Blogging Bayport Alameda

Meeting Notices

Last updated 1/13/07

City Council

  • Tuesday, January 16, 7:30 p.m.
  • Agenda
  • Items of Interest:

Planning Board

  • Monday, January 22, 7:00 p.m.
  • Agenda
  • Items of Interest:

Alameda Point Open House

Commission on Disability

  • Monday, January 29, 7:30 pm
  • Agenda
  • Items of Interest:

Transportation Commission

  • Wednesday, January 31, 7:30 p.m
  • Agenda
  • Items of Interest: Alameda Landing TDM and Transportation Master Plan Street Classification

Please let me know if there are any other meetings (and items) of interest.

29 Comments »

  1. Any updates from Monday’s planning board meeting?

    Comment by RWA — November 14, 2006 @ 4:52 pm

  2. Anyone interested in the City’s Transportation Master Plan process can sign up for email notifications at:
    http://ci.alameda.ca.us/tmp/

    The entry box for your email is in the margin on the left-hand side.

    You will received email notifications of all meetings regarding any aspect of the Transportation Master Plan.

    Comment by John Knox White — November 15, 2006 @ 2:47 pm

  3. Did anybody see that old Saturday Night Live sketch where the little boy, using his “McIntosh Jr.” computer, alters his father’s flyer titled “Visiting The Public Library” in a similar way to the typo in the city’s notice?

    Here is the YouTube URL (or click my name):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6uWmKQ3×1I

    Comment by Dan W. — November 21, 2006 @ 9:44 am

  4. There is a meeting tonight to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Encinal Real Estate for the development of the Northern Waterfront. Here’s the link, http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/city_clerk/2006/m_1164123000.html , see the last joined CC/CIC meeting.
    I am still wading throught the ENA but I can tell you right now that I have a real problem with the City entering into exclusive agreements before there is a plan for the area other than some pretty drawings. This is exactly the kind of problem we saw with the theater—once the city is locked in with a developer, what good is public input?
    I need to hear a good explanation as to why this is an acceptable practice. If anyone wants to offer it, I’m listening.

    Comment by NIMBY — November 21, 2006 @ 10:15 am

  5. Or rather, what’s the reason the parties need an ENA in the first place?

    Comment by NIMBY — November 21, 2006 @ 10:29 am

  6. Ok, I’m done reading the draft ENA.

    At first blush, it looks good. It specifically says it is just so negotiations can begin in good faith, and does not commit the city to anything, including a DDA.

    On a second look, it includes a schedule that features only two (2) public hearings between now and January 2009. The first one is to approve the tidelands trust swap, the second one is to approve the finalized DDA.

    Does anyone think that after two years of staff putting in hundreds maybe thousands of work hours, of the City going through all the government red tape with a Tidelands trust swap, and with a general disposition all involved will have developed over time to get this development done, the public will have any meaningful input at all on the final DDA approval? Unless the City Council or staff themselves decide there is a reason this project is not a go, the public will have no meaningful say whatsoever, even though the formalities will all be kept.

    I’m curious if anybody else has an opinion, before the City Council meeting tonight.

    Comment by NIMBY — November 21, 2006 @ 12:26 pm

  7. Nimby. This is more of a conceptual response to your post. You should read the intent of the legislature when it enacted the Brown Act. It provides for open meetings with proper notice so the public can observe the deliberation and decison making process of a legislative body. By its nature, a public meeting is the time when some information is presented to the legislative body, perhaps for the first time.

    I don’t think the Brown Act requires a legislative body to affirmatively disclose every fact, report, or opinion it obtains as part of evaluating and approving the legislation. A staff report may provide detailed information or a summary of the data used to form the basis for the recommendation or action. In reading your posts, it seems like you want the legislative body to publish all the data being considered. This would put a huge burden on the legislative body and could limit public input at a particular meeting.

    If one wishes to see all the raw data a legislative body has collected, there are ways to obtain that information. It is not kept secret, but it does require a resident to be more proactive and make a specific request.

    In regards to the specific project you are reviewing, it may only need two decisions of the legislative body in order to be approved or denied.

    Comment by Recall — November 21, 2006 @ 2:41 pm

  8. NIMBY - Goood questions! The ENA is with the property owner. Why does the city want an exclusive bargaining agreement with the owner - it’s already exclusive - he is the owner, the city can’t bargain with anyone else on developing his property!!!

    The “REAL DEAL” is that buried in the ENA is a construction schedule!!!

    For what? - We don’t know yet!
    Even the planning Dept says it only has “Conceptual” plans, but Leslie Little of the ‘Developer Dept’ is bringing this to CC to actually commit to a construction schedule - thus sealing the deal - her will be done.

    My understanding is that the DDA will be at CC in January -’07 for approval.

    Sound like the Theater - a done deal prior to meaningful public input? You bet,

    and right in the middle of holiday season while most people are busy with family.

    What a “Little” snake job!!

    -Dave Kirwin

    Comment by D.Kirwin — November 21, 2006 @ 4:30 pm

  9. Thanks, Recall. The Brown Act has nothing to do with my concerns about the proposed Northern Waterfront project. The problem I have is with what appears to be built-in lack of public oversight. You must agree that two public meetings in two years is very little opportunity to get community input on a project that takes up the entire waterfront from Wind River to Oak and deals with issues like public access to the water.

    I am quite certain an ENA at this point is not necessary. The City can begin its tidelands swap application withoput it, the property owner can start developing plans in accordance with the Genral Plan’s Northern Waterfront Specific Plan without it. The ENA right now serves no purpose other than to seal in the proposed “roadmap” to the DDA. There are no specific plans before the Council tonight, only pretty conceptual drawings, yet the timeline commitment seems firmly in place. The timeline avoids involvement by the Planning Board (and therefore the public) until the agreement is signed. After the theater DDA was signed, the Planning Board had no power to change anything the CIC had already agreed to, leaving them with control over superficial detail only. I’ve blamed the PB for greenlighting projects before—that seems to be the role they’ve been assigned, maybe against their better judgement even.

    The problem is that this entire project is undertaken by the Redevelopment Agency, once again. Redevelopment and public oversight are mutually exclusive. Why is the City Council acting as the CIC taking this road again?

    Comment by NIMBY — November 21, 2006 @ 6:51 pm

  10. For public meetings, aren’t you all forgetting about the EIR process? EIR review has its own set of public hearings. Even a negative declaration has public input period, but I doubt a project this large can do without a full EIR. Most of the issues that people are concerned with would be EIR issues.

    Comment by kevis — November 21, 2006 @ 8:54 pm

  11. I was both surprised and relieved that CC was clear with the owner that he was proceeding backwards with his request for the ENA. He was basically told to wait until the Northern Waterfront plan was accepted, (Jan or Feb) and he should have had discussions with AUSD, and go through planning (& EDC, Parks dept et al)and have a project rather than a concept before asking for a ENA. The Mayor also reiterated that his plan must be Measure A compliant. Also in the meantime he can petition the State Lands Commission to try to get the tidal basin lands he needs for the project. He was also told his project plan must at least show why public amenities should be provided for him (Roads etc)

    To balance the discussion it did seem like Mr. Peter Wang really was doing his best, was putting out a lot of his own $$, and stated he would need the ENA so he could get funding, that he was doing the entire project on private funds, not looking for re-development bonds or Mello-Rous.

    The jury in my own head is still out on this it is a very grandiose plan, it had ‘pretty pictures’, but I can’t really believe the traffic impacts will be acceptable, it is about 200 more homes and 200,000 sf of office, retail. It looks nice on a little piece of paper though in reality it may be too big for that location.

    On Alameda Landing – (coming to CC on 12/) I was again shocked by the good representative quality of our CC. In fact, in the end it was Frank that made clear the intent of my request, and it will be included in the staff report; - the number of closed discussions the city took part in relating to Alameda Landing and what each of those discussions were about.
    I feel this is important information to have prior to public comment so we can know where the city is in relation to the Catullus project. About 400 pages of documents on the project are now available in the city clerk’s office. I am not sure that includes the real EIR or just a supplement.
    Happy reading,
    Happy Thanksgiving,
    -David Kirwin

    Comment by D.Kirwin — November 22, 2006 @ 1:24 am

  12. Dave, I have one more thing to be thankful for this thanksgiving. I almost couldn’t believe my eyes. I don’t expect everything to be roses but I will be the first to conseed I you gave them some credit..
    Have a great holiday, I am going to cook some pies now!

    Comment by Barbara M — November 22, 2006 @ 4:16 am

  13. Nimby Sorry I could not get back to you prior to the cc meeting. While I was not able to see the cc meeting, DK appears to have a pretty accurate summary of the meeting. It is important to note that it was Mr. Wang and not the City who was requesting the ENA. So it doesn’t appear the City was trying to railroad this project through the approval process. Additionally, Mr. Wang’s reason for wanting an ENA makes sense. It is common practice for lenders to require a developer to obtain an approved tract map, improvement plan, and in some cases building permits prior to making a funding committment.

    Since the cc sent Mr. Wang back through the development process, it seems like they were protecting the approval process including all the public meetings. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if the project has to go through planning, the City should be scheduling a number of public meetings, right? The EIR will allow residents to have additional input on the impacts of the project. Are you more comfortable with the opportunities for public input now that the project is going to planning?

    By the way, did anyone consider calling Ms. Little prior to the cc meeting and express all these concerns?

    Comment by Recall — November 22, 2006 @ 11:45 am

  14. I am as surprised and pleased as David K. that the City Council showed good reason. I was there briefly last night dropping off my written comment on the issue, I have to still watch the discussion on the video access, but I think they pretty much said what I and others did, that an ENA right now is premature, and that specific plans need to be developed first. There is a school property involved as well, so the school board has an opinion on the isssue too, I’m sure.

    It is true the Mr. Wang was the requester of the ENA, but he did that with the help of staff and had staff’s approval. I was afraid the CIC will follow the recommendation of staff again, I’m relieved they didn’t. I am much more comfortable now that the project will follow the regular planning process, with all the accompanying public hearings.

    Re: the EIR, I’m sure there will be one, however it wasn’t mentioned in the timeline submitted by staff yesterday. An oversight?

    No, I did not consider giving L. Little a call. She has never been straightforward with me. I have a hard time listening to her, she has a knack for spinning her arguments that I find difficult to deal with and keep a good attitude.

    It was interesting to watch how Council dealt yesterday with the Army Core of Engineers’ attempt to transfer care of the estuary to the cities of Oakland and Alameda. Council asked all kinds of tough questions and seriously tried to negotiate what’s best for the city in this situation. They expressly took the concerns of the home owners on the estuary seriously, Marie Gilmore in particular. I just hope they show the same concern and care when it comes to the concerns of the homeowners at the Willows and Target.

    Have a nice Thanksgiving, all.

    Comment by NIMBY — November 22, 2006 @ 3:18 pm

  15. Hi Nimby. Sorry your experiences with the City staff have not been good. I have dealt with Public Works and the Building Department on a number of issues and have always found them to be open and informative. I may not have agreed with their position on certain subjects, but they took the time to explain their decision.

    Take the time to enjoy Thanksgiving and your families.

    Comment by Recall — November 22, 2006 @ 4:17 pm

  16. I too have had positive experiences with city departments including, planning, the city clerk, public works, and others. I also have to agree the every time I have had discussions at the 2nd floor of City Hall West; - the Developer Services Dept the “discussion” was led down a rosy path of a suggested reality that doesn’t match the real world. But perhaps that was my fault for not taking a firm stance in the discussion.

    I wish I had thought to call Ms. Little and her staff on this issue.

    I agree that Ms Little should not have been there last night representing Mr Wang. He should have gone thru the Planning Dept. Encinal Containers is a active business, this is not a redevelopment project.

    Mr Wang himself said he is not seeking redevelopment funds. Ms Little urged the approval of the ENA and one of the reasons she cited was to hire consultants.

    In the ALAMEDA LANDING doc “Attachment 4C3” lists City Staff and Consultant rates; the Developer Services Director is listed at $112.28 / hr and consultants (there are 12 listed) average 196.75 / hr. Why would the city want to start spending that kind of money when the petitioner has no plan yet? My understanding is that he has never completed any of his former plans in Alameda.

    I do not want to sound negative on Mr Wang’s plan, just negative on the way it is being pursued. I hope he understands that without the ENA they can still make application to the State Lands commission to try to utilize the tide lands, and he can negotiate with AUSD for their interest in their portion of the land involved.( I hope he hasn’t upset them too much as the leaser of the AUSD land he has prevented them from doing environmental testing on the land that he leases from them.)
    I am relieved the CC did not allow Mr Wang to take this path which (it appears) Ms Little had suggested to Mr Wang. It really stands out that Developer Services is attempting to stretch its power base as THE authority to determine the future of the city. I am glad that in this case the attempt was thwarted. The Planning Dept is the proper path, and they will require a plan, and hopefully a more public process.

    -Dave Kirwin

    Comment by D.Kirwin — November 22, 2006 @ 6:24 pm

  17. The new Film Commission will be meeting on January 10th at City Hall West room 201. This commission has done some exciting work in getting Hollywood dollars spent here in Alameda. All are wecome to join the commission in the discussion of Alameda’s new Film web site.
    kenyd

    Comment by kenyd — December 5, 2006 @ 12:26 pm

  18. The next Transportation Commission meeting is Weds 12/13 at 7:30 (the above listing erroneously says 12/12)

    The agenda and meeting packet can be found here.

    The Transportation Commission is the only regular city meeting to which anyone can sign up for email meeting notifications (they include a link to the agenda and packet). Simply visit here to sign up.

    Agendas and Packets are posted a week before each meeting. Email notification will be sent no later than the Friday before the Wednesday meeting.

    Comment by John Knox White — December 8, 2006 @ 1:45 pm

  19. The January 2007 Transportation Commission Meeting will be held on January 31st (The fifth Wednesday of the month, instead of the fourth). The Alameda Landing TDM program and the Transportation Master Plan Street Classification plan should both be on the agenda.

    Comment by johnknoxwhite — January 5, 2007 @ 9:09 am

  20. I was disappointed our city council democrats further promoted the “California Corporate Welfare Program” at the last CC mtg.

    One of the items on the consent agenda was for Alameda to join a state program which will allow developers to get long term financing for tax debts due for improvements of their property. Instead of getting their own private loans if needed, they will now be able to get loans to cover their tax debt from State issued bonds. This is another gift for Catellus and friends as it only helps with this kind of tax exceeding $250,000.

    No one on CC even pulled the item for discussion on how this could possibly benefit the people of the city they represent, or the people of the State which will be responsible for guaranteeing the bond.

    From the votes on both the consent and regular agenda, it is obvious that this edition of our City Council is overwhelmingly developer-friendly. I used to think the reputation of “Democrats” was to stand for the welfare of society, while the reputation of “Republicans” was to stand for the welfare of the ‘corporate state’. Looks like party affiliation names here are just meaningless words. It is easy for those in management positions of the Public Sector to spend, other peoples money regardless of the outcome. (Just look at APT) It is the job of elected officals to safeguard public assets. What is going on here in Alameda?

    Comment by D.Kirwin — January 5, 2007 @ 6:10 pm

  21. Update on the construction of the megaplex tonight at 7:29 pm, City Hall. Staff is enigmatically brief on the cineplex construction and financing in the staff report but promises an oral update at the meeting (kind of like a movie teaser). More at http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/city_clerk/2007/assoc_588.html

    Comment by NIMBY — January 16, 2007 @ 8:40 am

  22. There are two interesting meetings tonight. The PB is holding a special meeting in the Library to discuss their role as a board and the roles of individual members.

    The Transportation Commission is discussing classifying streets in Alameda into residential streets, and various kind of collector streets. Although Central/Encinal is designated to be a fairly heavy traffic street.(s), Bayview and Gibbons are listed as streets to be protected.

    Comment by D.Kirwin — January 31, 2007 @ 4:56 pm

  23. Tonight’s ARRA Meetin will be live webcast at the city’s Webcast Center http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/webcast/moreinfo.html

    Too bad - REALLY too bad our state of the art new library could not provide access to record to the webcast center the important PB meeting held there Jan 31st. I guess the rule is if you don’t want people to know - make it hard for them to find out- SOS in Alameda.

    Comment by D.Kirwin — February 7, 2007 @ 5:37 pm

  24. MEETING THIS SATURDAY

    “’No Child Left Behind?’ What is the Conservative, Corporate Agenda for Destroying Our Public Schools?”

    Throughout the country and here in Alameda, a Federal law entitled “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) requires testing that undermines your child’s education. This law is part of a corporate agenda to destroy public education in this country. Additionally, in California cities, including Alameda, redevelopment drains our schools and other public services of much needed tax revenue funding. Hear our panel of speakers explore these topics vital to every person.

    Kathy Emery, Jack Gerson, Marsha Feinland and Gretchen Mackler-Lipow

    Kathy Emery, has taught high school history for 16 years, has a Ph.D. In Education from UC Davis, and is currently working with Teachers for Social Justice and the San Francisco Organizing Project. Ms. Emery is co-author with Susan Ohanian of “Why Is Corporate America Bashing Our Schools?” This book has received the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contributions for Honesty in Public Language. Ms Emery heads the San Francisco Freedom School summer program. Copies of Ms. Emery’s book will be available for purchase at the event.

    Jack Gerson teaches at Castlemont Leadership Prep High in Oakland, California, where he is the lead math teacher and a member of the school district’s math curriculum council. He is on the Executive Board of the Oakland teachers’ union (the Oakland Education Association), and has been an active opponent of the state takeover of Oakland public schools and of the role of the Broad and Gates Foundations in imposing privatization via a “business model” for public schools. He has an M.S. in mathematics (Stanford) and a Ph.D. in biostatistics (Berkeley).

    Marsha Feinland and Gretchen Mackler-Lipow retired Alameda teachers and activists.

    Saturday, June 16th, 2007, 7:00 To 9:30 P.M.
    1300 Grand Street, Alameda
    Join in a challenging presentation and discussion of the vital issues
    confronting our world today.

    CDs of all previous forums are available at the website http://www.alamedaforum.org
    email: AlamedaPublicAffairs@comcast.net * call: 510-814-9592
    Donations at the Door

    Comment by David Kirwin — June 13, 2007 @ 4:50 pm

  25. I was biking on Grand a while ago and spotted official city notices for
    a meeting on the street classification issue. I was moving quickly and didn’t stop to read the date or whether it was at a regular TC meeting or other venue. Doesn’t appear to be posted here.

    Comment by Mark — September 24, 2007 @ 9:17 am

  26. The meeting was not about street classifications, it was about pedestrian improvements that the neighborhood had requested for two blocks along Grand Street. It took place almost 2 weeks ago.

    Comment by johnknoxwhite — September 24, 2007 @ 11:00 am

  27. Dear Friend:

    I’m writing to remind you of a really important conference and Forum on a subject that is at the heart of what is going on in American politics and the economy and which has major implications for the labor movement. General Motors and Chrysler have been negotiating with the UAW over health and other working conditions. Behind those negotiations is the threat of the entire auto industry going non-union, either in the US or by building what were American cars in China where workers are not permitted to form an independent union. The All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is a state union run from the top to serve the interests of the state or “foreign” manufacturers. We are having a round-table discussion of this complicated subject with some leading labor experts on Saturday afternoon, October 13. The round-table will be preceded by the showing of an amazing documentary made by a local film-maker: “China Blue” — shot surreptitiously in China it shows the gross exploitation of young Chinese women clothing workers by the new “capitalists” in China. Imagine if someone had been able to make a film in 19th century England about the exploitation of the textile workers there and you will have an idea of what this film is like. Following the round-table there will be full audience participation — discussion and questions. Coffee and cookies served.

    We will adjourn at 5 to go to dinner at a local restaurant and return for Professor Nelson Lichtenstein’s Forum: “Wal-Mart: the Face of 21st Century Capitalism” — copies of his book by the same name will be available for purchase courtesy of Books Inc. Please join us EITHER at the conference in the afternoon OR the Forum in the evening — or, even better, BOTH. I promise you it will be an intellectually stimulating day. As always — and even more so in this case — our aim is to go into the intellectual background of the issues confronting us in order to help activists intervene as intelligently and effectively as possible. Co-Sponsored by California Healthy Communities Network. The Alameda Public Affairs Forum is a continuing project of the Center for Global Peace and Democracy. Please forward this email to your friends and contacts.

    To sum up:

    “A Conference on Labor, Wal-Mart and China: Challenge to the American Labor Movement. (1PM for showing of “China Blue” - followed by round table discussion 2.15-4.45; Dinner at Luciano’s, 2319 Santa Clara Ave.,5-6.45; Evening, 7 to 9.30, Alameda Public Affairs FORUM Professor Nelson Lichtenstein, UCSB, “Wal-Mart: The Face of 21st Century Capitalism”– all at our NEW location, The Alameda Free Library, corner of Oak and Lincoln. Round-table participants include: Nelson Lichtenstein (UCSB); Steve Diamond (Santa Clara Law School) David Brody (UC Davis); Ken Jacobs (Institute of Industrial Relations, UCB). Donations at door.

    Directions: coming south on 880 turn on 23rd Ave exit, cross Park St Bridge - turn right on Lincoln, one half block to parking lot behind Library. In the evening look for signs directing you to the side entrance.

    Coming north on 880, take 29th Ave. exit toward Fruitvale ave., Turn right onto East 9th St., Turn right on Fruitvale Ave., Fruitvale Ave. becomes Tilden Way; Tilden Way becomes Lincoln Ave., go one-half block and turn right into Library Parking lot (Library is at 1550 Oak St.). I’ll have my cell phone if you need more help: (510) 846-5464.

    Comment by David Kirwin — October 12, 2007 @ 5:17 pm

  28. Bayport Community:
    The California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control is hosting a public meeting to discuss the proposed Remedial Action Workplan (cleanup plan) for the Alameda Landing Development Project. The Public Meeting will be Tuesday, February 26 at 6:30. The meeting will be held in Room 200 at the Alameda City Hall West on Alameda Point. You are all invited to attend the meeting to discuss the proposed Remedial Action Workplan.

    Sincerely,
    Dot Lofstrom
    Project Manager
    DTSC

    Comment by Dot Lofstrom — February 21, 2008 @ 6:27 pm

  29. —– Original Message —–

    Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:00:02 PM
    PIO News
    From: Mark Coplan
    Subject: Assemblymember Hancock: Town Hall on California’s Budget Crisis
    To: PublicInfo

    Assemblymember Loni Hancock is very pleased to see the leadership the
    Berkeley school community has provided in responding to the state wide
    budget crisis. She asked me to pass this invitation for an update in the
    hopes that some of us can make it to Alameda this Saturday.

    Mark Coplan, BUSD Public Information Officer
    =======================================

    A Town Hall on California’s Budget Crisis

    Saturday, May 3rd
    10:00a.m. to 12:00p.m.
    Encinal High School
    210 Central Avenue • Alameda, CA 94501

    Please join me at a town hall to examine California’s budget crisis and
    its impact on our schools and other services. Empower yourself by being
    involved in the budget process. Help to ensure that the budget is fair;
    that it is not merely balanced on the backs of our children, the elderly,
    disabled and our women and men in uniform.

    To RSVP or for more information, please call my district office at (510)
    559-1406.

    I look forward to seeing you on May 3rd.

    Assemblymember Loni Hancock

    Website: [ http://www.assembly.ca.gov/Hancock
    ]http://www.assembly.ca.gov/Hancock
    Email:Assemblymember.Hancock@assembly.ca.gov

    Capitol Office
    State Capitol
    P.O. Box 942849
    Sacramento, CA 94249-0014
    Phone: (916) 319-2014
    Fax: (916) 319-2114 District Office
    712 El Cerrito Plaza
    El Cerrito, CA 94530
    Phone: (510) 559-1406
    Fax: (510) 559-1478

    Comment by D Kirwin — April 30, 2008 @ 6:32 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.