My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
ShorelineMarina Highlights 2009 0504
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Committees
>
Shoreline-Marina Committee
>
ShorelineMarina Highlights 2009 0504
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/1/2009 12:25:12 PM
Creation date
5/1/2009 12:25:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Committee Highlights
Document Date (6)
5/4/2009
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2009 0504
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2009\Packet 2009 0504
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
80
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Shoreline CAC <br />January 21, 2009 <br />Meeting Highlights <br />Page ~3 <br />• University of California, Berkeley, architecture and urban planning students <br />may want to be involved in the future of the Shoreline's development. <br />B. Results of Revenue Measure Feasibility Study. Manager Battenberg gave a <br />powerpoint presentation which included results of a Revenue Measure Feasibility <br />Study from December 2007. Telephone interviews were conducted with voters' <br />households; they asked what they felt was important in the community. <br />• The top most liked features of San Leandro were its small town feel and central <br />location. <br />• The top most important issues/challenges facing the City were public schools <br />and education, growth and development, and public safety including crime; the <br />boat harbor closure was near the bottom of the list. <br />• The top most use of the shoreline recreation area were the restaurants, walking <br />trails and par course, and the play areas and picnic facilities. <br />• There was general support for the boat harbor. <br />• Once educated that the City would need to fund continued dredging of the <br />channel and harbor, individuals were asked if they would support a parcel tax to <br />fund the dredging, maintain the docks and restrooms, and repair the harbor <br />master's office. Less than 50% of the persons surveyed would support a $60 <br />parcel tax. <br />• Keeping the boat harbor open and maintained is a relatively low priority for San <br />Leandro voters. When read a list of 10 issues, voters rated reducing crime, <br />improving the quality of education, and maintaining streets and roads as the <br />relatively most important. In contrast, the boat harbor was rated as the relatively <br />least important. <br />• There is not sufficient voter support for a tax increase to fund the plan to dredge <br />channel and harbor, restore and maintain the docks and the Harbormasters <br />office. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the following: <br />• Was the survey performed apersuasive-type survey? The survey was <br />conducted by a professional, polling firm, Godbe Research. City staff <br />reviewed the questions and did not find the questions to be persuasive in <br />nature. Two failure of two recent parcel tax measures for police services <br />(which were individuals primary concern), leads us to believe that the <br />survey's conclusion that a parcel tax to support dredging would have failed to <br />garner the required two-third votes to pass is accurate. <br />• Was the survey for full dredging? The $60 parcel tax would have generated <br />approximately $2 million annually. <br />• Could the notes or highlights from the Marina/Shoreline Townhall meetings <br />held at the Main Library a few years ago be distributed? It was recalled that <br />about 150 ideas came from that public workshop at that time. The meeting <br />material from the Marina/Shoreline workshops will be distributed along with <br />the next meeting's agenda. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.