body,date,page,text,path
GolfCommission,2011-01-19,8,,GolfCommission/2011-01-19.pdf
GolfCommission,2012-10-09,4,,GolfCommission/2012-10-09.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2019-02-27,7,,SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2019-02-27.pdf
GolfCommission,2011-12-13,6,,GolfCommission/2011-12-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-12-18,4,,CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-12-18,6,,CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-05-13,6,,RecreationandParkCommission/2021-05-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,12,,CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
GolfCommission,2012-09-11,4,,GolfCommission/2012-09-11.pdf
GolfCommission,2011-09-21,6,,GolfCommission/2011-09-21.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2020-11-12,7,,RecreationandParkCommission/2020-11-12.pdf
GolfCommission,2012-12-11,4,,GolfCommission/2012-12-11.pdf
GolfCommission,2011-02-23,14,,GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,78,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,8,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,14,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,15,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,16,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,17,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,18,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,21,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,22,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,25,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,26,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,28,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,29,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,30,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,31,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,32,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,33,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,35,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,36,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,37,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,38,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,44,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,46,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,52,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf
GolfCommission,2012-11-13,6,,GolfCommission/2012-11-13.pdf
GolfCommission,2012-06-12,4,,GolfCommission/2012-06-12.pdf
Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,EconomicRecoveryTaskForce,9,"  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2781417&GUID=16211D8D-2D63-
4E9A-8531-6366B3DB8COD&Options=&Search=
Panel member Grunt asked about the ferry terminal.
Ms. Ott said that the new Seaplane Lagoon terminal will be right in the heart of the
development in the Enterprise District. This is the number one issue for developers:
when is the ferry terminal coming? It will operate as a joint consolidated service with the
Main Street Terminal. Most likely, the Seaplane Terminal will be the commute ferry with
Main Street/Oakland supplying mid-day and weekend service. We did look at the
relocating the Main Street Terminal, but it would undermine the Oakland service. The
Oakland line cannot sustain itself and depends on Alameda ridership.
Panel member Mik commented that Main Street is the most popular ferry terminal and is at
capacity. They are selling out their boats. They are really adding capacity with the new
terminal.
Ms. Ott added that ferry ridership has grown 60 percent since 2012, which is unheard of
for public transit.
Panel member Chubb asked about the maker space cluster.
Ms. Ott said that the buildings are being redeveloped by master developers. They will
subdivide them into smaller spaces for specialty manufacturing, artist spaces and some
office. One floor will most likely become work/live, with tight restrictions on the residential
component.
Panel member Monteko asked who pays for the infrastructure in Site B.
Ms. Ott said the developer or end user through a negotiated land deal with the City.
Alameda Point's infrastructure costs are approximately $600 million, or $1 million per acre.
Panel member Elsesser asked about the square footage of entitled space and height
limits.
Ms. Ott answered that there is approximately 5.5 million square feet for all of Alameda
Point, which is a lot of entitlement. We do not want low intensity development; we want
jobs or catalyst benefit. The height limit is 100 feet. It is a very permissive, a big
envelope to create a lot of flexibility. We do not know who the end user(s) will be. We
want to create an opportunistic envelope to take advantage of each businesses' vision.
Ideally, we want a diversified base and not just one end user.
Panel member Monteko asked how is Cushman Wakefield advising on the commercial
market for companies being pushed out of San Francisco and moving to Oakland. On the
one hand, it is someone who wants the flexibility to expand quickly but they want it
yesterday. How are you going to address that?
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 9
July 20, 2016",Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-09-27,3," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3158563&GUID=FA3FBDE5
B456-4391-8D95-1AC8D71F82AA&FullText=1
Commissioner Soules asked what the timeline is to meet the stated goals.
Staff Member Ott said the goals were based on a 15 year timeline.
Commissioner Palmer asked what dollar amounts the actual developers are required to
contribute to the plan and not just their residents.
Staff Member Ott gave examples of contributions that developers have been required to
contribute, such as $10,000,000 for a new ferry terminal at Alameda Pt.
Commissioner Palmer asked why 2030 was chosen as the benchmark for measuring the
plan's success.
Bill Hurrell, CDM Smith, said they wanted to pick a horizon that was long enough to
allow the plan to have an impact, but not so long that they would not have confidence in
predicting what would happen in the future.
Vice-Chair Miley opened the public hearing.
Christina Hanson, employee of Harbor Bay Isle and Central Avenue resident, said the
community is concerned about the proposal to add bus lanes on Island Drive. She said
they do not believe this is the right solution for the problem. She said the median and
trees are very important to the community. She said there are also safety concerns
around the elementary school with adding bus lanes there.
Jim Strehlow said we have added 5,000 new homes and asked where the 5,000 new
jobs were to go with them. He said the city should be prioritizing job creation but is in fact
doing the opposite. He said stopping growth is part of the real solution. He said
Alamedans want another bridge or tunnel. He said the public meetings are too rigid for
genuine discussion, or speakers are hand picked. He asked that more discussion time
be allowed for future meetings on these issues. He said when he drives kids for a non-
profit he is a single driver off the island. He said he is mad because this plan is not a
solution to the transportation problem.
Pat Potter, CASA, said she is concerned about the Transportation Awareness
Campaign. She said we need to drill down deep and understand what prevents
individuals from changing their behavior.
Andrea Wuttke, transportation planner and infrastructure economist, said a bus system
is a supplemental mass transit vehicle. She said her plan would be to take 20,000 rides
a day out of the system to connect the island to Oakland via an aerial tramway.
3",TransportationCommission/2017-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-12-03,2," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3760863&GUID=29DE963A-
62EC-4E90-B019-0B7972B1A813&FullText=1
Commissioner Nachtigall asked how the changes would look at the Bay Ship entrance
during shift change.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that if there was a queue of cars entering the Bay Ship
property it could cause a small backup on the westbound lane.
Commissioner Soules asked how long the project would take to complete once started.
Staff Member Wikstrom said it would take less than two weeks to complete. He added
that the project will cost less than $100,000 and can be completed with already allocated
funds.
Commissioner Soules asked for more details about potential traffic impacts and analysis.
Staff Member Wikstrom said the level of service analysis showed that the change would
be acceptable. He said the cars currently waiting behind left turning vehicles are already
delayed. He said the highest 15 minute volumes are about 100 cars. He said the
maximum traffic is about 300 cars per hour. He said a single lane intersection can
handle 500 cars per hour without problem. He said the number of users of the Main St.
terminal will likely decrease when the Seaplane Lagoon terminal opens.
Commissioner Soules asked that in the future the staff reports include details on where
the problems get pushed to.
Chair Miley asked if lowering the 35 mile per hour speed limit was considered.
Staff Member Wikstrom said they did not plan to do that at this time. He said they may
have more of a basis to reduce the speed limit after the changes are implemented.
Chair Miley asked what percentage of the collisions involved bikes or pedestrians.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that most of the data he looked at were vehicle to vehicle.
Commissioner Hans asked how this would impact the overflow parking near the nursery.
Staff Member Wikstrom said there would be no change to the parking conditions.
Commissioner Palmer said we are using 2017 data here and it seems like ridership is up
with the larger boats. She asked what was meant by a ""calming effect.""
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 8
December 3, 2018
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2018-12-03.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-09-25,7," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4139823&GUID=F4F57230-
D1C1-4647-85B9-C4DCDEB6B4C7&FullText=1
Commissioner Weitze asked if there are punitive or enforcement aspects to Vision Zero.
Staff Member Foster said that increased enforcement is part of other cities' plans. She
said San Francisco initially focused enforcement on locations and violations where
fatalities and collisions were most likely.
Staff Member Wheeler said she sees it as a data driven process to perhaps redistribute
where enforcement occurs in order to have the most impact on behavior, rather than
simply increasing overall enforcement.
Commissioner Weitze asked if reconsidering the standards and process for placement of
stop signs was part of the Vision Zero process.
Staff Member Wheeler said they have not looked at that as a standard to evaluate, given
that federal guidelines exist on stop sign placement.
Chair Soules opened the public hearing.
Jim Strehlow said NACTO implementation in San Francisco did not make him feel safer
while cycling. He said it took him out of his way, compared to the older, more direct route.
He recalled a recent fatality in San Francisco on a NACTO redesigned intersection. He
warned the Commission not to believe that this would be a perfect solution.
Chair Soules closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said she supports the Vision Zero movement and looks forward
to developing the policy.
Commissioner Yuen said she strongly supports Vision Zero and is excited by the focus on
equity. She said she would like to see a focus on design and engineering over
enforcement, which can be punitive. She asked that the annual report be brought back to
the Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion that the Vision Zero Policy be
recommended to the City Council with the amendment that the annual report come
to the Transportation Commission. Commissioner Yuen seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0.
5-D 2019-7284
Update on Active Transportation Plan
7",TransportationCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-04-26,2," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4913556&GUID=D03018E1-
B78C-4DAE-8B76-1862FE538D8A&FullText=1.
President Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.
Board Member Rona Rothenberg wanted to know why air conditioning was called out as
""baseline"" as opposed to other common applications in this climate which was not as
intensive in air conditioning as a particular application.
Staff Member Mieler said that calling out the air conditioning was standard practice in new
development. She also introduced Farhad Farahmand, a consultant, who had been
advising the staff on this ordinance.
Farhad Farahmand, TRC Energy Consultant, explained the underlining reasons for the air
conditioning assumption.
Board Member Hanson Hom asked for clarification that this ordinance would only apply to
new structures and would not apply to ADU's if the main structure was already gas. Also,
if a person were to completely remodel their kitchen (complete tear-out) he assumed this
ordinance would not apply as well.
Staff Member Mieler said that was correct, this would be for completely new construction.
Board Member Ron Curtis was concerned about low-cost housing and wanted to know
the total difference in utility cost from a completely electric house vs a gas-powered house.
Mr. Farahmand said unfortunately he did not have a complete answer right now. He said
they were currently working on that analysis for the utilities. They were seeing it as being
around seven dollars a month, couple hundred dollars a year based on surrounding
utilities.
Board Member Curtis referred to the table in the presentation that showed that the electric
dryer was six dollars more than a gas dryer, and the electric stove was a few more dollars
a month than the gas stove.
Mr. Farahmand explained how these appliances do add increases but several other
factors decrease. There was a balancing act between everything.
Board Member Curtis asked if a heat pump was more energy efficient than a furnace.
Mr. Farahmand said yes absolutely.
Board Member Curtis said good, he then reiterated his concerns about the monthly
expenses for families in low-cost housing.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 18
April 26, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-07-12,17," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5015994&GUID=174D0132-
9553-4E86-A703-5637C6E8FF46&FullText=1.
No board member wished to pull any item for review.
9-B 2021-1106
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai announced that at the Monday, July 26 meeting they would have a full
agenda and bring back the 1435 Webster which was the Study Session from today. There
would also be a minor planned development amendment to a small setback issue for a
building under construction at the Harbor Bay Business Park. The staff would also bring
forward an architectural design review approval for the medical respite center at McKay
Ave, a draft of the Vision Zero Action Plan, and another General Plan update. He also
updated the board that Board Member Ruiz's question about 53 Killybegs had been
addressed so she had withdrawn her request for a Design Review.
Director Thomas gave an update that at the July 6th City Council meeting they decided to
appeal the RHNA numbers on a 3-2 vote. The appeal was submitted on Friday, July 9th.
President Teague asked about the other 4 items.
Director Thomas said they did not do anything. They debated a bunch of aspects on it and
decided not to do anything with the resolution. He explained the next actions for the staff
and said they should hear back about the appeal in November.
Board Member Hom wanted to know about the rationale for the appeal.
Director Thomas explained that between Article 26, sea-level rise, transportation, and
seismic safety the council believed that it had a strong argument for appeal. The staff had
also introduced the issue of the Navy Cap as an argument. They wanted the region to
know about the Cap to get help for it. He explained more about the appeal process and
what they had asked for. The staff would be working on two paths, one if the appeal was
accepted and the other if it is rejected.
Board Member Rothenberg asked about the Encinal Terminals Action that had been
bundled with the other items. She thought it would be unfortunate if that languished
because the developer needs direction one way or another.
Director Thomas said staff agreed and had made it clear to the council that they would still
be bringing projects forward regardless of the appeal.
President Teague asked what was the current state of the Encinal Terminals.
Director Thomas explained they had an approved 2017 Master Plan with no Tidelands
Exchange and then they also have the Planning Board recommendation for the Tidelands
Exchange Master Plan. They also have the Resolution from the Planning Board
recommending to the council to approve the Tidelands Exchange.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 17 of 18
July 12, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-07-26,13," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5031891&GUID=164AODE7-
A13A-41FF-9A71-993AE1305D2A&FullText=1.
Doug Biggs, the applicant, discussed a few things then introduced the architect for the
project, Chris Ebert of Ankrom Moisan and Sarita Govani of Mantle Landscape
Architecture.
Mr. Ebert presented where he discussed the design intent and goals.
Ms. Govani also presented where she discussed how the landscaping would support the
building design and programming at the facility.
President Teague opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Ruiz thanked everyone for their presentations. She asked how users and
visitors would arrive. She wanted more elaboration on why they turned the front door away
from the street.
Mr. Biggs discussed the 3 major uses of the center, a respite center for patients requiring
aftercare, and those patients would be picked up from the hospital and brought to the site
by staff. There would be no walk-in opportunities. The downstairs will be a clinic that would
serve the patients in the respite center but also serve residents of the senior living facility.
Those patients will get to the clinic by a little walkway. The front area will be a resource
center for residents of Alameda only who are at risk of becoming homeless or recently
homeless and will be by appointment only. They normally would have an opening at the
front but one of the concerns by neighbors was that people would loiter at the front or lines
forming on the street. This is why all entrances will be off the street.
Board Member Ruiz then wanted clarification on the materiality of the building.
Mr. Ebert said the plan was for it to be an Exterior Insulation Finishing System (EIFS) and
they were thinking of a standard smooth texture.
Board Member Ruiz also asked about the visibility of the vents on the roof.
Mr. Ebert said you would be able to see them a bit but this was the least visible he had
ever used.
Board Member Ruiz asked about the vents and roof design. She also asked if he had
thought about using a concrete tile roof instead of a shingle roof.
Mr. Ebert explained what type of vents they would use and how it would work with the
roof. He said that they had not looked at concrete tiles but had looked at asphalt and
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 13 of 21
July 26, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-10-27,2," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182985&GUID=6CFE355D-9085-
46A7-84A4-6FB800501F57&FullText=1.
Commissioner Scott Weitze clarified his comments for Agenda item 6-C, his concern was for the
scheduling, he felt the scheduling could be better.
Commissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand clarified her comments for Agenda item 6-B.
Commissioner Weitze made a motion to approve the minutes with these edits and Vice-Chair Tina
Yuen seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 4-0,
Commissioners Nachtigall and Hans abstained due to their absence at this meeting.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Vision Zero Action Plan (Lisa Foster, Senior
Transportation Coordinator) (Action Item)
Lisa Foster, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182986&GUID=2C8EE9A4-BCB9-
4772-AAFD-3E9D1F4C119C&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A
Commissioner Weitze asked about the socially vulnerable area around Webster and the Webster
Tube since there was not much of a population there and asked if another analysis has been done
since the map updates.
Staff Member Foster said they had not done another analysis since removing certain areas but they
were planning on updating the Socially Vulnerable Map.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about the High-Injury Corridor Map and wanted to know why
the number differed online from what was in the plan.
Staff Member Foster said she would double-check that information and make sure they had the
most recent map.
Public Comments for #6A",TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-01-24,2," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379989&GUID=8240DCA5-
261F-4060-AAE5-444187E64F94&FullText=1.
President Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Alan Teague asked for clarification on where the four different doors lead
to. He wanted to know how the residential entrance was distinguished from the retail
entrance.
Hillary Dowden, a developer with UDR, explained the layout and the entrances.
President Saheba opened public comment.
David Israel, the architect, also discussed and explained the difference between retail
entrances and residential entrances.
Betsy Mathieson, an Alameda resident, had questions about the hanger doors. She
wanted to see the South Elevation.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Teague was not totally in favor of this design but he would not stand in the
way of its approval. He thought the way it was before made it clear how you were
supposed to get into the building, and this way it kinda blends in.
President Saheba agreed that there was no clarity of entryway. He thought there needed
to be more work, perhaps with the canopy design.
Vice President Teresa Ruiz had requested from the applicant the building plan and thought
there was no confusion and was in support of this amendment.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the amendment. Board Member
Xiomara Cisneros seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion
passed 6-0 with Board Member Hom absent.
7-B 2022-1666
A Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update Zoning
Code Amendments Regarding Definitions and Regulations for Residential and Related
Land Uses.
Director Thomas introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379991&GUID=F97232D8-
E3DF-44D1-9F85-FOEA8FC27926&FullText=1.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 6
January 24, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-10-24,6," ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2858659&GUID=A4EF7EBF-
EBF-4FC7-B578-1E63AE0E56C9&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
Board Member Sullivan asked if we have looked at starter homes and senior homes for
middle class people, not just the rich and very poor.
Staff Member Thomas explained what affordability levels would be included. He said
they are working on designing projects that will have units that are available for
households of all income levels by dictating the size of the units.
Board Member Sullivan said that young families cannot live in one bedroom apartments
and we need small starter single family homes.
Staff Member Ott said 9% of the units would be deed restricted moderate income units.
She said the flexibility of building heights and types will make it so that the market rate
units are more affordable to middle income buyers.
Board Member Curtis said that the boom market helps pay for the affordable housing
now, but if the market changes direction, that will not work out for the people who paid
top dollar for the market rate units.
Staff Member Ott explained that the moderate income buyers would not participate in the
upside or downside equity changes that a market rate purchaser would.
Staff Member Thomas explained the origin of the 25% inclusionary requirements of
building at this site.
Board Member Knox White asked what could be built within the Historic Zone within the
strict design guidelines.
Staff Member McPhee said the guidelines were targeted at the non-contributing
buildings in the historic district.
Board Member Mitchell asked if limiting heights to three stories instead of four was
feasible.
Staff Member Ott said they are looking to preserve flexibility in order to make certain
product types viable.
Board Member Zuppan said we need to be incorporating plans for indoor
homework/library spaces for children on this end of town.
Approved Minutes
Page 6 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
October 24, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-05-10,2," ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4928037&GUID=63163F6E-
A2D6-48B5-A4A5-6CE722E8D07D&FullText=1.
President Teague opened public comment.
There were no public speakers.
President Teague closed public comments and opened the board/commission questions
and commentary.
Vice President Asheshh Saheba wanted to know if they had looked at the different parking
requirements for the different programs offered for the city.
Director Thomas said that parking and parking management are going to be a major focus
of the city staff's work, and are working on a comprehensive rewrite of the Off-Street
Parking Zoning Code. He explained how it would be different from how it had been in the
past.
Vice President Saheha believed this was critical to a sustainable future.
Vice-Chair Alysha Nachtigall wanted to know since the plan is to have paid parking at the
ferry terminals if there would also be an increase in transit connections to provide an
incentive for commuters.
Director Thomas said having additional transit connections were critical and AC transit
is
working on a plan with WETA (Water Emergency Transportation Authority). He gave a
background on the work those organizations had been planning for Alameda and when it
is expected to start. He brought up that AC Transit's plan was dependent on Alameda
managing and charging for parking at the ferry terminals as an incentive to take the bus.
Vice-Chair Nachtigall stated that with equity in mind getting the word out about these
services would be critical.
Director Thomas agreed.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted to know if the climate action elements had been
incorporated and if Residential Parking Permits had been addressed and discussed.
Director Thomas said they did acknowledge the progress on the green initiatives and the
General Plan would keep pushing on what else they can do to deal with Climate Change
and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For parking management, the General Plan did not talk
a lot about the city's existing Residential Permit Parking Program, which is available for
every neighborhood in Alameda. There was a discussion about parking controls in areas
around public transportation.
Board Member Teresa Ruiz wanted to elaborate on the connectivity aspects of the mobility
elements. She wanted to see more specifics (bike/scooter/rideshare) folded into the smart
street planning in terms of storage and parking for those elements. She also wanted to
see specific elements for safety (no right turn on red or cyclist specific traffic lights) to see
if they were appropriate or could be adapted for Alameda. She also gave some ideas on
Approved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 11
May 10, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-07-28,2," ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037417&GUID=C108F591-B9D7-
4FAF-9DF2-2CC39C5426ED&FullText=1.
Commissioner Weitze moved to approve as is and Vice-Chair Nachtigall seconded. A vote was
taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner Hans abstained since he
had been absent.
5B. Approve Meeting Minutes - May 26, 2021 (Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037418&GUID=E1EF96FE-5C3C-
4C78-BEF2-DA7C32B4F47D&FullText=1.
Commissioner Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes as is and Vice-Chair Nachtigall
seconded. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 6-0.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Elect Chair and Vice-Chair of the Transportation Commission (Action Item)
The staff report can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037419&GUID=EFD295E3-0188-
4D90-820E-A52EB8BC601D&Options=&Search=
Public Comments for #6A
There were no public speakers.
Chair Samantha Soules opened the floor for nominations.
Vice-Chair Nachtigall nominated Chair Soules as Chair for the next term and Commissioner
Weitze seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the nomination passed 6-0.
Chair Soules thanked everyone for their confidence in her leadership.
Chair Soules nominated Commissioner Yuen for Vice-Chair, she had discussed this with her
before the meeting and could confirm her interest in the role. Commissioner Rentschler seconded
the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the nomination passed 6-0.
6E. Discuss Citywide Roundabout Analysis Results (Discussion Item)
TC Meeting Minutes
2
July 28, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf
GolfCommission,2017-11-14,5,"""EXHIBIT A""
South Golf Course Schedule Analysis - Joseph Van Winkle
November 13,2017
November 2014
Closed 9 holes and began import of required soil
July 2015
Closed remaining 9 holes
April 2018
32 months or 2 years and 8 months (assume opening in May)
Includes soil import and construction and grow-in period.
How long should it take?
""Planning and design is mostly done within one year; the construction work typically takes 2-2.5
years, depending on the topography of the site, the quality of soil, the availability of water, the
climatic conditions and of course the expected quality, complexity or playing difficulty of the
designed golf course."" 17% of courses in the study took 2-3 years for construction phase.
Source: KPMG tp://static.golfbenchmark.com/media/2/9/3/9/2939.pd
1. ""Quality of Soil"" - heavy clay, salt build up, zero drainage, still underwater after 4 year
drought. Required significant soil critical to raise grade for optimum drainage. Soil also
provided a protective cap over the old ""dump site.'
2. ""Climatic Conditions"" of unprecedented rains Sept. 2016 - April 2017; highest rain in
100 years; Train of ""Pineapple Express"" storms; an ""Atmospheric River""
3. High Quality Scope:
a. Drainage and Water Management - 6 Bio-swales capture and ""clean"" the water
with native wetland plantings, mile of canals restored and replanted resulting in
abundant aquatic life; 3 lakes rebuilt with 70% increased capacity,
b. Native grasses and shrubs (e.g. Buck Wheat-grown by UC Berkeley Nursery)
often required long lead times.
c.
8-12"" Sand Cap - provides better root structure and drainage to allow carts on
sooner without 90 degree rule, but doubles the amount of effort. Soil has to be
positioned, moved by dozer, shaped/sculpted and then raked by hand and the
d. Quality hardscape - stone bridges, 10' wide cart paths with 12"" recycled road
base, rock work to limit erosion into canals, stone pavers at restrooms, etc.
e. Precision Irrigation - 5000 irrigation heads (3x North course) enabled by satellite
geo-mapping and computer control via wired controllers and sensors
f.
5 tees per hole allow range of player experience
g. Quality for visuals and maintenance with 7 types of grass and 100+ lined bunkers
4. Bird Delay - giving hawk fledglings time to mature in their nests delayed work on holes
5. Neglected. 1970s was the last rebuild. Asbestos pipes and more than 40 years of decay.
Change orders may have added to schedule, but Greenway has absorbed the costs.
By comparison, Palo Alto is also opening a rebuilt course in Spring 2018. Baylands Golf Course
will have cost the City of Palo Alto over $13m in design and construction.",GolfCommission/2017-11-14.pdf
GolfCommission,2017-11-14,6,"""EXHIBIT B""
Informational Report on Corica Park Founding Membership Program
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Golf Commission
From: Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director
Re: Informational Report on Corica Park Founding Membership Program
BACKGROUND
Greenway Golf previously reported to the Golf Commission on the development of a Founding
Membership Program. Greenway is working toward implementing this program and this agenda
item is an opportunity for the Golf Commission to receive detailed information and ask
questions.
DISCUSSION
The table below outlines the details of the Founding Membership Program.
OFFER
Exclusive
20 Members
Term
5 Years from opening of the South Course
One Time Cost
$15,000
Unlimited Access to Golf Facilities.
-
Two 18 hole courses
-
Par 3 course
-
Short Game Practice Area
-
Practice Range
-
Preferred $10 Cart Fees apply
-
Will receive Founding Member Bronze Bag Tag
14 Day advance booking window for tee times
Family Access (spouse and children under age 25 included)
-
3 Complimentary Accompanied Preferred Guests per Quarter.
-
Guest pass valid for play after 11am Monday-Thursday. Guests must be accompanied by the
member.
-
Guests required to pay a cart fee.
-
20% off regular golf rates for accompanied guests at all other times.
-
Weekend play before 12pm on the South Course is limited to Primary Member.
Holidays Excluded (e.g. Christmas, day after Thanksgiving)
Invitations to Member Events - social / golf / wine tasting / other
20% off Pro Shop Apparel (excludes hard good / non-sale items)
Bonus: South Course Advance Preview Play - Valid for Member and one accompanied guest to play",GolfCommission/2017-11-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,18,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Cnsultants
Why do we want to do it?
Identify WHY it is important for the Mayor and Council to consider action on projects or
policy initiatives. Please note the list below on DEFINING the Why WE Want to Do IT
How will we do it?
Based on Mayor and Council discussion at the Workshop the staff will develop future
agenda item for their action.
How do we make sure it works?
Determine if the agenda item has a current performance measure, requires a new
performance measure or no performance measure.
DEFINING the Why WE Want to Do IT
To Improve:
Operational Performance
Policies
Procedure
Programs
Racial Justice
Equity
Finances
Risk Management
Technology
Customer Service
Sustainability
Community Well Being
Infrastructure
Other
16
I P a g e",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,17,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
Consultant Recommendations: Consider adding specific timelines for completing the
project/policy identified in the work plan. Determining specific timelines for each project will
allow the Mayor and Council and staff to prioritize what projects/policies can be completed in a
specific fiscal year and which need to be moved to subsequent years.
This is the section of the Workshop where any ideas the Mayor and Council want to consider
for future projects/policies from the information presented on healthy community model,
citizen engagement and the Governance Relations System (GRS). Also potential policies and
projects identified in the confidential Mayor and Council Workshop survey and from the
December, 2019 Workshop (Note: Projects listed in Blue) will be discussed in this section. The
facilitator will guide the Mayor and Council through this Workshop section using the Start With
Why format. Staff will record the results of the discussion on a screen that can be viewed
during the meetings by the participants.
Start With WHY Obridgegroupllc
The Mayor and Council Workshop will focus on creating dialogue and discussion opportunities
between council members and staff. The format that will be used to facilitate this dialogue will
be based on an approach developed by Simon Sinek in the book Start With Why: How Great
Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. By Starting with ""WHY"" the Mayor and Council and
staff can quickly evaluate the proposed projects and policy discussed at the Workshop by using
a FOUR Questions approach:
1. What do we want to do? (Mayor and Council)
2. Why do we want to do it? (Mayor and Council/Staff)
3. How will we do it? (Staff- Tactical determined after Workshop))
4. How do we make sure it works? (Mayor and Council/Staff- Performance Measurement)
What do we want to do?
Discuss and Identify specific projects or policy initiatives for FY 2021
15 I P a g e",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,12,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
Expectation
Description
Foster teamwork and high
Guide people as a team toward common objectives;
performing organizational
select qualified and highly competent members of the
characteristics.
Leadership Team to implement through the
organization.
Recognize citizens are our
The Council expects that the public will be treated
customers
equitably, with dignity and respect. Assist the Council by
resolving problems at administrative levels and not
through City Council action. Value community
perceptions and understand that customer satisfaction is
important.
Agenda material
Staff will provide concise, accurate and meaningful
agenda material for the Council's review to include the
timely delivery of written/electronic materials.
Value intergovernmental relations
Effectively represent the City's interests when dealing
with other agencies. Participate and cooperate in
intergovernmental activities to have an impact on the
region.
Communicate effectively
Provide information to the public in a timely fashion on
matters, which will cause public reaction. Be candid and
forthright in discussing City business matters with the
Council through various methods that include one on
one meetings with Council members. Be accessible to
Council members.
Proactive Management Style
Show initiative and creativity in dealing with issues,
problems and unusual situations while remaining open
to new ideas and suggestions for change. Be adaptive to
the changing expectations of local government and the
impacts of state and national conditions.
Effective Leadership
Be enthusiastic. Command respect and performance
from the Leadership Team while providing the tools
necessary for effective service delivery. Support a
positive work culture at all times.
Negotiate Effectively
In conjunction with the Legal Staff (when appropriate),
always consider City Residents when determining
negotiating positions or reaching agreement.
No Operational Surprises
Staff will keep the City Council informed on all critical
operational issues.
10 I P a g e",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,15,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
FIGURE 1: Strategic Policy Development System.
STEP 1
Issue
STEP 5
STEP 2
Review and Adjust,
Determine
If necessary
Policy Model
STEP 4
STEP 3
Determine Metrics
Develop
for Success
Policy
Source: Mike Letcher
FIGURE 2: Policy Models.
Opportunity
Compass
Best Practice
Politically
Core
Business/Staft
Source: Mike Letcher
Figure 1 illustrates the process for using the policy models. The process is designed to evaluate
the policy or issue the Mayor and Council are considering
Figure 2 shows policy models that can be a key guidepost to strategic policy development. The
policy models and subsequent definitions are not meant to be all-inclusive. The concepts or
models can be adapted to meet the unique needs of the governing body and staff.
Components of the strategic policy development system can be changed and policy models
altered to fit your particular needs. In my experience working with governing bodies for more
than 30 years, these models represent the key components or drivers that create the push for
public-policy formulation.
Compass approach. Policy development is based on community values, approved plan, or
strategic approach.
Best-practice approach. Policy is based on best-practice principles.
Opportunity approach. Policy development is based on significant community and/or
organizational benefit.
13 I P a g e",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,20,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
Focus Area: Preparing Alameda for the Future
Project/Policy
To Improve
Senge
Department Lead
Rating
Climate Change
Implement CARP, check ins, staffing
2
Assistant City Manager
position, check box on reports
Long-term
Balanced approach to finances,
2
Finance
financial
maximize resources, connect to
strategies
outside assistance,
Traffic Vision
Zero
Focus Area: Encouraging Economic Development across the Island
Project/Policy
To Improve
Senge
Department Lead
Rating
Work/Live Space
Consider adjustment after election,
3
Planning, Building,
broader housing discussion overall
Transportation
New ferry
terminal at
Seaplane Lagoon
Development at
Big picture, establish goals (falls
2
Community Development
Alameda Point
under multiple objectives: livability,
Review Base
economic development, preparing for
Reuse/Property
future), hold a work session
Management
Maintain
More support to districts/smal
1
CMO - COVID Town Hall
active
businesses, COVID messaging -
business
business owners lead, street closures,
districts
near and long term goals,
communicate plans
Capitalizing
Broadband, digital divide (WiFi and
2
IT
on Working
equipment), child care
ARPD/CD - Child care
from Home
18 I Page",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,5,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
Mayor and Council Workshop Overview
Development of the Mayor and Council Workshop Agenda was a collaborative process with the
Mayor and Council, City Manager, and BridgeGroup. A confidential online survey was sent to
the Mayor and each Council Member to get their input on the following Workshop Agenda:
Review and Discuss Alignment and Foundations for High Performing Councils
Review a Systems Approach to Planning COVID-19 Recovery
Review Innovations for Citizen Engagement
Review and Discuss Tools for Supporting Mayor and Council Effectiveness
Determine What Tools to Develop Further for Future Use
Develop Project and Policy Priorities for FY 2021
Discuss and Determine if Alignment Operating Policy is Needed
The Mayor and Council Workshop was held on Saturday, July 25 2020 at the Alameda Main
Library. The following were in attendance at the Workshop:
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft
Vice Mayor John Knox White
Councilmember Tony Daysog
Councilmember Jim Oddie
Councilmember Malia Vella
City Manager Eric Levitt
City Clerk Lara Weisiger
City Attorney Yibin Shen
President/CEO BridgeGroup LLC Mike Letcher
This report provides a summary of the Workshop and some recommendations from the
consultant.
3 I Page",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,16,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
Politically based approach. Policy is based on narrow intent from special-interest groups or
constituents. I would replace this Approach with one titled: Fiscal Sustainability approach
Policy developed takes into account city's ability to fund its operations long term
Core business/staff-recommended approach. Policy is based on the requirement to run
government's core business functions and is recommended by staff to improve services,
internal operations, and policies.
In terms of policy models, more is better. Try out the model and see how it works. Groundwork
has to be done for strategic policy development to work. A number of critical issues also have
to be considered:
Time required, the more the better. Thinking ahead and developing an annual work
plan is important to provide the time to fully evaluate important policies that the
governing board will consider.
Staff capacities to effectively implement the policy. Are there enough worker bees to
get the job done? This needs to be fully evaluated by the governing board and staff
before time is spent developing the policy.
Committee referral before consideration. This is a no-brainer. It always helps to have a
committee recommendation.
Communication of need and outcomes. Unfortunately, the clear and concise
communication of the need for the policy is often overlooked. Get the sound bites
determined before the policy-formulation process starts.
NO EASY ANSWERS
An approach and model for strategic policy development is needed. The approach described in
this article is based on experience and what I have seen work and not work behind the curtain
of policy formulation. Managers know there are no easy answers or solutions to policy
development. But like all journeys, it begins with one step and the compass, map, or GPS to get
you to the destination.
Develop Project and Policy Priorities for FY 2021
Workshop Summary: The Mayor and Council had extensive discussions on the work
priorities from the December 2019 Workshop and new potential projects/policies identified in
the survey. Council expressed concerns about staff's workload and ability to complete all of the
project/policy priorities.
14 I Page",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,7,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
Review Innovations for Citizen Engagement
Workshop Summary: The Mayor and Council discussed having standards for Boards and
Commissions, periodic updates at Council meetings, promoting diversity in membership,
having them do studies on issues to advise the Mayor and Council and considering a Marana,
Arizona Model to consolidate some Board and Commissions.
Consultant Recommendations: Consider implementing the Marana Citizens Forum and
the other ideas discussed under the summary.
Citizen Engagement is essential to creating a thriving community. The following are tools used
by City's to engage their citizens:
MARANA
AZ
ittps://icma.org/success-stories/new-approach-energizes-citizens-
in-marana-arizona
MRSC
Local Government Success  http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Governance/Citizen-
Participation-and-Engagement/Communication-and-Citizen-Participation-Techniques.aspx
click here to sign up, get involved and
https://www.speakupaustin.org/
A
sset
B
ased
ommunity
evelopment
https://www.nurturedevelopment.org/asset-based-community
development/
5 I Page",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,6,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
Review a Systems Approach to Planning COVID-19 Recovery
Workshop Summary: The Mayor and Council liked the Healthy Community model and
discussed how it might be used in COVID-19 recovery and linked to the budget and their
priorities.
Consultant Recommendations: Consider linking the Health Community Model to the
Mayor and Council agenda development process.
Recovery from COVID-19 for communities will be a complicated. What can Alameda potentially
use to guide the city through its COVID -19 recovery efforts? The Arizona Town Hall will be
using the Elements of Health Community Model to work with communities over the next year
on building plans for COVID-19 recovery. The model was developed by the Vitalyst Health
Foundation http://vitalysthealth.org/ in Arizona. The Arizona Town Hall will use the model as a
checklist for communities to take a more comprehensive approach to COVID-19 recovery.
TRANSPORTATION
ACCESS
STA
OPTIONS
TO CARE
SOCIAL
HEALTH
AFFORDABLE QUALITY
JUSTICE
HOUSING
HALE
RESILIENCY
SOCIAL/CULTURA
ELEMENTS OF A
COMMUNITY
COHESION
SAFETY
HEALTHY
COMMUNITY
PARKS AND
ECONOMIC
RECREATION
OPPORTUNITY
COMMUNITY
EDUCATIONAL
DESIGN
OPPORTUNITY
FOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACCESS
QUALITY
The following link provides more information on the Healthy Community model.
 https://www.dropbox.com/s/1h43alxerfmhfx5/Healthy-Communities-and-social-determinants-
final.pdf?dl=0 During the workshop the Mayor and Council can discuss if this model may or may
not be useful to use as a guide for the city as it recovers from COVID-19.
4 I Page",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,8,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
Review and Discuss Tools for Supporting Mayor and Council Effectiveness
Workshop Summary: The Mayor and Council discussed each component of the Governance
Relations System (GRS) and how it may help them work more effectively with each other and
the City Manager.
Consultant Recommendations: Consider hiring a consultant to assist the Mayor and
Council and City Manager in developing the (GRS).
This section of the workshop will introduce two
tools for improving Mayor and Council
effectiveness. The Governance Relations
""Governing boards have been known in one
System (GRS) is designed to provide a system
form or another for centuries. Yet throughout
for establishing expectations for the Mayor
those many years there has been a baffling
and Council and City Manager. GRS will be
failure to develop a coherent or universally
applicable understanding of just what a board
introduced using an example from the City of
is for.""
Goodyear, Arizona. If it's determined at the
Workshop that the GRS would be beneficial to
Carver's Policy Governance Model in
the City, the Mayor and Council can develop it
Nonprofit Organizations
at a future Workshop. The second tool, The
Policy Model can be discussed and developed
at the Workshop if it has value for the City to use in the future.
Governance Relations System (Example Only) Obridgegroupllc
The role of a Governing Board is often difficult to define. It is this lack of clarity within the roles
of the Governing Board that results in a disconnect between the Governing Board and the Chief
Executive. Ideally, the role of an elected Public Board is to set policy. The implementation of
that policy and responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the organization reside with the
Chief Executive or City Manager. What's missing?
The answer is: established expectations that the Board has for the Executive or Manager. The
Governance Relations System (GRS) is designed to create a bridge between the Elected Board's
expectations of their Chief Executive (City Manager) and the execution of the day-to-day
6 I P a g e",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,19,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
Senge Chart
The Senge Chart is an excellent tool the rate the impact of the proposed policy or project and
gauge its difficulty to accomplish. The goal is to focus on projects or policies that are rated 1 or
2.
PROJECT IS EASY TO
PROJECT IS DIFFICULT
ACCOMPLISH
TO ACCOMPLISH
HIGH IMPACT ON City
1
2
LOW IMPACT ON City
3
4
Focus Area Charts
The Focus Area Charts will be used during the Workshop to develop project and policy
initiatives for FY 2021. The Charts will be built on the Focus Areas developed in the Mayor and
Council December, 2019 Workshop. The Charts will include the following:
Focus Areas- The strategic priorities for the City
Project/Policy- The proposed project or policy
To Improve- Reference To Improve list of areas the policy or project will improve
Senge Chart Rating- Rating assigned during facilitation to the policy or project.
17 I P a g e",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,22,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
Strategic Operating Policy
Workshop Summary: The Mayor and Council discussed how the Strategic Operating Policy
would work and its benefits for Alameda.
Consultant Recommendations: The Strategic Operating Policy should be considered for
adoption by the Mayor and Council after any changes recommended by staff.
How can a Strategic Operating Policy help the City of Alameda focus? Implementing key city
priorities takes discipline and collaboration between the Mayor and City Council, City Manager
and Staff.
The City of Alameda will use its annual Priorities and Work Plan to:
1. Develop the operating budget.
2. Consider projects from the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP). General Plan,
Economic Development Plan and other approved Mayor and Council plans
3. Develop new projects and assign them to specific departments for execution.
What specific steps will Alameda take every year to focus its strategic efforts?
1. The Priorities and Work Plan will be updated annually during the budget process.
2.
Mayor and City Council and City Manager are committed to making sure that staff has
the time and resources to complete the projects in the plan.
3. If new project(s) are added to the work plan after it is approved during the fiscal year, the
Mayor and Council will work with the City Manager to determine what project(s) currently
in the plan need to be reprioritized and moved to a future fiscal year.
CITI Y OF
TFRKA
20 I P a g e",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,4,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS Obridgegroupllo
Content
Page
Mayor and Council Workshop
3-4
Summary Overview
Review a Systems Approach to
4
Planning COVID-19 Recovery
Review Innovations for Citizen
5
Engagement
Review and Discuss Tools for
6-14
Supporting Mayor and Council
Effectiveness
Develop Project and Policy Priorities
14-19
for FY 2021
Strategic Operating Policy
20
PLAN
ACT
CONTINUOUS
IMPROVEMENT
DHO
CHECK
2 I P ag e",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,14,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
The Expectations of Customer Service/Civic Engagement
Expectation
Description
Timely responses
Staff will strive to provide timely responses to
citizens that are easily understood.
Civic engagement
Opportunities to increase citizen engagement
with the City on a social and formal basis will
be a priority.
Educate citizens on services
Staff will continuously develop strategies and
systems to educate citizens on the services
and processes of local government.
Accurate information
Staff will ensure information provided to
citizens is accurate and written for clarity
Links
Carver Policy Governance Model in Nonprofits: http://www.carvergovernance.com/pg-np.htm
Mike Letcher ICMA Public Management Magazine article on Caver Policy Governance Model:
https://icma.org/sites/default/files/2818 Commentary%20-
%20The%20Undiscovered%20Country%20-
%20A%2ONew%20Path%20for%20Local%20Government%20Management.pd
Policy Model©bridgegroupllc
The following is the link to the complete article on the Policy Model
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fehk8nggdn73icf/Policy%20Model%20Article.pdf?dl=0.Themodel
will be discussed at the Workshop for its applicability to Alameda. The specific content or
wording in the model can be adjusted to requirements of the City.
Workshop Summary: The Mayor and Council liked the Policy Model and discussed ways to
link it to the agenda development process.
Consultant Recommendations: The Policy Model should be considered for adoption by
the Mayor and Council after any changes recommended by staff.
12 I Page",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,13,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
The Expectations of the Governing Board
Expectation
Description
Value members' opinions.
You can disagree with each other but provide the space for
each member of the City Council to express their opinion.
Do your homework.
Before the meeting, read information sent by staff to be
informed and prepared for discussion. If a meeting is
missed, become informed of the decisions made or the
information shared.
No surprises at meeting for staff.
If possible, contact staff prior to the meeting when you
have a critical question that requires research.
Disagree with the vote, but do
You can disagree with a vote and express your viewpoint
not undermine the will of the
on why you did not support an item but understand that
Council.
the Council has voted for the item and you are
responsible, as a Council Member, for its successful
implementation.
Practice civility.
As the elected representatives we will strive to be a model
for our community and the region on how an elected body
should work together for the public good.
Support the strategic plan.
City Council Members will support and require a Strategic
Plan for the City.
No public criticism of staff at
No Council Member will criticize City staff at a public
meetings.
meeting. They can discuss their concerns with the City
Manager privately.
No operational interference.
City Council Members will not direct the work of staff. If
they have issues or questions related to operations, they
will be directed to the City Manager or Designee.
Focus on outcomes not positions.
Before taking a position review the outcomes, potential
benefits/results and relationship to the Strategic Plan of a
policy or issue first.
11
I P a g e",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,10,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
The Expectations of the Organization
Expectation
Description
Maintain an Integrated Strategic
The integrated strategic management system will allow
Planning System that is linked to
for strategic projects that require funding to be
the annual budget, strategic
considered during the annual budget process. Current
projects, employee evaluations
and new strategic projects and performance measures
and performance measures.
will also be reviewed and approved at this time.
Strive to be an ""open book""
""Open Book"" means that all critical, not confidential,
organization for its employees.
operational and financial information concerning the City
will be shared and available to employees.
Executive Team is committed to
Employee development and involvement is a high priority
the developing and empowering
for the Executive Team.
employees.
Continuously improve technology
Continuous technology improvements are essential for
for internal and external services.
the City to meet and exceed the expectations of its
customers.
Strive to be a regional model for
Commitment for the City Council and City Manager to
Board Governance.
work collaboratively on continuously improving their
Governance Relations.
Continuously improve internal
Continuous internal process improvement is essential for
processes and procedures.
efficiency and effectiveness of the City.
Be good stewards of the public's
Ensure processes, procedures and practices are in place
money and trust.
to meet this commitment
Focus on developing a learning
Commitment to provide training for employees to ensure
organization.
that the City continues to have talented and well-trained
employees providing leadership and operational response
readiness.
Recognize internal stakeholders
Internal stakeholders should be treated equitably and
are customers too
with respect, as these stakeholder's service timelines
often are dependent upon the work of internal service
providers.
Innovation
Employees are empowered to consider unique options
along with industry inspired alternatives to solving
problems and enhancing service delivery
Transparency
Citizens will have access to key financial and operational
information.
8 I Page",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,11,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
The Performance Expectations of the City Manager
Expectation
Description
Implementing strategic plan
Annual evaluation will include progress on these
projects.
projects.
Assist the City Council with their
Ensure that information is detailed, reliable and
policy- making role.
explained in a thorough manner. Include alternatives
and recommendations.
Any written information provided
Information shared with one City Council Member must
to one City Council Member will be
be sent to all members.
provided to all members.
Plan ahead, anticipate needs and
Seek input to ensure future plans are achievable and
recognize potential problems.
proactively communicate possible shortcomings to
Ensuring attention to detail to
collaborate with the Board when necessary.
avoid error or things ""slipping
through the cracks"".
Implement City Council's policy
Ensures that key information is shared with the Council
regarding expenditures through the
and that the Council's intent is followed.
use of standard financial
management procedures.
Budget recommendations will
Ensures that the City Council understands the basis for
provide rationale and alternatives
budget requests and how decisions were made in the
for Council consideration. Projects
final recommendations.
will be integrated into the budget
using the strategic plan.
Respect the decisions of the City
Implement Council's policies by accurately interpreting
Council.
direction given by the Council, carrying out their
directives as a whole and supporting the actions of the
Council after a decision has been made.
Practice ""collaborative leadership"".
Strive to ensure that your leadership is inclusive and not
exclusive. Involve citizens, employees and other
stakeholders and partners where appropriate.
Ensure positive and supportive
Create and foster an environment that values employees
physical and emotional working
and their contributions. Support an environment that
conditions
assists employees in being successful in the positions
that they hold. Ensure that personnel policies and
practices are administered in an equitable manner.
9 I P a g e",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-25,9,"""Help is on the way""
BridgeGroup LLC
Management Consultants
operations of the organization. The GRS also sets expectations for the Board to support the
success of the Chief Executive.
The GRS includes FOUR areas:
1. Expectations of the Organization
2. Performance Expectation of the Chief Executive
3. Expectations of the Elected Board
4. Expectations of Customer Service/Civic Engagement
5. Expectations for Role of the Mayor (This section could be added to Alameda)
These areas provide general guidelines for how the organization will be managed, the expected
conduct of the Board, the manner in which services will be provided and opportunities for
engagement with citizens. The key to making the GRS work is the partnership/collaboration
between the Elected Board and Chief Executive to set clear expectations on how the
organization will operate. The GRS can be viewed as a series of interconnected gears that drive
the organization and its management and leadership priorities.
The GRS is designed to improve the relationship between the Governing Board and Chief
Executive and their collective effectiveness. The expectations set benchmarks for annually
evaluating the efforts of the Board and the Chief Executive. The expectations can be amended
and adjusted over time to keep them relevant to the municipality. The bar is set high with these
expectations, but the journey in the search for governance excellence is never easy. Each step
forward or times when these expectations are not met, are all part of trying to be the best
governed municipality for the organization's citizens and employees.
7 I P age",CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-25,3,"""Hydrology and Water Quality: contaminated storm water runoffs can
have a potentially significant impact due to the potential for petroleum
product spills and other debris. The applicant is to prepare and implement
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
""Fact: To date there has been no formal study of air quality regarding
asbestos, carbon monoxide and gas emissions along the Otis Drive
corridor, as well as soil erosion with stormwater runoffs impacting water
quality, particularly that of the lagoon opposite of the proposed fuel
station. (The lagoon opposite of the Towne Center is already 400% over
the upper limit for expected fecal coliform.)
""Fact: There was critical facilities (two respite care homes and a hospital)
that will be affected by environmental conditions involving air and water
quality.
""Fact: Alameda is approaching the tipping point of endangering its natural
and healthy environment at its south shore for trying to recoup revenue
leakages.
""Is this best planning practice for a town in such a fragile environment?'
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A. Use Permit UP07-0010; Minor Design Review MDR 07-0058; Parking In-lieu
Fees - Applicant: Gary Parker - 2437 Lincoln (ZS). The applicant is
requesting a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office
and laboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking
lot to increase the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay
parking in-lieu fees for five parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C-
T (Community Commercial Theater Combining) zoning district.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-23 to
approve a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office and
laboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking lot to
increase the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay parking in-lieu
fees for five parking spaces.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6
Absent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.
Page 3 of 13",PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-11,3,"""President Lynch noted that the noticing practices were regulated by the State, and that the City may
want to consider extending often extended the noticing parameters."" He suggested that he leave his
contact information with City staff to be including in the noticing. He recommended that he bring the
videotapes to City staff as well.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five
new buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of
268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site (CL). The site is located at 1900 -
1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06-
0003 and DR06-0071).
M/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-A to September 25, 2006.
AYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
7-B.
Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one-
story building of approximately 36,899 square feet in floor area with 69 parking spaces
to be constructed on a 4.1 acre site (CL). The site is located at 2275 Harbor Bay Parkway
within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned
Development Zoning District. Applicant: Harbor Bay Acquisition LLC (FDP06-0002 and
DR06-0062)
M/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-B to September 25, 2006.
AYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
7-C.
DR06-0027 and V06-0006 - Applicant: Fargo Farnesi Inc. - 2427 Clement Ave. (DG).
The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story commercial
cabinet shop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor, to be used as a caretaker's unit,
and a free-standing single-story wood frame structure to be used as an administrative office
for the cabinet shop. The project will provide four full-size parking spaces and one ADA
compliant parking space. The applicant proposes to pay parking in lieu fees pursuant to
Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-7.13 for any additional spaces that may be required by
the City. The applicant is also applying for a Variance to the City onsite vehicle backup
distance and minimum driveway and parking area perimeter landscaping requirements. The
site is located at 2427 Clement Ave. within an M-2, General Industrial, (Manufacturing)
District. (Applicant requests continuance to the meeting of September 25, 2006.)
M/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-C to September 25, 2006.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
September 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2008-06-12,2,"""That ARPD staff write a letter to the Police Department and ask for assistance in
the parks on the weekends. The Commission would like to have APD check permits
and make sure there is no alcohol is being consumed in the parks.""
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Review and Discussion of Lincoln Park Field Renovation Plans - (Information
Item)
PM McDonald reviewed with the Commission the Lincoln Park Field Renovation Plans.
The plans call for new irrigation, new turf, and the ball field will remain in the same location,
dirt area will be leveled where another field used to be in the southeast corner, and some
regrading will be done.
Commissioner Restagno asked if there will be a grass infield. PM McDonald stated there is
an alternate bid for a grass infield. Having a grass infield may be a good idea because the
infield mix is getting very expensive and it needs to be trucked in, etc. Also some of the
homes are very close to the field, and as much as everyone tries to water the field the dust
still ends up on the homes. It would not eliminate all the dirt problems, but would help
alleviate the dust problem.
Commissioner Cooper asked how the field is used. PM McDonald stated that it is strictly
used for hardball play. The only issue is if there are enough funds to do a grass infield.
Commissioner Kahuanui asked how the project will be funded. PM McDonald stated that
funds for the project will come from the General Fund.
Commissioner Sonneman asked for clarification regarding the Rittler Park renovation being
put on hold. PM McDonald stated that the Rittler Park Field Renovation was recently put
out to bid and is scheduled to begin on July 7, 2008.
Commissioner Cooper stated that he thought the City was going to start the Harrison
Center first. PM McDonald stated that the building renovation was postponed at a Council
Meeting and Council moved the field renovation up.
PM McDonald also stated that the City has received notice from EBMUD about water
rationing and it is impossible to keep up a new turf with the specs which require watering
every day. PM McDonald is recommending to the Recreation & Park Commission and
Public Works Department that the Lincoln Park Field Renovation be postponed.
M/S/C
KAHUANUI/BROWN
(approved)
""That Lincoln Park Field Renovation be postponed until after the drought and that
Rittler Field Renovation be done first.""
Approved (7):
Ogden, Restagno, Brown, Cooper, Kahuanui, Mariani, Sonneman
B.
Discussion of Use of Chairs in the Washington Park Dog Park - (Discussion
Item)
- 2 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - Thursday, June 12, 2008",RecreationandParkCommission/2008-06-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-02-10,4,"""That the per player fee be tabled until alternatives are reviewed. ""
Approved (5):
Ingram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves
M/S/C
REEVES/KAHUANUI
(Approved)
That the 2005 fee increases listed below is approved:
BASKETBALL
Adult
$610.00 Resident Team Fee
$660.00 Non-Resident Team Fee
SOFTBALL
Adult
$620.00 Resident Team Fee
$670.00 Non-Resident Team Fee
FLAG FOOTBALL
Adult
$598.00 Resident Team Fee
$615.00 Non-Resident Team Fee
SWIM LESSONS
$ 5.00 each 1/2 hr. lesson - Resident
($50 for two-week session)
$ 6.00 each 1/2 hr. Lesson - Non-Resident
($60 for two-week session)
SWIM TEAMS USE FEE
Hourly Rate:
$5/hr./youth & adult
(currently)
$11/hr./youth
(beginning January 2006)
$12/hr./adult
(beginning January 2006)
$12/hr./youth
(beginning January 2006)
$13/hr. adult (beginning January 2006)
TENNIS
Adult Group Lessons
$ 11/hour
Junior Group Lessons
$ 11/hour
Private Lessons
$ 42/hour
YOUTH
Day Camp
$120/week - Hidden Cove
$135/week - Trails End
$ 60/week - Hidden Cove Extended Care
$ 50/week - Trails End Extended Care
Preschool
$ 4/hour
YOUTH SPORTS
Fall, Winter, Spring
4
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2007-03-08,4,"""That the request from Alameda Girls Softball to install a storage container in Krusi
Park be approved."" (Storage container will go where an existing container exists at this
time. This is next to field number three down the first baseline.)
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A. Park Division
See March 6, 2007 Activity Report.
B. Recreation Division
See March 6, 2007 Activity Report.
C. Mastick Senior Center
See March 6, 2007 Activity Report.
D. Other Reports and Announcments
-
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
No report at this time.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
Commissioner Johnson stated that she would like to recommend some improvements to
the small dog park in Washington Park. Recommendations are possibly planting a tree to
provide shade to patrons using the facility, possibly mowing along the fence to allow
owners of dogs to exercise around the perimeter of the park while their dogs are using it,
and fixing the ADA entrance into the small dog park and making it level.
Director Lillard suggested trying to procure donations to have an arbor put in, like the one in
the center of Mastick Senior Center. Manager McDonald stated that there are parachute
type shades that cover a good size picnic area that cost approximately $15,000.
Director Lillard stated that staff will look at the grading of the dirt at the entrance to the site.
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
10.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
April 12, 2007
11.
ADJOURNMENT
- -4 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - Thursday, March 8, 2007",RecreationandParkCommission/2007-03-08.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,7,"""The City of Alameda has put a great deal of effort into making pedestrian crossings as safe as
possible. Do not take a step backwards!
""Although there are ramps located at the supercrosswalk at Otis, there are unrecognized ADA
problems with putting a bus at Lum School. The only reason to place a bus stop on Otis at
Willow and Grand is to attract riders. There are no cross streets in this area. North of Otis are
one-block dead-end cul de sacs with low-density, single-family houses. South of Otis are four
blocks of housing: two blocks of single family, and two blocks of medium-density apartments
and condos. The bulk of the potential riders reside south of Otis. To get to Otis from the south,
there are two routes: One is Ivy Walk, which leads directly to Otis. The other is Snowberry Walk
which leads you into the back of Lum School, then along a driveway through the Lum School
grounds to Sandcreek Way, approximately one block distance, then along Sandcreek Way for one
block to Otis.
""ADA Problem #1: When school is not in session, there is a chain attached with a padlock across
the driveway through Lum School. I can step over the chain, but a handicapped person cannot.
You will have to tell the principal at Lum School to stop using the chain. Whatever the reason the
chain serves will be eliminated. I do not know, but I suspect the chain reduces the likelihood of
vandalism, as this driveway leads past the office entrance, which is not visible from the street or
from the residences in the area. Also, as this parking lot is not visible from the street, and school
is only in session during the day, and then only 185 days out of a 365 day year, the same reasons
for closing the gates to the parking lot at Crown Beach at sunset would be in play for limiting
access to this parking lot.
""ADA Problem #2: There is no ADA ramp to get up only the sidewalk on Sandcreek Way. My
wife is disabled; we went to vote at Lum School last election. We used the supercrosswalk, but
when we got to the area near the school office where the voting booths were located, there was
no ADA ramp to get off the sidewalk to the driveway that leads to the office. This is the same
driveway that would be used by people cutting through the schoolyard to get to a bus stop,
should one be placed at Lum School.
""The City has indicated the building a bus stop at Ivy Walk would require painting and marking a
crosswalk. I pointed out that the crosswalk at Heather Walk and Heather Isle does not have a
painted crossing. That is the very next bus stop west of Grand. However, I was informed that the
regulations now require newly installed bus stops to have a marked crossing, and the Arlington
Isle stop does not need a crossing because it is grandfathered in under the old regulations. I do
not believe that painting a crosswalk near Ivy Walk will encourage students at Lum School to
cross Otis when they have the supercrosswalk at Lum School.
""To summarize: No one (other than an unnamed person on City staff) wants the bus stops. Shelve
this proposal, and revisit it someday if someone actually expresses a need for a bus stop and you
can buy the extra few minutes of run time that will be needed. And if you are absolutely
compelled to put in a stop, put it on the safe side of crosswalks and intersecting streets so that it
does not interfere with the visibility needed by us old, gray-headed pedestrians crossing this
heavily used street, and vehicles entering the traffic on Otis Drive. A stop at Ivy Walk would be
much safer than a stop at Lum School or a stop at Willow. Sincerely, Peter Muzio.""
7",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-01-14,9,"""The Missing Link"" of
Alameda Shoreline Park
On Harbor Bay the San Francisco
Bay Trail is incorporated into the
Shoreline Park Shoreline Park
.
includes both grassy areas and
paths for both pedestrians and
bicyclists to safely access the
views and fresh air. Hundreds of
residents and Harbor Bay
Business Park workers walk and
bike these paths. During the
pandemic use has greatly
increased, which is vital to
physical and mental health.
This photo shows a wide section
of the Shoreline Park concrete
path that ends abruptly,
narrowing into a ragged, asphalt
path.",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-01-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,7,"""big box"" store. The Zoning Code would be further amended to require that the use permit
be amended for a large format retail store, in addition to the standard use permit conditions.
In that case, the key issues could be addressed in terms of its design, operations and the issue
of sale leakage. He noted that this was a new presentation, and that there had not been any
community feedback at this point.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Karen Bay noted that she was speaking as an Alameda resident, and was looking
forward to the workshop, which she believed was very timely. She supported amending the
Zoning Code to define and address large format retail stores, and supported the requirement
of a use permit for all large format retail store. She believed the City's retail policy needed
some updating because so much had changed since 2004. She believed that the City had
more clarity and understanding about the retail development process since then. She had
reviewed the DDA as it related to the Alameda Landing project as approved, and believed
that the City had approved a lifestyle center, not a hybrid center, and believed the wording
should be changed to reflect that. She suggested that the term ""lifestyle center"" be defined.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Thomas requested the Planning Board's thoughts on the definition, as well as the
idea of requiring a conditional use permit. He noted that there were many people who
would be interested in looking at a prohibition on stores over a certain size. He noted that
the issues of stopping sales leakage and historic buildings were of concern to the
community; he noted that the Del Monte building had been a centerpiece of that debate.
Mr. Thomas noted that care should be taken in the definitions and prohibitions, and added
that there were many in the community who would like a ""big box"" prohibition. He noted
that it would not be possible to write a zoning ordinance that prohibited a particular
retailer, and that naming certain retailers as acceptable, and others as unacceptable, would
not be appropriate.
Member Lynch complimented staff on tackling this complex issue very well. He
cautioned against reinventing the wheel, and did not want any legal troubles to result. He
noted that different ordinances did not need to be created, and that the Planning Board
had the authority to deny a permit. He believed this issue had been over-complicated, and
that the use of the conditional use permit process would generally be adequate. He
preferred to defer to the Economic Development Commission and the previous Boards,
which already had an excellent strategic plan for Alameda.
Member McNamara did not have enough information to move forward on this issue, and
had read information about the model used by Fort Collins, Colorado, with respect to
their very specific and stringent big box retail policy.
Mr. Thomas thanked Doug Garrison for pulling a large amount of information together
for this staff report.
Page 7 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2015-03-26,5,"""essay"" questions. Staff has secured a booth at the Earth Day Celebration at Washington Park on April 25, and
will order new SSHRB banners for this and other events. Staff also shared that renting space at the Park Street
Spring festival would be very costly, and that Rob Ratto, PSBA Executive Director is trying to arrange for free
or low-cost space at the event. Member Sorensen announced that he will be able to provide free space at the
Jam at Neptune Beach on June 21st and 22nd Members will be needed to staff the booths, and sign-up sheets
for all three events were circulated. Member Sorensen suggested that the Board might also distribute the
survey at the Chamber event on April 10. The committee will continue to work on the survey and SSHRB
brochure, and will report back at the April meeting. The City has offered to provide City of Alameda shopping
bags to all who fill out the survey, but there may be other costs for printing and other materials for the event.
A Motion was made to authorize the committee to spend an amount not to exceed $400 for materials.
M/S Williams / Villareal Unanimous
Staff shared how much each agency would receive if the $6,753 were to be distributed proportionally to
the four applicants.
3.-E
UPDATE ON SSHRB HOMELESS COUNT PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL ON APRIL 7
Discussion and Action item with a suggested time limit of 20 minutes.
President Biggs reported that he had collected photos from the homeless Count conducted in September 2014,
and that he was preparing a PowerPoint presentation to accompany his report to the Council. He will present
his report at the May 5th meeting. This is the same meeting that the Council will hear Public Comment and
vote on the FY 15-16 CBDG funding. Board members are encouraged to attend.
4.
BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Member Villareal requested that co-sponsorship and the consideration of providing funds for the 6th annual
Alameda Harvey Milk Day celebration be placed on the April agenda.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- NONE
6.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 PM. M\S Hyman \ Sorensen Unanimous (6-0)
Respectfully submitted by:
Jim Franz
Secretary
5",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2015-03-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,8,"""must encourage status quo;"" the matter is critical and gives the OGC process
effectiveness and power; he does not agree with the use of the term ""should;""
expressed concern about the five year penalty; stated that he does not think the
situation in government has been so troubling for someone to muck up the gears of the
government process; he is not convinced of imposing such a drastic penalty; it is the
right of the people to attend OGC and Council meetings; he does not think Council
should be so heavy handed in the penalty; the penalty is not fair or democratic.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter may return to the OGC.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has concerns over the Null and Void provision;
the OGC does not have the power to declare matters Null and Void; when the OGC
challenges a Council decision, the decisions must be put in abeyance.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for the recommendations; stated there have been
several lively conversations with the OGC; the ordinance has been in place for over one
decade; a number of things may need to be changed going forward; the OGC and
Sunshine Ordinance came about from large-scale community conversation; there have
been proposals and differences in opinion on what may or may not be within the
confines of the City Charter; if constituents are interested in seeing certain things
change, proposals to take action through amending the Charter or other alternatives
can occur via robust community conversation; it is a good time to make changes; a
tremendous amount of effort has been put forth in the proposed language before
Council; she is prepared to support the matter; expressed support for all members of
the OGC through the years; stated a substantial amount of time has been put into the
matter; an ordinance has been put forth which will ensure the City is as open and
transparent as possible; she would like to encourage Council, the OGC, staff and the
community to have a larger discussion on the meaning of open government.
On the call for the question, the motion 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.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:47
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Continued July 20, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-11-27,13,"""primarily"" in ""primarily used to host.""
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Council would not treat the definition of
youth center the same for Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) recreation
centers and a martial arts studio on Webster Street.
The Assistant City Attorney responded there is more clarity surrounding the definition of
parks than a martial arts studio.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if ARPD requested their centers be left out of
the definition, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if ARPD's protection would be removed by
teaching martial arts, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if staff modified the State definition of youth center to
include ARPD centers, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if Council could eliminate youth center as a sensitive
use and keep the ARPD centers.
The Assistant City Attorney responded doing so is an option; stated the City would want
to ensure certain federal enforcement priorities are effectuated.
Councilmember Oddie stated the definition could instead read: ""a youth center is a
facility determined by the ARPD to be a recreation center"".
Mayor Spencer inquired what the State's recommendation is regarding distance from
schools, to which the Economic Development Manager responded the State's
recommendation is at 600 feet.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is the City's proposed distance, to which the Economic
Development Manager responded 1000 feet.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether having the language read: ""a facility exclusively used
to host recreational or social activities for minors"" would apply to ARPD, to which the
Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated almost all recreation facilities, park events and
classes are offered to minors and adults; inquired if the criteria is a facility exclusively
used by youth.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative, stated ARPD centers would be
carved out as protected.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there was discussion at a previous
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 27, 2018
11",CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,23,"""streamline and expedite permits for businesses"" on page 27; the process is an ongoing issue
for businesses; people of color and women are not included under the list in Section LU-11 on
page 27; the Section needs to include people of color and women; the list should be
alphabetically; people of color are a historically marginalized population; she is saddened to see
the exclusions; the ""partnerships"" should be listed alphabetically; photos included throughout
the General Plan are mostly white people;, she is saddened to see the images.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not disagree with Councilmember Herrera Spencer
regarding Section LU-11; she does not think the list was meant to be inclusive or exclusive; the
Section states: ""interventions that break down barriers to employment pre-historically
marginalized populations such as: youth, seniors, people with disabilities. stated that she
would have added unhoused individuals to the list; the term ""such as"" expands the definition;
she would like to ensure the recommendations provided by Councilmember Knox White would
not hamper the Recreation and Parks Department's ability to pursue outside funding; since
Council has not yet approved the project, the actions listed in the General Plan seem to be
jumping ahead.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated that she does not think adding the term ""support""
would hamper either being lead agency or partner on a grant; the term change still shows the
importance to the City; adding the term is fine.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether removing the actions causes any difficulty.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated that she has come to the discussion late and would
like time to read the details and provide an accurate answer.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the recommendations provided should be considered to have staff
look at all the potential ramifications and implications; staff should report back to Council.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can report back to Council; the
list helps identify high priority matters; there is a way to re-write the policy and indicate support
for efforts with partners; staff can list facilitation of seeking funding or pursue mapping, trash
removal, signage, oil spill, public access structure and additional items; the General Plan is a
policy level document; there has not been much Council discussion about the project; the
General Plan takes a good idea and puts it out in the open.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the section is listed as ""Conservation Climate Action Element;""
Council has held discussions about conservation and climate action; the description includes:
""protecting and restoring natural habitats to support bio-diversity and to prepare for climate
change is a key goal of the General Plan;"" maps which establish a biological inventory should
be done; expressed support for funding being acquired to help with oil spill booms and
protection of sensitive habitat areas affected by oil spills; proposed language can be modified;
however, she would like to give the Recreation and Parks Director and Planning, Building and
Transportation Director the opportunity to confirm; inquired whether Council can provide
direction to staff.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he will need to know whether
Council is adopting the General Plan and asking staff to come back with potential revisions; staff
will return after working through tribal language with the Planning Board; the Transportation
Appendix will be worked on with the Transportation Commission; it will be easiest if the General
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
23",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-06-12,2,"#2006012091) in 2006. An Environmental Assessment for the Proposed
Master Plan Amendment has been prepared.
Staff Member Thomas gave a presentation The staff report and attachments can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3066059&GUID=783D43D9-
ABD6-4E81-B2EC-7E52AF26CCE2&FullText=1
Sean Whiskeman, Catellus, gave a presentation detailing their new master plan
application.
Leslie and Alan Cameron, Bay Ship and Yacht, said they are excited to partner with
Catellus and expand Alameda's working waterfront.
Board Member Curtis asked about the change in the staff report from 300 to 600 units.
Staff Member Thomas said that the original plan for all of Alameda Landing included 300
units. He said the 600 number includes the 287 nearly completed units at the current
phase of Alameda Landing.
Board Member Zuppan asked about the size of the park space.
Staff Member Thomas said it would be 4.5 acres, including 100 feet from the water along
the full length of the residential.
Board Member Burton asked how the plan to keep the two warehouses would affect plans
to reinforce the shoreline infrastructure.
Mr. Whiskeman explained that the Bay Ship portion would have to be repaired if they ever
redeveloped their site.
Board Member Mitchell opened the public hearing.
Brent Aboudara expressed concern about construction and warehouse truck traffic and
parking. He said he is glad the hotel is gone from the plan and is sad to see the reduction
in park acreage.
Nick Ellis said he supports the plan and efforts to develop a blue collar incubator.
Diana Maiden Aiken said she looks forward to enjoying the estuary access. She said we
need a diversity of homes.
Tony Daysog said we should keep the focus on creating jobs. He said Catellus has
benefitted from their overall project and we need to conduct a full EIR to evaluate the
change in traffic impacts caused by new housing.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 10
June 12, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2017-06-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-10-10,11,"#22- This Conditional Use Permit PLN08-0479, as amended on October 10, 2011 will be
reviewed by the Alameda Planning Board in six months from the date of these conditions of
approval, as modified and upon the receipt of a verifiable complaint which cannot be
resolved by the Community Development Director on an administrative level. [See
amended resolution attached.]
Motion made to approve the conditions of approval as amended above by Board
member Kohlstrand, seconded by Board member Burton. Approved 5-0.
9-B
Use Permit Annual Review - PLN09-0184 - Applicant - Chengben Wang for
Encinal Terminals - An annual review for compliance with conditions for use of the
property located at 1523 Entrance Road/Buena Vista Avenue commonly referred to
as ""Encinal Terminals"".
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services gave an overview of the Use Permit. He reported that
over the last 18 months there has been some progress on the Master Plan although all
three properties are currently in receivership. It is doubtful that there will be any progress
on the project until the financial issues get resolved. He reported that the City has received
calls inquiring about the properties by potential developers. The City needs to make sure
that there is a viable Master Plan in place for who ever develop the sites, which works given
the economic times.
Board member Zuppan asked if any of the calls regarding the property referenced the
Master Plan documents.
Mr. Thomas stated that all of the calls have inquired as to what the City is willing to consider
on the sites. He also stated that the Chipman site has been zoned for residential and the
tentative map was approved, although it has since expired.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft asked what protection the City has against someone purchasing
the property in foreclosure and developing it as they wish.
Farimah Faiz, Assistant City Attorney, responded that the property is zoned MX and any
potential developer would need to get a Master Plan approved by the City prior to any
development of the sites.
Mr. Thomas stated that there is currently an Interim Use Permit for the Encinal Terminals,
which is good for one more year which allows for a variety of uses.
Motion made to accept the report of compliance by Board member Henneberry,
seconded by Zuppan. Approved 5-0.
9-C
PLN11-0220 - Alameda Point Northwest Territories - Interim Use Permit. The
applicant, San Francisco Regional Sports Car Association is proposing to hold
driver's skill events/autocross events on the Northwest Territories at the most north
western area of Alameda Point. The events would occur on weekends. Staff
requests continuance to the meeting of 10/24/2011.
Page 11 of 12",PlanningBoard/2011-10-10.pdf
LibraryBoard,2011-10-12,1,"$
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
WEDNESDAY, October 12, 2011
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Suzanne Whyte, Board Member
Michael Hartigan, Board Member
Gail Wetzork, Board Member
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Christina Baines, Recording Secretary
Absent:
Catherine Atkin President
Nancy Lewis Vice President
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so accepted or approved on the Consent Calendar
A.
*Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Month of September 2011.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of September 14, 2011.
C.
*Library Services Reports for the Month of August 2011.
D.
*Financial Report Reflecting FY 10 Expenditures by Fund for September 2011.
E.
*Bills for Ratification for the Month of September 2011.
Board Member Hartigan expressed concern with the decline in checkouts across the board at Main, WEB,
and BFI on the August Service Report. Director Chisaki indicated some rebalancing of the collection is
in the process and with the upgrade of the computer system, the number of floating collections will be
increased and this may improve these numbers.
There being no further comments, Board Member Whyte, seconded by Board Member Wetzork moved
approval of the minutes as presented. The motion was carried by a 3-0 vote.",LibraryBoard/2011-10-12.pdf
LibraryBoard,2010-09-08,1,"$
TERILA
ORATEO
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
September 8, 2010
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mike Hartigan, President
Suzanne Whyte, Vice President
Catherine Atkin, Board Member
Gail Wetzork, Board Member
Absent:
None
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Marsha Merrick, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so accepted or approved on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of August and
September 2010. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of July 14, 2010. Approved.
C.
*Library Services Reports for the Months of June and July 2010. Accepted.
D.
*Financial Reports Reflecting FY10 Expenditures by Fund for July and August 2010. Accepted.
E.
*Bills for Ratification for the Months of July and August 2010. Approved.
President Hartigan asked why there were no budget dollars in the individual line items; the Finance
Department has not dropped them in yet. Hartigan then asked why the payroll dollars looked so out-of-
whack from one month to the next, almost tripling these expenditures from July to August. Staff will
talk with Finance to see what happened and report back at the next meeting.
Vice President Whyte asked how the book machine was doing. Director Chisaki said it had been having
some issues which the company in Germany fixed, and testing continues. The Library does not yet have
the software that will alert us if the machine is down, but that is coming.
Board Member Atkin proclaimed the End of Summer Reading Ceremony a great success, and thanked
Vice President Whyte for her eloquent remarks. President Hartigan said this is the first time in 8-9 years
that he has missed it.",LibraryBoard/2010-09-08.pdf
GolfCommission,2007-02-11,3,"$1
$1
$0
$0
Juniors Non-Resident*
$8
$10
$8
$2
$0
CART FEES:
Current
Recommended
Change
Single Rider (Non-Shared Cart)
$14
$15
$1
Senior M-F per player
$11
$13
$2
Late Twilight
$9
$10
$1
Mif
$8
MONTHLY PASSES:
Current
Surcharge
Recommended
Surcharge
Change
Res. Sr. (M-Th + Fri (JC only)
$85
$0
$100
$0
8.1.5
Resident (M-Th + Fri (JC only)
$100
$0
$115
$0
$15
Non-Res. (M-Th + Fri (JC only)
$130
$3
$195
$0
$65
TOURNAMENTS:
Current
Recommended
Green Fees
Cart Req
Merch
EF/JC
Cart Req
Merch*
Mon Thurs
$30
no
$6
$50/$48
yes
$5
Mon Thurs (Senior)
$30
no
$6
$38/$36
yes
$0
Friday
$35
yes
$6
$52/$50
yes
$5
Weekends and Holidays
$35
yes
$6
$60/$56
yes
$5
Mif 9-HOLE COURSE RATES:
Current
Recommended
Change
Regular Weekday
$9
$10
$1
Driving Current
Recommended
Change
Regular Weekend
$11
$12
$1
Range
Senior Weekday
$7
$8
$1
Small
$0
$3
$3
Replay Rate
$7
$7
$0
Medium
$4
$5
$1
Junior Resident
$1
$1
$0
Large
I
$6
$7
$1
Junior Non-Resident
$4
$5
$1
X-Large
$8
$9
$1
Practice Area: $5 w/ small bucket
*EF Mon-Fri after 12:00: Weekends &
Holidays after twilight only
** Can be waived
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 3
Revised format only 3/5/07
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2007-02-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-05-19,2,"$1,091,000; Encinal: $1,433,000].
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the County has identified items that need to
be fixed, to which Mr. Shemwell responded the County has not come out and identified
items to be repaired; stated the County could come out at any time and direct that any
outstanding compliance issues have to be repaired.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the School District bond measure included
any operational or capital funding for pools, to which Mr. Shemwell responded in the
negative.
Councilmember deHaan stated liability has been discussed; inquired whether both
parties are comfortable regarding liability issues, to which Mr. Shemwell responded in
the affirmative around the particular drain issues.
Following School Board discussion, Councilmember Tam questioned whether slide 3
amounts on operation and maintenance for both swim centers show payments are
closer to a 50-50 split, rather than the agreed upon 60-40 split.
Mr. Shemwell responded the agreement expired in 2000; stated the pools have been
operating on a handshake agreement to continue the 60-40 split; the School District has
taken on utility costs and has been billed for 60% of the City expenses.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the District has paid 47% and the City has paid
53% since the Agreement expired, to which Mr. Shemwell responded in the negative;
stated the School District took on the utilities and has been billed for operational costs in
the last two or three years.
The Recreation and Park Director stated the 60-40 split was occurring for both
operations and utilities until two years ago when the District staff could not determine
whether the meters were separate and agreed to discontinue billing the City for utilities
until the matter could be resolved.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the division of use from 3:00
p.m. to 10:00 p.m., the Recreation and Park Director stated figures are based on the
total hours of operations; during the summer, pools are used from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m.; use is: 25% for School District programs, such as swimming and water polo, 25%
for City programs, such as Swim to Live, and 50% for a variety of non-profits, including
children swim teams and adult masters swim.
The Acting City Manager noted the City sponsored programs are during the summer
and on Saturdays.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated since the City and School District both have 25% of the use
and the remaining 50% is the community, one fair suggestion would be splitting the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Board of Education
2
May 19, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-05-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,5,"$124,310."" Adopted.
(*17-582) Ordinance No. 3190, ""Approving an Amended and Restated Lease and
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the
Terms of an Amended and Restated Lease Agreement with Mr. Hi Chi Chen and Mrs.
Lena Muy Chiv, a Married Couple, DBA Hometown Donuts, for 1930 Main Street.""
Finally passed.
(*17-583) Ordinance No. 3191, ""Approving a Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement and
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the
Terms of Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement to Alameda Boys & Girls Club and Alameda
Unified School District for Access and Maintenance."" Finally passed.
(*17-584) Ordinance No. 3192, ""Approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement of Building
40, Located at 800 West Tower Avenue at Alameda Point, with Bladium, Inc, a
California Corporation.' Finally passed.
(17-585) Ordinance No. 3193, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code Section 4-4
(Disposable Food Service Ware) to Prohibit Certain Single-Use Plastics such as Straws
and Clarifying Compostable Food Service Ware Requirements.' Finally passed.
Mayor Spencer stated that she left the last meeting on Council business before the
ordinance was introduced; thanked Council for supporting the ordinance.
Expressed support for the ordinance; stated CASA will work with the restaurant
community to transition to compostable take-out packaging: Ruth Abbe, CASA.
Mayor Spencer stated letters were received from Edison Elementary School students in
support of the green efforts.
Councilmember Oddie thanked Mayor Spencer for bringing the referral forward; stated
Thursday at 6:30 p.m. there will be a CASA workshop for updating the City's Local
Action Plan for climate protection.
Mayor Spencer thanked staff for their work.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(17-586) Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to the Mayor's Fourth of July
Parade Committee Members, Followed by the Committee Members Presenting a Check
to the USS Hornet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2016-11-10,4,"$20,000.00 to support parks and health and wellness programs. The Bike for the Parks was also
successful with 531 riders and positive comments from participants. Alameda Rotary gave a lot of
support along with ARPD staff who were the backbone of the event. There were 5 major sponsors that
stepped up and donated to cover the costs and $20,000 was secured from the event.
C. Recreation and Parks Director Report
Parks:
Ball Field Renovation at Krusi Park, fence repair and pruning completed over at Tillman, fence
repaired for access at Sweeney Park, two additional Memorial Benches were installed at Franklin
and Shoreline Parks.
Recreation:
Mayor's Tree Lighting will take place on December 3 at City Hall, sign-ups for Breakfast with Santa
is on December 10 and Santa Home Visits are underway, TGIF and Non School Day Programs
coming up for the Holiday week, Bike for the Parks was extremely successful. A big shout out to the
Gene Oh who was the driving force behind the event, the committee and Friends of the Park
Foundation for raising over $20,000.00 for funding that will go to the Park programs. Women's
Softball league has begun on Friday nights at lower Washington.
Mastick Senior Center:
Mastick's annual Halloween dance was held in the social hall on October 27th at 1:00 PM with an
attendance of 92 Mastick members which was the highest in the past three years. Teens Teaching
Technology is a very popular joint program held by Mastick Senior Center and the Underground
Teen Center where middle school and high school students help seniors with questions they have
about their electronic devices. The Ukulele Jam and Sing-Along was another popular class with 20
members participating. Heavenly Hair at 50 was held by Brandon Stanford and his staff at
Compliments Salon who gave demonstration and tips on how to care for aging hair. The workshop
was successful with an attendance of 40 people and a waitlist of 20.
Projects:
There will be a public meeting at Woodstock Center on December 1st at 6:00 PM to review the three
design concepts for the Woodstock Playground renovation. The Alameda Recreation and Park
Department and Architects has met to create conceptual design specifications for the new Krusi Park
Recreation Building and hope to have the RFP ready to go by early 2017. Estuary Park project is
well underway and hoping to finish early 2017.
Commissioner Limoges was concerned that the Alameda Sun had that the Recreation and Park
meeting was canceled. Pat Russi talked to the editors of the Sun to correct the problem.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA:
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, December 8, 2016
ADJOURNMENT: Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
4",RecreationandParkCommission/2016-11-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-10-04,14,"$200,000 and Capital Improvement Projects Fund Budget by $100,000. Introduced.
The Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if the Public Art Commission (PAC) made the
recommendations to appropriate $100,000 to Jean Sweeny Public Art and use part of
the $100,000 for maintenance.
The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the Council is
the body that appropriates funds; the Public Art Ordinance states that maintenance of
public art is an eligible expense of the public art fund.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the PAC makes recommendations to the
Planning Board.
The Community Development Director responded the PAC expressed interest in the
ordinance being drafted to create a mandatory requirement that money be paid into the
art fund; because of the zoning ordinance, the City cannot dictate how a developer
decides to use the funds; developers have to be given the choice between paying into
the fund or providing art onsite.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if the PAC had input, to which the Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there discussion on how to capture cultural
art.
The Community Development Director responded cultural art should be free and open
to the public; the criteria could be added to the Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
Councilmember Daysog suggested codes could be implemented for people to look up
and see cultural event that happened years ago.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the Council adopted a Master Plan for Jean Sweeny
Park, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if there was a public art component in the Master Plan,
to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the estimated cost of the public art component was
$100,000.
The Community Development Director responded the $100,000 is a way to jump start
the public art design and fabrication.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the estimate is for the entire Jean Sweeny
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 4, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-10-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,12,"$200,000 or $35,000; the resolution is correct in stating that the
matter should be brought to the CIC at the earliest convenience if
the estimated costs exceeds $35,0000.
The General Counsel stated the policy was adopted by the Council on
September 6; noted Page 2, Item #3 states ""Comply with the
Community Improvement Commission Policy regarding Procedures for
Hiring of Special Legal Counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that the policy and resolution state two
different things ARRA may have the same inconsistency the intent
was that matters be brought to the CIC if estimated outside counsel
legal fees are more than $35,000.
Commissioner deHaan stated the Commission would approve the
resolution.
Commissioner Gilmore and Chair Johnson concurred with Commissioner
deHaan.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the ground rule should be that the
matter comes to the appropriate governing body if the estimate is
over $35,000 but General Counsel can spend up to $35,000 per matter
to initiate the process.
Chair Johnson stated that bullet point 1 [General Counsel is
authorized by CIC to spend up to $35,000 per matter from
appropriate project budget without prior CIC approval] should be
omitted; the correction should be made to the ARRA policy also.
Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the resolution and approval
of the policy with modification to omit bullet point 1 [General
Counsel is authorized by CIC to spend up to $35,000 per matter from
appropriated project budget without prior CIC approval].
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(06-057CC/06-003CIC) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial
Report and approve mid-year budget adjustments, including General
Fund reserve policy and infrastructure review.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
The Public Works Director gave a brief update on the December 6,
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-06-28,2,"$230,000."" Adopted.
Councilmember Tam requested an explanation for the urgency to purchase a
replacement disk storage solution.
The Information Technology Manager stated systems have been running on servers
and the EMC Storage Area Network system for a number of years; storage has been
depleted because of email growth and graphics; email is 90% full; messages cannot be
retrieved when a server is out of disc space; disk space has not been increased over
the last six years.
Councilmember Tam stated the staff report notes that the current system does not have
the ability to recover lost information if the system crashes.
The Information Technology Manager stated system backups are stored on unreliable
legacy magnetic tapes; multiple tapes are needed as disk space continues to grow;
space is not available to hold all of the data.
Mayor Gilmore stated storage space is cheap; inquired why the Replacement Disk
Storage Solution is so expensive.
The Information Technology Manager responded the Storage Area Network allows
everyone to share data and provides fault tolerance.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the proposed storage platform is the best
price.
The Information Technology Manager responded four proposals were submitted; stated
Compellent, Dell's midrange system, is the fastest growing vendor in the industry; price
is not the only issue; technology is important; Compellent provides options and provides
more disk space for the money; Compellent uses 60% disk drive versus other vendors
using 50%.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what type of on-going support would be needed.
The Information Technology Manager responded the vendor would provide a three-year
warranty; stated training would be provided to allow staff management of many
features.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether a support contract would be needed, to which
the Information Technology Manager responded definitely.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired how long the City's needs would be met with the proposed
solution.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda
2
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 28, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,23,"$28 million is likely not the correct amount to allocate; the analysis of the sale will drive
the funding amounts; $20 million is too high for the project; dedicating so much of the
ARPA funds toward one project is not going to fly; ; the project's proximity to amenities
makes the Marina Village Inn an asset; Council should not miss the opportunity;
expressed concern about groundwater; stated groundwater is something that cuts
across the City; expressed support for taking advantage of the storm water system.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for spending ARPA funding as needed based off
assessments for the Marina Village Inn; stated the project is a good use of funds; equity
is about helping those who need the most; there will be times when significant amounts
of resources will be used in order to have an impact on those who need help; Council
can do something positive with the project; Council has addressed issues related to
budget shortages; further cuts should not be made to services; expressed support for
ensuring the budget is being taken care of; expressed concern about additional budget
cuts; stated that she would like to find a way to maximize the use of ARPA funds for
housing needs; questioned other ways to maximize and assist with housing needs;
stated matters are being discussed at the State level, including UBI; there will be
multiple layers of assistance coming to families and those in need; Council can make
the greatest impact using ARPA funds for housing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should think big; ARPA funds have been described
as a once in a lifetime opportunity; outlined the staff report; stated that she agrees with
using ARPA funds to purchase the Marina Village Inn; however, not using $20 million;
different funding sourcs will be incorporated; in addition to federal funding, there will be
money coming in from the State and County which can be used towards operating
costs; outlined a meeting with Alameda Justice Alliance, Transform Alameda and
Alameda Renters Coalition; expressed support for a Alameda Hospital program similar
to the White Bird Clinic, which provides mental health and substance abuse programs
and acts as a respite day center for those needing to get off the street; participants do
not need to be admitted or stay overnight; the City Manager is working with similarly
sized neighboring cities to find funding mechanisms; there is exciting potential for the
City to provide the program and alternative services; the program will help Alameda
Hospital, residents and business centers; there is a pot of money for pilot programs,
such as UBI; funding will be directed towards youth exiting the foster care system;
outlined the foster care exit process; stated UBI can provide assistance; funding can
also be used for pregnant mothers within specific income categories; she supports
investments being made for youths; outlined a Mayor's Conference discussion of a
Stockton's UBI pilot program; stated that she is intrigued by the idea of a community
land trust; the City of Oakland has provided a community land trust along with other
cities; the opportunity arises when distressed or foreclosed property is able to be
purchased by the City and used for affordable housing; she is interested in a community
resiliency hub and would like to receive further information; inquired whether staff has
enough direction from Council.
The City Manager stated sufficient direction has been provided; however, a specific
motion would be helpful.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
16",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
GolfCommission,2010-01-21,6,"$300 which totals $2,475. Chair Sullwold asked Matt Wisely to convey to
management to make sure employees are having juniors sign the NCGA form for
proper reimbursement.
4-C Update on Golf Complex Finances
Chair Sullwold stated that the financial report had not been received from the City.
Bob Sullwold stated that the Fry and Clark courses were down in rounds and
revenue. For the first six months of the fiscal rounds are down about 11%,
revenue is down roughly $60,000 or 4.5%. The financial performance is worse this
year than last year.
4-D Consideration of Memorial Bench Program for the Golf Complex
Matt Wisely and John Vest have researched concrete benches, and according to
Dale Lillard, the benches that are used at the parks run about $500 or $600. That is
the price just for the bench, not for the plaque. Chair Sullwold asked if they could
get some pictures of the iron wood benches.
5
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by John Vest
None
5-B
Golf Complex Maintenance activities report by Matt Wisely
Matt Wisely stated that we received over 5 inches of rain since Saturday. Four trees
were lost, two gigantic eucalyptus trees on number one North alongside the pond on
the right hand side, one behind number one green on the Mif, and one leaning on
the driving range on the Mif. He is trying to get on ETA on the second pump that
was removed back in September. There is widespread flooding on the course and
they are trying to get the course back open for the weekend. There is a 50% chance
of rain tomorrow. All the sloughs are backed up and the water is above the rocks on
number five on the North in the fairway. The two trees that fell on number one North
is because the slough between eighteen and one is now passed the cart path.
There may be no carts allowed this weekend. They are constantly moving water
and cleaning debris. The bridge between 15 North and the maintenance yard is
under water. The course was closed today due to possible winds resulting in risks of
trees falling. As of January 1, we have 11 new staff members (four are ex City
employees) and seven new employees. Labor has been cut back due to the
weather. The Par 3 course is being mowed everyday as well as changing the cups
daily. Matt responded to a question from Chair Sullwold regarding the Coastal
Redwoods stating that they cannot handle salt, since they are watered with non-
potable water. An arborist was out and stated the same. The trees are watered
along with the rest of the golf course. He believes that had we had winters like we're
- 6 -
Golf Commission Minutes -Thursday, January 21, 2010",GolfCommission/2010-01-21.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2016-03-24,2,"$33,556 (ECHO/TL)). The Public Services funds available for distribution total $147,812.
He added that, since the Board will not be considering the HFH application and BFWC's
application for rental assistance, and because the remaining five agencies are requesting a total
of $ 129,136, the Board can fully fund the five remaining agencies, and still have an additional
$18,676 to allocate.
President Biggs then introduced the first speaker.
Kate Rosenbaum, Development Associate for Legal Assistance for Seniors (LAS)
Ms. Rosenbaum thanked the city for their level of support, adding that, without it, they would not be
able to offer the level of service they currently provide. They enjoy being a part of the Alameda
community, especially their relationship with Mastick Senior Center. She added that their Executive
Director has initiated discussion with AHA staff, Claudia Young, regarding a future housing project.
She concluded saying that she is available to answer any questions the Board might have.
Patricia Bidar, Director of Development and Communications, Building Futures with Women
and Children (BFWC)
Ms. Bidar began her presentation by thanking the City of Alameda for its on-going support of
BFWC, and that it makes a tremendous difference in their clients lives.
She went on to speak to the withdrawal of their application for rental assistance, stating that BFWC
staff will continues to provide tenant-based rental assistance, and will be inviting the families on
Central Ave., who are being displaced, to a housing workshop. She added that the challenge of
identifying affordable units in which to place their clients is one of the reasons they withdrew their
application.
Ms. Bidar then made a request that the additional CDBG Public Service funds available be added
to
the BFWC grant, and that their scope of work be expanded to include the provision of emergency
housing services.
In conclusion, she shared that the change in how Emergency Solutions Grants State funding for
emergency shelters is now allocated, has resulted in the County receiving much less than they had
received in the past. Last year, funding was allocated based on quality of services, and BFWC
received nearly all of the county's allocation.
Erin Scott, Exec. Dir. Family Violence Law Center (FVLC)
Ms. Scott began by thanking the Board for its support, and for the careful consideration of the
proposals. She added that, from FY 2013 - 14 to FY 2014 - 15, FVLC has seen a 17 percent
increase in the DV calls they receive from Alameda residents. She added that there seems to be
a
reorganization at APD as to how they handled DV calls. In the past, an investigative team would
take the felonies, and the misdemeanors were handled at the patrol level. While FVLC is still written
into the protocol of APD, and still receives all the calls, all the investigation is now being done at the
patrol level. She said that they will watch it very closely, and be in contact with the police
department, to assure that domestic violence is still considered a high priority.
Ms. Scott went on to say that a study at New York University in 2015 showed the positive impact
civil legal assistance has on domestic violence survivors and on the community. Furthermore, civil
legal assistance, which is what is being funded through this CDBG grant, helps reduce domestic
2",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2016-03-24.pdf
GolfCommission,2011-04-20,4,"$470,000. The net available cash balance at the end of March is down to $217,000.
Fortunately, Acting City Manager Lisa Goldman announced that the $300,000 loan
from the Enterprise Fund to ARRA will be repaid before the end of the fiscal year.
She also announced that PILOT and surcharge will be eliminated in fiscal year
2011-12, and that the Cost Allocation amount will be reevaluated.
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 March 2011 of $4,000. The year-to-date total to
the General Fund is $67,488 for FY 2010/2011.
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Status Report on Long Term Lease, Mif Albright Negotiations, and proposal for
Golf Complex reconfiguration by Ron Cowan and Harbor Bay Isle Associates,
including Golf Commission recommendations, if any
Update on Golf Complex Finances
10.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:18 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown
Act.
4
Golf Commission Minutes -Wednesday, April 20, 2011",GolfCommission/2011-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-05-20,9,"$504,334 including contingencies, to Redgwick Construction for
Fernside Boulevard bike path and street improvements, San Jose
Avenue to north of Otis Drive, No. P.W. 03-08-10. Accepted.
(
*08-219) Recommendation to set a Public Hearing for delinquent
integrated Waste Management charges for June 17, 2008. Accepted.
(08-220) Resolution No. 14210, ""Approving an Amendment to
Memorandum of Understanding between the Management and Confidential
Employees Association and the City of Alameda for the Period
Commencing January 1, 2005 and Ending December 20, 2008. "" Adopted.
The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated Council is very happy that the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) consented to enter into
an agreement to extend the existing Memorandum of Understanding for
one year; requested that the Building Official advise who is in
MCEA; stated MCEA came forward before negotiations started.
The Building Official stated MCEA consists of approximately 130
membersi the MCEA is fully aware of the City's revenue issues and
thought that it was important to make the offer to the City; 80% of
the membership was in favor of the recommendation.
Mayor Johnson requested that the Building Official pass on
Council's appreciation.
The Building Official stated that he would be happy to do so.
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*08-221) Resolution No. 14211, ""Intention to Levy an Annual
Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of
Alameda for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 and Set a Public Hearing for June
3, 2008. "" Adopted.
( *08-222 - ) Ordinance No. 2981, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Creating a Civic
Green Building Ordinance. Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(08-223 - ) Resolution No. 14212, ""Implementing the National Incident
Management System (NIMS) as the Official Regulatory Guidance for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
May 20, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-06-01,16,"$593 per square foot for a 2500 square foot house ends up with a house priced at
$1,347,000; EPS started with the all residential bucket at $582,000, as opposed to the
single family bucket at $666,000, which ends up with a price of $1,462,000 for a 2500
square foot single family house using the EPS methodology; EPS estimates that the
average premiums at Alameda Point to be 1% of sale price; the SunCal estimate is
6.4%; explained the basis for SunCal's estimate; stated SunCal disagrees with the 1%;
regarding absorption, SunCal is not opposed to changing to the City and EPS's
recommendation; if the City wants to take a slower absorption, it is fine with SunCal; for
single family construction costs, SunCal estimates $115 versus EPS's estimate of $130;
explained the basis for SunCal's estimate; further stated another area that has been
discussed is what should be anticipated as the real growth in home prices over time;
SunCall's pro forma includes 2% starting in 2012; ESP recommends 1.4%; both sides
have gone back and forth over the analysis; long term construction cost trends range
from -0.7% to 0.5%; SunCal included a 0% real price growth; all of SunCal's prices are
increased by CPI throughout the term of the project; there have been some clear
mistakes in the EPS methodology as to price; EPS's premium analysis is simple;
SunCal has done a lot more research on direct construction costs; regarding SunCal's
Albuquerque, New Mexico project with D.E. Shaw being put into bankruptcy, it is fair to
say any large real estate player, particularly in residential, has struggled in the past
several years; assets have gone through a devaluation; SunCal and its partners have
been severely hurt; in the Albuquerque example, $180 million in D.E. Shaw and
SunCal's combined equity is in danger of being lost, which is an unfortunate
circumstance that is part of the price and risk of working in development; the good news
is D.E. Shaw continues to invest along side of SunCal and to express faith that SunCal
will go forward, as evidenced by the continuing investment in the Alameda process in
terms of the millions of dollars spent to date; SunCal would like to complete the process;
a project that the Council, Planning Board, citizens, D.E. Shaw and SunCal could be
proud of will be presented to Council for consideration in the next 18 months to two
years; SunCal looks forward to the opportunity to complete the process.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the question is whether there
would be sufficient funding to pay for public amenities and community benefits
envisioned in the Master Plan; the answer is yes as demonstrated by two EPS pro
formas delivered to the City on April 8th and April 26th; the density bonus option pro
forma was sent to the Deputy City Manager - Development Services on April 26, 2010;
inquired whether the pro forma was incorporated in the staff report.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the pro forma is an
attachment to tonight's staff report.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired why staff has a different
conclusion than SunCal regarding the density bonus option pro forma relating to
payment of public amenities.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
5
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-08-19,7,"$700,000 deficit; stated a fee structure that would totally
eliminate the deficit was never examined.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the increase in play over the last
five months could offset any potential decline as a result of the
proposed fee increases.
The Interim Golf Manager responded the increase in rounds was from
the short course and was a direct result of fee reductions; stated
the downward trend will continue for the next couple of years; the
economy is in tough shape; further stated the original surcharge
was not earmarked for capital improvements, but went back into the
General Fund.
The City Manager stated the original surcharge was established in
1991.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a progress report for the last
two months, including revenues and rounds by course; further
requested continual tracking; stated that he would like to approve
the increases, see how things go, and review the real numbers when
the RFP's come back.
The Interim Golf Manager stated that reports are provided to the
Golf Commission each month; reports can be forwarded to Council.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the $700,000 shortfall had a
write-off of $400,000 [in golf cart savings)
The Interim Golf Manager responded $400,000 is not included in the
next few years; some of the money should be made back; the monthly
golf cart lease payment would go to the vendor in the next three
years.
Jon Hasegaw, Alameda, stated that he is against the fee increase;
more people will come back to play if the fee is reduced.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the cost per round based on
operations, to which the Interim Golf Manager responded just under
$39.00.
Mayor Johnson stated almost everyone is paying less than the cost
per round.
The Interim Golf Manager stated there are other revenue sources
such as golf cart rentals and restaurant concessions; golf cart
rentals generate approximately $20,000 per year.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
August 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf