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
- Tuesday, January 23, 6:30 pm to 9:00 pm
- More Information
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.
Any updates from Monday’s planning board meeting?
Comment by RWA — November 14, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
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
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):
Comment by Dan W. — November 21, 2006 @ 9:44 am
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
Or rather, what’s the reason the parties need an ENA in the first place?
Comment by NIMBY — November 21, 2006 @ 10:29 am
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
—– 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
It’s a busy week for CC with meetings tonight, tomorrow and Thursday. Thursday is Special Meetings on City Budget which is important to everybody.
Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority (APFA) and Community Improvement Commission (CIC)
June 3, 2008
7:25 PM
http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/archive/2008/attachments/cc_sub_1051.pdf
PSBA WABA GABA get more “tax increment” grants
http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/archive/2008/attachments/cc_sub_1052.pdf
More money for Catellus and more Alameda Landing delays
http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/archive/2008/attachments/cc_sub_1052.pdf
Pushing debt into the future with more debt refi starting with interest only
Special Joint City Council, ARRA & CIC Meeting
June 4, 2008
7:01 PM
Alameda City Hall, Council Chambers
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda CA, 94501
Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), and Community Improvement Commission (CIC)
1. ROLL CALL – City Council, ARRA, CIC
2. AGENDA ITEM
2-A. Authorize the City Manager/Executive Director to Execute a Transfer of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda Point LLC to a New Entity with D.E. Shaw or a Transfer of an Ownership Interest in the Master Developer Entity, SCC Alameda Point LLC to D.E. Shaw, Pursuant to Specific Terms and Conditions. (Development Services)
3. ADJOURNMENT – City Council, ARRA, CIC
Comment by David Kirwin — June 3, 2008 @ 6:09 am
Mon, Jun 30, 2008Alameda Board of Education
The Board of Education will hold a special meeting on Monday, June 30, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the Alameda City Council Chambers, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
All regularly scheduled school board meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays, at Alameda City Council Chambers, 3rd floor, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, unless otherwise noted.
Click here for the agenda when posted (previous Friday). See more meeting info below.
Already it is Monday June 30 but the agenda posted on the AUSD website is still the agenda for the June 24 meeting!
WHO THINKS WE DON’T NEED A PIO?
Comment by David Kirwin — June 30, 2008 @ 12:18 am
from Mike M:
The Board of Education has meet its posting requirements for this special meeting as well as all prior meeting by posting the agenda at District Offices. In the past we have also updated our website as an additional notification. Due to budget reductions enacted on March 4, the position of Communications and Community Relations Coordinator Position has been eliminated. As a result, the website has not updated. Staff is currently evaluating what alternative methods will be used in the future to update the website.
For the time being you can reference the agenda materials here;
http://mikemcmahon.info/agenda.htm
Comment by dk — June 30, 2008 @ 10:32 am
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/agenda.htm
Check it out:
AUSD BOE meeting tonight;
Agenda for August 12 BOE Meeting
1.)Public Appointment of Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment / Peer Assistance and Review (BTSA/PAR) Coordinator
Background: Shirley Clem was appointed as principal of Otis Elementary. The Superintendent will present her candidate at the meeting.
Fiscal Implications: None
Superintendent Goal: Goal #4 Recruit and retain high qualified personnel.
2.) Measure A Parcel Tax Oversight Committee Report
Background: The three member committee consisting of Rich Thomas, Kathy Moehring and Nak Min Oddie will provide a report on the appropriate use of Measure A Funds. This committee will also be responsible of oversight of Measure H funds.
Fiscal Implications: None
Superintendent Goal: Goal #2. Align spending plan.
3.) Superintendent Search – Overview and Process with Approval of Brochure to Promote Search for Superintendent
Background: Superintendent Dailey announced her retirement in early July and her retirement is effective January, 2009. The California School Boards Association has been selected to conduct a search process for a new Superintendent. Elaine Collins, Ed.D, a CSBA consultant will provide an overview and timeline of the process for the search.
2008 Superintendent Selection Process
September 8 and September 22: Community Meetings
CSBA will be conducting one on one interviews with selected coomunity and district stakeholders during the day. In the evening, CSBA will be faciltating broader community meetings at one West End school and one East End School. The purpose of the community meetings will be to solicit input about what the Board should be looking for in selecting the next Superintendent.
October Board Meeting
CSBA will present a summary of community input at a Board meeting.
October 22 – Application Period Ends
Candidates will need to submit their application by this date.
November 15 and November 16 – Interviews
The November dates gives the existing Board the flexibility to accomodate newly elected Board members in the process.
Recruitment Brochure
Draft Presented at August 12 BOE Meetinng
The Position
The governing board of the Alameda Unified School District invites experienced and successful educators to apply for the position of superintendent. The board is seeking a professional adviser who is an instructional leader with a commitment to educational excellence and equity for all students. By understanding and meeting the educational challenges in a diverse community, the superintendent will continue to develop a strong educational program for all students. The successful candidate will be highly visible and involved in the community and will serve as chief spokesperson for educational issues. Individuals with nontraditional experience in the field of education are also encouraged to apply.
The Community
Alameda is located in the geographical center of the San Francisco Bay area providing easy access to all of the activities the Bay Area has to offer. This island city is located on the east shore of San Francisco Bay with Victorian homes and shade lined streets covering the 12.4 square miles. Alameda offers a special living environment with a coastal climate, parks, historical business districts and numerous recreational opportunities, The city’s elected officials, special commissions, and volunteers work together to preserve and enhance the quality of life that has been enjoyed for over a century. The community actively supports the district through parent advisory groups, business partnerships and the Alameda Education Foundation. Since 2002, Alameda residents have shown their support for Alameda schools with the passage of three parcel tax measures and one bond measure.
The District
Alameda USD is composed of approximately 10,230 students in 10 elementary schools (3 Title 1 schools), 3 middle schools, 4 high schools with oversight of two charter high schools. The district also operates an adult school and a child development center. There are 567 certificated staff members and 341 classified staff members. The district’s educational philosophy is:
Every student has the right to reach his/her full potential
Development of the whole person-intellectual, emotional, creative, and physical-is an important part of a well-rounded individual
Education is a shared responsibility of the student, the teacher, the parent and the community
Embracing diversity contributes to the strength of the community
Instruction should be designed to meet the needs of the diverse learners
High expectations result in high achievement
Students learn best when actively engaged in relevant work
Community service is a valuable learning experience for students
Decision-making must be responsive to student needs
The district reflects the community’s ethnic diversity with 30% Caucasian, 30% Asian, 13% Hispanic and 12% African American.
Selection Criteria
The following criteria represent standards to be used in the evaluation of applications and in the selection of the superintendent.
Professional Experience and Preparation
K-12 public school classroom teaching experience preferred
Successful school site administrative experience preferred
Successful district level administrative experience preferred
Experience as an assistant superintendent or superintendent desirable
Experience with a diverse socioeconomic, multicultural student population preferred
Masters Degree from an accredited college or university required
Personal Characteristics
Has high integrity and is honest, fair, trustworthy and forthright; treats others with dignity and respect
Has a commitment to being an active participant in the life of the community
Creates a district climate of cooperation and collaboration
Ability to listen to new ideas and divergent opinions and secures meaningful involvement of staff, parents and community
Communicates in a consistent and timely manner with all segments of the district and community; is a visible, articulate spokesperson and advocate for public education
Recognizes that all staff members are integral to the success of the district
Demonstrated skills in decision making; is decisive, directive, inclusive and/or collaborative as appropriate to the decision
Is highly visible in the community, schools, and work sites; is accessible and approachable by students, staff, employees and community members
Is sensitive and responsive to the educational needs and concerns of diverse ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic groups
Professional Skills and Abilities
Commitment to academic excellence, a record of improving student achievement and success in closing the achievement gap between ethnic, socioeconomic and culturally diverse students
Strong curricular leader with a dedication to educational excellence and high academic standards, innovation and equitable opportunities for all students
In depth understanding and knowledge of school budgeting and school finance at the state, district and school levels
Demonstrated ability to oversee the district’s facilities and resources in a responsible manner, as well as the ability to seek and find new funding sources
Demonstrated skills in analyzing potential effect and impact of state and federal legislation on the district
Commitment to arts education; will support and promote an equitable arts education program in all of Alameda’s schools
Demonstrated success in working with a governing board; is a person who ensures that the board receives appropriate information, advice and recommendations
A leader with a vision of where the district might go and what the district might become; ability to articulate the vision and incorporate other points of view and to decisively lead the district
Experience in negotiations with a demonstrated record of creating a positive climate in employee relations and a record of creating a climate of cooperation and collaboration
Ability to select, motivate and retain outstanding staff members
Selection Procedure
A professional screening committee will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant. The board and the screening committee will use the described criteria during the screening, interviewing, and final decision-making process. After receiving and studying the report of the screening committee, the board will select and interview the top candidates.
The board will select candidates for the final interviews, conduct the interviews, and select the superintendent. Any applicant who contacts a board member with the intent of influencing the board’s decision will be disqualified.
Interviews are tentatively scheduled for November 15 and 16, 2008. Travel expenses for those candidates selected for the interviews will be the responsibility of the candidate.
Salary and Contract Terms
The Alameda Unified School District Board of Education will offer a salary in the range of $185,000 to $200,000(competitive and negotiable, based on that individual’s experience and qualifications) plus medical benefits to the successful candidate.
Fiscal Implications: $15,000 to $20,000
Superintendent Goal: Goal #2. Align spending plan.
4.)Certification of Measure H Results
Background: The Board need to enter into its minutes the results of June 3, 2008 where Measure H passed with 66.90% yes vote.
Fiscal Implications: Approximately $4 million annually for four years
Superintendent Goal: Goal #2. Align spending plan.
5.) Board Member Reports
Send mail to mikemcmahonausd@yahoo.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: August, 2008
Comment by dk — August 12, 2008 @ 12:30 am
Interested in more information about the State, Regional, and Local measures on the November 4th ballot, or about the candidates? The League of Women Voters will be doing three general public sessions of pros and cons on the ballot measures, and four candidate’s forums in October. Go to our web site at http://www.alameda.ca.lwvnet.org for the dates, times and places.
Comment by Kate Quick — September 17, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
Lauren,
Today from 10 – 12 at Pasta Pelican they will have a release party for the bicycle estuary crossing report. I’m already committed to be at the CERT function on Bay Farm at that time – can you pick up a copy of the study and put it up on your blog?
Since the VP debate was less entertaining than most expected, please post the “draft estuary crossing study”. We need to see the enlightened results costing 100’s of thousands of dollars for this study. Already we know the basic outcome “It would be really nice if we could do it, but…”; but show us the full spectrum of what such a capital investment gained for us.
I suspect it will be very amusing, though it would be more entertaining if it wasn’t such an expensive form of entertainment.
It has been a very hard week for all of us who care about our society.
Comment by David Kirwin — October 4, 2008 @ 9:36 am
I received a notice from the City today dated 10-17-08 that there will be a hearing NOV 10, 7pm CC Chambers.
The Planning Board is seeking a Zoning Text Amendment for a Density Bonus Ordinance to the Alameda Municipal Code.
Does this ring a bell for anyone? Do you think this has anything to do with all the work done by David Howard regarding the State Density Bonus which supersedes our City Charter and Measure “A”?
The notice states that the PB will recommend a proposed Negative Declaration regarding the environmental review, that the adoption of an ordinance regarding secondary housing units is statutorily exempt under CEQA guidelines, section 15282 (h). City Staff planning manager Jon Biggs is at the helm of this one, he can be contacted Tuesday thru Friday at 474-6884, or jbiggs@ci.alameda.ca.us
Comment by David Kirwin — October 23, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
The City is required to pass a density bonus ordinance otherwise the state will not certify our Housing Element.
Comment by Lauren Do — October 23, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
The State has already passed a housing density bonus which takes precedence over ours.
If you are right Lauren, it sounds like too many tax-payer funded desk jockeys to me.
Have a good night
Comment by David Kirwin — October 23, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
#35
“Since the VP debate was less entertaining than most expected, please post the “draft estuary crossing study”. We need to see the enlightened results costing 100’s of thousands of dollars for this study. Already we know the basic outcome “It would be really nice if we could do it, but…”; but show us the full spectrum of what such a capital investment gained for us.”
I think that this is the most likely crossing scenario. There is plenty of room to include bicycle lanes.
http://www.kumah.org/uploaded_images/SplittingOfTheRedSea-700686.jpg
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — October 23, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
Thanks ANT for the entertainment without the cost.
Has anybody heard the outcome of the $225K feasibility study for a pedestrian & bicycle estuary crossing?
How many things were on the City’s “cut list” last night that cost less than this study?
I’m really looking forward to seeing if anything worth a cup of coffee was learned by this futile excercise.
Comment by DK — October 23, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
On adoption of Density Bonus:
Comment by Lauren Do — October 24, 2008 @ 7:45 am
Actually, the City staff prepared a Density Bonus Ordinance in 1999-2000, but the City Council rejected it. I believe Councilmember Kerr was one of the strongest voice against having a Density Bonus Ordinance.
Comment by Housing Guy — October 24, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
On the density bonus: It’s state law, so the city has to comply with it — this isn’t a choice. (I recall one local matron who sounded quite put out at the nerve of the State of California…I’m coming to appreciate that attitude.)
As I understand it, a developer must first ~offer~ to build additional “affordable” units (affordability defined as a percentage of median income), then the city must in return allow the developer to build additional units, beyond what zoning would normally permit — the density bonus. (I don’t recall offhand how many, but on a percentage basis.) This law has been around for a long time, and somehow it hasn’t caught up with Alameda, tho it’s well known and often applied in Berkeley.
One thing I don’t understand tho — since Alameda already has its own requirement for “affordable” units (however defined), what exactly does it mean if Alameda complies with the state law? The city requires that 25% of all new development be affordable, and it doesn’t offer any density bonus in return. So as to what this might mean: will developers have to offer yet more affordable units to qualify for a density bonus (which they won’t), or can they claim a bonus based on the existing city requirement?
Also note that the state allows a secondary unit by right, meaning in general terms that anyone can add a second unit to a single family home without regard to city zoning requirements. I say “in general” because it has to be more complicated than that. Strange but true.
Comment by DL Morrison — October 24, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
Here’s a summary of the law re: secondary units,stating that the approval process is administrative only.
In October of 2002, the state legislature and governor signed into law Assembly Bill 1866. This new law, which went into effect July 1, 2003, requires that applications for the construction of all secondary housing units in all California cities be either approved or disapproved ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing. The City’s existing secondary housing unit ordinance requires that these units go through a discretionary Conditional Use Permit process for processing.
Comment by DL Morrison — October 24, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
Earthships – A Path to Sustainable Growth
5 – 8 pm Tuesday December 9th, Alameda Free Library
As communities search for ways to reduce causes of global warming while continuing to grow, we have an obligation to learn what is possible for “zero carbon’ homes.
As Alameda examines the number and types of housing to be built on our island, we all have an opportunity to examine what is possible for true “zero-carbon” homes.
Homes that create all of their own electricity from the sun and wind, homes that capture, store and reuse their own water, and then treat their own waste, homes that use natural thermodynamics to heat and cool their interiors, and that have year-round food producing interior gardens are not just a conceptual ideal, they are being built all over the world, and many are even built from used recyclable materials. They are a part of today’s reality and we have an opportunity to learn more about them next Tuesday, December 9th, at the Alameda Main Library when Biotect Jonah Reynolds will speak about “Earthships”.
‘Earthship’ is a term applied to these sustainable homes first designed and built by Mike Reynolds, Jonah’s father, in the 1970’s.
Biotecture was the term coined to display the importance of ‘living’ as a part of architecture.
As communities of these ‘earthships’ began to grow, concurrent to the growth of planning and development bureaucracies in the state of New Mexico, where Reynolds began the earthship communities, he was temporarily stripped of his architect’s license and forbidden to continue building earthship communities as the new bureaucracies put laws together to prevent these earth-friendly homes in favor of status quo developers. It wasn’t until Reynolds’s success in many other countries around the world gained significant attention that Reynolds’s license was restored and the State Legislature of New Mexico removed enough legal obstacles for Reynolds to continue building the ‘earthship communities’ in New Mexico.
Please feel welcomed in learning about the simple, earth-friendly systems of earthships on Tuesday Dec 9, in Alameda, at 5 pm with the formal presentation from 6 – 7 pm followed by Q&A session until the library closes at 8 pm.
See: http://www.earthship.net/ or for CNN snippet see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDRstVYF7wA
Alameda Free Library is located at 1550 Oak St (Oak and Lincoln),
Alameda, CA (510) 747-7777
Comment by David Kirwin — November 29, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
Earthships – A Path to Sustainable Growth
5 – 8 pm Tuesday December 9th, Alameda Free Library
As communities search for ways to reduce causes of global warming while continuing to grow, we have an obligation to learn what is possible for “zero carbon’ homes. This is part of today’s reality and we have an opportunity to learn more about them on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008 at the Alameda Main Library when Jonah Reynolds, a Biotect, will speak about Earthships, an accepted sustainable construction phenomena. ‘Earthship’ is a term applied to these sustainable homes first designed and built by Mike Reynolds, Jonah’s father, in the 1970’s. Biotecture is the term coined to display the importance of ‘living’ as a part of architecture.
Homes that create all of their own electricity from the sun and wind, homes that capture, store and reuse their own water, and then treat their own waste, homes that use natural thermodynamics to heat and cool their interiors, and that have year-round food producing interior gardens are not just a conceptual ideal, they are being built all over the world, and many are even built from used recyclable materials.
Please feel welcomed in learning about the simple, earth-friendly systems of earthships on Tuesday Dec 9, in Alameda, at 5 pm with the formal presentation from 6 – 7 pm followed by Q&A session until the library closes at 8 pm.
See http://www.earthship.net/ for further information on Earthship Biotecture. You can also Google Earthship videos to see lots of clips from CNN and many other credible sources. PBS has run full length features on earthships and this is a wonderful chance to earn more right here in Alameda.
Alameda Free Library is located at 1550 Oak St (Oak and Lincoln),
Alameda, CA (510) 747-7777
Comment by David Kirwin — December 8, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
This is not city-organized but I’m posting here in case anyone is interested in attending.
Emergency, non-violent demonstration against the bombing of civilians in Gaza is planned for Friday, January 9, 5PM to 6 PM. Everyone is welcome to come with signs and candles to stand at the corner of Buena Vista Street and Park Street in Alameda.
Israel’s lethal attack on the Gaza Strip could not have happened without the active military and political support of the United States. Therefore, people in the United States need to take action to protest this attack and demand an immediate cease-fire.
A follow-up meeting to discuss short term and long term actions, educational projects, and benefit events to raise money for humanitarian needs in the Israeli occupied Gaza Strip and the West Bank will be held at 9AM, Saturday Jan. 10, at Java Rama, 1333 Park Street, Alameda.
Comment by AD — January 9, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
What is this about? anybody Know – not posted anywhere I could find online
BOARD OF EDUCATION SPECIAL MEETING
Saturday, January 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Alameda Unified School District – 3rd Flr Conf Rm
2200 Central Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
AGENDA
A. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – 9:00 AM
B. ADOPTION OF AGENDA / APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
C. COMMUNICATIONS – Oral
D. PUBLIC SESSION – PUBLIC SESSION ITEM
D-1. Board Governance Protocols
E. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION – CLOSED SESSION ITEM
E-1. Superintendent Evaluation
F. RECONVENE TO PUBLIC SESSION / REPORT OUT
G. ADJOURNMENT
Comment by David Kirwin — January 23, 2009 @ 4:26 pm