rowid,text,pages_fts,rank
18646,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft addressed the comment about the list being all
maintenance projects instead of new projects. She stated that maintenance and upkeep
are necessary to prevent deterioration, and it is cheaper to maintain, than to build new.
She stated she never realized how much Public Works does throughout the City. And
that reason why more projects aren't being done is because of the City's financial
condition. She echoed the comments regarding the content and format of the reports
President Zuppan reiterated that describing the process more thoroughly, and including
why each project is compliant with the General Plan would help Board make the
requested determinations. She also stated that providing information about how the
rankings were determined would be useful. She cited the Climate Change presentation
that discussed how water coming into the sewer system will affect the City, and asked if
any of the priority projects listed address the concerns mentioned in that presentation, in
terms of the analysis or the actual work to change those structures
Ms. Hawkins replied that the Storm Drain Master Plan project which includes looking at
the 55 inch sea level rise addressed issues in the Climate Change Presentation. She
said a model was created, the affects of an 18 inch rise was studied, and now the
consultant will study the affects of a 55 inch rise. She said once the entire structure
has been mapped, the consultants will be able to determine where the water is coming
in, and staff will be able to determine if gates or berms need to be added. She said now
that the model is in place the infrastructure can be studied
President Zuppan clarified that the core information studies can be now be done to
determine that the right, long term solution is applied.
Ms. Hawkins stated that the initial approach would include looking at solutions such as
upsizing pipes rather than installing a berm.
President Zuppan asked to what extent this type of work coordinated with AMP, if it is
outside of the CIP process, and if projects are discussed prior to implementation.
Ms. Hawkins replied that AMP works with a different board for decisions, which is
outside of the CIP process. She stated that AMP and Public Works share upcoming
projects at utility meetings, where they discuss impact reduction.
President Zuppan asked what the pink paint on the sidewalk means.
Ms. Hawkins replied that pink paint is for City sidewalk projects usually necessary
because of city trees. The particular project in question is work that will be done on the
City sidewalks as a result of uplift from street trees in the median. The white paint is
property owner repair responsibility due to other deterioration in the sidewalk, possibly
from private property.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 14
May 30, 2012",14471,
18645,"comments listed below are to provide guidance and direction for future reports. He said
he hopes in the future the reports are presented earlier, so there is an opportunity to ask
questions. He stated the project ratings does not make sensed, and doesn't appear to
have any internal consistency to it, and there doesn't appear to be much discussion on
how the items interact. He said he would like to see the project scores. He requested
clarification between the ""Maintenance"" (Storm Drain Maintenance, New Street
Sweeping Signs) list and the ""Project"" (Ballena Bay Bridge Major Maintenance, Crack
and Slurry Seal Maintenance on Roads) list, and how one is distinguishes from the
other. He stated that after reviewing the project list it appears to only be maintenance
projects, not new projects. He requested more clarity and consistency with the
reporting, and include the plans from the general policy that are applicable to the listed
projects. He stated that staff should have all the required information provided to make
the requested determinations. He requested that projects that don't make the list be
listed separately, but in addition to project list, for follow up purposes.
President Zuppan clarified that the ratings were used to develop the first cuts of all the
projects for CIP, those projects were then discussed my project manager, and the
projects that made the top cut would be prioritized based on funding sources, city
budget, and other elements. So the scoring was first cut scores.
Ms. Hawkins added that the City Manager then reviewed the proposed projects and
determined final project priority.
President Zuppan stated that explaining more of the process used to determine project
priority would help the Board in their understanding of the item while reviewing.
Vice President Burton concurred with board member Knox White's comments, stating
this is about a process of communication. He said it is important to design the reports
for the people who are going to be making the decisions, and provide all the information
needed in order to analyze the reports and make valid decisions. He stated it would be
nice to see if projects are compliant with the Local Action Plan for Climate Protection
(LAPCP). He asked if the projects are listed in order of ranking or priority
Mr. Thomas stated that there are policies in the General Plan that are closely related to
the LAPCP such as environmental protection and air quality improvements, and there is
talk about adopting the LAPCP as an amendment to the General Plan.
Ms. Hawkins stated that the projects are not listed in the order of their ranking.
Vice President Burton concurred that providing a list of projects that did not make a list
would be helpful.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 14
May 30, 2012",14471,
18644,"President Zuppan stated that she is excited for the project, likes the design and building
style and is interested to see how the flat-iron concept will work with the style She
shared that she is more comfortable making some of the decisions, because the
developers are local, active community members.
No action required
Mr. Thomas stated that staff will continue to work with applicants on the remaining
issues.
9-B Consideration of Proposed Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Capital Improvement Plan's
consistency with the City of Alameda General Plan. The Planning Board will make a
determination as to whether the proposed Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Capital Improvement
Plan is consistent with the City of Alameda's General Plan.
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer, gave a brief presentation.
Board member Köster requested clarification on the term ""sinking fund"".
Ms. Hawkins replied that a ""sinking fund"" is an account that accumulates money for a
number of years. She stated that the project would not be done right away, but money
would be put aside for it.
Board member Köster asked for clarification on how the projects are ranked and if all
the projects have been ranked.
Ms. Hawkins stated that each category has points associated with the projects
outcome.
Board member Köster referenced the ""Trash Debris and Vegetation Removal of the
Alameda Beltline Property"" project and asked if the City has considered using
volunteers to help with projects similar to these thereby saving money.
Ms Hawkins replied that the City does host ""Coastal Clean up Days"" and a number of
similar volunteer days. She stated there is higher risk associated with the Beltline
project which includes power garden tools.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 14
May 30, 2012",14471,
18643,"Mr. Thomas replied that the staff has only considered the front and side of the building
for set-back requirements.
Board member Köster asked if there has been any consideration to build a third
structure on the site.
Mr. Carvalho replied that a third structure is not a viable because the minimum number
of required parking spaces is determined by the building's square footage.
Josh Eisenhut, Armstrong Development, stated that the project is an opportunity to
improve CVS' business and also correct some issues.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that since the site plan significantly deviates from
other stores, and building is occurring in a historic downtown, then the project should fit
into the location.
Mr. Eisenhut replied that in order for the project to be viable, the business has to be
profitable.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked what the square footage of the current CVS store is
and whether it is comparable in size to the proposed location
Mr. Eisenhut replied that the current store is just over 16,000 square feet, and the
proposed site is 15,000 with the flat-iron design or 14,500 with the square design.
Carol Gottstein, during public comment stated that the name ""Alameda Station"" seems
boring, and she is concerned that it will be as resented as the name ""Alameda Towne
Center."" She suggested renaming the development to ""Tilden Station"" or ""North of
Lincoln Station,"" something that would be more geographically identifiable.
Mr. Keating replied that the name ""Alameda Station"" commemorates the historic
Alameda train Station, which was located at that site.
Board member Knox White stated that it is an exciting project but he wants the Board to
be mindful of the plans that are being approved so he is not willing to fast-track the
approval process.
Board member Köster stated he also met with Foley Street Investments. He said an
entrance on the corner of Park and Tilden makes sense in terms of Park Street events.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated the development needs to be pedestrian friendly
and accessible by automobile.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 14
May 30, 2012",14471,
18642,"Mr. Carvalho replied that some medical insurance providers do not cover both
Walgreens and CVS.
Mr. Keating stated that CVS is motivated to move to this site because a more efficient
operation can be developed.
President Zuppan asked if the flat iron design on the corner has been discussed with
Public Works, citing a similar issue with a nearby building.
Mr. Carvalho stated that the corner radius issues have been discussed with Public
Works who have determined that a 25 foot radius is preferred for pedestrian safety and
traffic flow.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the drivers parked in the handicapped spaces for
PAD A (CVS) will be backing out into the line of traffic created by entering from Park
Street.
Mr. Carvalho stated that the drivers will back out of the handicap spaces into that traffic.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she has concerns with cars backing out of
spaces directly into the traffic entering off of Park Street because Park Street is so busy.
Mr. Carvalho replied that disabled parking spaces cannot be made in the public right-of-
way. Handicapped parking is also close to the door to prevent and additional area of
traffic having to be crossed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the handicapped parking spaces can be
moved closer to the door nearest the parking lot if the drive-through pharmacy window
is removed.
President Zuppan asked if a Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA) has a term, like a
lease.
Mr. Carvalho replied that usually REAs are in perpetuity; however some terminate after
a certain number of years. He stated that that they are attempting to negotiate an REA
with a term of 15-20 years
Board member Knox White reported that he met with the applicants. He stated that he
is struggling with the request to approve inactive windows along Park Street.
Board member Köster asked staff what street the actual front of the building faces.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 14
May 30, 2012",14471,
18641,"President Zuppan stated that with Form-Based Code, if something were to happen,
whatever was in that building could come out and something else could go in. She
asked if a tenant wanted to replace the window box with a real window, if the boxes are
constructed in such a way to allow that.
Mr. Carvalho replied that the window boxes are real windows and the boxes can be
taken out and used as either a ""real window"" or as doors.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Park Street door will always be a door that is
accessible or if that door will serve solely as an emergency exit.
Mr. Carvalho replied that Foley Street Investment prefers that as a condition of approval
for the use permit, that the two doors remain unlocked and accessible during business
hours.
President Zuppan clarified that the windows along Park Street can be converted into
doors later on if necessary.
Mr. Carvalho replied in the affirmative.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the use and design need to fit the street and
since this is a downtown street, pedestrians should be able to see the activity going on
inside the business and not business advertisement.
Board member Knox White asked if the windows that face the Pacific Street ""cut-
through"" are real or if they are box windows.
Mr. Carvalho answered that those are box windows.
Board member Knox White asked if the only natural light available in the building is
coming through the two doors.
Mr. Carvalho replied that natural light is provided by the doors as well as the top of the
arched windows.
Jamie Keating, Foley Street Investment, encouraged the Board to look at the project is
an entire block, starting at the Marketplace and extending down to the new CVS
building.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the drive-through pharmacy window is not a
foregone conclusion and the parking circulation would be improved by removing the
drive-through. She stated that CASA limits drive through businesses because of
exhaust and fumes generated from idling motors.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 14
May 30, 2012",14471,
18640,"Mr. Falduti addressed the concerns raised by the Board in regards to the actual
aesthetics of the signs stating they would have graphics redesign based on the boards
comments.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to approve the sign program as amended.
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Board member Burton, during discussion, stated he will vote ""no"" to express his
displeasure with some of the graphics.
President Zuppan asked staff if the changes made to the signs will come back for
review.
Mr. Thomas answered that the Board can approve the signs as is, or approve the
motion on the floor.
President Zuppan clarified that if the signs are changed in response to Board
comments, then the signs will come back for review.
Board member Knox White stated he will vote for the motion.
Motion carried five - one; no abstentions. (Ayes: Zuppan, Henneberry, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Knox White, Köste; : Noes: Burton)
9-D Review and Comment on Proposal for 1600 Park Street-Applicant: Foley Street
Investments LLC. The Planning Board will review and comment on a proposal to build
two new retail buildings at 1600 Park Street.
Board member Burton recused himself
Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas gave a brief presentation.
Ken Carvalho, Foley Street Investment, gave a brief presentation.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft reported that she met with partners from Foley Street
Investments and stated that not every tree in the Master Tree Plan needs to be used.
Mr. Carvalho stated that the intent is to group trees together.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 14
May 30, 2012",14471,
18639,"Board member Henneberry stated the name change is a step in the right direction. He
explained that the ""log-like"" posts are called piles and they hold up docks, so they never
go out of style.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated she disagrees with board member Köster and Ms.
Gottstein and opposes the A-frame signs. She explained that while on a site visit she
observed that the A-frame signs impeded the area where shoppers are walking and
present a tripping hazard.
President Zuppan stated that she likes that the signs tie into the shoreline and the
beach, and she likes the trellising, which is classic in appearance and seen throughout
the facility.
Todd Falduti, Center Manager Jamestown Properties, stated that all non-approved
signage such as literature racks, bug-wing signs, and a-frames were creating visual
clutter and were removed from use when Jamestown Properties gained control.
Board member Knox White stated he wants to make sure that the lights are lit from a
direction to prohibit reflection.
Mr. Falduti replied that they will work with Aero Signs to help address technical issues
such as light reflection.
Board member Knox White clarified that the A-frame signs are for special events only.
Mr. Falduti replied in the affirmative stating that Jamestown owns the signs, and that
retailers must request use of the signs for a specified amount of time (i.e. a 3-day sale).
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if there is a limit to how many A-frame signs will be
placed around the center at any given time.
Mr. Falduti replied that the center has not yet specified a limit to the amount of A-frame
signs. He estimates that no more than 20 signs will be provided and that should
accommodate the sales, special events, directions, etc. He stated he would like to have
the flexibility to provide the signage as needed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified if there will be specifications on how far away
from the buildings the A-frame signs can be.
Mr. Falduti, stated that new pylon signs have been placed at all the entrances, which
directs people into the center.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she can now support the A-frame signs.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 14
May 30, 2012",14471,
18638,"Vice President Burton suggested that the language state a 5 foot setback with provision
that the interface at Webster Street can be occupied by a piece of building that is
designed to be proportional to the building and does not obstruct the windows on the
adjacent building. He stated that the building should not touch the front porch of the
house and both buildings need breathing room in order to fit well on their lots. He
reiterated that he wants to leave staff and the architect a lot of flexibility to properly work
through the set back.
Board member Knox White affirmed that the intent in the motion is to allow staff and the
architect the flexibility to build within the 5 foot setback, while protecting the lighting and
windows on the adjacent property.
Board member Köster stated he accepts the clarifications to second the motion.
Motion carried 6 - 0; no, abstentions.
Mr. Thomas stated, the zoning text amendment and the appeal will move forward to City
Council. Staff will work with the application for the design review process and will bring
the design review application for board approval.
President Zuppan thanked Mr. Hoy for his flexibility and thanked Laura Ajello for her
hard work.
9-C 2130 South Shore Center PLN12-0021 - Applicant: Jamestown Properties
-
Amendment to the Sign Program for South Shore Center. The Planning Board will hold
a public hearing to consider an amendment to the existing sign program at 2130 South
Shore Center (formerly known as Alameda Towne Center)
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave a brief presentation.
Vice President Burton commented that the dock or ""shore-like"" design of the signs does
not have any relation to the actual design of the buildings.
Board member Knox White stated that he would like to see that the floodlights don't
reflect back into the residential buildings across the street.
Carol Gottstein, during public comment stated, that A-frame signs are helpful for people
who have a hard time walking or are disabled. She requested that the A-frame signs be
used or an alternative sign at pedestrian level be.
Board member Köster stated he is impartial to Exhibit A the post-sign. He concurred
with Vice President Burton stating the Exhibit B signs seem dated and inappropriate.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 14
May 30, 2012",14471,
18637,"Board member Knox White stated that Plan B1 is the preferred option to provide
clearance for the windows and suggested that setbacks be required specifically where
the adjacent buildings windows are, and not the entire length of the property.
Board member Köster asked if the residential building next door, which is historic, can
be torn down, and inquired if it's owner has spoken with staff regarding the project.
Mr. Thomas stated that the building is historic and there is a demolition process for
historic properties.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Board's direction to staff, when bringing this
back for review, should include the landscaping plans.
Mr. Thomas stated that commercial buildings on the main corridor are reviewed and
approved by the Planning Board and that the landscaping will be included in the plans
when staff presents the design review to the Board. He clarified that the only reason
staff suggested that the board not review the design again is because the board has
reviewed the plans twice.
Board member Knox White motioned to approve the staff recommendation with the
flexibility that Plan B1's design be allowed to explore the ""bulb outs,"" or other design
options around the wing-walls to protect the windows and lighting of the house next
door, that landscape plans be included in the design review plans, and that the design
be brought back to the Board for approval.
Board member Köster seconded the motion.
Vice President Burton stated that the Board needs to be very careful with how specific
staff direction is in regards to the ""bulb-outs"" and that the architect needs flexibility. He
stated that staff and the architect have a good sense of what the Board wants and
doesn't think that the Board needs to be very explicit in their direction to staff and the
architect.
Board member Knox White replied that it is important that the Board be explicit in their
direction, because Plan B1 has a 5 foot setback. He stated that If the Board asks staff
to look at building within the 5 foot setback; it is confusing to make a recommendation
for a setback without saying its okay to ""play around"" in the setback a little bit as long as
the spirit of the purpose for the 5 foot setback is achieved.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 14
May 30, 2012",14471,
18636,"Mr. Thomas answered that guidelines are not required to approve a project, but findings
with supporting evidence are required.
Board member Köster asked what the actual side yard setback for the house on
Webster Street is.
Mr Thomas responded that the side yard setback is approximately three feet and
definitely fewer than five feet and the setback for the front yard is less than 20 feet.
Dave Franklin, property owner on Buena Vista, during public comment stated that he
would prefer to see plan A1.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was pleased to see the project come back and
thanked the architect for presenting four plans for review. She stated she concurs with
staff and prefers Plan B1 (Option 2).
Board member Knox White stated he will support either Plan A1 or Plan B1. He stated
that before choosing a plan, the Board really needs to think about what they would like
to see on Webster Street.
Board member Köster stated he agrees with the wording of the text amendment and
prefers Plan B1 with at least a 5 foot setback. He stated he would like to see another
option showing the extension to the street while keeping the 30 foot elevation.
Vice President Burton thanked the architect and applicant for agreeing to the
continuation and staff for working through the process. He stated he agrees with the
text amendment, stating it gives adequate flexibility.
President Zuppan concurred with the comments by the Board. She expressed concern
regarding pedestrian safety for customers walking from the pump to the convenience
store and having to walk in front of the Webster Street entrance.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the circulation of vehicles and if
they are able to enter and exit from Webster Street.
Mr. Hoy responded that they have not finalized the circulation pattern with Public Works
for entering and exiting the station.
Mr. Thomas stated currently the gas station can be entered from Webster Street.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated, pedestrians will have to be cognizant of vehicles.
President Zuppan clarified that her concern is that the pedestrian safety between the
pump and the convenience store is addressed.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 14
May 30, 2012",14471,
18635,"6.A. Future Agendas
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of upcoming
projects.
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Anyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by
submitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the five-minute time limit.
NONE
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or
adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is
received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by submitting a speaker
slip for that item.
NONE
9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
9-A 1716 Webster Street. Design Review and Zoning Text Amendment- PLN10-0153 -
Delong Liu. Alteration of a gas station/convenience store use in the C-C, Community
Commercial Zone. Proposed project includes a proposed zoning text amendment to
allow reduced setback requirements for gas station convenience stores and Design
Review for the construction of a new 2,575 sq ft convenience store with reduced off-
street parking.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked when the appeal will go to City Council.
Mr. Thomas answered in July, and he will advise the Board of the precise date.
Board member Knox White asked if the Zoning Amendments are adopted by City
Council will the City will retain the ability to require an applicant to abide by certain
requests, i.e. maintain a certain setback or a specific building height, even if the original
drawing is in compliance with the zoning amendments.
Mr. Thomas replied that the City does retain a certain amount of control, via the design
review process.
Board member Knox White asked if the City has sufficient design guidelines on Webster
Street to insist that an applicant adhere to certain requirements by the Board and staff.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 14
May 30, 2012",14471,
18634,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2012
1. CONVENE
7:03 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE: Board Member Henneberry
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board members
Ezzy Ashcraft, Henneberry, Knox White; Köster (arrived at 7:10
p.m.)
4. MINUTES:
Minutes from the Regular meeting of April 9, 2012
Board member Henneberry motioned to approve minutes as amended
Board member Burton seconded motion
Motion carried 4-0, 1 abstention, Board member Knox White
Minutes from the Regular meeting of April 23, 2012
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to approve minutes as amended
Board member Henneberry seconded motion
Motion carried 5-0, 1 abstention, Board member Knox White
Minutes from the Regular meeting of May 14, 2012 (Pending)
5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager stated that the applicant for item 9D has
requested to be moved up on the agenda.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked where the agenda item would be moved to.
President Zuppan answered that the placement of the item depends on the board
member who makes the motion.
Board member Knox White motioned to re-order the agenda items to the following: 9A,
9C, 9D, and 9B.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded motion.
Motion carries 5-0, no abstentions.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 14
May 30, 2012",14471,
18633,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
a. None
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Claudia Young
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 5, 2017.
Page 7 of 7",14471,
18632,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
RRAC decisions to be binding for tenant-initiated non-exempt unit cases
Add language to Section 6.58-75 (D) that states a rent increase request is considered
closed and withdrawn from the RRAC process when the Program Administrator
receives an agreement between a tenant and landlord concerning the amount of the rent
increase.
7.b. PUBLIC COMMENT
Erick Strimling: Speaker stated that he has never seen the mediation process work at a
Committee meeting. He noted that many tenants and landlords are exhausted by the
process. He explained that mediation is a well-defined term and should be facilitated
by a professional prior to the Committee meeting. He stated many tenants feel
pressure to sign rent increase agreements. He noted that tenants are often hesitant to
submit requests for rent increase reviews before RRAC because they do not want to
risk the relationship with their landlord. He suggested that staff always explain
options to each tenant and landlord in separate meetings prior to any mediation. He
stated that tenants should not be penalized for selecting a month-to-month option.
Additionally, he emphasized that data is needed and the terms of agreements for all
cases submitted to the Program Administrator should be public information.
Toni Grimm: Speaker stated that she appreciates the time and thoughtfulness of the
Committee. She expressed disappointment that the Hearing Officer's criteria was
not added to the Committee's criteria. She stated that the same criteria should be
applied to each case.
Ed Paul: Speaker thanked the Committee for their work. He stated that the Committee
process appears to be working. He noted that the process seems to be addressing
the situation when an excessive rent increase is reported.
Motion and second for the following recommendations (Schrader and Griffiths). Approved by
unanimous consent.
Mediation be offered and encouraged prior to the RRAC meeting
RRAC decisions to be binding for tenant-initiated cases with non-exempt units
Add language to Section 5.58-75 (D) that if the Program Administrator receives an
agreement between a tenant and landlord regarding a rent increase, then the case is
considered closed and withdrawn from the RRAC process.
Staff clarified that these recommendations will be sent to the City Attorney and will be
presented to City Council.
Motion and second for Chair Sullivan-Sariñana to present the Committee's recommendations
at the City Council meeting. (Griffiths and Schrader). Approved by unanimous consent.
8. MATTERS INITIATED
Page 6 of 7",14471,
18631,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Member Schrader stated that this is not related to the Committee's role. Staff clarified that
any Committee member can email their recommendations as a private citizen to the City
Attorney's Office.
No recommendation from the Committee.
6. The Rent Review process and the Hearing Officer can be used to delay a rent increase as long
as possible. Should we recommend changes?
Staff clarified that no case has been appealed and reviewed by the Hearing Officer.
No recommendation from the Committee.
7. Should language be added to clarify when a case is withdrawn from the RRAC process?
Member Schrader recommended that the Ordinance clarify there is no RRAC review of
rent increase submissions when an agreement between tenant and landlord is reached prior
to the RRAC meeting.
Member Griffiths and Chair Sullivan-Sariñana agreed it should be clear that the Committee
does not make decisions on rent increases when the tenant and landlord have already
reached an agreement.
The Committee recommended to add language to section 6.58-75 (D) that states a rent
increase request is considered closed and withdrawn from the RRAC process when the
Program Administrator receives an agreement between a tenant and landlord concerning
the amount of the rent increase.
8. Should language be added to require all data on rent increase submissions to be shared
publicly?
Member Friedman stated that the phrase ""terms of agreement"" in section 6.58-75 (D)
indicates that the exact terms of an agreement must be reported to the Program
Administrator. Member Schrader added that data collection is an important part of the
Ordinance.
Staff clarified that currently any private agreement between tenant and landlord must
state the terms of agreement by indicating a percentage range: 0-5%; 5.1-10%; or above
10%. Staff reports of all rent increase submissions are available on
www.alamedarentprogram.org
No recommendation from the Committee.
Staff summarized the Committee's recommendations:
Professional mediation be offered and encouraged prior to the RRAC meeting
Page 5 of 7",14471,
18630,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
they have power to challenge increases of 5% or less because the Committee's decision is
non-binding. He recommended that the Committee have binding authority for all non-
exempt unit cases.
Member Schrader agreed and clarified that state law prevents municipalities from making
binding decisions for certain units. He agreed it would be positive for the Committee to
have binding authority on all non-exempt units, rather than being seen as a procedural
process for increases of 5% or less.
Member Friedman agreed with the previous statements. He added that currently he believes
a landlord can work around a Committee recommendation of less than 5%. He explained
that if a landlord disagrees with a Committee recommendation of less than 5%, the landlord
could rescind the current notice and serve a new notice equal to 5%, which would not
receive a binding decision by the Committee.
Staff stated that removing the rent increase percentage threshold for binding decisions may
increase the Committee's caseload and additional staffing may be necessary.
Member Schrader stated he would prefer to review those cases, even if it meant an
increased caseload. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana agreed.
The Committee recommended that the Committee have binding authority for any non-
exempt unit initiated by a tenant.
4. In some situations, two rent increases are offered simultaneously. This requires review if at
least one offer is above 5%. Should lease options be limited?
Member Schrader stated that the RRAC should not limit lease options. Chair Sullivan-
Sariñana noted that offering a large month-to-month rent increase option is a way to
pressure tenants into accepting a 5% rent increase.
Staff clarified that multiple lease options are generally only seen at one property and month
to month options are directed towards corporate leases. Staff explained that tenants
receiving more than one rent increase offer are contacted by the Program Administrator.
However, staff has found that most of these tenants do not contact staff back and usually
accept one of the rent increase offers or chose to vacate the unit.
No recommendation from the Committee.
Motion and second to take a five minute break (Sullivan-Sariñana and Schrader). Unanimously
approved.
5. Should the Ordinance allow short-term rentals without the offer of a one year lease option?
Page 4 of 7",14471,
18629,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
spent on mediation and focus more time on questions and determining the Committee's
decision. He reiterated that Committee members are not professional mediators.
Staff explained the Program Administrator's role in processing rent increase submission
through the scheduling of the rent increase review before the RRAC.
The Committee recommended that mediation and the RRAC process be defined in the
Ordinance. Additionally, the Committee recommended that optional mediation prior to the
RRAC meeting be encouraged.
2. Should rent increase criterion from Section 6-58.125 be included in the Committee's criteria
when deciding a rent increase?
Member Friedman listed the criteria in Section 6-58.85 (B) under consideration by the
Committee in determining rent increases. He stated that ""just and reasonable rate of return""
should be more clearly defined and that market rate should not be included in the
Committee's consideration. He suggested adding ""maintenance of Net Operating Income
for the Base Year as adjusted by inflation over time provides a Landlord with a just and
reasonable rate of return on property"" to the Committee's criteria.
Member Schrader noted that the flexibility of the Committee's criteria is important;
especially in cases when a landlord had not raised rent for many years. Member Griffiths
agreed that more flexibility is better. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that the Committee
and the Hearing Officer play different roles. Hence, different criteria should be considered.
No recommendation from the Committee.
3. Should 5% remain the threshold for a Landlord Request for Rent Review? Should increases of
5% or less receive a binding decision from the Committee?
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that 5% is an arbitrary threshold and has a significant impact
on the negotiation. He expressed concern that this threshold limits discussion because many
landlords expect at least a 5% increase.
Staff clarified that tenants can contest rent increases of 5% or less by contacting the
Program Administrator.
Member Griffiths noted that many cities relate rent control to inflation. Member Schrader
stated that the Bay Area's housing cost inflation is 4.8%. Member Schrader also noted that
the 5% threshold affects what data is collected more than it affects whether or not a case
comes before the Committee.
Member Griffiths noted 5% is a good threshold because it captures large rent increases,
rather than every increase. However, he expressed concern that the Committee has not seen
a tenant-initiated case for several months. He raised concern that the tenant may not believe
Page 3 of 7",14471,
18628,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
2017, is the same as the NOI in 2015, then the Landlord is receiving a fair return on
investment and no rent increase is necessary in order to receive a fair return on investment.
Q: Please explain the discussion of Debt Service?
A: Debt Service is referred to in 'Costs of Operation' and is excluded from a Landlord's
Costs of Operation. Costs of Operation is part of the Net Operating Income formula, i.e.,
gross revenues less the Cost of Operation.
Q: Please provide more clarify that Notices and Materials to be Provided to Current and
Prospective Tenants, (section 6-58.20) is a one-time requirement for existing tenants.
A: There is nothing in Section 6-58.20 to indicate or suggest that providing these materials to
a
current tenant must occur other than with the Landlord's first receipt of rent following
March 31, 2016. Since presumably Landlords have now received rent from the tenants who
were in the units at the end of March 2016, I am proposing to revise subsection B of Section
6-58-20 so that subsection A is applicable only for prospective tenants.""
Committee members discussed the Ordinance following Member Friedman's suggested outline:
1. Should mediation remain part of the Rent Review Advisory Committee meeting?
Member Friedman stated that he does not consider the RRAC process to be mediation.
Particularly, the Committee members are not professional mediators and the meetings are not
private. He raised concern that the process may place pressure on a tenant to sign an
unfavorable agreement. Friedman suggested that an advocate be present at meetings to inform
tenants there is no obligation to sign agreements. He suggested that an option for mediation
be offered prior to the Committee meeting.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana acknowledged that the Committee's dual role as mediator and
decision-maker is challenging. He noted that the Program Administrator is already offering
private mediation and this service is helpful. He also expressed the difficulty that often parties
attend the Committee meetings prepared to argue before a third-party decision maker and this
dynamic can make compromise difficult. Sullivan-Sariñana also addressed that there is an
uneven balance of power in a tenant and landlord relationship. He suggested that requiring
mediation prior to the Committee meeting may provide the tenant more support in the
situation.
Member Griffiths stated he believes the Committee's mediation role is useful. He expressed
concern that a mandatory mediation may place an unwarranted burden on one of the parties.
He recommended that private mediation prior to the Committee meeting remain optional.
Member Schrader stated that the Ordinance does not explicitly include the term ""mediation.'
Schrader considers mediation during the RRAC meeting useful because the parties are often
motivated to reach an agreement. He suggested that optional, professional mediation be
offered prior to the Committee meeting. Additionally, the Committee should reduce the time
Page 2 of 7",14471,
18627,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, January 24, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:24 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, and Schrader.
Absent: Vice-Chair Landess
Vacancy: None
RRAC Staff: Claudia Young
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Motion and second to add public comment as item 7-B (Schrader and Griffiths). Approved
by unanimous consent.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a.
Staff clarified that the Committee will not review cases at this meeting. Rather, this special
meeting is held for Committee members to discuss Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the
Rent Review Advisory Committee.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS
a. No public comment.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Committee members to discuss Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Vice-Chair Landess had submitted questions prior to the meeting. The City Attorney responded
to these inquiries and staff shared the input.
Q: Why is Base Rent Year defined as 2015?
A: Base Rent Year becomes relevant and important when calculating Net Operating Income
because a Landlord's Net Operating Income in any particular year is compared to the
Landlord's Net Operating Income in the Base Rent Year-2015--which was the year before
rent control went into effect. That is, there is a presumption that if a Landlord's NOI say, in
Page 1 of 7",14471,
18626,"10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
11-A 2016-3673
Subcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal
Design Ordinance
Board Member Burton gave an update on their recent meeting and that progress was
being made on the draft ordinance.
11-B 2016-3681
Subcommittee for Alameda Marina
*None*
Board Member Knox White said he met with the owners of Big O.
Board Member Köster asked if the color on the projector could be improved as the board's
holiday present.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Köster adjourned the meeting at 10:50pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 11 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",14471,
18625,"construction of an accessory structure that will have a three car garage and
unconditioned space designated as an artist studio. The proposed
accessory structure is approximately 880 square feet which is less than
40% of the required rear yard allowed for accessory structures per
Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-4.1(d). A certified arborist
has surveyed the existing Coast Live Oak trees and has provided a list of
protective measures to be administered during construction to protect the
health of the trees. The property is located within the R-1 (One-Family
Residence) Zoning District. Staff is requesting a continuance to the
Planning Board Meeting of January 9, 2017.
***Continued*
8. MINUTES
8-A 2016-3670
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 12, 2016
Board Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Zuppan
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Abstain: Knox White)
8-B 2016-3671
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 26, 2016
Board Member Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Curtis
seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
8-C 2016-3672
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 10, 2016
Board Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Mitchell
seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
8-D 2016-3678
Draft Meeting Minutes - June 27, 2016 - Revised
Board Member Knox White made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Zuppan seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Abstain: Curtis)
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2016-3573
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions
Staff Member Thomas summarized recent design review approvals.
9-B 2016-3574
Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development
Department Projects
Staff Member Thomas previewed future agenda items for 2017.
Approved Minutes
Page 10 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",14471,
18624,"like to see how they fit the strategies and what impacts they will have before judging what
is included in the plan. She said we focus a lot on the stick, making driving miserable. She
said somebody driving 70mph on Otis is a policing issue not a transportation issue. She
said making it impossible for them to get around is not the solution to our speeding
problems and we should hire more police if that is what it takes. She said she would like
to focus more on how to make transit easier, then people will be willing to pay for the
convenience. She said there is already a lot on the project list and discouraged adding
early steps for long term projects in the earlier phases of the list. She said she disagrees
about the safety and livability of Shoreline Drive.
Board Member Mitchell said that construction traffic in Oakland has been impacting traffic
in Alameda. He said we need a robust plan that has a sense of focus. He said we should
revisit the SF bound data for accuracy. He said causing more traffic to make things safe
from speeding is counterintuitive. He said we are on a flat island with moderate weather
and should look at biking even more as a mode of transportation.
Board Member Burton said the document needs to have a clear voice with concrete
actions to take. He said getting Oakland commuters out of their cars and into transit is the
obvious way to make a big difference. He said the other top item is to make drastic
improvement in the transit and bike infrastructure to get people to schools on the West
End. He asked if there was a way to tie the TDM plan to the Economic Development Plan.
He said the low/medium/high measurement was not adequate. He said each project
should have an estimate of how many cars it would take off the road. He suggested using
vehicle miles traveled to gauge success. He said everything in the plan should be tied
back to greenhouse gas reduction.
Board Member Sullivan said her issues have been covered and looks forward to the next
draft.
President Köster said the connections and timings of our transit is what will ease the
tension overall.
Board Member Knox White said that reducing lanes on Otis was not to create congestion,
but rather to make sure that you could only do the speed limit. He said that not incenting
something is not the same thing as using a stick. He said reducing parking on new
construction is reducing the incentive to drive, but not a stick like congestion pricing would
be.
7-C 2016-3677
Design Review-PLN16-0232 1208 Saint Charles Street- The Planning
Board will hold a Public Hearing to consider Design Review for a project
consisting of the demolition of a two car garage built prior to 1942 and the
Approved Minutes
Page 9 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",14471,
18623,"on the list have been in Alameda's plans for years and we are not finding much to add to
it. He said he would like to see what the experts think we should be doing instead of just
responding to what people are saying they want. He said he would like to see using TNCs
for paratransit rides come back on the list. He said BART to Alameda deserves its own
special category and does not belong in 8+ years. He said he is floored that the only short
term bike projects are two projects that should be done by now. He said he is not
convinced that Otis is the highest priority, but getting people across the Fruitvale Bridge
should be a top priority. He said some of the items on the list are not fleshed out enough.
He said there are some projects that are clearly not meeting the definition of TDM, like
improved freeway access. He said nobody ever complained about High St. but it is the
same width as the new Shoreline. He said liveability is not just how comfortable are you
when you are driving. He said we might want to eliminate the goal of getting people to San
Francisco and focus on getting people to BART.
Board Member Curtis said the solutions provided were good solutions. He confirmed that
the initial rankings are somewhat subjective and that they would develop benchmarks and
then revisit the rankings.
Board Member Zuppan said she was disappointed with the lack of detail and lack of
inclusion of items that received the most public input. She said the city told the business
community that they would study the free shuttle idea. She said it is not properly described
and not about getting people transbay. She said we need to stop focusing on getting
people off the island and need to focus on getting them used to using transit. She said an
in island shuttle would cast a wider net and be more effective at getting people to use
transit than just making new homeowners buy a bus pass.
Staff Member Ott said that item 18 is free bus service. She said that they can clarify the
idea of providing free bus service with ten minute headways is a good one but paying for
it will be very difficult. She said you would need a parcel tax or congestion pricing to pay
for it and that is why it is categorized as it is. She said staff does not think they can
accomplish it within eight years. She said they can create more nuance in their timeframes,
but they have to be realistic in projections.
Board Member Zuppan said they have many one off shuttles that can support a free
shuttle.
Staff Member Ott said they are working closely with AC Transit and the private shuttles to
make sure they are not undermining their public transit funding.
Board Member Zuppan said that it is not meant to undermine, but supplement AC Transit
service. She asked that the electric component of that service be included in the
description. She said this still seems like a list of all the things we already have. She would
Approved Minutes
Page 8 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",14471,
18622,"Board Member Sullivan said that it will be important to have good data and a means to
monitor travel habits.
The consultant said they have all the information available to them.
President Köster asked who is subsidizing the South San Francisco ferry service.
The consultant said it is funded through MTC bridge toll money.
President Köster asked if they study travel times when evaluating these options.
The consultant said that they do and that it is a very important factor. He said that is one
of the reasons for including things like express bus service and queue jump lanes. He said
having more than one transfer is another major factor in people's decision to drive or not.
President Köster opened the public hearing.
Brian McGuire said Bike Walk Alameda's regular and board members have participated
in this process. He said they are concerned about losing the Estuary Crossing Shuttle. He
said acknowledging greenhouse gas goals and subsequent funding sources is important,
not just people throughput. He said the long term projects have near term actions that
should be included in the list of projects. He said we should not wait for Alameda Point to
be built out to restripe Main St. with better complete street access to the ferry terminal. He
said improving freeway access in Oakland does not further the goals of the plan. He said
reevaluating parking requirements for new developments would be a cheap and easy way
to help alleviate congestion impacts.
Karen Bey said that it is important to include a water transit program for the northern
waterfront. She said each developer should be required to build water transit infrastructure
with their projects and put a water transit tax on the ballot. She said we need to use our
waterways to help us get around the island.
Helen Sause, Alameda Home Team, says they are concerned that all the development
designs seem to end at the water. She said they held a cross estuary panel to talk about
the issues and opportunities for developments along the estuary.
President Köster closed the public hearing.
Board Member Knox White said he thinks we made a mistake combining the Transit Plan
and TDM Plan. He said we should have a transit section and a TDM section as it moves
forward. He said he would like to have seen evaluations of the impacts of each project
before giving the thumbs up, rather than the other way around. He said almost everything
Approved Minutes
Page 7 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",14471,
18621,"Board Member Burton asked if there are specific actions identified for the transportation
awareness campaigns.
The consultant said they are looking at using the TMA to help with that item.
Board Member Burton asked what complete streets planning there is for Otis Dr.
Staff Member Payne said they have been receiving lots of complaints from residents about
high speeds on Otis and a need for traffic calming. She said they are considering a 4 to 3
road diet.
Board Member Curtis asked where on Otis Dr. we are seeing 70mph speeds.
Staff Member Payne said that they are seeing it between Westline and Grand.
Board Member Curtis said he lives off of Otis and that between 6:30am and 7pm there is
no way any car can get above 25 mph.
Board Member Mitchell asked if the consultants are working with Bike Walk Alameda and
received their correspondence. He suggested committing to working with them.
The consultants said they received the letter just before the meeting.
Board Member Sullivan said there are no transportation options for the ferry and no
parking plans. She asked how they are going to increase ridership if that is the case.
The consultant said that project #5 is a crosstown express bus service that would serve
the ferry terminal. He said they are looking for funding to make it happen as soon as
possible. He said WETA is working on access plans for both terminals and they want to
support that.
Staff Member Ott said they just added 100 parking spaces for Main St. and that the
Seaplane Lagoon terminal will have 400 parking spaces. She said Harbor Bay is more
complicated. She explained the multi faceted approach they are taking in trying to address
the parking situation at Bay Farm.
Board Member Sullivan asked how many Alamedans are using Uber to get to BART.
The consultant said they do not know, but that it is increasing and the companies are
creating new products to address price conscious commuters.
Approved Minutes
Page 6 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",14471,
18620,"Board Member Zuppan said there is a tradeoff between narrowing the streets and quality
of life. She asked how the other side of the safety coin is assessed and balanced against
Vision Zero goals.
The consultant said the NACTO guidelines are useful. He said each project has to be
evaluated on a case by case basis.
Board Member Zuppan said there is a cost to expecting constant vigilance. She confirmed
that congestion pricing meant charging people for going through the tubes and over the
bridges.
Board Member Knox White asked if someone who drives to BART would be included in
the 78% who took transit to SF in the survey.
The consultant said, depending on how they responded, they would likely be included in
the transit number.
Board Member Knox White said that would be a reason why focusing on transit for SF
commuters could still alleviate congestion at the crossings.
Board Member Mitchell asked how many people from Alameda are traveling to BART.
The consultant said it was around 2,000.
Board Member Mitchell said the lowest hanging fruit would be people driving to BART.
The consultant said BART ridership from Alameda actually decreased from 2008 to 2014.
He said Alamedans are switching to the Ferry and Transbay bus.
Board Member Mitchell asked if we are looking at a park and BART shuttle approach.
The consultant said that Lyft and Uber are filling some of that need. He said there is
already some informal park and ride going on with people parking near bus stops.
Board Member Burton asked what the current level of service is for using the ferry to get
your bike from Alameda to Oakland.
The consultant said it is the South SF ferry that provides the service a few times in the
morning and a few times in the evening. He said this might increase when the new Ferry
Terminal opens.
Approved Minutes
Page 5 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",14471,
18619,"7-B 2016-3675
Provide Comments on the Draft Strategies for the Citywide Transit and
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item.
Staff Member Ott and the consultants gave the staff presentation.
Board Member Zuppan asked how many people they need to get out of their cars to make
a difference.
The consultant said they are establishing the baseline and would be looking at what the
potential impacts of implementing these strategies would be.
Board Member Zuppan asked why we are focusing on the SF bound trips when it has the
fewest number of drive alone trips. She asked how many trips we need to remove from
the current conditions, before any new projects are completed, to solve our traffic
problems.
The consultant said that there are many outside factors that influence congestion, even if
they eliminate many trips, which makes targeting a specific number difficult.
Staff Member Ott said that the regional bottleneck (880) could still result in congestion in
Alameda even if this plan is successful. She said capturing SF bound commuters with our
new growth would help us mitigate our congestion because of the high transit usage for
those commuters.
Board Member Zuppan asked what the process was for assessing the effectiveness and
ease of implementation of different projects.
The consultants said they relied on their experience with these types of projects and are
incorporating input from staff and the community. He said that even with all that, there is
still some subjectivity in the evaluations.
Board Member Zuppan said she was confused about how autonomous vehicles rated as
more effective than a free shuttle would.
The consultant explained that they studied free bus service, but not the shuttle as
described. He said there is a lot of uncertainty around driverless vehicles and their
potential for impacting congestion.
Approved Minutes
Page 4 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",14471,
18618,"Karen Bey said she was excited about the plan. She said we need to improve the
permitting process for small businesses. She said we need to not forget about Park St.
and Webster St. She suggested bringing back a committee to help increase tourism.
President Köster closed the public hearing.
Board Member Zuppan said there is a lot of good work in this plan. She said she would
like to see greater clarity of the vision for the plan. She said the strategies were good but
the connection to the vision were weak.
Board Member Mitchell said the plan is very broad and needs some focus.
Board Member Knox White said the document is not ready to go to the City Council. He
said it feels like a statement of where we are today rather than where we want to be in ten
years. He said he is concerned with the reliance on subsidizing businesses to come here.
He said we should focus on resilience. He said we can attract one business with a hundred
employees or help one hundred businesses grow by one employee. He said we have
failed to serve and capitalize on our large Asian American population and being near
Chinatown and instead just do things like add another Safeway.
Board Member Curtis asked where are we considering the quality of life issues in these
plans. He said we are trying to put fifteen pounds of stuff in a five pound bag.
Board Member Sullivan said she would like to see more specificity of our goals.
Board Member Burton said the plan needs a clear voice if it is not going to just sit on a
shelf. He said we should focus like a laser on attracting jobs that fit our residents and
keeping their money on the island. He suggested using tourism to drive the brand of
Alameda in order to attract businesses instead of just visitors. He said we need to focus
on north Park St. in the plan.
President Köster reopened the public hearing.
Helen Sause said it is important for the city to direct the developments in the city in the
best way possible for the residents.
President Köster closed the public hearing.
President Köster said people know about parts of what Alameda has to offer and not the
whole package. He said we need to focus on our transit corridors and small businesses.
He said the Moscone Center is closing soon and we could capitalize off of the large spaces
available at Alameda Point.
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",14471,
18617,"Review Strategies Matrix and Provide Direction for Drafting the Economic
Development Strategic Plan (EDSP)
Staff Member Fonstein gave a presentation on the EDSP.
Board Member Burton asked how the matrix would drive the plan.
The consultant explained how the implementation actions would be developed after
getting board and council direction.
Board Member Curtis asked if the amount of building, cars, and traffic being added was
taken into account. He said the additional units and office space and businesses and
tourism we are proposing is changing the complexion of what Alameda is all about and
the congestion will drive people away.
The consultant said they did analyze the commute flows and found most residents leaving
the island in the morning and less incoming traffic. She said adding destinations in
Alameda would help reverse that pattern. She said they will be trying to integrate the
economic development plan to the TDM plan.
Board Member Zuppan said that the concerns expressed at the workshop centered
around maintaining a strong industrial maritime industry. She said the attendees strongly
supported making hotel meeting rooms available to the public.
President Köster asked if we track self-employed people in Alameda.
The consultant said their data does not track self-employed residents.
President Köster asked if AirBnB data is collected for Alameda.
Staff Member Fonstein said they are evaluating how to begin reviewing that information.
President Köster opened the public hearing.
Karen Boutilier said the city should make the permitting process easier for businesses.
She said we need to fix our transportation issues if we want jobs, visitors, and economic
activity. She said ""strategic planning is what you do when you don't know what to do.""
Dan Reidy, Harbor Bay Business Association, said the report contained some good ideas
for the business park. He said the city could better encourage new hotel development in
the Harbor Bay Business Park by communicating better with outside agencies.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",14471,
18616,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2016
1. CONVENE
President Köster convened the meeting at 7:01pm
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Burton led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Köster; Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell, Sullivan.
Board Member Zuppan arrived at 7:06pm.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
At Staff Member Thomas' request, President Köster moved a portion of Staff
Communications to the beginning of the meeting.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, gave an update on the evolving plans for the
Encinal Terminals site plan.
***Staff Communications***
Staff Member Thomas summarized the work that the board and staff completed in 2016.
Staff Member Tai gave a presentation on Planning Services work for 2016.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6-A 2016-3676
Use Permit Review for Smog Check Service at European Auto Repair -
PLN12-0230 - 1928 High Street - Applicant: Irman Turanovic. Six- month
review of a Use Permit for smog check service at 1928 High Street and
consideration of business hours on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
This project is categorically exempt from further environmental review
pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities.
Board Member Knox White made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Board
Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
7. REGULAR
AGENDA
ITEMS
7-A 2016-3674
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 11
Planning Board Meeting
December 12, 2016",14471,
18615,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:37pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
4",14471,
18614,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
preparation for April 19 PAC meeting. Gehrke answered clarifying questions. Staff
member Gehrke offered to research what year the Santa Rosa and Emeryville
Master Plans were written.
Public member Tina Blaine expressed frustration that there have only been 2 RFPs
for the Public Art Fund since 2016, commented that there has been a degree of
turn-over in the PAC, and expressed support for adjusting the public art
contribution rates to encourage contributions to the in-lieu Fund.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Secretary Butler updated the commission on small grants, and advised that all
previously-approved public art small grant pieces that were delayed due to COVID-
19 will receive an extension to the next fiscal year.
Staff member Gehrke provided the following updates:
The public art upcoming project report will be brought to the PAC 3 times per
year moving forward.
Construction of the foundations for the Rock Spinner and Mosaic Columns
located at Jean Sweeney Park is due to start next week.
Over 700 responses to the Dan Fontes Mural survey have been received which
will be shared with the PAC at the next meeting.
The working session to provide feedback for the existing PAC website will take
place at the April meeting.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Vice Chairperson expressed her regrets for the delayed arrival to the meeting.
Commissioner Farrell expressed appreciation for the Staff to provide reports to the
commission, and thanked the members of the public for their participation.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Public member Tina Blaine requested that the cap on small art grants be raised to
$5,000.00 to allow for larger projects.
Public member Tara Pilbrow asked when the next RFP for small art grants will be.
Secretary Butler confirmed that funding for small grants has been included the
2021-2022 FY budget request, dependent on PAC decision to solicit projects next
fiscal year.
10. ADJOURNMENT
3",14471,
18613,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
A motion to approve the attached resolution and conditions approving the ""Tidal
Arch Public Art Proposal"" by Commissioner Van Cleef, and was seconded by
Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners Van Cleef,
Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
Lois Butler noted for the record that Vice Chairperson Rush joined the meeting.
5-C 2021-672 Review and Approve Recommended Changes to the Public Art
Ordinance and Recommend Adoption by City Council
Staff member Gehrke presented the staff report on the recommended changes to
the Public Art Ordinance to be recommended for adoption by the City Council. A
summary of the recommended changes are as follows:
Require developers to declare their intention to install on-site artwork or
contribute to the Fund prior to receiving planning approvals, and clarify that,
after on-site artwork is reviewed and approved by the PAC, any change in
location will require PAC approval.
Clarify that the maintenance agreement shall be reflected in the conditions of
approval and recorded against the property prior to the issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy.
Remove the requirement that cultural arts grants can only go to non-profit
organizations.
Specify that City Council approval is needed only for Fund expenditures that
exceed the purchase authority of the City Manager.
Allow the use of public art funds for conservation and maintenance of public
art.
Allow the use of public art funds for deaccession of public art.
Gehrke answered clarifying questions and invited commissioner discussion.
Commissioner Farrell requested clarification that the intention is to remove the
$2000.00 cap from the ordinance and include the cap in future public art
guidelines. Staff clarified that this is the intention.
Tara Pilbrow suggested that people seeking small public art grants be allowed to
seek grants via fiscal sponsorship by non-profits.
Commissioners reviewed and discussed recommended changes.
A motion to approve the recommended changes to the Public Art Ordinance was
made by Chairperson Gillitt and seconded by Commissioner Van Cleef. Ayes:
Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef,
Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0.
5-D 2021-673 Review Master Plan Documents and Synergy Report in
Preparation for April 19 Public Art Commission Meeting
Staff member Gehrke provided an opportunity for initial public and commissioner
comments to the proposed Master Plan Documents and Synergy Report in
2",14471,
18612,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Commissioners Mark Farrell, Kirstin Van Cleef,
and Tierney Sneeringer. Vice Chairperson Liz Rush arrived late at 6:38pm.
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the
Commission.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2021-674 Review and Approve Draft Minutes December 21, 2020
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Farrell and
seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners Van
Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-675 Presentation by Alameda Fire Department on Public Art for Fire
Station 3/Emergency Operations Center
Fire Chief Rick Zombeck of the Alameda Fire Department provided an update on
the public art for Fire Station 3/Emergency Operations Center. The Fire Chief has
sought the remaining $150,000.00 funding needed to complete the public art
project in the 2021-2022 Fiscal Year budget request, and will update the PAC once
the budget has been approved and finalized. Commissioners asked clarifying
questions.
5-B 2021-671 Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and
Conditions Approving the ""Tidal Arch Public Art Proposal""
Staff member Gehrke presented the staff report on the recommendation to
approve the attached resolution and conditions approving the ""Tidal Ach"" public
art proposal. Artist Adrian Segal made a statement about her inspiration and
intention for the art piece. Staff member Gehrke and Artist Siegel answered
clarifying questions from commissioners.
Public member Morgan Bellinger requested that any anti-skateboarding measures
be rounded edges as opposed to raised metal brackets.
Commissioners discussed the proposed art.",14471,
18611,"(14-214) The City Manager announced a ceremony was held to honor the re-opening of
the Mif Golf Course today; urged everyone play the new course; announced a service
would be held on Memorial Day at 11:00 a.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(14-215) Mayor Gilmore announced that she attended the shopping center convention;
an announcement about potential retailers would be made sometime soon.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18610,"property tax generated from the site, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point responded in the affirmative; stated the special tax revenue budget outlined in the
plan requires each employer or resident association to submit a compliance strategy to
demonstrate how the subsidized services would be used.
Expressed concern over applying the plan to the Del Monte project; suggested the
entire City be engaged; stated the Plan does not have teeth: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda.
Stated driving through the Tube is difficult now; discussed antiques fair traffic: Anne
McDonald, Alameda.
***
(14-213) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing past 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Noes: Councilmembers
Ezzy Ashcraft and Tam - 2.
***
Councilmember Tam stated the speaker concerns are well-founded; Alameda has the
second highest bus ridership next to Berkeley; the City has a good culture with a lot of
promise in the TDM; over time, people will be able to see how the TDM works with the
changing public transit opportunities.
Councilmember Daysog stated there are specific ways to deal with fulfilling goals and
obligations; when it comes to generating and capturing the value of Alameda Point, a
portion of the future value might be reserved for capital intensive improvement projects;
that he hopes to see a change in culture.
Mayor Gilmore stated when goals are not met, there should be something in place to
enforce people to change behavior until another plan can be created to meet the goals.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point concurred with the Mayor; stated the
parking management strategy is designed to discourage driving by increasing price and
reducing supply; the strategy is not intended to be punitive, but in event things are
failing, the City Council maintains control; ultimately Council controls land disposition
and development rights and can make different decision on how to develop the
property.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18609,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the system of data collection itself be
hacked or compromised, to which the Police Chief responded he did not know and
would check with NCRIC.
Councilmember Chen suggests a weekly checklist to make sure equipment is working
properly, and has not been tampered with.
Mayor Gilmore stated the equipment must have a regular maintenance schedule.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether a checklist could be added to the regular
maintenance schedule, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he leaves it to the City Manager and Police Chief on
how to convey information to the Council.
Mayor Gilmore moved approval of directing the City Manager to give direction to the
Police Chief to modify the ALPR policy to include: 1) audits every six months, 2) regular
equipment maintenance, 3) report of exception to six-month retention, and 4) removal of
stationery cameras from the policy.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(14-212) Recommendation to Approve the Transportation Demand Management Plan
for Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how management would make necessary changes if
a certain approach does not work.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the Transportation
Management Association (TMA) is comprised of City staff, consultants, and a technical
committee; stated the City Council is still in charge; once a TMA is formed, the bylaws
would mandate program goals and objectives; Council ultimately controls the pace of
development; the intent of the TMA is to make sure the project is successful.
Councilmember Daysog stated the TDM is a great forward step for Alameda Point
which changes the behavior, culture and lifestyle of residents and employers; suggested
future residents and employers be educated with a 20-minute discussion.
Councilmember Chen stated that he supports the plan; inquired whether it is too early to
determine if the TDM currently in place at Alameda Landing is working, to which the
Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the transit subsidies are in addition to the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18608,"Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation and giving direction
to the Police Chief.
The City Manager stated the action to give direction needs to be voted on by the entire
Council.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council should make two separate motions: 1) approval of the
staff recommendation, and 2) giving direction to the Police Chief.
Councilmember Tam amended the motion for approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog stated voting on this matter is following through with his
commitment to arm APD to deal with crime; seconded the motion.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she concurs with her colleagues; she appreciates privacy
concerns; safeguards are in place; smart phones have GPS tracking; license plates are
already out in the public; commended APD for being proactive in holding community
forums.
Councilmember Chen stated that he concurs with the Mayor; the ALPR is a tool to
increase the effectiveness of the APD; requested a daily checklist to ensure the
equipment is not being tampered with; requested a copy of the audits; hopefully,
monthly audits will reassure community of privacy.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Police Chief would agree to more
frequent audits initially.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Gilmore requested a description of an audit.
The Police Chief responded that he does not have knowledge of a ALPR data audit, but
can describe a similar audit APD conducts; stated a typical audit involves reviewing
information on the access to the data: who accessed the data, when, where, and why; if
there are any blanks, there will be an investigation; further stated not everyone in APD
will have access to the information, not even himself; he has not determined which staff
will have access.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the audit process is automated and would not
take staff time.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the process is automated, but the
computer will not know if the person accessing the information is violating the policy,
human verification is needed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18607,"Councilmember Tam inquired how many officers is APD down, to which the Police Chief
responded six.
***
Councilmember Chen left the dais at 9:35 p.m. and returned at 9:37 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the percent of data retained in the six-month
period could be tracked, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Police Chief stated personal or
identifying information is not collected when a license plate is scanned.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the APD would address erroneous license plate
reads.
The Police Chief responded Officers would follow required steps, including visual and
dispatch confirmation; stated counter-measures are already being developed against
the ALPR technology; staff would be relied upon to take the extra verification steps.
Councilmember Daysog concurred with the Police Chief, stated the ALPR technology is
not on autopilot, human involvement is required.
***
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:45 p.m. and returned at 9:47 p.m.
***
Stated the readers should delete information immediately; expressed concern over the
cost: Donna Eyestone, Alameda.
Expressed concern over other agencies having access to the information: Carol
Gottstein, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are adequate safeguards in place; the ALPR
devices will be used on public streets where there is no expectation of privacy; that she
supports the item with the modifications for a six-month retention, two audits per year,
and removal of fixed location cameras.
Councilmember Tam stated policies in other jurisdictions were not vetted by Councils or
the public; commended the Police Chief and staff on being transparent; moved
approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether proposed modifications could be included
as direction to the Police Chief and included in the motion.
The Police Chief responded that he would modify the policy.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18606,"(NCRIC) would customize record deletion to meet Alameda's retention policy.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Alameda Police Department (APD) would
share data with other regional surveillance programs such as Homeland Security, to
which the Police Chief responded in the negative; stated if APD enters an MOU with
NCRIC, other participating agencies would have mutual access.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Homeland Security has an MOU with
NCRIC, to which the Police Chief responded he does not know.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether APD intends to enter an MOU with NCRIC,
to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Police Chief stated the MOU with
NCRIC does not have to be approved by Council.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Police Chief stated participating
agencies would have equal rights and access to the system and can request data from
a specific time.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether NCRIC would retain a copy of the data
beyond the six-month retention, to which the Police Chief responded in the negative;
stated NCRIC will comply with APD's retention schedule.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether audits could be done every six months, to
which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated NCRIC audits once a year; if
Alameda does an audit at six months, audits would be every six months.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18605,"License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Systems and to Negotiate and Execute Related
Documents, Agreements and Modifications in an Amount Not to Exceed $80,000.
The Police Chief gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Chen inquired who provided the draft policy.
The Police Chief responded the draft policy was compiled by the Police Department;
stated the second version of the policy is more customized for Alameda.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the difference between the three- and four-
camera equipment is the ability to capture more license plates, to which the Police Chief
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Chen inquired where funds would go if not used for the ALPR.
The Police Chief responded the funds would go back to the fund balance.
The City Manager stated under the two-year budget, half of the funds would go back to
the fund balance, the other half can be used to purchase equipment or one-time capital
expense with City Manager approval.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Police Chief stated retention is
typically one year; the California Highway Patrol retention is three months.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the guiding framework to determine reasons to
keep data beyond the six-month retention period.
The Police Chief responded there are two key reasons: 1) a pending lawsuit, and 2) a
criminal investigation for an ongoing major crime; stated the draft policy recommends
deleting the data from the server and storing it on a separate device for reference on
active criminal cases.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she received a lot of emails from citizens
concerned that ALPR could be used for racial and religious profiling.
The Police Chief stated the Police Department would not use the ALPR for profiling; the
ALPR just captures license plates and cannot distinguish race, gender, ethnicity, or
religion; the draft policy specifies uses that are prohibited, including invasions of privacy,
harassment, intimidation, or personal use.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Police Chief stated the vehicles
with the ALPRs will be marked.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like public discussion regarding
cameras mounted on stationery locations to come back to Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18604,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the Public Works performance
measure ""percent of departments that qualify as green businesses"".
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded the Alameda County
Environmental Services Department evaluates private businesses and government
agencies on recycling, composting, water and energy usage; stated the business
meeting a higher standard are Green Certified; the measure applies to each City
department.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Recreation and Parks Department does not
measure the number of programs offered, number of program participants, and percent
of change in participants similar to the Library.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the focus was more on revenue and
expenditures; stated the Department considered including number of participants, but
participants can vary and is not always the best measurement; that she could add the
number of programs and activities offered as a measure.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Attorney title should include Risk
Management, to which the City Attorney responded Risk Management falls under City
Attorney.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Police and Fire Departments measure of
cost of personnel per capita include salaries and benefits, to which both the Police and
Fire Chiefs responded in the affirmative.
Discussed the public computers at the library and the website; stated all meetings
should be listed on one calendar: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.
Councilmember Chen moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog stated he is pleased with the benchmarks and the measures
are a great benefit for residents.
The Assistant City Manager acknowledged Nancy Hetrick of Management Partners;
stated Ms. Hetrick will start the staff training phase after Council approval of the
Performance Measures.
The City Manager stated the performance measure process will begin Jan 1, 2015 and
will not be used as an evaluative tool for three years.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(14-211) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Purchase
Agreement with Vigilant Solutions for Four, Vehicle Mounted, 3-Camera Automated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18603,"- 5.
Thanked the Council for approving the MOU: Bill Garvine, EUPA.
(14-209) Resolution No. 14925, ""Approving a Compensation Plan Between Alameda
Municipal Power Unrepresented Management Employees (UME) and the City of
Alameda for the Period Commencing February 23, 2014, and Ending December 26,
2015.' Adopted.
The Administrative Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Stated AMP's strategic plan emphasized the need to attract and retain employees;
thanked Council and staff for support; urged approval: Doug Draeger, UME.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
(14-210) Recommendation to Approve City-wide Bench Marks and Performance
Measures.
The City Manager and Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
The Assistant City Manager clarified the two exhibits; stated Exhbit 1 is the
Performance Measures presented to the Council in December which includes
comments from the Council and the community; Exhibit 2 is the Performance Measures
proposed for Council approval tonight.
Mayor Gilmore inquired how the number of website visits and the number of website
complaints are related.
The Assistant City Manager responded the number of website visits provides analytic
data regarding whether information on the website is being presented in a useful way;
stated the complaints are broad and are tracked differently.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the Public Works performance
measure ""percent of public service requests responded to in one business day"".
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded the measure
encompasses many different requests including reports of potholes, garbage on the
street, repairs needed; stated the focus is providing a substantive response and
acknowledgement to the requestor; the measure tracks acknowledging the requests,
not when they are remedied.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18602,"and Lighting District 84-2, Proposed Zone 8."" Adopted; and
(14-207 A) Resolution No. 14923,° Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring
Intention to Order Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing Notice of Public
Hearing on July 15, 2014, Island City Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District
84-2, Zone 8."" Adopted.
Councilmembers Chen and Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the stagnant rate of assessment is similar
for both Webster Street and Park Street, to which the Public Works Administrative
Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam inquired how many opportunities has Webster Street had to
increase the assessment.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded there was one
opportunity in 2007 which did not pass.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether changes have been made since 2007 that would
make the assessment more likely to pass.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
more information is available to the property owners and there is more outreach.
Provided background information; outlined service impacts due to lack of funds and
outreach efforts to property owners: Sandip Jariwala, Webster Street Business
Association.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
[Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]
(14-208) Resolution No. 14924, ""Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between the Electrical Utility Professionals of Alameda (EUPA) and the City of Alameda
for the Period Commencing February 23, 2014 and Ending December 26, 2015.'
Adopted.
The Administrative Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18601,"Fire Fighters (IAFF) Supplemental Retirement Plan and Trust Agreement for IAFF
Employees Hired After June 7, 2011 as Provided in the Memorandum of Understanding
between the City and IAFF.' Adopted.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft wanted the item to be summarized for the public.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(14-205) Resolution No. 14921, ""Appointing Cheryl Saxton as a Member of the Golf
Commission.' Adopted.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(14-206) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Third Lease
Amendment with Artemis Racing, USA for Twenty-Four Months with Two Additional
Options for Eighteen Months and Six Months in Building 12 Located at 1050 West
Tower Avenue, a Portion of Taxiway H and Access to the Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda
Point. Introduced.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she hopes the America's Cup will return to the San Francisco
Bay.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the location of the next America's Cup be
announced, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that she
does not know.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(14-207) Resolution No. 14922, ""Initiating Proceedings for a Proposed Increase in
Assessments, the Consolidation of Zones 2 and 3 into a Single Zone 8 (Webster
Street), and the Filing of an Assessment Engineer's Report for Island City Landscaping
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18600,"[paragraph no. 14-204 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*14-198) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings the Special Joint City Council
and Alameda Public Financing Authority Meeting; and the Regular City Council Meeting
Held on April 15, 2014. Approved.
(*14-199) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,652,786.50.
(*14-200) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for Cyclic Sewer Replacement Project, Phase 11, No. P.W. 06-13-16. Approved.
Mayor Gilmore and Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recused themselves.
Councilmember Chen moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-
3. Abstentions: Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 2.
(*14-201) Recommendation to Adopt of Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call
for Bids for Raised Median and Curb Bulb-Out Improvements on Grand Street at Wood
School, No. P.W. 03-14-16. Approved.
(*14-202) Recommendation to Approve Implementation Phase of Federal Transit
Administration Grant Funds for Improving Transit Access to and from Alameda Point.
Approved.
(*14-203) Resolution No. 14919, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Request to
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $125,917 in Fiscal
Year 2014/2015 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project
Funding and to Execute All Necessary Documents."" Adopted.
(*14-204) SUMMARY: Adopt a Resolution Establishing the International Association of
Fire Fighters (IAFF) Supplemental Retirement and Health Plan (Plan) and Trust
Agreement for IAFF Employees Hired After June 7, 2011 as Provided in the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and IAFF, including the ""Pick
Up"" by the City of Employee Contributions, Appoint Positions of Trustee and Plan
Administrator, and Delegate Authority to the Plan Administrator to Execute Plan
Documents.
Resolution No. 14920, ""Establishing the City of Alameda International Association of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18599,"Councilmember Daysog left the dais at 7:52 p.m. and returned at 7:54 p.m.
Councilmember Chen left the dais at 8:06 p.m. and returned at 8:08 p.m.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how long the project would take.
Mr. Garcia responded the traffic portion of the project will take approximately four years,
and the actual project will take five years.
Councilmember Daysog inquired when the 29th Street portion of the project would be
completed, to which Mr. Garcia responded approximately two and a half years.
Councilmember Tam inquired what the status is of the proposed High Occupancy
Vehicles (HOV) lanes.
Mr. Ignacio responded the Hegenberger Avenue and Davis Street projects will be
completed this year; the Davis Street to Marina Avenue project will be completed by the
summer of 2015.
Mr. Garcia added neither of the HOV projects will be impacted by the 29th Avenue
project.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether staff has notified Park Street businesses.
The Public Works Director responded the Park Street Business Association (PSBA)
attended a meeting on April 8th; stated staff will monitor and receive input from PSBA
regarding impacts.
Mayor Gilmore suggested leafleting businesses on Park Street.
The Public Works Director stated staff would do so.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(14-196) Robert Kirwin, Alameda Boy Scouts Troup 73, submitted information; outlined
the Eagle Scout project he would like to do to sand the wood at the bike bridge
entrance.
(14-197) Kevin Yee, Alameda, discussed the City's ordinance that addresses playing
sports in public streets; suggested amending the municipal code.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that the Plans and Specifications and Call for Bids for Cyclic
Sewer Replacement Project [paragraph no. 14-200 and the Resolution establishing the
International Association of Fire Fighters Supplemental Retirement and Health Plan
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18598,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - MAY 20, 2014- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(14-192) Proclamation Declaring May 19 to May 23, 2014 as Saint Joseph Notre Dame
High School Pilots Basketball Week.
Mayor Gilmore read the proclamation and presented it to Simon Chiu, Chris Pondok
and Don Lippi from Saint Joseph Notre Dame High School.
(14-193) Proclamation Declaring May 22, 2014 as Harvey Milk Day.
Mayor Gilmore read the proclamation and presented it to Dr. Henry Villareal and Gene
Kahane, Co-Chairs of the Harvey Milk Day Celebration.
Mr. Kahane presented the Councilmembers with posters from a School District contest
honoring Harvey Milk.
(14-194) Proclamation Declaring May, 2014 as Older Americans Month; and Mastick
Senior Center Annual Report.
Mayor Gilmore read the proclamation and presented it to Ron Limoges, Mastick Senior
Center Advisory Board President.
The Senior Services Manager and Mr. Limoges gave a Power Point presentation.
(14-195) Presentation by Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) on the
Interstate-880/23rd/29th Avenue Project.
Stefan Garcia, ACTC; Garrett Gritz, Design Consultant; and Val Ignacio, Scott McCrank
and Walter Wallace, CalTrans, gave a Power Point presentation.
***
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18597,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - MAY 20, 2014- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 5:31 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:04 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(14-189) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9), Case Name:
East Bay Regional Park District V. City of Alameda, Superior Court of the State of
California, Alameda County; Case No. RG12655685.
(14-190) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City
Initiating Legal Action).
(14-191) Conference with Legal Counsel; Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95);
Claimant: Earl Johnson; Agency claimed against: City of Alameda
Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Existing Litigation, Anticipated Litigation, and Worker's
Compensation, direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 20, 2014",14471,
18596,"Please contact the Recreation and Parks Executive Assistant at 747-7529 or
TDD/TTY number 522-7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request
agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of
the meeting.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Commission after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the
Alameda Recreation and Park Department, 2226 Santa Clara Avenue, during
normal business hours.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
5
Minutes - Thursday, August 13, 2009",14471,
18595,"D.
Other Reports and Announcements
None.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
None.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
Commissioner Brown stated that she was disappointed that there was not more
participation in the Friends of the Parks Longfellow Park Potluck Fundraiser.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
Commissioner Brown asked that the Recreation & Park Commission receive a copy of
the Recreation & Park Department budget which was recently approved and also asked
that the Director provide a review.
Commissioner Sonneman asked for the status of the Measure WW monies from East
Bay Regional Park District.
11.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE:
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Friends of the Parks, Inc. Meeting will be held on Thursday, September 10, 2009, at
6:30 p.m.
12.
ADJOURNMENT
SPECIAL NEEDS SERVICES
Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the
Recreation and Parks Executive Assistant at 747-7529 or TDD/TTY number 522-
7538 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to request an interpreter.
Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance,
please contact the Recreation and Parks Executive Assistant.
Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using
wheelchairs, is available.
Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print.
Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
4
Minutes - Thursday, August 13, 2009",14471,
18594,"Commissioner Kahuanui stated that originally the plans were sent back multiple times
due to specifications because a Commissioner was concerned about the aesthetics. At
that time the Commission went so far as to require that the contractor match the paint.
Commissioner Cooper asked for clarification on the placement of the equipment
building. PM Manager stated that the tower is off of the field on the third base side
where there is a light standard. The pole will go in right where the light standard is
currently located.
PM McDonald stated that these plans will still need to go to the Planning Commission.
Vice Chair Restagno asked if the pole extending up to 90 feet would affect the
aesthetics at all. PM McDonald stated no. You do not notice where other poles have
been installed so we do not anticipate that it would affect the aesthetics.
Commissioner Kahuanui stated that the Commission should also keep in mind that
there are already poles in the area to hold up the big nets that are higher then 90 feet.
The new light will help out in left field. PM McDonald stated that if this project goes
through there will be a funding source for Washington Park which is dedicated to that
park. This will also help us work out a financial plan to replace the lights.
M/S/C
SONNEMAN/KAHUANUI
(approved)
""Approve the concept of installing a cell tower in Washington Park.""
Approved (5):
Brown, Cooper, Kahuanui, Restagno, Sonneman
Absent (2):
Mariani, Ogden
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND
PARK DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
Commissioner Cooper asked if some of the groups have not been using the Godfrey
Park field. PM McDonald stated that there has been a problem with foul balls so
fencing was raised to a higher height. The location of home plate has been assessed
along with the baselines. The problems/concerns are being addressed.
B.
Recreation Division
No report at this time.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
The Mastick Open House will be held on Sunday, September 20, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00
p.m. Feel free to drop in.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
3
Minutes - Thursday, August 13, 2009",14471,
18593,"agenda.)
None.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Request from American Tower for Installation of Wireless
Telecommunication Facility at Washington Park - (Discussion/Action Item)
Tom Johnson, Trillium Consulting representative, provided the Recreation & Park
Commission with an update on their request to install a cell tower at Washington Park.
The pole height will be increased to be able to accommodate multiple carriers. Lighting
will remain at the same height as it is now which means that there will not be any light
pattern disturbance.
PM McDonald stated that this location was part of a large group of cell towers that were
supposed to be installed in the City, but the installation at Washington Park was never
done. In 2007, American Tower paid up on their past due lease and submitted plans
after working with the City and Mr. Lil Arnerich regarding the placement of equipment,
design, etc. At that time the plans were approved but again the project did not go
forward.
Tonight we are revisiting the project plans to see if we want to go further with
negotiating rent, etc.
Vice Chair Restagno asked how the current plan differs from the last plan that was
approved by an earlier Recreation & Park Commission. PM McDonald stated that the
only difference he sees is that there is a generator in the current plan and there was not
one in the old plan. Also, it is now being proposed as a multi-carrier site where as
before it was a single carrier with some room for expansion.
Commissioner Sonneman asked if the height of the pole was 90 feet on the original
plans. PM McDonald stated that is was 90 feet on the original plan. In 2005, Mr.
Arnerich insisted that the picnic area be installed which is still included in the plan.
Vice Chair Restagno asked how tall the current poles were in the area. PM McDonald
stated that the outfield light poles are approximately 80 to 90 feet. Currently, there is a
35 to 45 foot pole where they want to put a 90 foot pole.
Commissioner Brown asked if the multiple carriers would have different antennae's
exposed outside of the poles. Mr. Johnson stated that they would be contained within
the tower. What you will see is a pole that is slim all the way up with no variations.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
2
Minutes - Thursday, August 13, 2009",14471,
18592,"NOTICE OF MEETING
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, August 13, 2009
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
Room 360, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak
Street,
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice Chair Joe Restagno , Commissioners Lola Brown, Mike
Cooper, Jo Kahuanui, and Bill Sonneman
Staff:
John McDonald, Park Manager (PM)
Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM)
Absent:
Chair Terri Ogden and Commissioner Gina Mariani
Dale Lillard, ARPD Director
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
-
Approval of April 9, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting
Minutes.
M/S/C
BROWN/RESTAGNO
""That Minutes Recreation & Park Commission Meeting of April 9, 2009 be
approved.'
Approved:
Brown, Cooper, Restagno, Sonneman
Abstention:
Kahuanui
Absent:
Ogden, Mariani
-
Approval of May 14, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting
Minutes.
Tabled until September 2009 Meeting.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the",14471,
18591,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MAY 7, 2013- -6:00 P.M.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:17 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(13-191) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:
David Kapler V. City of Alameda, et al.; Superior Court of California, Alameda County,
Case No. HG11570933; Number of Cases: One (1)
(13-192) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City
Initiating Legal Action)
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Existing Litigation, direction was given to staff; and
Anticipated Litigation, direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 7, 2013",14471,
18590,"(13-234) Michael John Torrey announced an upcoming ham radio event and passed on
Mother's Day regards.
(13-235) Captain Scott Rhoads discussed activities at Nelson Marine.
(13-236) Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda, provided a handout and
expressed concern about Comcast not providing accurate contact information.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(13-237) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended the Economic Development
Alliance briefing along with Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Chen.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
May 7, 2013",14471,
18589,"space that is complimentary of a passive area, something like Greenwich Village where
everyone gathers by the arches; within striking distance of many residents in town, which
allows them to walk there and enjoy the environment.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she read the 17 pages of comments and was struck by the
ingenuity and creativity of residents and gratified by the willingness to step up to make the
open space happen; congratulated the community; stated the Recreation Director did a
great job of distilling everyone's ideas down to 5 or 6 things.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(13-232) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda Bicycle Facility Design
Standards that Supplements the Bicycle Master Plan Update; and
(13-232 A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Section 30.7.15a (Bicycle, Motorcycle and Pedestrian Facilities) of Article I (Zoning
Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Comply with the
City's Bicycle Facility Design Standards. Introduced.
The Transportation Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Stated the document, which still needs work, is ahead of the curve; provided examples:
Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation, including introduction
of the ordinance; noted de-linking car and bike parking spaces is moving in the right
direction.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the last whereas statement in the
ordinance.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(13-233) The City Manager announced business licenses can now be renewed on line;
announced the Consent Calendar tonight included grants totaling $3,176,300.00;
announced that the Council moved the July 16th City Council meeting to July 23rd.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
May 7, 2013",14471,
18588,"Wildlife Habitat (submitted information); Marisa Wood, Alameda Community Farm and
Wildlife Preserve; Valerie Landau, Alameda (submitted petition); Shaina Lerner, Alameda;
Rhiannon Theurer, Alameda; Jeremy Watts, Alameda; and Lucy Gigli, Alameda.
Discussed the benefits of urban agriculture and expressed support for mixed use, including
agriculture: Evan Krokowski, Oakland.
Suggested assessing the adjacent Marina Village business park: former Councilmember
Lil Arnerich, Alameda.
Urged habitat be protected for the current wildlife: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft commended the Recreation Director for an awesome job and for
making it look so effortless; stated that she is also grateful to all the public participants; the
open space runs between residential properties and the City needs to be respectful of the
property owners; the natural habitat is lovely and any use should preserve said qualities
and be appropriate for the setting, rather than converting the land into something else; the
City needs to be good stewards of the environment; an urban setting in almost 22 acres is
unusual and is due to the hard work of Jean Sweeney and a lot of other people; open
space does not come back once it is paved over.
*
*
(13-231) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the Bicycle Facility
Design Standards [paragraph no. 13-232 and the Business Improvement Area Report for
the Park Street Area [paragraph no. 13-227 after 10:30 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Tam concurred with Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; stated despite the
acreage, the property would not be suitable for an aquatic center and fields, which need
parking; said uses are more suitable in locations such as Alameda Point; the uses that are
coming forward: biking trails, open space, picnic areas, community gardens, playgrounds,
and walking paths make perfect sense; the land is essentially the Central Park of Alameda;
the City should be finding a way to secure funding to create such a sanctuary of open
space.
Councilmember Chen stated the name Jean Sweeney Open Space says it all; Ms.
Sweeney envisioned open space and her conceptual plan is very much in line with what
the community wants; he fully supports the recommendation; with the current
administration leadership, Alameda will find funding.
Councilmember Daysog thanked everyone for the hard work with a special thank you to
Mr. Sweeney and the late Mrs. Sweeney; stated that he likes much of what is discussed in
the report; he is interested in a well-manicured areas with a series of plants that looks nice;
makes folks want to walk around, and feels safe; he imagines a community gathering
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
May 7, 2013",14471,
18587,"The Recreation Director concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated a better cost analysis
could be provided in the future; however, fees recovered from user groups do not come
close to cost recovery; for example, about $175,000 a year is spent just on lining and
dragging the fields, which does not include mowing, aeration, fertilization, and all other
maintenance; the City is not fully recovering the cost of lining and dragging the fields
currently.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a letter from a resident who lives near the Bay Eagle
community gardens indicated a message was received from the Housing Authority
advocating moving the Bay Eagle Garden to the Sweeney open space to allow building
low income housing on the land they now cultivate; inquired if this is included in the
proposal or just a wild rumor.
The Interim Community Development Director responded that she is unaware of the
Housing Authority sending out anything, however the community garden sits on property
the Housing Authority owns; Parrot Village is a residentially zoned piece of property; the
community garden is very close to the Beltline property.
Councilmember Daysog stated the food bank building is located north-south; inquired if the
building could be changed to east-west so people can see it.
The Recreation Director responded it is a good thought to consider and she would keep
note of it.
Councilmember Chen concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated maintenance costs
should be considered, especially due to the park's size.
The Recreation Director concurred with Councilmember Chen; stated maintenance will be
significant; there are potential partnerships options and the endowment; staff is not losing
site of the ongoing maintenance costs and needs to start developing strategies; staff
hopes to have a better understanding of the uses and the type of cost recovery which can
be done.
Mayor Gilmore thanked the Recreation Director for trying to get community consensus on
the use.
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 9:38 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:48 p.m.
Urged support of the recommendation to endorse passive use: Jim Sweeney, Alameda;
Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Red Wetherill, Alameda; former Councilmember Doug
deHaan, Alameda; and Kurt Peterson, Alameda.
Urged 5 acres be set aside for farmland: Mali McGee, Alameda Community Farm and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
May 7, 2013",14471,
18586,"substantially omitted by management.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstention:
Councilmember Chen - 1.
(13-229) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14807, ""Confirming the Webster Street
Business Improvement Area for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 and Levying an Annual
Assessment on the Webster Street Business Improvement Area."" Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog announced that he would recuse himself and left the dais.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes there is a typo in the staff report which
says the Consumer Price Index increase will raise the projected annual Webster Street
BIA collection total to approximately $47,000 on page 1, then, on page 12, it says the
estimated BIA revenue for 2013 to 2014 is $37,000.
Ms. Young responded that Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft is correct; the BIA assessment for
2013-2014 is $47,000.
Councilmember Chen moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(13-230) Recommendation to Endorse a Preferred Conceptual Plan for a Passive
Recreational Use Program at the Future Alameda Beltline/Jean Sweeney Open Space
Park.
The Recreation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Tam inquired if there are some specifics on the endowment fund concept.
The Recreation Director responded in the negative; stated right now there are just ideas;
other models have not been actively pursued because the focus has been on developing
concepts and seeking initial funding; ongoing maintenance needs to be taken into account.
In response to Councilmember Tam's further inquiry, the Recreation Director stated that
she can provide better estimates once the basic uses are known; tonight's meeting is to
determine about passive uses versus more active uses; maintenance costs would be
significantly higher if there are soccer fields, rather than trails, playgrounds and community
gardens.
Councilmember Tam noted a cost recovery component pays off capital costs by passing
on charges to the teams using fields; stated the same cost recovery cannot be done with
trails or more passive uses.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
May 7, 2013",14471,
18585,"Mr. Ratto responded that he understood the language is a fairly standard accounting form;
the compilation report was requested by Community Development on behalf of the
Controller; that he assumed the Controller reviewed the report and is satisfied.
Mayor Gilmore stated she shares Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's unease about the particular
statement; stated she is bothered by ""management has elected"" which is not the standard
boiler plate language.
Mr. Ratto stated PSBA did not present an audit to the City this year; the audit requirement
was waived; the letter is called the accountants compilation report which has been given to
the City since his tenure.
The City Attorney stated PSBA was not required to complete an audit, which is why there
is a compilation report; it is not a gap report and attempts to disclose that the auditor did
not go through more rigorous gap accounting.
The City Manager stated for the amount of money involved, performing a full-blown audit is
not sensible.
(13-228) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00
p.m.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was just concerned about one question, she could
probably overlook it, but the discrepancies with the two different figures should be
explained in the report.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the item.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Tam requested that the Council be specific about what
next report should include.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the two different line items on page 22
and 26 of Exhibit 4 addressed; the math worked out; requested Mr. Hansson provide an
explanation of the figures and the paragraph read.
Councilmember Chen suggested that the 2011 compilation report be reviewed to see if it is
a standard boiler plate statement.
Councilmember Tam stated that she wants to hear from Mr. Hansson about what has been
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
May 7, 2013",14471,
18584,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the report is from Lars Hansson, the accountant;
noted that the two items she is referring to seems to be indicating the same thing, yet there
is a discrepancy.
Mr. Ratto concurred and apologized that he could not answer the accounting question;
stated he would have to ask Mr. Hansson.
Mayor Gilmore suggested the item be continued to the next meeting.
Mr. Ratto concurred with Mayor Gilmore.
Councilmember Chen stated that he has a small suggestion for the Interim Community
Development Director; Alameda does not have an Asian grocery; inquired if the Interim
Community Development Director could talk to Catellus about including an Asian grocery,
as folks have to travel outside of Alameda to shop at an Asian grocery store.
Mayor Gilmore announced that the matter would be continued to May 21, 2013.
Following the Bicycle Facility Design Standards [paragraph no. 13-
,
Mayor
Gilmore
called the matter again and opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Ratto apologized for mis-speaking in regards to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's question;
stated that the Marketing Manager is paid $36,000, the extra $8,000 was paid to a
maintenance person on staff from July through part of October, 2011; three different fiscal
years are included and the question relates to Fiscal Year 2011-12.
Mayor Gilmore inquired if Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's question has been addressed, to
which Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the negative; stated her questions both
pertain to the same fiscal year.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated she appreciated Mr. Ratto's explanation; however, the
document is not as clear as it could be.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Council needed to open the public hearing, then
the public hearing would be closed and the item would be continued.
The City Attorney responded the decision is up to the Council; the Council has opened the
public hearing; if Council has sufficient information, the public hearing can be closed and
action can be taken; if there are additional questions, the public hearing can be continued
to a later date.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is having trouble understanding another
paragraph in Exhibit 4: ""management has elected to omit substantially all of the
disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America""; inquired if Mr. Ratto could help her understand that paragraph.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
May 7, 2013",14471,
18583,"Patricia Young, WABA, stated Catellus cannot speak for the businesses that will be
located within Alameda Landing; the businesses have a say under a voting process;
WABA is in regular communications with Catellus regarding different issues with the
development, but she cannot definitively say Target will become part of the BIA.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether Target would join if Alameda Landing decides to
join the BIA.
Ms. Young responded in the affirmative; stated all businesses in the BIA have an equal
vote.
The Interim Community Development Director clarified that the Disposition and
Development Agreement commits Catellus, on behalf of Alameda Landing, to work with
WABA to join the BIA and the Webster Street landscape and lighting district; Catellus is
accelerating the development of the balance of the commercial project and hopes all
commercial space will be built in a year; the City would like to have the funding
mechanisms in place concurrent with build-out.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the current PSBA budget does not include an
allotment for economic revitalization.
Mr. Ratto responded that the City leased a lot at Oak Street and Alameda Avenue during
theater construction; the expense was placed under economic revitalization; Public Works
leases the lot and PSBA makes the payments.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the staff support line item in the amount of
$44,679.74.
Mr. Ratto responded amount covers the PSBA Marketing Manager.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if $44,000 is the salary of the Marketing Manager, to
which Mr. Ratto responded it is salary and benefits.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a separate line item for staff benefits, to which
Mr. Ratto responded then it is just salary.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the line item was not called Marketing Manager
salary as it is called in the current budget, to which Mr. Ratto responded the line item has
always been staff support.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 26 of Exhibit 4, an item called staff support is
approximately $36,000, and then there is another line item for staff benefits.
Mr. Ratto inquired whether Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft is referring to the accountant report;
stated he thought she was referring to the budget that was presented.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
May 7, 2013",14471,
18582,"Councilmember Chen acknowledged how hard it was to conduct the five year needs
assessment survey; stated hundreds of hours were probably spent trying to outreach to
the City's low income population; commends City staff and the Social Services Human
Relations Board (SSHRB) for doing the survey in Chinese and Spanish, which was a more
comprehensive outreach.
Mayor Gilmore stated the needs assessment is a fountain of information; credited Cindy
Wasco, SSHRB Chair, and Jim Franz, City staff to the SSHRB; the needs assessment
document will continue to provide information and benefits for the City.
Councilmember Tam concurred with Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Chen;
acknowledged the alignment of the needs assessment survey with what the City is
proposing in the action plan; even though the budget continues to be cut every year, what
the community values the most is still considered.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(13-227) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Confirming Business
Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year 2013-14 and Levying an Annual Assessment on
the Park Street Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2013-
14. Continued to May 21, 2013.
The Development Manager gave a brief presentation, including addressing Webster Street
Business Improvement Area (BIA) [paragraph no. 13-227].
Councilmember Chen inquired if South Shore is part of the Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) BIA, to which the Development Manager responded in the negative.
Councilmember Chen inquired which business is the largest contributor on Park Street, to
which the Development Manager responded the largest contributor in both districts tends
to be the banks.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, responded the largest contributors to the current BIA are the gas
stations; which pay in excess of $1,000.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the banks pay $900.
Councilmember Chen stated the Webster Street Business Association (WABA) is
collecting $47,000; inquired whether Target would join WABA.
The Development Manager responded WABA and other Alameda Landing businesses are
in discussions and have an MOU regarding collaborative efforts; stated WABA intends to
include Alameda Landing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 7, 2013",14471,
18581,"Auctions by the Bay, Inc. for Ten Years with an Additional Option of Ten Years in Building
20 Located at 2701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
(*13-223) Ordinance No. 3070, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with
Alameda Municipal Power Extending Their Current Lease for up to Two Years in Building
162 Located at 400 West Atlantic Avenue at Alameda Point."" Finally passed; and
(*13-223 A) Ordinance No. 3071, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with
Alameda Municipal Power Extending Current Lease for up to Two Years in 1890 Viking
Street at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
(*13-224) Ordinance No. 3072, ""Amending Various Sections of the Alameda Municipal
Code Contained in Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) Related to the North Park
Street Planning Area."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(13-225) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with Bay
Ship and Yacht Co., Inc. for One Year in Building 292 located at 1450 Ferry Point at
Alameda Point. Introduce.
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation of MARAD.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded MARAD is the Maritime
Administration which is a division of the Department of Transportation; stated the large
gray reserve fleet ships at Alameda Point are deployed in times of emergency; the fleet
includes a hospital which responds all over the world and in times of war; MARAD is one of
the largest tenants at Alameda Point occupying both pier space and warehouse space; the
Maritime Administration is trying to replicate the ""Alameda"" model around the country.
Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(13-226) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Community
Development Block Grant/HOME Partnership Investment Program Action Plan and
Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements,
and Modifications.
The Program Manager gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 7, 2013",14471,
18580,"the agreements; the City went from a 20% to 28% fund balance to address these potential
types of uncertainties; uncertainty has narrowed since the last discussion in April; 16
firefighters applied, 14 are eligible and three are of retirement age; the exposure is
documented and clearly encompassed in the budget process; that she supports moving
forward.
Mayor Gilmore stated the action is part of an MOU that was negotiated and agreed to in
2010 under the prior administration; the City would face serious legal liability if Council
does not honor the contract and greater financial exposure if Council does not pass the
Ordinance; it is important that the City of Alameda live up to its agreements and not be
known for not honoring bargained-for contracts; moving forward is important.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Gilmore, stated unwinding an MOU
means everything is back on the table, including concessions; if the hard dollars and cents
are scrutinized, then the same should be done for the financial implications of breaching a
contract.
Mayor Gilmore stated going back to negotiate that one little piece cannot be done
unilaterally and would require the unions to agree to reopen negotiations, if negotiations
are reopened, everything would be on the table, including the 15% contribution received
from public safety.
Councilmember Chen moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(*13-219) Ordinance No. 3066, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with
Margaret Su Doing Business As Wonky and Wonky Kitchen LLC Extending Current Lease
for up to Fifteen Months and 28 Days in Building 119 Located at 151 West Seaplane
Lagoon at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
(*13-220) Ordinance No. 3067, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Auctions by the
Bay, Inc. for Three Years in Building 18 Located at 2700 Saratoga Street at Alameda
Point."" Finally passed.
(*13-221) Ordinance No. 3068, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Auctions by the
Bay, Inc. for Five Years in Building 525 Located at 2751 Todd Street at Alameda Point.
Finally passed.
(*13-222) Ordinance No. 3069, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 7, 2013",14471,
18579,"(*13-217) Resolution No. 14806, ""Amending Resolution No. 14747 to Move the July 16,
2013 Regular City Council Meeting to July 23, 2013."" Adopted.
(13-218) Ordinance No. 3065, ""Amending the Contract Between the Board of
Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council
of the City of Alameda to Provide the Option for Local Fire Members to Purchase Service
Credit for Permanent Career Civilian Federal Firefighter or Permanent Career State
Firefighter Service."" Finally passed.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Expressed concern about costs not being known; urged an actuarial be completed: Jane
Sullwold, Alameda.
Discussed costs and provided background information: Domenick Weaver, Alameda
Firefighters.
Encouraged financial calculations be done prior to Council action: Former Councilmember
Doug deHaan, Alameda.
Expressed concern with buybacks and not setting caps: Janet Gibson, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft thanked the speakers and stated the matter is one of
fundamental fairness; the playing field is not level because firefighters who worked six or
seven years at the Naval Air Station lost retirement contributions in the transition; not
proceeding would not solve the City's budget problem.
Councilmember Chen concurred with Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; inquired what would
happen if Council does not pass the ordinance and does not abide by the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU).
The City Attorney responded the pension was bargained-for in the MOU with the unions;
stated the Council not going forward with the ordinance would be a violation and a breach
of the MOU by the City.
Councilmember Chen inquired if such violation would subject the City to potential liability
or lawsuit, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that making firefighters retirement whole is not a moral
imperative; it is not the City Council's job to make the situation whole and fair; that he finds
supporting the proposition hard; the firefighters working for the City are getting a pretty
good retirement package.
Councilmember Tam stated the cost of implementation is being factored into the budget;
the Council agreed to the provision in a prior contract; it is important that Council honors
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 7, 2013",14471,
18578,"Bay Area Grant Application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for $636,000 to
Resurface Otis Drive between Park Street and Broadway and Pacific Avenue between
Main Street and Fourth Street, to Commit $194,000 in Measure B as a Local Match, and to
Execute All Necessary Documents."" Adopted.
(*13-211) Resolution No. 14800, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Urban
Greening Project Grant Application to the California Natural Resources Agency for
$701,000 to Design and Construct the Cross Alameda Trail along Ralph Appezzato
Memorial Parkway between Main Street and Poggi Street, to Commit $125,000 in Citywide
Developer Fees as a Local Match, and to Execute All Necessary Documents."" Adopted.
(*13-212) Resolution No. 14801, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Vehicle
Registration Fee Pedestrian and Bicyclist Access and Safety Program and Measure B
Bicycle/Pedestrian Countywide Discretionary Fund Grant Application to the Alameda
County Transportation Commission for $793,000 to Design and Construct the Cross
Alameda Trail along Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway between Webster Street and
Poggi Street, to Commit $200,000 in Citywide Developer Fees as a Local Match, and to
Execute All Necessary Documents.' Adopted.
(*13-213) Resolution No. 14802, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Vehicle
Registration Fee Transit for Congestion Relief Program Grant Application to the Alameda
County Transportation Commission for $489,000 to Continue Operation of the Estuary
Crossing Shuttle and to Expand the Hours of Operation, to Commit $90,000 in
Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management Funds as a
Local Match and for a Contingency, and to Execute all Necessary Documents."" Adopted.
(*13-214) Resolution No. 14803, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Community-
Based Transportation Planning Grant Application to Caltrans for $232,200 to Conduct a
Central Avenue Area Complete Streets Plan, to Commit $25,800 in Measure B Funds as a
Local Match, and to Execute All Necessary Documents."" Adopted.
(*13-215) Resolution No. 14804, ""Authorizing the City Manager or His Designee to Enter
into an Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco to Accept and Allocate 2012
Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Funds in the Total Amount of $79,290 and the
Appropriation of $79,290 from the General Fund to Purchase Equipment Necessary for
Grant Reimbursement."" Adopted.
(*13-216) Resolution No. 14805, ""Accepting $161,368 from the US Department of
Homeland Security's Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program for the Purchase of
Equipment for Emergency Medical Services Training and the Wellness Fitness Program,
Appropriating $40,341 from the General Fund to Meet the Matching Funds Requirement
and Appropriate the Grant Funds and Matching Funds Totaling $201,709 for Said
Purpose."" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 7, 2013",14471,
18577,"The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded additional services are not
provided to areas outside the seven zones, such as seasonal banners.
Councilmember Chen inquired if the seven zones paying the assessment receive a
premium package.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
the seven zones receive additional, enhanced services.
Councilmember Chen inquired if residential owners contribute to the assessment along
with the business property owners.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager each of the seven zones is different;
for example, zone seven is all property owners and relates to tree maintenance; almost all
property owners in the business district are assessed, as owners would vote on any
proposed increases.
Councilmember Chen inquired if any WABA and PSBA business owners objected to the
increase in the assessment.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded reception has been positive
so far; stated those increasing revenues will reinstate services that have disappeared
because assessments stayed flat.
Councilmembers Daysog recused himself because his home is near zones two and three.
Councilmember Chen recused himself because his wife has a business near a zone.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Abstentions:
Councilmembers Daysog and Chen - 2.
(*13-207) Resolution No. 14796, ""Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the
City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice
of Public Hearing on June 18, 2013 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina
Cove).' Adopted.
(*13-208) Resolution No. 14797, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Request to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $146,100 in Transportation
Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding and to Execute All
Necessary Documents.' Adopted.
(*13-209) Resolution No. 14798, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application
for Measure B Paratransit Funding in the Amount of $179,000 for Fiscal Year 2013-2014,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 7, 2013",14471,
18576,"(13-199) Vicky Hines, Alameda, noted many Nelson Marine tenants are on the East Coast
and have not been contacted; PM Realty would not provide rent receipts and has not
cashed cashiers checks, which will no longer be good.
(13-200) Jim Franz, Alameda Collaborative for Children Youth and Families and Social
Service Human Relations Boards, made an announcement regarding the Annual Harvey
Milk Day Celebration.
(13-201) Kenneth Peterson, Alameda, discussed the budget.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that the Resolution for Island City Landscaping and Lighting
District 84-2 [paragraph no. 13-206 and the Ordinance Amending the Contract Between
the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System
[paragraph no. 13-218 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*13-202) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on April 2, 2013. Approved.
(*13-203) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,254,022.35.
(*13-204) Recommendation to Authorize Call for Bids for Legal Advertising for the Fiscal
Year Ending June 30, 2014. Accepted.
(*13-205) Recommendation to Approve a First Amendment to the Landscape Maintenance
Management Agreement with Marina Village Commercial Association in the Amount of
$544,436 for the Maintenance of the Landscape and Lighting District, Zone 6, Marina
Village. Not heard.
(13-206) Resolution No. 14795, ""Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the
City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice
of Public Hearing on June 18, 2013 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2.'
Adopted.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Chen inquired if sidewalk cleaning would be provided outside the seven
zones.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 7, 2013",14471,
18575,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY -MAY 7, 2013- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:23 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(13-193) Mayor Gilmore announced that the First Amendment to the Landscape
Maintenance Management Agreement with Marina Village Commercial Association
[paragraph no. 13-203 was withdrawn from the agenda.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(13-194) Proclamation Declaring May 9, 2013 as Alameda Bike to Work Day.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Tim, Nancy, Kayla, Ella and Katie
Rumrill, Maya Lin School Bike and Walk to School Program.
Jeff Cambra, Bike to Work Day, presented artwork to Public Works.
(13-195) Proclamation Declaring May 10 through May 19, 2013 as Affordable Housing
Week.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Helen Sause, Diane Lichtenstein
and Laura Thomas.
Ms. Sause provided a handout and made brief comments.
Ms. Thomas made brief comments.
(13-196) Proclamation Declaring May 13 through 17, 2013 as National Police Week.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to the Police Chief and staff.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(13-197) Mike Connelly, San Lorenzo; David Perry, Campbell; John Townsend, Campbell;
Pete Bowes, Orinda; discussed Nelson Marine closing; urged more time be provided
before evicting people with boats at the facility.
(13-198) Suzanne Gamble urged the Council to consider rent stabilization.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 7, 2013",14471,
18574,"This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 15 of 15",14471,
18573,"109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a
9.22 acre site.
Board Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.
Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain - 1 (Cook). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Vice President Kohlstrand would like the resolution thanking Gina Mariani for her service
on the Planning Board to be presented at the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Thomas
agreed, and noted that would take place.
11-A. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board
Members Cook/Kohlstrand)
President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings.
11-B. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member McNamara)
Mr. Thomas noted there was nothing to report.
11-C. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation Subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand)
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last
report.
President Cook requested that if there had been no further meetings under Board
Communications, that they be removed from that meeting's agenda. Mr. Thomas
concurred with that suggestion.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
Page 14 of 15",14471,
18572,"President Cook noted that there were many positive aspects to the project, and
appreciated the applicant's willingness to work with the City and the neighborhood over
the course of the project. She was uncomfortable with the first set of findings on pages 1
and 2, that the project would be compatible with the adjacent surroundings, providing
harmonious transitions between different designated land uses. She felt that the site was
more clustered and walled off the water, with an insufficient relationship back to the
community. She believed this project was similar to Alameda Landing in that it was a
waterfront site approved for a lot of commercial office use, but it did not incorporate
significant public access and recreation. She noted that both projects had a sea of parking,
but that Alameda Landing incorporated public access and recreation opportunities in a
way that provides a reason for the public to be there at night and on the weekends, to
keep it safe and active. While she liked the project, she felt it was somewhat disconnected
from the waterfront environment and cut the community off from the shores. She also felt
that there was not a harmonious transition from the parking on the north through the site
to the south. Finally, she felt that there should be a safer and more efficient road for bikes
and cars through the Ferry Terminal rather than the undersized private access road now
there.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to see Condition 13 modified to read, ""The
final landscape plan for the area between the eastern edge of the private ferry access road
and the sidewalk along the lagoon shall comply with Bay-friendly landscaping
guidelines, as set forth by StopWaste.org."" She noted that because the property was on
the waterfront, anything put on the landscaping would be safe to run off into the water.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a
Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development Amendment for
reduced parking for the construction of ten new office buildings totaling approximately
109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a
9.22 acre site. The following modifications will be added:
1. Page 5, Item 13: A reference to Bay Friendly landscaping will be
incorporated;
2. Page 7, Item 29: A modification to the Harbor Bay TSM program will be
incorporated;
3. Prior to issuance of permits, staff will work with the applicant to look at ways
to minimize the width of the bioswale for the purpose of providing more
width for the curb-to-curb for bicycles and pedestrians; underground
mechanical solutions should be avoided. Lane width will not be added for
vehicles;
4. The transformers will be screened; and
5. Showers will be encouraged as part of the TSM program.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.
Noes: 1 (Cook); Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve
the Tentative Map for the construction of ten new office buildings totaling approximately
Page 13 of 15",14471,
18571,"landscape and lighting district administered by the City, and noted that the irrigation
would be upgraded this year, and that the dead plant material would be replaced with new
plantings.
Board member Cunningham noted that Condition 29 suggested participation in the TSM
program, and recommended that it be strengthened to require participation in the TSM
program.
Mr. Ernst noted that the Harbor Bay Business Park already included participation in the
TSM as part of the development agreement and the PD.
Board Member Lynch noted that the question was whether the City plan was deed-
restricted, as were the CC&Rs. If it was a condition of the CC&Rs, it would be deed-
restricted.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether the applicant had considered natural
ventilation for these buildings, and noted that it would be a good place to have a
showcase in Alameda of a naturally ventilated office park.
Mr. Ernst replied that the mechanical systems will all have economizers to switch to use
natural ventilation. He noted that the window systems will be designed to be operable. He
noted that if the windows were opened, the doors must be closed, because the airplanes
spread noise throughout the space. He noted that had not been designed into the space
yet.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether showers would be provided for bicyclists,
and encouraged the applicant to do SO. Mr. Ernst replied that their green specifications
included that feature as well; he added that several of their buyers had done so in their
own plans. He added that they had a confirmed Silver rating, and may be able to achieve
a Gold LEED rating.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like to see a copy of the applicant's
green specifications.
A discussion of the road width and right of way ensued.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed the ferry terminal road would be the biggest problem.
Mr. Thomas noted that if the road were to be built to City standards, it would be
significantly wider.
Board Member Lynch noted that if it were a City road, Public Works would not be likely
to want to take on the road's maintenance because of the cost.
President Cook noted that page 13, paragraph 1, should be changed to read,
Page 12 of 15",14471,
18570,"Board Member McNamara noted that Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft had addressed many
of her concerns, including the width of the access road. She believed the applicant had
worked closely with the homeowners and addressed their concerns. She believed the area
would need restaurants, that the project was well-thought out and well-designed, and she
supported this project.
Vice President Kohlstrand echoed the previous statements, and believed this was
a
wonderful project for the site. She was pleased to see the amount of effort put forth in
working with the staff and the residents. She also liked the sensitivity shown towards the
waterfront, as well as incorporating the LEED elements into the project. She liked the design
as well. She did not like the amount of surface parking, but understood that it had to be
there. She believed the roadway was strangely designed, and noted that people use the ferry
parking lot like a through road. However, she did not know whether there were any options
to correct it at this point. She suggested that a bike lane be added, and cited Portland and
Emeryville as examples of using wide bioswale treatments in more urban settings, where
much less space was used to provide drainage. She would like to see more space made
available for bicyclists and pedestrians, and encouraged the applicant to make the parking
lot as safe as possible as the amount of traffic increased.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the BART shuttle stopped
in the business park, Mr. Ernst replied that the business park had its own TSM, including a
BART shuttle, which was added when AC Transit took away the express shuttle. He noted
that the business park sponsored the shuttle. They agreed to increase the size of the bus this
past year, and will go to two buses in July 2008. She liked the fact that the applicant had
provided some flexibility in the site for the restaurant use.
Board member Cunningham complimented the applicant on a job well done, and noted that
he would like to push the bar higher if possible. In response to his inquiry regarding the
LEED rating, Mr. Ernst replied that they currently had LEED certification, and had
identified 28 points, which would place them at the LEED Silver rating.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Cunningham regarding the site lighting, Mr.
Ernst replied that the lighting would be designed to a LEED standard for residential light
pollution, which was a stricter standard than commercial. He noted that they intended to
maintain a safe level of lighting on the site, but not light up the residents' back yards. He
added that they would use low-voltage landscape lighting.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the transformers, Mr.
Ernst replied that they had some space constraints. He added that they met with AP&T and
located the transformers; the transformers must be a certain distance away from the
buildings. The location of the transformers took precedence, and the trash enclosures were
placed on the opposite side of the building.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding placing a landscaping
agreement in the development agreement, Mr. Ernst replied that everything east of the
road was maintained by the business park. He added that it was maintained by the
Page 11 of 15",14471,
18569,"He believed the project was stunning, and appreciated the community coming forward;
he believed the City should heed their suggestions. He believed the conditions were
reasonable. He believed this was a beautiful commercial project, which was what the land
use was intended for.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft commended Mr. Vu for a well-written, well-organized and
concise staff report. She noted that she was mindful of the need for revenue coming into
the City to replace the revenue lost by the departure of the car dealerships. She supported
clean, green businesses and appreciated the sustainable design exhibited by the applicant.
She believed this would be an environmentally friendly project. She noted that the 25-
foot-wide access road also had shared bike lane space, and believed that was a minimal
lane. She inquired whether it would be widened. Mr. Thomas replied that the proposal
was to maintain the basic 25-foot width curb to curb.
Mr. Ernst noted that the width varied, and that there was no curb on the west edge. He
noted that there were pinch points that were less than 25 feet. He noted that as the new
road is constructed, the minimum width would be 25 feet; he noted that there would be
several areas where it would be wider than 25 feet. He noted that it was part of the
parking area, and that it was not intended to be a through street. He noted that they
wished to narrow the road somewhat to slow the transit buses down.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she understood the traffic calming provided by a
narrower street, but was concerned about safety and would like to see alternate forms of
transportation encouraged. She liked the presence of the bicycle parking.
Mr. Ernst noted that he was not a traffic engineer, but that the parking at the ferry
terminal, which was denser than this use, did not have any operational problems. He
added that the buses traveled through the parking lot without problems.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft hoped the parking would be screened from the homes on
McDonnell across the lagoon, and from the Bay Trail, and noted that the landscaping
plan seemed to indicate that. In response to her inquiry regarding the current vacancy
rate, Mr. Ernst replied that the business park's vacancy rate was 14%, down from the low
20s several years ago. He noted that it was lower than Marina Village, as well as the City
vacancy rate. He noted that this project evolved from the demand for a commercial site
with lower density and the ability for the business owners to own their space as well.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft strongly suggested that a restaurant be located near the
project. She believed it would make sense to have a Peet's coffee shop in the area as well.
She noted that the nearby trail was well-used during the weekends, and added that the
new hotel's clients would also appreciate those amenities.
Mr. Ernst noted that there were two other restaurant opportunities along the waterfront in
addition to this project, including the hotel. He hoped that critical mass could be reached
so the restaurant would be viable.
Page 10 of 15",14471,
18568,"Mr. Thomas presented the staff report on Mr. Vu's behalf. Staff recommended that the
Planning Board approve the Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned
Development Amendment for reduced parking, and that the Planning Board recommend
approval of the Tentative Map to City Council, as shown in the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Joe Ernst, SRM Associates, applicant, displayed a PowerPoint presentation, and
described the background, scope and layout of this proposed project. He displayed the
colors and materials board, and described the canopies on the five buildings. He noted
that the ability to create unit ownership was a unique element, and that a condo map
would be put on each building. He noted that the buildings would be broken into flats,
and the addition of stairs within the units would be very inefficient. He noted that there
would be no middle unit, and that each unit would have three open sides.
Mr. Brian Tremper, President, Freport Homeowners Association, 232 McDonnel Road,
noted that he was speaking as a resident, although this project had been discussed by the
homeowners association. He noted that many of their comments had been addressed with
SRM already, particularly screening the parking lot, with the exception of the view
corridors. He inquired how the landscaping would be maintained once the transfer has
taken place. He believed the lagoon was poorly maintained, and noted that no large trucks
would be allowed. He was concerned about the restaurant, and felt that would be a
difficult location for a restaurant, and compared it to Zazu's, next to KTVU in Oakland.
He was concerned about late-night noise if a restaurant were to operate there, and
requested that limits be placed. He expressed concern about the noise from the bus stop,
which was scheduled to be at the intersection of the access road and Harbor Bay
Parkway.
Mr. Eddie Chin expressed concern about the design for the back access road, which
would flow into the Harbor Bay parking lot.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
""In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether this use was required to be located
at this site, or whether it could be used for other uses such as residential in a business
park, Mr. Thomas replied that the site was office use but there were limits on the allowed
intensity of use; this intensity was well within the upper limit.""
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether this use was required to be located
at this site or whether it could be used for other uses such as residential, Mr. Thomas
replied that the site was office use but there were limits on the allowed intensity of use,
this intensity was well within the upper limit. With respect to airport noise, he noted that
the newer generations of aircraft were becoming quieter, but that noise was a big issue at
every airport.
Board Member Lynch disagreed with the comments regarding the swapping the parcels,
and believed the amount of signatures of individuals coming forth would be significant.
Page 9 of 15",14471,
18567,"street lots, perhaps along the side streets or on Webster Street that will accommodate a
broad range of uses. She did not believe the in lieu fees should be limited to transit
funding at this point.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft understood Vice President Kohlstrand's concerns, and
suggested that an eventual parking permit system be instituted. She noted that the
enforcement of the parking restrictions were an important part of the process.
Board Member Lynch believed it was very important to examine and clarify the
enforcement policy for the City. He hoped that Parking Enforcement had not been aware
of this issue, and that they become aware of it going forward.
President Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Major
Design Review approval to construct an approximately 8,274-square foot, two-story,
mixed use building to be located on the southwesterly corner of Webster Street and
Pacific Avenue. The ground floor area would be divided into retail space. The second
floor would be composed of two dwelling units and a separate office/storage area. The
applicants are also requesting approval to permit the payment of parking in-lieu fees.
Conditions will be added regarding:
1.
The transformers;
2.
Clear glazing;
3.
The red no-parking zone;
4.
The hazardous materials;
5.
The design details to wrap around the corner, and there will be
coordination between the two façades; and
6.
The awnings will be installed prior to building occupancy; and
7.
Trash enclosures.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would confirm that the two parking spaces would be
available. If not, they would be added to the parking in lieu fee.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would work with WABA with respect to the parking issues.
9-B.
PLN07-0061 - SRM Associates - 2800 Harbor Bay Parkway. Applicant
requests a Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development
Amendment for reduced parking, and Tentative Map approval for the construction
of ten new office buildings totaling approximately 109,280 square feet in floor
area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a 9.22 acre site. The
site is located within the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, and Planned
Development Zoning District. (DV)
Page 8 of 15",14471,
18566,"Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Mr. Piziali's assessment that the parking in
lieu fees of almost $90,000 were excessive. She suggested that an adjustment could be
made retroactively. She noted that the language in the resolution on page 2 read, ""The
City is able to utilize the parking in lieu fees for parking and transit projects within the
Webster Street commercial corridor. She noted that page 4 of the staff report stated
that funds would be used to lease spaces at a satellite lot, or to support transit services and
facilities in the area. She would like to change the language to state on the resolution,
""The City shall utilize the parking in lieu fees She would like to see the in lieu fees
only fund transit projects, transit services and facilities in the area. She noted that shuttles
to BART were needed to get people out of their cars during commute hours.
Board Member Lynch wished to address parking in lieu fees, and based on his own
professional experience, $6,000 was very inexpensive for a parking space. He realized
the developer was not expected to pay the full cost of the parking spaces, but to use
public dollars assist in that project. He would not support any reduction of the parking in
lieu fees because of the greater public good.
President Cook noted that she was not prepared to condition the dollars on transit in this
area, because it was well-served by transit and less well-served by parking spaces. In
general, she would like more information when such a suggestion is made for parking.
She noted that there were a lot of buses running along this route already.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether there were any plans to extend the
treescape up to the project to maintain consistency in the landscaping, Mr. Brighton
replied that there were fresh trees along Webster Street in front of the site. He noted that
there may be one space for a tree; staff would check with Public Works to confirm that
item.
President Cook noted that the 100-foot height limit was in effect for this area, and she
suggested that be examined before a future applicant considered a building of 100 feet in
that location. She inquired whether it was a remainder from the 1970s, and suggested that
it be brought down before it became an issue. She noted that she was in favor of this
project, which addressed a number of issues that Board had discussed. She noted that it
reflected the discussion held at the forum regarding the importance of placing residential
use above retail or office in the business districts. She believed it supported the
businesses, and kept the streets safer because of the 24-hour presence of people in the
vicinity. She understood the neighbors' concerns about parking, and noted that it was the
downside of enjoying a mix of uses in Alameda. She believed the City should work to
find a place for the parking, and to enforce parking violations described by the neighbors.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she supported transit, but would not support the
proposal by Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding transit because she believed the
areas transitioning from low to moderate density needed time to do SO. She noted that
shelters and street furniture had been enhanced in recent years, and believed the City
should look at ways to consolidate the off-street parking. She did not believe the density
was present to propose a structure right away. She believed there should be some off-
Page 7 of 15",14471,
18565,"Vice President Kohlstrand echoed Board member Cunningham's comments, and believed
this project would be a good fit for Webster Street. She was excited to see mixed use
projects like this, and that it was able to replicate some of the historic features of
Alameda's commercial streets that had residential units above ground floor retail. She
supported reducing the parking requirements in the business districts, because she did not
think by developing a surface parking lot for each use would provide the most effective
use of the commercial streets in town.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding parking requirements,
Mr. Thomas described the uses for the in-lieu fees, including leasing additional public
parking spaces, expanding existing lots or adding new satellite lots in the area, in addition
to transit improvements. He added that the possibility of a permit parking system was one
alternative that was still unresolved; he noted that the neighbors' input would be gathered
as well.
Board Member McNamara shared the opinions of the other Board members in terms of
supporting this project, and appreciated WABA's input in terms of the detailed
information, criteria and conditions they had provided to staff. She also appreciated the
change to the awnings, acknowledging that they were a very important part of this
element. She also agreed that the certificate of occupancy not be awarded until the
awnings were put up. She believed this was a good use of the street and the space, and
believed the City needed to be very aggressive in providing some off-street public
parking lots. She added that there were no such lots on the same side of Lincoln. She
empathized with the neighbors experiencing the parking problems, and encouraged them
to call a towing company when people parked in their driveways.
President Cook suggested looking into residence parking stickers to protect the residents
of the neighborhood. Mr. Thomas noted that would be possible.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she supported the concept, and believed this
project would be a significant improvement over the existing vacant lot. She sympathized
with the neighbors who lived just outside the 300-foot radius, and requested that they be
included in any further noticing on this project. She suggested that WABA sponsor
further neighborhood meetings. She would condition the approval on having sufficient
proof that the hazardous material issue had been resolved. She noted that Condition 5
read, and location of the transformers to service these loads must be approved by the
Bureau of Electricity before building permit issuance.""
President Cook agreed that the Planning Board needed to have input on the location of
the transformers, and suggested that a condition be added that they be hidden from public
view. Mr. Thomas replied that similar conditions had been modified for Alameda
Landing, stating that the transformers should be screened and not located on the public
right of way. He noted that they may be located behind the building, adjacent to the auto
use, and not on Webster or Pacific.
Page 6 of 15",14471,
18564,"President Cook requested that staff address the hazmat, parking, waste and noticing
issues.
Mr. Brighton noted that this project had a 300-foot notification radius, which extended to
626 Pacific Avenue. He noted that there were two outdoor waste storage areas between
the building and Mr. Koka's property, which would be able to accommodate small waste
bins that would be typical for such a use.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would craft a condition regarding the red zone, and that the
analysis in the staff report had been discussed extensively with the Public Works
Department. He added that the Design Review Team (DRT) had addressed that issue,
including the fire department. He noted that it could be conditioned to reconfirm that the
two additional spaces would be available on the street, and if not, the project could be
conditioned to provide the two spaces on-site, which he believed would be virtually
impossible. Alternatively, the in-lieu fees would be increased. He recommended that an
additional condition be included with respect to hazmats, that it be confirmed to the effect
that no building permit should be issued that would impede or prevent either the ongoing
monitoring, or if there was a tank that must be removed, that it be taken care of before the
building is built.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was not just the presence of a tank, but any
leakage or plumes must be properly addressed.
Board Member Lynch believed that the Planning Board must remain mindful of the
requirements originating from regulatory agencies. He added that certain requirements
will have to be met for the property to be insurable.
Board Member Cunningham believed this was an excellent project which would be a
good fit on Webster Street. He believed that the requirement for parking may be adjusted
upon receipt of the permit, and did not know how that would align with the parking
ordinances and the timeline.
Board member Cunningham assumed that with respect to the amendment to the use
permit for SK Auto, they had been consulted and that they were in agreement.
Mr. Thomas noted that Mr. Koka owned that property as well.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Cunningham, Mr. Thomas replied that a
condition of approval should be added stating that prior to the issuance of building
permits, that the Webster Street treatment would turn the corner to where it would meet
with the Otaez Building. Board Member Cunningham noted that could be worked out by
the design applicant, but wanted to ensure that the materiality was consistent. He wanted
to ensure that the glazing would be clear, and without tint.
Page 5 of 15",14471,
18563,"Design Committee's concerns. She believed this project was needed on Webster Street in
order to establish a viable commercial district.
Mr. Thomas Keenan, 617 Pacific, spoke in opposition to this project, and displayed
several photos of the site. He believed that there were several unresolved hazardous
materials occurrences on the site that had not been remediated or placed on the public
record. He noted that with respect to Item 2, the fire station along Webster Street on the
south side had a red curb adjacent to that location, and if cars were to park in that area,
there would not be sufficient space for the fire trucks to exit. He noted that several
months before, Alameda Party and Play, located across the street, had been approved
with no additional required parking because it was an existing building. He believed that
when that building is occupied, the parking problems would increase on the street. He
noted that the closest unmetered parking space was 260 feet west on Pacific Avenue on
the opposite side of the street. He added that there would be no space for the additional
trash receptacles or Dumpsters that would be required.
Ms. Beverly Miranda, 630 Pacific, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that she
supported progress, and would like to see this project work out; however, she was
concerned about workers from the nearby businesses parking in front of her and her
neighbors' houses. She noted that several times, people had parked in her driveway
because there was no parking available. She would like to see this part of Alameda
improved with the proposed design, but not without sufficient parking.
Mr. Derek Pavlik, WABA Design Committee, 2875 Glascock Street, spoke in support of
this project. He noted that Mr. Koka had invited their input throughout the process in the
four years since he had been on the committee; he noted that he was the most willing
design collaborator he had worked with.
Ms. Tricia Collins-Levi, 634 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this project. She believed
this kind of project would move Webster Street in the right direction; she understood the
parking issues, and hoped the issue of the fees would be worked out. She noted that the
applicant had worked very hard on this project, and believed it would have a positive
effect on the neighborhood.
Ms. Jackie Keenan, 617 Pacific, believed that the site still needed to be remediated from
its use as a gas station. She noted that there was existing parking on Webster, and that
there was no place for additional parking. She noted that additional parking on Pacific
could not conflict with the red curb next to the fire station. She noted that it was a
constant problem trying to discourage people from parking in their driveways. She noted
that on several occasions, she had not received notices from the City with respect to this
project.
Mr. Sam Koka, applicant, 802 Pacific Avenue, described the proposed project and noted
that he had worked closely with the Webster Street Design Committee.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Page 4 of 15",14471,
18562,"office/storage area. The applicants are also requesting approval to permit the
payment of parking in-lieu fees. The site is located within a C-C, Community
Commercial Zoning District. (DB)
Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.
WABA had requested that an additional condition of approval be added to require the
installation of awnings at the street frontage buildings prior to occupancy of the building.
Staff concurred with that request.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member McNamara whether the conditions requested
by WABA replaced the conditions previously stipulated, Mr. Brighton replied that was
essentially the case. He added that the previous conditions applied to an earlier plan set
submittal.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be helpful to receive the materials
sooner in advance of the meeting, and suggested sending PDF files by email. She would
like additional time to review the materials.
President Cook advised that nine speaker slips had been received.
Board Member Cunningham moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Noes:
0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Piziali, former Planning Board President, spoke in support of this project as a
West End resident and WABA member. He believed this would be a special project,
which he believed to be the first mixed use project on the street. He expressed concern
about the parking requirements and the in lieu fees, which he believed were excessive; he
believed those requirements often stifled new projects. He would like to see the
requirements scaled to the project, which was a strain on smaller projects.
Ms. Doreen Soto, City of Alameda Development Services Department, Alameda County
Improvement Commission, City Hall West, spoke in support of this project. She noted
that they had worked with this applicant for about two years, and noted that it had been a
difficult project with respect to the parking. They hoped that they would be able to bring
new parking regulations forward soon. She believed this was a very good infill project
that maximized the site with a mix of retail and housing uses. She believed this project
would create new jobs, and encouraged the Planning Board to approve this project.
Ms. Kathy Moehring, Executive Director, WABA, spoke in support of this project. She
noted that she had worked on this project with the Webster Street Design Committee. She
noted that the applicant had been gracious and easy to work with in addressing the
Page 3 of 15",14471,
18561,"plan and believed there would be unintended consequences from that additional work. He
did not want to micromanage the department.
Board Member Lynch believed it would be helpful to put this project within a critical
path with various milestones, in order to know when the work product must be brought to
the department within the term of the contract. He requested that staff share the schedules
with the Planning Board.
Board Member Cunningham requested that the March 10 meeting include some time to
examine lessons learned from the forum which he believed should be addressed, other
than the Housing Element. He would like to discuss use issues in particular.
Board Member McNamara inquired about the status of the additional Planning Board
member. Mr. Thomas replied that the position had been advertised, and that Mayor
Johnson was considering her options.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Bill Smith discussed the development opportunities in Alameda.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A. V07-0006 (Variances) and DR07-0056 (Major Design Review) - 3327
Fernside Blvd. the applicant requests Variance and Design Review approval to
enlarge an existing single-family home located within an R-2, Two-family
Residential Zoning District. Continued from January 28, 2008. Recommended
for continuance.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to continue this item.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
DR07-0080 - 1629 Webster Street. The applicant requests a Major Design
Review approval to construct an approximately 8,274-square foot, two-story,
mixed use building to be located on the southwesterly corner of Webster Street
and Pacific Avenue. The ground floor area would be divided into retail space. The
second floor would be composed of two dwelling units and a separate
Page 2 of 15",14471,
18560,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 25, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Kohlstrand.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch, and
McNamara.
Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Farimah Faiz; Planner III Dennis Brighton.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007.
These minutes will be considered on March 10, 2008.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of February 11, 2008 (not available).
These minutes will be considered on March 10, 2008.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.
President Cook noted that she left the Measure A meeting considering how it would fit
into the Housing Element, and would like to see a presentation on how the Housing
Element would be updated, and how it fit into the State Density Bonus Ordinance and the
Secondary Unit Ordinance amendments.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had heard numerous comments on the
educational nature of the Measure A forum, and that they wished to have more
presentations in the future. She believed that a weeknight evening would be good for
most people.
Board Member Lynch wished further clarification on the input requested from the
Planning Board members. He was concerned about the budget and time impacts of
additional work requested of staff; he noted that the budget was set for the current work
Page 1 of 15",14471,
18559,"8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
10
TC Minutes
9/22/21",14471,
18558,"Staff Member Payne pointed out where the update for the Oakland/Alameda Access Project was
located, page 23, and then discussed that project and timeline. She also clarified that the before
and after data for Otis was based on quantitative analysis.
Chair Soules added that she would follow up with Staff Member Payne about Orion St.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6C
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know what success for Line 78 would be. He felt that it was a
difficult time to be starting a bus line during a pandemic, and he expressed concerned that people
were hesitating to get on a bus right now.
Staff Member Payne answered that she had not seen any of the parameters on what was needed
for that bus line to be successful. She added that there is a good faith effort to keep it beyond the
first year.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to further discuss the Slow Streets map from the presentation. He
discussed what he had observed about slow streets near where he lived, Woodstock, and felt that
at the end of slow streets they did not create safe pedestrian behavior. He wanted to know if staff
had looked at what happens when slow streets end and what people do.
Staff Member Wheeler said that was something that could be incorporated into their work. She
added that a common response they had received on the survey was that people wanted a network
of slow streets created. She discussed how that could address the issue of slow street endpoints.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know if there was a date set up to initiate the sub-committee
discussions on the technical report for the Mobility Element.
Staff Payne stated that was being delayed until next year until after the AC Transit Recovery Plan
and the Active Transportation Plan approval. She explained what other input was needed since it
all would build on each other.
Staff Member Payne pointed out that it was National Roundabout Week.
Chair Soules pointed out that it was Walk and Roll to school on 10/6 and reminded everyone that
the Special Commission Meeting was 10/27.
TC Minutes
9
9/22/21",14471,
18557,"outreach. Public outreach would start late this year or early next year and she then laid out the
phases and what that entailed. This was a major effort and they would be applying for grant funding
to complete and construct. She also explained what information they look for and gather during
the evaluation.
Chair Soules asked with the investment in bike infrastructure, were they collecting data on bike
counts. Had they been doing surveys, travel diaries, or counts in mode shift?
Staff Member Wheeler answered that they had done a statistically significant survey asking about
mode choice. She did acknowledge that a travel diary would be the best survey and they could do
those in the future. She also pointed out the bike counter on the Cross Alameda Trail but due to
the pandemic, those numbers aren't a true reflection. She discussed other surveys and numbers
they had been looking at for future comparisons.
Staff Member Payne added that working on better data collection with new technologies was
something they would be working on as part of the Smart City Master Plan effort.
Chair Soules discussed how data collected intersected with their equity issues. She wanted to see
if there was actual uptake in what they were offering as the transportation options to a larger
population.
Staff Member Wheeler discussed how the statistically significant surveys would consider the
population diversity. She also added that after projects were done they collected data as well.
Public Comments for #6C
Jill Staten discussed how important before and after data was, you needed to have good baseline
data. She did not believe that survey data was good data, what really mattered was the
observational data. She encouraged more observational data and fewer survey data.
Jim Strehlow wanted more clarification on where the work on Orion Street would take place. He
also had concerns about safety on the new bike lane on Clement. He also wanted an update on
when the Oakland/Alameda Access Project would begin. He also agreed with the previous speaker
about having fewer survey data, he considered them hearsay and could be easily manipulated. He
also pointed out that there was no chat window available for the meeting.
TC Minutes
8
9/22/21",14471,
18556,"Commissioner Weitze stated that he would vote against this resolution strictly on the idea that he
did not believe that an on/off again pedestrian recall was safer. He saw Vision Zero as important
and believed this resolution was the opposite of that.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve/endorse the staff's recommendation with the
amendment that the wording change to ""community mixed-use/Commercial"" to be consistent with
the staff report. Chair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the
motion passed 3-1 with Commissioner Weitze voting against and Commissioner Rentschler being
absent.
6C. Status Report on Transportation - September 2021 (Discussion Item)
Staff Member Payne gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137023&GUID=F0B7864D-20DE-
402B-AC24-FFFFC8AF4048.
Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, and
Staff Member Vance also gave updates on projects.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6C
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about the repaving and repainting along Buena Vista and if it
would include restriping near Maya Lin School. Would they be establishing crosswalks near that
location? She also wanted to know the timeframe for that project.
Staff Member Vance said the project that just wrapped up was not a resurfacing project so they
did not add crosswalks at that time. The next phase would include a designer who would evaluate
accessible curb ramps, pavement markings, and that is when they would look at that intersection.
This will take place sometime next year, in the fall and the winter.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked staff to respond to the public comment who was concerned for
that intersection and give them an update on the timing of that project.
Commissioner Weitze asked for a completion date for the evaluation (bike lane, road diet) of the
Lincoln/Pacific corridor.
Staff Member Payne discussed how the project had been expanded and that a more comprehensive
look had been planned for the corridor. It would now include a larger area and it needed more
TC Minutes
7
9/22/21",14471,
18555,"Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B
Commissioner Rentschler wanted to know if this was something that should be revisited. He did
not want to create friction between modes and have people angry needlessly. He also wanted to
know if this didn't work, what was the plan.
Director Smith explained how recall was already implemented on Park and Webster currently and
that this policy would allow for the implementation of the time of day component, which is the
functional change of this policy. They would only revisit it if they were directed to do so.
Commissioner Weitze first endorsed Bike Walk Alameda's statement and letter about signal
improvements for bikes on Appezzato Parkway; he thought that was way overdue. He explained
his concerns with the ""sometimes this and sometimes that"" signals, especially in locations where
they are teaching walking signals to children. He thought it should be, you push a button, and then
it's safe to walk. He worried that having recall different at different times could be confusing and
possibly dangerous. He was against the time of day recall.
Commissioner Kohlstrand agreed with Commissioner Weitze's observations and was also
struggling with the time of day concept. She thought that having recall all the time along Park and
Webster would be good. She also wanted to know why the intersection of Park and Otis was left
off the pedestrian map, she pointed out what a busy pedestrian intersection that was. Other than
that she was supportive of the staff recommendation.
Director Smith explained what decisions and criteria had gone into the pedestrian map.
*Commissioner Rentschler had to leave the meeting. He had originally made a motion to approve
this resolution but since he had to leave Commissioner Kohlstrand made the motion instead.
Chair Soules appreciated the red-line and she liked the time of day technology. She discussed how
if the lights were not timed right, you would see drivers trying to ""beat the light"". She also believed
this would allow balance for the different modes better. She also pointed out that the data would
allow them to make adjustments to make this work better. She also agreed with and endorsed
Commissioner Kohlstrand's clarification.
Vice Chair Yuen endorsed this policy and felt that she better understood it after the revisions. She
agreed that the policy was nuanced, adaptive, and could balance everyone's needs. She discussed
why some people were hesitant to support push buttons.
TC Minutes
6
9/22/21",14471,
18554,"Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B
Commissioner Rentschler wanted staff to be able to maximize use of available tools for optimizing
signal timing. He also made note that despite the City's goal for mode shift, most people currently
drive. He understood there was pressure on Public Works to reach the mode shift goals but he was
opposed to creating needless wait time for drivers as a means to get there. He believed that actuated
pedestrian signal use was most efficient. He discussed other ways they could improve the system
as it was now.
Commissioner Kohlstrand generally agreed with the revisions that had been made. She then asked
for a clarification on the wording in the redline resolution.
Director Smith clarified that the staff report and the presentation were correct, and that the intent
is to use land use designation for community/commercial She apologized for the mistake and
noted that the resolution would be updated for Council's consideration.
Public Comments for #6B
Alexis Kreig strongly opposed prioritizing cars' convenience over allowing pedestrians to be able
to cross when the light is green. She thought that since it was car emissions that were causing the
climate crisis it was unconscionable to be prioritizing driver convenience over pedestrian safety
and access.
Jim Strehlow highly commended the rewording of this resolution and thought it was very
workable. He also endorsed Commissioner Rentschler's words as well and appreciated the work
done by Russ Thompson.
Denyse Trepanier, Board President for Bike Walk Alameda, wanted to have a larger conversation
about how they would want their intersections to behave since there were so many competing
voices. She thought that they had already established in the Vision Zero plan that they would not
prioritize driver convenience so she was surprised to see that as a priority in this policy. She was
not opposed to this policy but believed it did not get to the conversation they should be having.
TC Minutes
5
9/22/21",14471,
18553,"Crossing that the rest of the project would not fizzle. What planning and forethought had been
given to funding and future support.
Mr. Evans wasn't sure if there was a great answer other than planning for the years ahead and
raising expectations, which they were doing. He discussed the other agencies that were involved
and believed this was a Golden Age in rail improvement. Each improvement would inspire people
and groups to want the next one.
Commissioner Randy Rentschler wanted to know if there was any other city that had the same
potential as Alameda to get another potential station.
Mr. Evans stated the reasons why Alameda was a good choice.
Public Comments for #6A
Jim Strehlow discussed how he liked the studies that showed the differences between East and
West Bay. He then discussed his history of living and working in the Bay Area and how
transportation and commuting around was difficult and that sometimes a personal vehicle was the
best option.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A
Commissioner Kohlstrand discussed some of the limitations for high-speed rail in the area, the
main one being no dedicated funding source. For this project, she believed everyone in Northern
California needed to come together to identify how to get these things done. Also, they would need
to work with the federal government for potential funding.
6B. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Signalized
Intersection Equity Policy (Action Item)
Erin Smith, Public Works Director, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report
and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137022&GUID=61E66B31-15AE-
49F5-A8F2-793575E7CCDE&FullText=1.
Director Smith introduced Russ Thompson, Interim City Engineer, Robert Vance, Public Works
Senior Engineer, and Ryan Dole, a Transportation Engineer with Kimley Horn who were available
for questions and input.
TC Minutes
4
9/22/21",14471,
18552,"Commissioner Weitze wanted to know how this project would be different from the High-Speed
Rail project that California had been developing, which in his opinion had been a disaster. He
wanted to know what lessons they had learned from that project. He also wanted to know how
much faster this would be if they just focused on one thing and then worried about the connections.
Mr. Evans said they had learned a lot from that situation. He explained how and why this project
was different. He saw their analysis as using existing highly functional systems and making
improvements to these existing systems. He then explained what their findings had discovered, to
serve the megaregion this project would likely start in the inner Bay Area but it would still serve
the larger area.
Vice Chair Yuen wanted to know more about potential impacts to the City of Alameda, such as
potential service stops. She also wanted to know what information they should be gathering about
potential stops and the best way to share that information.
Mr. Evans said they would rely on the involvement of city staff and this commission to know
where they thought service stops should be. Then they could match that up with their findings.
Staff Member Payne discussed the work and research staff had done to best locate and decide on
potential service stops. She discussed other ways they could gather information and was open to
other suggestions.
Ms. Franklin discussed the community engagement that BART had done to better understand
service needs and aspirations. She would alert staff about their next survey and would share those
findings.
Chair Soules brought up the RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) and the changing
population that would be happening and wanted to make sure those demographic changes were
captured.
Mr. Evans discussed how the Transbay Crossing was the centerpiece of this project and how this
project would enable so much more. It was not just a way to get to and from San Francisco and he
further discussed how this would serve different needs.
Chair Soules appreciated the big bold vision and was happy to see the outer communities
considered. She wanted to know what assurances they had that once they had the Transbay
TC Minutes
3
9/22/21",14471,
18551,"Wood, 9th, and Buena Vista. She added that it was hard to cross there and that cars drove by
without stopping and at high speeds.
Jill Staten discussed the slow street on Versailles and thought that this street was not well chosen
for the program. She explained the many issues with the traffic that she had noted and that drivers
would become frustrated.
5. Consent Calendar
5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, July 28, 2021
(Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137020&GUID=EE3E1FEB-85D0-
3AF-985C-5744F51CD6B4&FullText=1.
Gail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, corrected that Commissioner Hans had been
present at the meeting.
Commissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction and
Chair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 4-
0, Vice-Chair Yuen abstained since she had been absent at the meeting.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Discuss Link21: New Regional Rail/Transbay Rail Crossing Project Update
(Discussion Item)
Staff Member Payne introduced Nicole Franklin with BART and Alex Evans of HNTB who gave
the presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137021&GUID=8186601E-EB9D-
4ED2-8402-B67366E4B6C5&FullText=1
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted more information on the vehicle types that would be used. She
wanted to know how the technology would link together and what would need to be electrified.
Mr. Evans explained about the new generation electric vehicles they were working on and how
Caltrans would adopt that technology. He explained what was being electrified and what systems
could use both diesel and electricity.
TC Minutes
2
9/22/21",14471,
18550,"Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, September 22, 2021
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Due to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were
able to attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.
City Hall was NOT open to the public during the meeting.
Legistar Link:
https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811336&GUID=3E8F230B-9CBC-47B0-
8633-082B444CD1D6&Options=info/&Search=.
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Kohlstrand*, Weitze*, Rentschler.
Absent: Commissioner Michael Hans and Alysha Nachtigall.
*Kohlstrand and Weitze arrived after the initial roll call.
2. Agenda Changes
Chair Samantha Soules said they would delay item 5 until they had a quorum.
3.
Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137019&GUID=B567D985-136F-
4FC9-B85D-073F5DCFEFDC&FullText=1.
4. Announcements / Public Comments
Chair Soules thanked Vice Chair Tina Yuen for stepping into the role of Vice Chair. She then
expressed her deepest condolences to the family of the man who was killed recently in a traffic
fatality on Fernside. She discussed the important work that staff was doing with the Vision Zero
Plan.
Hannah Green expressed her safety concerns about crossing the street on Buena Vista with her
children near Chapin Street. She asked that crosswalks be painted at the intersection of Chapin,
TC Minutes
1
9/22/21",14471,
18549,"SSHRB, Minutes - Regular Meeting, March 23, 2006
Page 4
M/S (Hollinger-Jackson/Hanna) to send a report to the Council supporting the staff recommendations
was approved 4/0.
3.B.
RECOMMENDATION TO CO-SPONSOR THE ALAMEDA SERVICES
COLLABORATIVE APRIL MEETING Staff explained this luncheon event organized by the Red
Cross and typically co-sponsored by the SSHRB. The April meeting will be on the topic of mental
illness and in conjunction with the Youth Collaborative's monthly meeting. M/S to co-sponsor the
April ASC Meeting (DH/RB) was approved 4/0.
3.C. WORK GROUP PROGRESS REPORTS
Alamedans Together Against Hate: Hanna reported that the Work Group met last week and is meeting
again next week to continue working on its mission and work program. Hollinger-Jackson said the No
Room for Hate stickers handed out at the Lunar New Year Festival got a great response and it would
be good to get pins or flags that would be more lasting. Staff will look into costs. Hanna reported he is
working with Jim Franz and the Fourth of July Parade Committee on the trolley.
Assessment and Awareness Work Group: Bonta reported they are still working on the Needs
Assessment and that after the next meeting they will be ready to circulate a draft for Board review.
Family Services Work Group: Reporting for Wasko, staff stated the Work Group met last week and
primarily discussed the Festival of Families coming up on May 13. There are good early sign-ups from
CBOs; Jody Moore of the Commission for Disability Issues spoke at the last meeting about her idea
for a socialization group for special needs children and their families.
Sister City Work Group: Reporting for Chen, staff stated they are still waiting for a date from the
Mayor to schedule the trip to Wuxi.
4.
BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Bonta announced he will attend a hearing on quality preschool and childcare to be held next week.
Stafff reminded that work group accomplishments and work programs are due April 17 to prepare a
report for the joint session with Council.
Dennis announced he is resigning from the Board due to time constraints and feeling that there are
many people who will be able to carry out the Board's mission. He plans to stay on until the end of
May, 2006.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None.
6.
ADJOURNMENT President Bonta adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Beaver, Secretary
CB:sb
G:SSHRB\Packets/2006\March2006\Minutes.doc
Packets 2006",14471,
18548,"SSHRB, Minutes - Regular Meeting, March 23, 2006
Page 3
techniques. Two years ago Berkeley and Oakland programs merged. Between the two agencies, 30,000
have been trained. This proposal will build capacity in City of Alameda through volunteer training.
Not a legal organization, they don't provide legal advice, but create a positive environment to get
people talking and working together. He urged support of the staff recommendations.
In response to Dome's question, Escobar stated there is outreach and recruitment to targeted
communities; it is a stepping stone for people who want to be mediators professionally. They' ve had a
big influx of people who want to be mediators so have to be selective. They work with City agencies,
police department, council members, planning and other managers and some court referrals. They try
to get people into mediation before they get to court.
In response to Bonta's questions, Escobar stated the top 3 issues are family concerns (e.g. retooling
custody, elder care, parent/teen disputes); landlord/tenant concerns (but they refer to legal resources if
eviction involved) and small business and workplace disputes. They have a sliding scale fee, but no
one is turned away. Landlord/Tenant fees are $40 for each side (if they can) and business/commercial
is $80 session. The process starts with listening, counseling, coaching for a specific situation of one
caller. If both parties are willing, set up convenient time to meet with team of mediators who find out
issues, facilitate discussion and empower them to resolve their own conflicts.
In response to Hollinger-Jackson's questions, Escobar noted there is a huge need for translators, mostly
Spanish speaking and that they are recruiting low-income/under-employed Alamedans to train and
practice on the job, transfer skills into their own lives.
In response to Hanna's question, Escobar stated their offices are at Preservation Park in Oakland and
they are looking for places in Alameda where they can conduct mediations.
In response to Dome's question, Wright stated that the performance goals in the chart are from the first
two quarters of FY 2005-06. Programs that have met more than 100% of goals already are ones that
sign all their members up at the beginning of the grant period.
Hanna commented that the process looks like a lot of work and the distribution appears to be fair.
Hollinger-Jackson stated it is very clear, consistent with our recommendations re: needs. Bonta asked
about ""approved for funding"" in non-public service categories and Wright explained that Technical
Assistance helps the agencies that provide services to the community and it has been broadened to
serve a number of agencies. She noted that the East Bay Mediation program is seen as a one-time/one-
year investment to build a cadre of volunteers in the community. Money may not be available next
year. She noted that even though one-time funding, will they be able to do it because people they train
will stay in their volunteer base.
Bonta noted that the first 3 SSHRB priorities are clearly being met but the fourth is somewhat usual
and is there anything that speaks to this priority. Wright noted that the chart in packet shows focus
areas covered by each proposal.
Bonta stated that the report to the Council should recognize the fact that we were able to accommodate
the requests that were made. Hollinger-Jackson stated there should be a comment re: support for the
one-time funding for EBCMS and that there should something said about the focus areas. Bonta will
review and sign the letter but can't be at the meeting on the 18th Hollinger-Jackson will attend on
behalf of the Board.",14471,
18547,"SSHRB, Minutes - Regular Meeting, March 23, 2006
Page 2
provided in past and that additional money would have funded additional FVLC staff to work in APD
and that other resources will be sought for this position.
Bonta noted that the Food Bank requested more money and that they had received a allocation to
purchase a modular unit earlier this year.
Bonta noted that 3 organizations were not recommended for funding and that their scores are lower. In
response to his question, Wright stated that the main reason is lack of funding and that existing
contracts covering services are already in place and would have to be de-funded. ACAP has other
resources to operate their program; the Goodwill program has a high price tag, they too have other
resources and the City already funds other homeless services.
Wright further stated that although not recommended for funding, BAIRS gets an ""honorable
mention."" The concept is good, but there are confluence of issues affecting the city, such as federal
requirements re: handling of translation and services to limited English speaking populations. BAIRS
received a lower score on capacity to deliver the services. They think BAIRS is good candidate for
technical assistance to see if we can get the Director certified to provide the services.
Jim Franz, Red Cross Bay Area, thanked the Board for supporting reprogrammed funds earlier in the
year and noted that so far only $2,500 has been disbursed because of mild weather, but recently there
has been a spike in calls. He hopes the Board will approve the recommendations of staff that support
safety net services, not just the ARC but the Food Bank as well. He noted a plan to increase ASC
meetings from 3 to 5 per year to bring agencies and providers together, knowing there will be tighter
times in the future, and collecting referral sheets from each agency and working with the libraries to
get that information out in the west end.
Cheri Allison, Family Violence Law Center Executive Director asked the Board to approve the
recommendations of staff. FVLC has provided services in Alameda for at least 6 years, including
domestic violence (DV) counseling, accompanying women and children to court and helping with
restraining orders. They have been trying to get a DV advocate stationed in APD. The number of
people they're able to help goes up astronomically. When they can they send a staff attorney to court
on DV day (Friday) to assist the court in counseling people who don't have representation. Recently
they entered into an operational agreement with Building Futures with Women and Children to
conduct DV restraining order clinics at APC. They have an Active Board of Directors and are working
on a five-year strategic plan, including sustainability strategies. A recent fundraiser netted $51,000.
In response to Hollinger-Jackson's questions, Allison responded that they connect with women
needing FVLC services through trainings, referral cards given to victims by the police and other
referring agencies, and through another program in Oakland, not funded by Alameda, that assists APD
in placing vicitims after hours.
In response to Bonta's question, Allison stated that they attend the Alameda court and that they have 6
staff attorneys, 2 of whom are Spanish speaking and also volunteer attorneys who mostly work on
long-term and/or complicated cases. They go though a DV training course and are screened by
Alameda County Women's Bar Association.
Shar Escobar, East Bay Community Mediation, stated they train people to become community
peacemakers by giving them basic communication skills, and problem solving and dispute resolution",14471,
18546,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, March 23, 2006
1.
ROLL CALL AND CALL TO ORDER: President Bonta called the meeting to order at 7:38
p.m. Present: President Bonta, Members Dome, Hollinger-Jackson, Franz and Hanna. Absent:
Member Chen and Vice President Wasko. Staff: Beaver. Member Franz recused himself due to his
affiliation with one of the recommended subgrantees, and stepped off the dais.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the February 23, 2006 meeting were carried over
to the April meeting.
3A.
REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE: CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDING
ALLOCATIONS Beaver noted that this item is referred to the Board annually by the City Council and
that recommendations and that recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council in conjunction
with a hearing on April 18. Terri Wright, CD Programs Manager, now administrator of CDBG funding
in Base Reuse and Community Development Division (BRCDD) was introduced.
Wright stated that twelve proposals were received and reviewed by BRCDD staff using criteria
provided in the packet. The ; proposals were evaluated for timeliness, completeness and accuracy. A
total of 120 points were possible; the ratings ranged from 80 to 109 points. There is approximately
$249,000 available. Nine proposals are being recommended for funding. Eight of the nine are current
subgrantees. Two agencies currently receiving CDBG didn't submit proposals this year, so there is a
slight increase to remaining subgrantees in the coming year.
Wright noted the funding recommendations are available on line and in DSD office. City council will
hold a hearing on April 18, including the Board's recommendations. Once approved, grant agreements
and scopes of work will be prepared and agencies will be able to start using the funds July 1,2006. A
two-year funding cycle is being implemented. Funding in the second year is subject to the City's grant
from HUD and each subgrantee's satisfactory performance in 2006-07.
Wright stated there is a great deal of uncertainty related to CDBG in coming years. There was a ten
percent drop this year, but a comparable level of public service funding was maintained because of
additional program income. The President's budget proposal is bleak and could result in a 30% cut.
Although Congress has been successful holding off major cuts, significant reductions may be
necessary in the future.
In response to Hollinger-Jackson's question, Wright responded that while there is high demand, public
services are capped at 15% by HUD so more cannot be allocated to these activities.
In response to Bonta's question. re: likelihood of more program income, Wright explained that the
forecast is based on the monthly loan portfolio receipts and anticipated payoffs only. There may be
additional payoffs, but they have to base the budget only on what is known.
In response to Bonta's question; Wright responded that the two organizations S currently receiving
funds that didn't apply for 2006-07 are AUSD's WOW Afterschool Program and ARPD's RAP
Afterschool Program.
In response to Hanna's question whether agencies receiving substantially less than requested are going
to be able to deliver services, Wright replied that the recommended funding is consistent with services",14471,