concern about the units lacking rent control; stated rents will increase; the City continues to leave the middle behind, which is a problem; expressed support for a public arts center; stated the matter is related to finding ways to house the middle; she will not continue to support the matter. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the former Alameda NAS being active, operating military base; stated people who were not active military did not visit the base; Alameda Point did not feel like a part of the rest of the City; an important part of redeveloping Alameda Point is making it a place that seamlessly feels like a part of Alameda; the opening of Waterfront Park joined hundreds of Alameda residents at a place with potential; the City has been able to accomplish so much; discussed the ribbon cutting for Corsair Flats and Starling; stated APP has worked with the City to accomplish so much; she has every faith APP will move forward and reach the finish line; discussed a meeting with the Veterans Administration (VA) related to the Alameda Columbarium; stated that she has been able to share the developments at Alameda Point and the progress made to help veterans; the stakes are high; the City would lose much if it does not move forward in keeping the project alive; changes to conditions and demands are occurring; projects must adapt; expressed support for the project. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. (22-354) Recommendation to Provide Direction on a Proposal to Develop a Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program; and (22-354 A) Resolution No. 15909, "Appropriate $4,600,000 of American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 Funds for a Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program." Adopted. The Development Managers gave a Power Point Presentation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 17, 2022 14 | CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2006-02-13 | 8 | work with the project as a whole. Staff would be happy to work with the applicant in this regard. Vice President Cook wished to ensure that the applicant did not take a design that worked well in a different setting and insert it into a waterfront setting that may not be as appropriate as it could be. She would like the Board's comments to be addressed without compromising the building standards set by the City. President Cunningham noted that the Board could vote on this item as presented, and the applicant could appeal it to the City Council, or that the project could be continued and brought back to the Board at the next meeting. Mr. Grayson requested a continuance. Ms. Woodbury noted that the Board would hear comments on the Draft EIR on the Northern Waterfront at the next meeting. President Cunningham requested that this be the first item on the agenda; Mr. Garrison confirmed that as a continued item, it would be the first item on the agenda. M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of February 27, 2006. AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 8 February 13, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2021-11-16 | 19 | work out at the proposed location, the location can be revoked; emergency housing is needed for people now which calls for less consideration of other factors; concentration of services at Alameda Point is a problem; the proposed site is only three units; housing must be provided for single people, not just families; urged Council to move forward with the sites and provide adequate staffing: William Smith, Alameda. Stated the Island needs to share in the responsibility to help the unhoused population; all of Alameda is a family neighborhood; concerns were raised about bringing in crime and unsafety; people are part of the community when they receive services and care; expressed concern over the comments: Jenice Anderson, Alameda. Expressed support for comments provided by speakers Smith and Anderson; stated that he is sympathetic to people who live at Alameda Point where services are being concentrated; people either have inherent value and the right to dignity or not; the determination of value is not dependent on being a member of a family or not; people have value and deserve dignity: Josh Geyer, Alameda. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess 9:42 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:58 p.m. (21-753) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing 5 minutes for Jonathan Russell, BACS, to give a presentation. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.] Mr. Russell gave a brief presentation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated concerns from residents have related to a lack of communication for the project; inquired how BACS will work with neighbors to communicate, and the anticipated communication model. The Community Development Director responded staff has scheduled a community meeting on November 29th to share ideas and answer questions; stated the information is posted on the City website; the meeting will be the initial opportunity for staff to engage with the community; staff can provide an additional community meetings if needed; if the program moves forward, community members will have easy access and a continued line to communicate concerns with BACS. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the meeting was scheduled, to which the Community Development Director responded staff just put the meeting together in order to address concerns. Mr. Russell stated BACS believes the program is a community conversation and needs Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 8 | CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission | 2011-10-13 | 2 | work for them. Chair Restagno stated that he thought it was a maximum of 30 days. Mr. McEachern stated that even the 30 days is a problem due to the timeline. The other issue is that there are only two locations allowed to hang the banners. Director Lillard stated that there are three locations which are Krusi, Lincoln, and Washington Parks. Mr. McEachern stated that in the past they have tried to recruit more girls from the west end and they used to put a banner on the fence at the pump station on Ninth Street, but are not allowed to use that location any more. Director Lillard stated that they could use the fence on Central Avenue at Washington Park. Mr. McEachern stated that they would like to use Ruby Bridges but according to the policy they are not allowed to do so anymore. Also, the fence at Krusi is 300 feet long and to be able to only have one - six foot sign at a time is a little restrictive. Last year there was a softball tournament held at Krusi Park for the first time and there were over 300 people from outside of the city who attended. At that time, there were three banners made with the ARPD/AGSA logo on them to go on each field. In the fall, when AGSA has their regular season they would like to leave the banners up on each field, off the diamonds, and leave them up through the season (January-June). Director Lillard stated that if the banners are on the fields it would not be a problem. AGSA can do that which is similar to what Alameda High School does at Lincoln Park. Chair Restagno stated he did not think that there was a limit to having only one banner. Director Lillard stated that ARPD is trying to limit it to one banner in case there were multiple organizations. Chair Restagno stated that with the locations being Washington, Lincoln, and Krusi Parks that would only leave Ruby Bridges that was not being used. Mr. McEachern stated that in the past they have also used the AP Multipurpose Field. Chair Restagno stated that he and the Commission are open to looking at what is reasonable. Commissioner Delaney stated that it would seem logical for AGSA to outline in writing what their requests are and then bring it back to the Commission for a decision. That way there will be something in writing and guidelines to move forward. Mary Anderson, Alameda resident, stated that she did not get to the two public meetings in June where the Park Master Plan was presented and asked if she could have a copy. Director Lillard stated that the draft will come before the Recreation & Park Commission at their November meeting. Ms. Anderson asked if there was any information online. There was reference to an online survey. Director Lillard stated that the consultants have completed the online survey. He stated that Ms. Anderson could still submit items to the ARPD Office and staff can get the information to the consultants. Ms. Anderson asked for clarification if the Commission will be talking about the Land Swap tonight. Director Lillard stated that he will just be providing the Deal Points. Ms. Anderson asked if the fields are obtained out at the Cowan land how will that affect plans for fields at Alameda Point. Director Lillard stated that in the Draft Park Master Plan, preliminary release, it shows a shortage of fields right now and predicts an even more severe shortage in 10 years. ARPD will need every location that they can find. There will be fields needed on the old Beltline property and some out at Alameda Point. Recreation & Park Commission Mtg. 2 Minutes - Thursday, October 13, 2011 | RecreationandParkCommission/2011-10-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2008-05-12 | 6 | work done in the business park being reversed by the presence of this development. He noted that staff estimated that these homes would need to sell for at least $650,000 for the City to break even on its cost to service the new development. He was not convinced the homes would sell for that amount, and believed there may be a major financial deficit that would not favor the City. He did not believe the development would be compatible with the Master Plan and the zoning, would compromise the City's Master Plan for economic growth, would drive future business away, would damage existing investors, and would reduce employment and economy, thus having a negative impact on revenue streams to the City. He believed this plan would only benefit the developer. President Cook noted that Seth Kostek, Santa Clara Systems, Inc., 2060 North Loop Road, and Clinton Abbott, Allergy Research Group, 2300 North Loop, ceded their time to Mr. Grant. Ms. Susan Davis, Donsuemor, Inc., 2080 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that they relocated to this business park in February 2007 from Emeryville, where they had been for more than 20 years. She had witnessed the intrinsic incompatibilities that came with residential encroachment on businesses, which had been initiated by that city to create a vibrant live-work community. She noted that she had been asked to contribute her ideas to the city's vision, which she noted was very supportive of her business remaining in Emeryville. She noted that in reality, those zoning choices regarding truck routes, business operation hours, loading/unloading areas, and location of idling trucks ultimately led to her business leaving Emeryville. She chose Alameda because of this business park, which provided what her business and employees needed. She noted that Alameda provided a good quality of life for her employees. Ms. Diane Smahlik, Ettore Products Co., 2100 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that this business park was the ideal location for their company and its employees. She believed that Alameda was a wonderful location, but did not believe that putting housing adjacent to manufacturing was a good idea, and that there could be more than 400 people in the neighborhood. She noted that while retail and residential may be able to co-exist, that manufacturing and residential was not a good mix. She was very concerned about the liability regarding the truck traffic, as well as graffiti and theft. Mr. Brent Salomon, Allergy Research Group, 2300 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that they had originally been located in an industrial park in Hayward, but that the area changed in the mid-90s. They left that environment in 2003, arriving in Alameda, which was a very good move for them. He was opposed to the proposed proximity of the residential neighborhood to the manufacturing area. He noted that the CC&R vote was controlled by the developer, and that the businesses did not have a voice in that decision. Mr. Jim Grimes, Peet's Coffee and Tea, 1400 Park Avenue, Emeryville, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that Peet's moved into this business park because of what it offered, and he noted that it was a model business park for other communities. He preferred this business park because of its proximity to existing transportation, as well as the presence of Page 6 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2010-03-16 | 13 | work and research done by Alameda Junior Golf. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates efforts made; the entire golf complex will be discussed as a whole; a proposal has been submitted by good people with a lot of expertise; a critical part of the golf course includes having a par 3 for beginners, a driving range, 18 hole courses, and a clubhouse; that he wants to see how to make everything work together. *** Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:58 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:15 p.m. * (10-125) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Enter into Negotiations with Kemper Sports Management for the Long-Term Management and Operation of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation. Ben Blake, Kemper Sports Management, gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Gilmore stated the golf course has 36 championship holes; 111,000 rounds are played per year; inquired what is the capacity percentage. Mr. Blake responded in 2003, 160,000 rounds were played, which was 67% [capacity]. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the projection is that rounds will remain flat for the next four years because of the Metropolitan Golf Links. Mr. Blake responded rounds will be flat or slightly up; stated the hope is to get to a level of 130,000 rounds. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much would need to be charged to have everything work out well. Mr. Blake responded that he thinks that the same rates could be charged with 27 holes to still make the numbers work; operating costs are lower; a lot of land needs to be maintained; the irrigation system is in disrepair; operating costs will go down with improvements. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the price differential by keeping the 36 holes; further inquired whether the current $30 charge would rise to $45 with capital infusion, Mr. Blake responded a round would cost closer to $50. The Interim City Manager stated currently, the average round [fee] is $30; $38 per round is needed [to cover costs]; putting $500,000 into capital each year would increase the cost to approximately $48 per round; figures are based on 120,000 rounds; both Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 March 16, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2008-04-01 | 2 | wondering which programs will be cut; she hopes that the School District has strong support for the proposed measure in June. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council would be voting on the matter at the next Council meeting. The City Manager responded Council would be voting on the matter at the first Council meeting in May. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the resolution would be to support and endorse Measure H, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the May Council Meeting date was okay with Mr. Schaff, to which Mr. Schaff responded in the affirmative. (08-131) Presentation by the Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the Director of the Light Brown Apple Moth Program on the Apple Moth. A.G. Kawamura, Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, gave a brief presentation. Dr. Bob Dowell, Director of the Light Brown Apple Moth Program (submitted handout) gave a Power Point presentation. Opponents (Not in favor of aerial spraying to eradicate the Light Brown Apple Moth) : Carolina Rogers, Alameda; Stuart Dodgshon, Alameda; Chloe Ashley, Alameda; T'Hud Weber, Alameda, (submitted petition) ; Simi Sikka, Fremont (submitted handout) ; Stanley Schiffman, Alameda; Jane Kelley, Berkeley; Tom Kelley, Berkeley Bernard Clark, Alameda Helen Kozoriz, stopthespray.org Michael John Torrey, Alameda; Mary Jane Pryor, Alameda Victoria Ashley, Alameda; Jim Hoffman, Alameda; Rebecca Hall-Crosby, Alameda Irma Marin-Nolan, Alameda; Cathy Kordetzky; Daria Schwarzschild, Alameda; Maria Morales, El Sobrante; Frank Egger; Constance Barker, Environmental Health Network of California; Lynn Elliott-Harding, Oakland. Council requested that the matter be placed on a future Council agenda for action. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous Regular Meeting Alameda City Council April 1, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf |
TransportationCommission | 2012-07-25 | 8 | wondered if there were any other natural synergies in terms of job centers throughout the county. Commissioner Schatmeier asked about the corridors (one in red and blue) depicted for BRT and Rapid Bus. He was curious about beginning the line at Alameda Point and going to Fruitvale BART station for both cases. On the aerial shot, there is a red line going through the tube to Oakland and another aerial shot of the blue line showing that as well. He wanted clarification on what was being depicted there and if it was intended to work in conjunction. Staff Khan explained that the BRT would be brought before the Commission in September after further analysis. Staff reviewed the two corridors because the General Plan included the need to connect Alameda Point with the 12th Street BART and another connection to the Fruitvale BART Station. Commissioner Schatmeier stated that when he was originally presented with this information, there was a study on the AC Transit Line 51 and how that line could be sped up. He does not know what happened to that presentation, but there was talk to convert Line 51 to a rapid bus. So, he wondered if the two corridors would supplement Line 51 or replace it. Staff Khan responded that they have been talking about Line 51 for both Berkeley and Alameda. AC Transit received $10 million from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) three months ago from their Transit Performance Initiative Program funded from federal sources. Alameda is analyzing Line 51 to see how to reduce delays along the corridor. Also, AC Transit is interested in analyzing whether the corridor should continue on Santa Clara Avenue or move to Lincoln Avenue, but the analysis will be discussed in September. Commissioner Schatmeier commented that the BRT is further away from the center part of the island and essentially located on the north end of the island along the Beltway and Clement Avenue. He felt that should be acknowledged and discussed later. Furthermore, an analysis of the cost and benefits from each alternative should be discussed. Staff Khan responded that the red and blue lines presented in the report are just the corridors and they do not represent identified BRT or Rapid Bus service. Commissioner Schatmeier explained that staff has a lot of statistics on ridership and behavior in the City and they make decisions on deploying transportation not on transit demand, but by funding availability. So, when analyzing the cost and benefits, he would like staff to be cautious and recognize the limitations of the travel model so that they recognize the benefits that may not be measured numerically or by the travel model. Staff Khan responded that inclusion of Transportation Demand Management and enhanced transit service measures could double the base line numbers based on the data. Commissioner Schatmeier exclaimed that the numbers are standardized and they do not recognize the ideas that he was talking about. Commissioner Vargas said the plan does not point out Bay Farm since it is a City of Alameda Page 8 of 11 | TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf |
TransportationCommission | 2013-01-23 | 4 | wondered how Public Works staff could market or visibly guide pedestrians to the remaining crosswalks. Staff Naclerio explained that they developed a Safe Route to School maps for all the schools. They would enhance those maps to direct students to the existing marked crosswalks. He mentioned that Caltrans would have to approve the removal of the crosswalks as well as any other improvements that they are recommending. Also, he mentioned that the Bayview Home Owners Association could promote the use of the crosswalks through their newsletter. Commissioner Bertken stated that all indications of the original crosswalks would be removed to indicate to pedestrians that they should not cross there. He brought up that a barricade could be included to prevent pedestrians from crossing. Ultimately, he wondered how staff would handle the process. Staff Naclerio explained that they would remove and black out the crosswalks and remove the signs. He did not recommend installing barricades. Commissioner Bellows moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. 5B. Resident Appeal of Public Works Staff's Decision to Not Install an All-Way Stop Control at the Intersection of Robert Davey Junior Drive and Channing Way Staff Naclerio presented an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Vargas asked staff if they received public input about the proposed mitigation of extending the bike lane stripes. Staff Naclerio replied that staff has not and they would use this meeting for community input about the proposal. Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comment. Red Wetherhill, Harbor Bay Resident, veteran architect, felt that the City of Alameda and the state were using the wrong criteria, which moves vehicles first and foremost. He felt vehicles travel way too fast when exiting off of Channing Way with a blind corner and vehicles go quickly around the bend on Robert Davey Junior Drive. He wanted staff to continuously observe the area because it is a problem for pedestrians. He mentioned that 15 to 20 years ago, residents submitted a request for a stop sign for this same intersection. They received a run down from a "technocrat" that the average speed was 32 miles per hour (mph), and the street did not qualify for a four-way stop. He then asked if the maximum speed limit was posted as 25 mph, then how could the City count it as an average of 32 mph. Ultimately, he felt that staff was bandaging the problem by modifying the crosswalks instead of policing more stringently along Robert Davey Junior Drive. Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14 | TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2010-06-01 | 20 | without transit and traffic solutions; job one is paying for transit solutions; the project will not be successful if there is not enough money to pay for transit solutions. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the first recommendation in the staff report is to direct the Planning Board to provide an advisory recommendation on the OEA; that he has no faith that any amount of money would solve the issue of getting people who are in the 4,800 housing units on and off the island; having the Planning Board provide an advisory recommendation is important; financing can be reviewed in parallel because financing needs to be based on the project. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff is assuming that SunCal would provide a complete application by the Planning Board meeting, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the negative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated generally, the Planning Board provides a recommendation to Council based on a complete application; a work session or scoping session would take place if an application is incomplete; a formal vote would not be taken; a policy determination would be needed without a formal application; making a policy determination is the Council's job. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the application on file is not deemed complete yet; the matter is an advisory recommendation. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what the Planning Board would be reviewing if the application were incomplete. The Planning Services Manager responded the application includes a General Plan amendment and rezoning for the property; stated Council cannot take action on entitlement without an advisory recommendation from the Planning Board; Council's action would be to either deny or not deny the request and let the process continue; staff wanted to provide Council with the option of extending or not extending the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) or not given the timeframe of the ENA; staff thought it was important to get advice from the Planning Board before the hearing; having a completed application is not required in order to get the Planning Board's advice. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a Planning Board recommendation is required for General Plan amendments or rezoning, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a determination couldn't be made without a completed application. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 9 Community Improvement Commission June 1, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2020-07-21 | 18 | without any input from the City and, therefore, will be contractual and not subject to unlawful detainer. Councilmember Oddie expressed concern about agreements being substituted for leases; noted there is unequal bargaining power between landlords and tenants; outlined a tenant being subject to eviction. The City Attorney stated the landlord cannot require a tenant to enter into an agreement; noted the agreement must be made voluntarily; should a landlord require such agreement, the requirement would violate the fair housing law. Expressed support for the extension of repayment; stated this action is a necessary component of the recent declaration of racism as a public health emergency given the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of Color due to systemic racism in terms of work, health and housing; many renters are confused about their rights under the various ordinances; urged greater effort be made to inform tenants of legal rights and resources available; outlined communication difficulties; urged a mailing be sent out in multiple languages and no agreement be encouraged: Catherine Pauling, Alameda Renters Coalition. Discussed experience staffing a tenant-landlord counseling line; stated phones lines are flooded with calls from those unable to pay rent; noted leases are being broken; paying debt is quickly becoming overwhelming: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda. Urged Council to vote yes on the extension of the repayment period; stated the need for tenants to have protections is growing; urged Council to consider the strategy of translating the unpaid rent into consumer debt as adopted by other cities and counties: Grover Wehman-Brown, East Bay Housing Organization (EBHO). Expressed support for the matter; discussed experience as a renter and artist in Alameda; stated showing compassion to residents is important; urged Council to vote yes: Kevyn Lauren, Alameda. Urged Council to vote yes on the extension; stated it is important to protect renters: Alexia Arocha, Alameda. Comment read into the record: Stated property owners are not the bankers of tenants; stated it is up to the City to pay rents through subsidized payments: Rosalinda Corvi, Alameda. Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance, giving direction to staff to return with an ordinance which will allow the City to treat any side agreements and unpaid rent as consumer debt. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 July 21, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2010-04-20 | 27 | without a vote of the people under the new revision of the law; inquired whether Mr. Faye would dispute that the State density bonus law applied in Alameda. Mr. Faye responded the issue is the implementation of the density bonus provisions; stated given the prohibitions on certain kinds of attached dwellings because of Measure A, Charter Article 26, the ability to modify the City Charter to implement the law was not enacted by the City until the middle of December; the election would have been moot had that been enacted sooner and had the State law provisions that caused the City to enact the modification to the Code in the middle of December. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City has a fundamental disagreement with Mr. Faye; the City has a different understanding of the applicability of the State's density bonus law; Mr. Faye believes that the State density bonus law did not apply in Alameda until December. Mr. Faye stated that is not what he is saying; Measure A prevents certain kinds of attached dwelling units; in order to modify the City Charter, Council enacted an ordinance in the middle of December and implemented State law that permits the City Charter to be amended by Council, not requiring a vote of the people; the election would have been irrelevant had the particular provision of the Code been changed before the project proponents submitted signatures. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is any difference in how State law would have been applied before December; requested an explanation from the City Attorney/Legal Counsel; also requested an explanation of the application of the State density bonus law. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated when the Council discussed the density bonus in December, the City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that State law nullified Measure A for the City and State law trumps the Charter. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she said State law pre-empts the Charter; density bonus is a matter of Statewide concern; it does not mean that Measure A is set aside; in order to implement bonus market rate units, someone could need and request a waiver of the multi-family restriction; the same was true before December and has been true for twenty years. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the ordinance was tailored to Alameda; discussions involved exempting the 15% requirement if there is inclusionary housing; inquired whether said issue was unique to Alameda. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether said issue is in Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 7 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2007-11-13 | 7 | with two comprehensive documents: the Master Plan that showed the applicants' long- term plans for the site, and a comprehensive up to date EIR. No action was taken. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was copied on a letter from StopWaste.org to the Planning Director with respect to the pursuit of green building ordinances. She requested that the City follow up on this issue at the next meeting. Mr. Thomas advised that an RFQ had been released to advise staff how to proceed with various ordinances, which would help staff return to the Planning Board with as many options as possible. Staff was considering the full range of options, such as requirements for new civic buildings and changes to the Building Code. Staff would provide a more formal update at the next meeting. He assured Board member Ezzy Ashcraft that staff would move as expeditiously as possible. President Cook noted that she had received literature about APA publications and APA membership. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would look into that issue. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: Board Member Lynch noted that because there were more buildings along harbor Bay Parkway, he had noticed a great deal more trash. He suggested that the City consider more trash cans, and inquired who managed the trash collection in that area. Mr. Thomas noted that he would find out. a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board Members Cook/Kohlstrand) Mr. Thomas provided an update on this item, and noted that the last meeting on October 24, 2007, had been well-attended. SunCal had made the same presentation that had been made before the Planning Board; they presented the project's history and the consultants presented their thoughts. The geotechnical consultant emphasized the Bay mud issue, and the flooding constraints were discussed. The topo maps were in the process of being revised because they were outdated. The consultant stated that Alameda Point had sunk somewhat. He noted that the audience received Peter Calthorpe's presentation very well. He had emphasized sustainability and regionalism for Alameda Point, and kept future generations in mind. He noted that there was no interaction after the presentation. He noted that the next meeting would be held at the O Club on December 13, 2007, and they planned to address a range of development scenarios. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Page 7 of 8 | PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 23 | with the studies. Councilmember Matarrese stated funds need to be allocated for the model : ; inquired whether the policies need to be tested using the new model. The City Engineer responded Council would need to adopt the policies in order to have a General Plan amendment; the traffic analysis needs to be done if policies are adopted. The Public Works Director stated Council would be giving direction to begin the analysis of the policies as well as the previous policies; information would come back to Council through the Planning Board and the Transportation Commission with a recommendation as to whether or not there are certain intersections that Council may want to accept a higher level of service because of the recognition of the encouragement of pedestrian or bicycle access or transit; Council would be allocating the money to begin the analysis. louncilmember Matarrese stated the policies are not policies but are a test suit of data or parameters that are going to be run through a model to see what happens at the end of the model. The Public Works Director stated the policies might eventually become the approved policies. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether currently the policies are not policies, to which the Pubic Works Director responded in the affirmative. The Transportation Commission Chair stated the Transportation Commission's intent is that the policies are specific policies that would be tested before the policies are being adopted; the Transportation Commission was hopeful that the Council would accept the policies as guidelines for reviewing EIRs. Councilmember Matarrese stated he wished to modify his motion. The Public Works Director stated the current General Plan needs to be used to review the EIR; the policies could not be used as guidelines if the policies are not consistent with the General Plan. Mayor Johnson stated the next step would be to amend the General Plan if Council likes the way the policies work. The Public Works Director stated the process would be to amend the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 October 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2015-03-09 | 8 | with the new buildings, but suggested that the houses could be reconfigured to incorporate more open space into the area. There are other, less gracious issues with the design of the houses that also need to be addressed, including the small private balconies on some of the units. Board Member Burton also said that Alameda does not need any air conditioning units for the houses, and suggested that it would help the developer's plans to exclude them in the houses. Board Member Köster said he agreed with Board Member Burton's comments. He said that the walkability of the community is an important factor in the neighborhood. He said that the density could be lowered a little bit in order to increase the open space on the site. Board Member Köster asked if some ground-floor commercial space could be incorporated into the new buildings if possible. Board Member Knox White said that there was too much asphalt and not enough open space in the proposed development. He said that he is confused by the size of the housing, and questioned if the sizes of the proposed housing is appropriate for the neighborhood. He suggested building a through street and building housing along that street instead of having four cul-de-sacs. Vice President Alvarez said that the major entrance to Eagle Avenue needs to be moved closer to Mulberry Street. The architecture on Eagle, Willow, and Clement Avenues are all different from each other, and the developers need to marry the three different architectural styles in this new development. She suggested that the neighbors concerned about parking organize themselves as they did at the Del Monte. Board Member Burton said that the two-story buildings along Willow Street are nicely integrated with the existing neighborhoods, but the townhouses with the first floor bedrooms are not truly in-line with universal design guidelines. President Henneberry said that there is unanimity that this is a good project for the City, but it is not ready in its present form. He said he looks forward to seeing an update of this project. 8. MINUTES: None 9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: 9-A. 2015-405 Zoning Administrator and Design Review: Recent Actions and Decisions. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: 11-A 2015-1341 Report from the Alameda Point Site A-Ad-Hoc Subcommittee Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8 March 9, 2015 | PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2017-03-07 | 13 | with the inequity and would like to see the policy change implemented sooner rather than later. Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter is no longer a referral, it is Council direction; he saw a flaw in the Oak tree situation in that the requirement of a stated reason was not present; the policy needs to be tightened up and Council has the opportunity to do that now; he does not agree with having two Councilmembers call an item for review; there has to be a mechanism of appeal that does not require two Councilmembers; the City has very strict guidance not to pre-judge evidence that comes from the review. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated having two Councilmembers call an item for review does not mean they are pre-judging an issue; saying an issue deserves a second look might yield a different result or make the project better after the second review; making the appeal process financially available to citizens is important; she strongly believes if people opposing a project do not have the financial resource to call for an appeal, that they could approach a Councilmember who could recruit a second Councilmember to call the project for review; these are reasonable questions with reasonable answers. Vice Mayor Vella stated she thinks there is a lot of presumption that more than one Councilmember is on board; it is not a huge ask to send the same request to multiple Councilmembers, as part of the due diligence when involved in a project; she is inclined to support the change, which is feasible, will strengthen the process and ensures there is merit to the calls for review. Mayor Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the referral; it is important to look at the facts; the Planning Board makes approximately 44 decisions a year, approximately 10% of the cases are called for review; changing the process would also be a Brown Act violation as Councilmembers can only speak to one other Councilmember; issues are worthy for Council to weigh in on; the Planning Board members are appointed, not elected by the people; the Council's opportunity to weigh in is a call for review; the only way to do the due diligence is for issues to come to Council; it is important for Council to protect said ability. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not suggesting Council does away with the process; more deliberation is needed; the call for review for the cell phone project was an exercise of a lot of time spent, when State regulations prohibited change; Council would have known if a second opinion was given. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Council considering revising the call for review process to appeal Board and Commission decisions by requiring that two, rather than just one, City Councilmembers initiate a call for review and state a reason for the appeal. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 March 7, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-03-07.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2012-10-08 | 4 | with the grocery tenant and Marina Village. Alameda Landing has the only direct transportation to center. He is concerned about the effect the new center will have on the Marina Village center. Board member Köster added that hopefully the center will complement the future retail development at Alameda Point. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that competition can be a healthy thing, but would not like a retailer to hurt Marina Village Shopping Center. She stated that she would like to see different tenants than those at South Shore. She feels that the West End can support another grocery based on the planned future development. Board member Henneberry stated that regarding the closure of Luckys at Southshore, the company at the time was selling off and closing any stores that were not making a profit. It wasn't the Safeway that put them out of business. President Zuppan agreed that we need to stress to the City Council that the new retailers not harm current businesses in the area. She asked about the Urban Decay Study and the effect of the new center on Marina Village merchants. Ms. Herman stated that it was unlikely there would be closures because of this center, but also looked at Alameda as a whole. President Zuppan thanked the participants for the components of the report. Concerned with the switch to non-taxable and suggested looking for taxable retailers. She stated that it would be good to see a sales tax break out reported to City Council. 7-B. Public Hearing on an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for 69 residential parcels and a Tentative Map at 1551 Buena Vista Avenue (APN72-384-21). The Planning Board will consider approval of an InitialStudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Marina Cove II, 69 residential parcels and a Tentative Map within the area bounded by Ohlone Street, Buena Vista Avenue, Clement Avenue and Entrance Way (currently occupied by the Chipman Company). The site is zoned R-4-PD, neighborhood residential with a Planned Development overlay. Applicant is requesting a continuance to the meeting of October 22, 2012. 7-C Planned Development Amendment: Sign Program application - PLN12- 0280- 433 & 501 Buena Vista (Summer House Apartments). Review an application to amend the Planned Development in order to create a Sign Program for the Summer House Apartment Complex. Applicant is requesting a continuance to the meeting of October 22, 2012. 8. MINUTES: Approved Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 October 8, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-10-08.pdf |
TransportationCommission | 2012-05-03 | 3 | with the design, he found that it was overkill; he did not see the safety hazards there. He hopes the Commission supports the recommendation of the staff. However, he is dumbfounded to see that this project had legs and he does not understand it. Gordon McConnell, Fairview Avenue resident, stated he attended two out of the three public meetings. Public Works were not responsive to the residents' views, and the overall public consensus of the second meeting was to do nothing. He called into question the integrity of the City Manager and the grant application. He stated there was an initial meeting with residents to develop minor traffic calming measures but not to the extent that the Public Works Department proposed. Paula Kaneshiro explained that she did collect signatures to end the project and one of the things that she appreciated was the fact that residents wanted some type of traffic calming on their street. She also questioned why Public Works continued with the project when the public stated they did not want the project to continue. Finally, she said it started as a traffic calming effort and she does not understand why the City went out for a Safe Routes to School grant. James Tham stated this project is doing the wrong thing. The intersection is already safe and he has traveled through the intersection by bike, foot and car for the last 40 years. He felt the City should have been frugal with their money and not waste with staff work hours. Thus, he believes the project is wasteful and other projects should require much more attention than this one. He encouraged the Commission to look at the Public Works Department and review their business plan. Jim Anglom has lived near the project for more than 30 years and he does not want to see the project proceed. The project would bring reduce property values and parking spaces. Furthermore, he believes additional improvements to the intersection would create complications and a liability to the City. Commissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments or questions from the Commission. Commissioner Bertken stated he believes the public provided plenty of information for the Commission to proceed with a decision. However, there was one question about a public statement regarding secret meetings between City staff and a select number of individuals. Matthew Naclerio replied that staff is prohibited by the Sunshine Ordinance to conduct meetings involving a decision to proceed with a project without public notice. However, initial meetings were conducted with residents who brought forth the petition, which is standard procedure. Staff Khan replied City staff does this for other projects when they receive a petition and they talk to the petitioners and then they go to the community about everything staff is proposing. Commissioner Miley applauded the public for coming out to speak about the project and it is important to receive public opinion. He questioned how the City prioritized its projects and he knows that staff is working on the list currently. He asked if this type of project falls within the priority list and if not, then why not. Page 3 of 5 | TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf |
GolfCommission | 2005-09-21 | 2 | with the Risk Manager and they are appropriate to post. It was mentioned that people might not know what the phrase "pace of play" represents. The General Manager responded that the volunteer marshals on the tee explain the pace of play policy to the customers. The General Manager also mentioned that the Complex is looking at purchasing clocks to place on the courses to help with the pace of play. The clocks will be on #1, #6, #12, and #18 of the 18 hole courses and when the golfer arrives at those holes the clock should read their tee time if they are playing at the correct pace. The suggestion was made to have a prize for golfers who play in less than 4 hours, possibly a ball marker. Also suggested was to include the phrase "keep up with the group in front of you" in the golf carts. After discussion the following changes were made to the policy board: To make your experience enjoyable the following rules apply: 1. All players and spectators must check in at the Pro Shop before starting play. 2. Do not enter water hazards or sloughs. 3. AED Medical Response units are located at EF #9, JC #5, Pro Shop and Driving Range buildings. 4. Please cooperate with golf course marshals at all times. 5. Observe all pace of play policies. Please play "ready" golf. 6. 90-degree cart rule in effect at all times, unless otherwise specified. 7. No spectators allowed unless approved by professional staff. 8. Players under the age of 10 years must be accompanied by an adult or have approval of professional staff. 9. Golf or tennis shoes only. No multi-purpose athletic cleats allowed. 10. Proper golf attire required. 11. Please observe appropriate cell phone etiquette. 12. No coolers. Outside alcoholic beverages are prohibited. 13. Players and spectators use golf facilities at their own risk. 14. Failure to follow all the rules of this Golf Complex may result in your removal from the facilities. The Commission approved the amended Policy Board unanimously. 3-B Approval of the Revised Golf Course Management Practice Regarding a Policy Allowing Handicap Golfers Access to Fairways in Golf Carts. (Action Item) The General Manager reported that the original Management Practice #2 regarding the Medical/Disability Flag Access was put in place on November 9, 2004. The revision is to reflect the addition of the blue flag to identify the handicap golfers. The revised Management Practice #2 is as follows: Purpose Page 2 of 6 | GolfCommission/2005-09-21.pdf |
TransportationCommission | 2013-06-26 | 17 | with the Neptune Park pathway. John Knox White explained that he hoped there are upcoming path improvements through Neptune Park because there are some real configuration issues. Staff Naclerio replied if the nexus is with the In and Out Burger development that is not coming to the Transportation Commission it should be discussed at the Planning Board because the Commission does not have the authority to look over those permits. Lucy Gigli replied the reason she felt the urgency to bring the topic up because the City is reviewing the design of the Neptune Park pathway after they approve the IN and Out Burger development. Commissioner Miley made a recommendation to have this topic on the agenda for the next meeting to have an understanding with visuals of the proposal of In and Out Burger and how that relates to Marina Village Parkway and Neptune Park because that is a transportation issue. Staff Naclerio replied the Planning Board will make a decision on the In and Out Burger development, which also includes a Safeway gas station and a Chase Bank on July 22nd. The Planning Board's meeting is two days before the Transportation Commission's meeting. Alex Nguyen recommended that staff plan to bring the topic back to the Transportation Commission at the next meeting because there is no certainty that the Planning Board will make an approval at the next meeting. So, the timing would give the Transportation Commission time to make comments. Staff Vargas replied that the Commission should leave it to staff to bring the topic to the Commission as a potential agenda item. Staff Naclerio said staff will present what they know at the time of the packet about the In and Out Burger development and that would include the approved alignment for Neptune Park. Then staff will update the Commission on whether the Planning Board approved or continued that item again. 8. Adjournment 10:04 pm Page 17 of 17 | TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission | 2008-06-25 | 6 | with the City's obligation under the Municipal Storm Water permit, and through the Clean Water Program to control the runoff into the Bay. Staff recommended that the no- parking street sweeping signs be installed on this block in accordance with City policy, and to comply with the requirements of the Federal EPA Clean Water Act. Commissioner Schatmeier noted that both the appellants and the letter mentioned casual car poolers, as well as Transbay bus riders. He inquired how many of the current parkers were in that category. Staff Bergman replied that was anecdotal, and that hard numbers were not available at this time. Staff did have boarding and alighting data from the Trans- Bay bus at that location. The morning boardings were slightly over 100 per day, and about 200 in the evening. Commissioner Ratto inquired whether the 1200 block of Regent Street was signed for street sweeping. Staff Bergman replied that it was, as was the 100 block. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger regarding the duration of daytime parking, Staff Khan replied that the parking occupancy survey was conducted at the time the sweepers would go through. Commissioner Krueger suggested it would be useful to know how many cars were there for the entire four hours. Commissioner Krueger requested further information on the amount of debris in the gutter. Staff Khan noted that the City was trying to determine parking impacts where street sweeping was installed, and based on that, staff recommends the restrictions, and identifies the conditions of the affected streets. Staff found that there was no scientific way to determine the condition, but qualitative analysis observed an accumulation of debris in the storm drain inlets. He noted that the mechanical broom was much stronger than by hand. He noted that removal of debris by hand also increased the suspension of particles into the air, as compared to the sweeper, which vacuums the debris into the containment chamber. Open public comment. Mr. Rabin, appellant, noted that the area was used by carpoolers all day. When he arrives home from his night shift at the hospital, he frequently had no place to park, and that cars parked on his corner all day long. He noted that he had to move his car to a spot two blocks away, and added that this was an ongoing problem for him. He understood that street sweeping was a necessity, but believed that manual sweeping would be better than the street sweeper. He noted that the vehicle emits hydrocarbons, stirred debris around, and left a trail behind it. Some residents have complained that their cars have been sideswiped, and others believed that it was a revenue-enhancing practice through the Page 6 of 11 | TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2010-01-11 | 8 | with the Attorney General's findings and that this leads him to believe that there is insufficient information to make a decision. Ms. Faiz, City Attorney, pointed out that the Guidelines issued by the Attorney General are not binding law, just guidelines. Board Member Kohlstrand asked whether the Board could approve an outright ban when the policy direction from the City Council is still unknown. President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Board could continue the item, while the Board awaits policy direction from City Council and staff gathers more information. Staff stated that the Board could continue the item, but that the Council is awaiting the Board's response to assist them with making their decision. Vice-President Autorino motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham to extend the meeting until 11:10 pm. Motion passes 7-0. President Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the difference between medical marijuana co-operative and collective dispensaries. Ms. Faiz, City Attorney, clarified the respective code sections. Board Member Cook asked whether the Planning Board could request an extension of the moratorium to allow sufficient time to consider whether to revise the ordinance. Staff suggested recommending approval or denial of the proposed ordinance. Vice-President Autorino stated the Board should ask for an extension of the moratorium and develop an ordinance that would allow and regulate the dispensaries, as opposed to an outright ban. He also added the Board should ask the Council for direction. Board Member Cook suggested that the Planning Board, staff of the Police Department, Social Services, and the City Attorney work together to develop an appropriate set of regulations if the Council extends the moratorium to allow further consideration. Board Member Lynch stated that the City Council should be asked whether or not a moratorium should be extended and if it should be extended, what type of regulations should be developed. The Planning Board recommended that the City Council refer the matter back to the Planning Board for further deliberation and hearings to allow time for preparation of a draft ordinance that might allow a limited number of dispensaries in carefully controlled locations and under certain limited conditions. Vice-President Autorino motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham, to recommend that the City Council reject the ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries within the City of Alameda, refer development of an ordinance that allows medical marijuana dispensaries in Alameda back to staff and the Planning Board, and extend the moratorium prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries to allow for sufficient Page 8 of 9 | PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2021-03-30 | 24 | with the Alameda Health Care District; stated there is a proactive tone in keeping Alameda Hospital open; the Board of Alameda Health Care District has voted to allocate $250,000 for the upcoming fiscal year for community paramedicine; discussed an update from Dr. Mini Swift. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Continued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 March 30, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2016-09-20 | 20 | with something that will work for both sides. Councilmember Daysog stated he is satisfied with the City Attorney's response and is willing to move forward. On the call for the question the motion, carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (16-472) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-4.25(d).iii.b Related to Setbacks for Side Street Property Lines on Corner Parcels within the North Park Street, Gateway Zoning District. The proposed amendments are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations. Introduced. Stated the Downtown Alameda Business Association (DABA) supports the project; urged approval of the zoning amendment: Robb Ratto, DABA. Stated that he and the architect are present to answer questions: Marcel Sengul, Applicant. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved the amendment [introduction of the ordinance], with insertion in Section 1 of " for outdoor seating or other public spaces" to read " other non-automotive public spaces." Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the next sentence clarifies that the space is non- automotive. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the wording does not exclude parking spaces; the wording could be interpreted to allow a parking space. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the amendment is good. Councilmember Oddie stated there is no harm in adding the amendment. Mayor Spencer stated the amendment is added clarification. Councilmember Oddie stated the project will make the gateway into Alameda a great entry. Vice Mayor Matarrese restated his motion to approve the amendment [introduction of the ordinance] with the insertion of " other non-automotive public spaces." Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 20, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2005-07-19 | 22 | with setting an amount to cover the interim period and bringing the authority to hire outside counsel to the City Council, without limitation on dollar amounts. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should not be a special meeting for $3,000 if the City Attorney needs to hire a transactional attorney or if there is a tax question that comes up through the Finance Department. Mayor Johnson concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that if a dollar amount were not set, the Council would be involved in a $3,000 decision to hire a tax attorney. Mayor Johnson stated Council could discuss a dollar limit; if the Council had known about hiring Linda Tripoli to give an opinion on vehicle allowance, Council might have paid more attention to the issue; the Council should know who is working for the City, what people are being hired to do and why; that she does not have problem with a limit if the issue is minor. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that, if the Council wants to know who is being hired, the question comes down to timing; inquired how quickly the Council should be informed after legal counsel is hired; stated there is a proposal for quarterly financial reports on the cost of outside counsel, including who the outside counsel is for each matter. Mayor Johnson stated in a lot of cases the Council could give approval before outside counsel is hired; a lot of the hiring does not need to be immediate; regular Council meetings are twice a month; the City Attorney can hire someone and bring the matter to Council for approval at the next meeting in cases when there is not time; the Council does not want to have special meetings all the time; that she does not like the system that is in place now; the Charter states that the Council consents to the hiring of outside counsel; Council is currently consenting to hiring over $800,000 worth of outside counsel through a line item budget allocation; the Council needs to exercise more oversight Council can discuss the level of consent that should be set; it is a change from what has been done the past 16 years; the Council needs to exercise more oversight than in the past. Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated that she is unclear of how the Mayor proposes to do so; the City Attorney provided a proposal inquired whether the proposal could be reviewed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 July 19, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2010-05-24 | 8 | with respect to the street grid pattern and traffic impacts during peak travel times. She finds that the public access to the waterfront is too small and insufficient and, in essence, seems to privatize this public space. She recommended that the applicant consider other locations for the multi-family structure. Board Member Zuppan supports the redevelopment of the blighted site, but is very concerned about the lack of public parking and the sense that this development appears closed-off to Alameda with access to the public park restricted. She favors that Blanding Avenue and Elm Street be continued through the development and that there be vehicular access to the waterfront. She supported Board member Cook's recommendation from the last meeting to include opportunities for commercial ventures along the waterfront. Board Member Lynch requested that information be provided on the feasibility analysis so that the Board can properly evaluate the density bonus proposal. President Ezzy Ashcraft is supportive of the sustainability concepts of this development. She favors a continuation of the existing street grid pattern through this development and public access to the waterfront park along with providing parking for visitors to this park. She is supportive of the need to separate vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian travel paths, but is concerned about having to many street intersections along Clement Avenue. Following Board member comments, the President noted that a lot of input had been provided by the Public and the Board and emphasized that this information should be given careful consideration when the final site plan is developed. No additional action was taken by the Board at this time, but it was noted that this project would need to come back to the Board at a later meeting date for consideration. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:45pm Planning Board Page 8 of 8 Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010 | PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2007-10-02 | 4 | with motion detectors. The City Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated said system is more expensive; the system would have been ordered if current facts were known. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether in-pavement lights would be placed between Santa Clara Avenue and Central Avenue. Mayor Johnson responded that said lights have already been installed. Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that he would like to see in- pavement lights at the intersection of Main Street and Ralph Appezzato Parkway. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that hopefully money will be available to install embedded lights. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-483 - ) Recommendation to adopt the City of Alameda Ferry Short Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Year 2008/2018 and receive an update on the Water Emergency Transportation Authority Legislation. The Ferry Services Manager and Public Works Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Gilmore requested background on the Golden Gate Bridge Transit District; inquired how many ferries are run by the District. The Ferry Services Manager responded that the Golden Gate Bridge Transit District is the largest ferry service on the Bay and carries approximately two million passengers per year; stated the District has five boats. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the legislation was to ensure a coordinated emergency response effort; inquired why the largest provider [Golden Gate Bridge Transit District] is excluded. The Public Works Director responded that he does not have an answer tonight, but that he will look into the matter. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 October 2, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf |
PlanningBoard | 2014-07-14 | 2 | with minimum 4' fence. President Burton opened the public comment. Mr. Richard Neveln, resident, commented that the plan should be expanded to include an area for model aviation, board games and a concession stand with bait for fishing. Also, the park should connect to a bus stop with a shelter. Ms. Lucy Gigli, President Bike - Walk Alameda, mentioned an email she sent prior to the meeting, and thanked staff for the extra bike racks in the design. She asked for a couple minor changes to the bike parking design to maximize use. She stated that Thompson Field does not have any bike parking. President Burton closed public comment. Board member Alvarez-Morroni commented that there are game tables on the drawing and she appreciates the comments regarding bike parking. Board member Tang asked about the cost for bike racks and questioned if more can be added later if necessary. He asked about the maintenance for the synthetic turf and could the field be used for different sports such as bocce ball for the elderly. Ms. Wooldridge commented that the racks are not that costly but they need to be bolted to a hard surface, and should be placed at prime entry points to the park. She stated the field maintenance is comparable to that at other fields and bocce ball can be incorporated if wanted. Board member Knox White commented on the future look of the plan, and the road leading into the park being small in contrast. He would like to see the main entry be Mitchell Avenue when it is constructed. He appreciates the bike parking additions. Mr. Thomas commented that Mosley Avenue curves, but referred to Mitchell Avenue, once constructed, as the major road connecting to 5th Street. Eventually Mosley Avenue will be a neighborhood street. The design can be amended as the development around the park is completed. Board member Knox White commented on the need for bike riders to see their bikes once they enter the park and moving some of the bike parking could be a great change. He commended Ms. Wooldridge for securing the grant for the project. Vice President Henneberry commented on this being a good design and having two park plans come before the board in two meetings is a great thing. President Burton stated he agrees with the Bike Walk Alameda comments for defining bike parking locations and he agrees with the Mitchell Avenue design ideas. He likes the idea of a concession stand. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 July 14, 2014 | PlanningBoard/2014-07-14.pdf |
PublicArtCommission | 2005-09-28 | 3 | with making the interior circulation areas that of a neighborhood scale, not a large shopping center. He likened it to walking through a gallery or museum, not a plaza or square. Mr. Savinar concludes the presentation by explaining that his client is one of the most aggressive print collectors in the United States. The client wants the collection at South Shore to be family-oriented and appealing to the masses, but not watered down; however, he has rejected some pieces with "edge.' C Huston reiterated her desire for originality in the pieces. She went on to state that opportunities for innovation can be used in subtle ways through material and scale for instance. After the presentation, the PAC discusses South Shore further. A2CM Johnson stated that the $150,000 does not all go towards the public art piece. After the administrative and consultant fees, approximately $97,500 will be left for actual pieces. Mr. Savinar should consider that transportation and recognition plaques are included in the amount. CM Rosenberg stated that the Laursen work would most likely have a positive outcome after PAC review. CM Wolfe expressed his desire to see how the Laursen panels would be placed throughout the center. B. Update on Library Project - (Oral Report) Secretary Bailey stated that the PAC received documents in their July Agenda Packets that gave further background information on the ongoing library project. This includes a memo sent to the Mayor and City Council by Susan Hardie, retired Library Director. It explained the background of the Public Art process, including the approval process carried out by the PAAC on July 21, 2004. Secretary Bailey added that funding for Masayuki Nagase's eight medallions, Cadence of the Water, has been secured. The medallions have the highest priority, because they are required to be installed during construction. She also shared that an article had been featured in the Alameda Journal on Tuesday, July 26. It pictured Masayuki carving giant stone, similar to that which will be used for the library. C. Update on Bay Ship and Yacht - (Oral Report) Secretary Bailey explained that the Planning & Building Department received a letter from Cris Craft, Chief Engineer representing Bay Ship & Yacht, on August 5, 2005. He questioned whether the Public Art Ordinance applied to their project, since they are the tenants and their PAC Meeting 3 Minutes September 28, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2012-05-08 | 10 | with infrastructure. In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding debt, the City Manager stated the other way has not worked for sixteen years; the underlying property issues are more important than entitlement risk, but cannot be impacted; entitlement risk is the thing the City can deal with. Mayor Gilmore stated that she agrees entitlement risk is the one thing the City can control, however, she disagrees that the previous projects failed because of entitlement risk; the projects failed in large part because they did not pencil out. The City Manager stated part of the reason the projects did not pencil out is because the City was going through the entitlement process with community interest burdens; the base reuse process Statewide caused people to come up with laundry lists that do not match the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) needs of developers; the City cannot correct said conflict; the proposed plan is a way to address said conflict in a democratic way. * Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:03 p.m. and returned at 9:05 p.m. * Expressed concern about spending money for a project that does not pencil out, bringing capital to the project, backbone infrastructure and predevelopment costs, and signing a contract: Karen Bey, Alameda. * Councilmember deHaan left the dais and returned at 9:17 p.m. The City Manager noted that the development advisor may do brokerage on the pads, but cannot bid on any of the projects. Councilmember Johnson stated the developer would need capital partners, not the City, requested staff to clarify. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the City would have entitlements and would engage a developer to do construction; the City would not take on any infrastructure risk. Councilmember Johnson noted the City did infrastructure for Catellus Bayport project, but should not be doing so now; stated staff has done a conservative financial analysis; there are long term tenants with short term leases; the plan is well thought out; Fort Ord in Monterey has been done piecemeal and projects have been done in wrong locations. Councilmember deHaan stated that he is conservative; questioned where the City would be if going forward with one pad does not work; stated going forward with multiple Special Meeting Alameda City Council 10 May 8, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2009-12-15 | 4 | with direction that the Interim City Manager find out what is supposed to happen [as required by the ordinance] and return to Council with an update. Mayor Johnson stated [ the motion should include] that the Public Art Commission should look for a project. Councilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion with a caveat noting that staff is reviewing all Boards and Commissions; inquired when the review would come forward. The Interim City Manager responded the matter probably would be addressed in February. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *09-508) Recommendation to Conduct the Affordable Housing Ordinance Annual Review Consistent with Section 27-1 of the Alameda Municipal Code and California Government Code Section 66001 and Accept the Annual Report. Accepted. (09-509) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for Bids for the Webster Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Avenue Intersection Project - Landscape and Irrigation Improvements, No. P.W. 06-09-18. The City Engineer gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese stated the bid is for landscaping and irrigation; inquired whether the project is using bay friendly landscaping that does not require irrigation. The City Engineer responded the Bay Friendly Guidelines were followed; stated the required number of points was achieved; irrigation is used to establish plants; all plants are bay friendly. In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry about whether the irrigation would be temporary, the City Engineer stated the irrigation remains in the event plants die. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 December 15, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-12-15.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 23 | with cuts. Mayor Johnson concurred. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there is not a need to go through each department, especially departments not losing actual employees. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in creating a profile for Alameda's budget the International City Management Association (ICMA) has certain ratios on the number of police officers and fire fighters; inquired whether ratios were available for the public works, planning and recreation departments; stated ratios might indicate additional funding is needed for a department; a standard other than ICMA could be used; that he would like to know where the City should be. The Acting City Manager inquired whether louncilmember Daysog was requesting information on ideal staffing levels. Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; noted Alameda County uses said standards to produce its budget. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda County uses ICMA standards, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese stated standards are useful for touching base, but historic review of staffing and service levels is very valuable because it is reality; the City has certain realities, such as being an island which has advantages and disadvantages that must be taken into account. Councilmember Daysog concurred that historic data is good, too; stated ICMA standards probably correlate to what staff is requesting. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated in addition to presenting information from departments losing a staff person, departments with a large number of vacant positions that interface with the public, such as public safety, should also be discussed at the next Council meeting so the public would be aware of changes in service. The Acting City Manager noted there would be reductions in force in Development Services, which is funded through sources other than the General Fund. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a reduction in positions at Alameda Power and Telecom, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 May 17, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil | 2006-05-02 | 6 | with buttons supporting Proposition 81; stated she attended the Annual California Library Association and School Library Association Legislative Day in Sacramento; Proposition 81 is a $600 million Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act Proposition 81 is not polling well; the City could benefit from State bond funds to renovate the two branch libraries or build another branch library ; noted over 3 million native English speaking Californians are functionally illiterate; urged adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Daysog inquired what underlying revenue stream would pay for the Bond. Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft responded the indebtedness is taken on by the State; stated Proposition 81 has the same structure as Proposition 14. Councilmember Matarrese stated the New Main Library would not be possible without Proposition 14; support is needed for Proposition 81; the West End has an old branch library and Bay Farm Island has an undersized branch library. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-235) Resolution No. 13950, "Supporting a "Buy Alameda" Philosophy. " Adopted. The Acting Assistant to the City Manager provided a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the centralization for purchasing goods and supplies is being handled by the Finance Department, to which the Acting Assistant to the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether hiring a buyer was anticipated. The City Manager responded expanding the responsibilities of existing staff is being considered. Councilmember Daysog inquired how the 5% preference would work on a $10,000 purchase. The Finance Director responded written proposals would be requested on large purchases; a local vendor would have the advantage if they Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 May 2, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf |
CityCouncil | 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 the application would object to restrictions on said guns. Mr. Bradley responded some of the guns might have 10 round clips. Mr. Michaan noted ammunition would not be sold; stated the date of 50 years old can be set as of the current date; the Police Department would be provided a list of the guns to be sold; if the Police Department objects to a specific gun, Michaan's Auctions could tell the consigner the particular gun could not be accepted. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Mr. Michaan would be amenable to a set, non- moving date, such as January 1, 1967, to which Mr. Michaan responded in the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 January 3, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-01-03.pdf |