rowid,text,pages_fts,rank
101,"MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED JULY 6, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 20, 2021-6:59 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:48 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox
White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:
The meeting was conducted via Zoom]
Absent:
None.
CONTINUED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM
(21-479) Resolution No. 15801, ""Amending Resolution Nos. 15728 and 15739 Amending
the 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Dates."" Adopted.
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was not on Council when the meeting
dates changed; noted correspondence has been received on the matter; stated that she
is not available for the proposed September 22nd meeting date; proposed keeping the
September 1st meeting date and reverting to the September 21st date; stated the
proposal appears to accommodate different requests.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about changing the meeting dates due to
religious holidays.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the September 1st and 22nd meeting
dates; stated the League of California Cities has programming the evening of
September 22nd until 7:00 p.m.; noted the Regular City Council meeting starts at 7:00
p.m.; Council can make a good faith determination that a large portion of the City has
conflicts due to meaningful cultural events; residents have requested Council honor the
conflicts; he does not support moving the meeting dates back; September 21st is the
first night of Sukkot and September 7th is the first night of Rosh Hashanah; expressed
support for September 1st and September 22nd and for moving away from September
15th, which is the most problematic date proposed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for Councilmember Knox White's
proposed dates.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are many ways to participate in a Council meeting;
there are also ways to have comments incorporated into the record; members of the
public do not vote on matters; many events are held in the evening; noted the current
meeting is being held on Eid Al Adha, which is a Muslim holy day; expressed support for
consideration of cultural observations; stated that she would prefer concerns about
conflict be considered by the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB).
Continued July 6, 2021 Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
1",14186,
102,"Councilmember Knox White stated missing Eid Al Adha was a mistake; he reviewed the
inter-faith calendar for the year in order to avoid major conflicts; he will not support
moving the dates back and creating harm; outlined an argument provided by City of
Dublin related to flying a rainbow flag for Pride Month; stated Council can address the
matter with the meetings identified as having a conflict within the community and send
the matter to SSHRB for policy development; Council can do the right thing by a large
portion of the community, allowing full engagement in the process.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the analogy of flying the rainbow flag is not applicable;
inquired whether additional dates have been proposed to be moved for cultural
holidays.
Councilmember Knox White responded had he known Eid Al Adha was in conflict, he
would have proposed the meeting date be moved; stated he has not requested any
other dates be moved; the two meeting dates in September happen to be prominent.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired the original meeting dates, to which the City Clerk responded
the meeting dates were adopted in December 2020 and modified in January 2021 to be
the first and third Wednesday in September; the meeting dates went from September 7th
and 21st to September 1st and 15th
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about taking a stance in terms of policy; stated
should a policy be developed and should apply to all Boards and Commissions, not just
Council; expressed concern about flip-flopping on the confirmed dates due to
substantial business coming before Council; stated that she has a conflict on
September 1st; the original proposal created a scheduling conflict with an important high
holiday; she wants to find a way to accommodate all community members; scheduling
conflicts will be created; it is problematic to throw dates out at the current meeting in
hopes for a date that works for all.
Councilmember Daysog stated most residents have the expectation of City Hall working
on the first and third Tuesday's of the month; expressed support for meeting dates to
remain the first and third Tuesday; stated that he suspects groups of people understand
the importance of City Hall being as religious-neutral as possible; Council has
previously gone through a variety of religious-based matters; he respects religious
holidays; the business of the people must continue in a practical and religious-neutral
manner.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the proposed dates from Councilmember Daysog are
part of a motion.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the Council meeting dates being the first
and third Tuesday of September.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Continued July 6, 2021 Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
2",14186,
103,"Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes direction
to staff to have the matter brought before SSHRB in the future; stated that she agrees
with Vice Mayor Vella that the consideration is not solely for Council meetings but for all
Boards and Commissions.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has no preference for or against bringing the
matter to SSHRB in the future; he is fine with the proposal should the majority of
Council desire.
Vice Mayor Vella made a friendly amendment to the motion to direct the SSHRB to look
into the matter; stated any recommendation from SSHRB should be brought back to
Council.
Councilmember Daysog accepted the friendly amendment.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:01
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Continued July 6, 2021 Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
3",14186,
104,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 20, 2021- -7:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox
White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:
The meeting was conducted via Zoom]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(21-480) The City Clerk announced the Dreyfuss lease [paragraph no. 21-507 would
not be heard.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the legal notices referral
[paragraph no. 21-500] moved as far up in the agenda as possible; time is of the
essence.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to move the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of moving the legal notices referral as
high up in the agenda as possible.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is proposing
moving the matter above the Regular Agenda items, to which Councilmember Herrera
Spencer responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about moving the matter above the Regular
Agenda items.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated moving time sensitive matters has
occurred in the past.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the item can move to the end of the Regular Agenda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter should be heard before or after the
Consent Calendar.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
1",14186,
105,"PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote on the Resolution Continuing the
Emergency Declaration [paragraph no. 21-498].
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21-481) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and
Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the
Regular City Council Meeting Held on June 15, 2021.Approved.
(*21-482) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,591,408.64.
(*21-483) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Two Contract
Amendments Totaling $300,000 as follows: 1) Second Amendment with Kaiser
Permanente Medical Center, Substantially in the Form of Exhibit 3, for Three Years in
an Amount Not to Exceed $260,000 for City of Alameda Occupational Medical Services;
and 2) Second Amendment with Preferred Alliance, Inc., for Three Years in an Amount
Not to Exceed $40,000 for Drug Testing Services in Conjunction with Services Provided
by Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. Accepted.
(*21-484) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Easement
Amendments for the Pathway Located Between 3227 and 3329 Fernside Boulevard and
the Pathway Located Between 3267 and 3301 Fernside Boulevard, Substantially in the
Form of Exhibits 1 and 2. Accepted.
(*21-485) Recommendation to Approve an Updated Slate of Recreation and Parks
Department Community Events. Accepted.
(*21-486) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Animal Shelter
Operator Agreement with the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) for an
Amount Not to Exceed $997,818 in Fiscal Year 2021-22; with an Escalator for the
Second Year, and an Allowance for Up To Four Two-Year Extensions, for a Total of Up
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
2",14186,
106,"To 10 Years. Accepted.
(*21-487) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Four, Five-Year
Agreements in the Amount of $150,000 Each per Fiscal Year to Bellecci & Associates,
BKF Engineers, Kier + Wright, and Sandis for On-Call Land Surveyor Services for a
Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $750,000 For Each Agreement. Accepted.
(*21-488) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment to Agreement with Schaaf & Wheeler for the Preparation of Engineering
Documents for the Upgrade of the City of Alameda Sewer Pump Stations, Phase 5, to
Extend the Term of the Agreement for Two Additional Years without Amending the
Agreement Amount. Accepted.
(*21-489) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year
Agreement with Omega Pest Control for Pest Control Services at City of Alameda
Facilities for a Total Five Year Amount Not to Exceed $145,572. Accepted.
(*21-490) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment to Agreement with Precision Emprise, LLC, dba Precision Concrete Cutting
to Increase Compensation by $175,000 for Sidewalk Trip Hazard Removal for a Total
Aggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $995,000. Accepted.
(*21-491) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second
Amendment to the Agreement with Civicorps Schools for Three Years, in an Amount
Not to Exceed $33,600 Per Year, for a Total Five Year Amount Not to Exceed
$168,000, for Shoreline Trash Removal Services. Accepted.
(*21-492) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year
Agreement with Clean Water Fund for Targeted Zero Waste Technical Assistance for
Commercial Food Vendors in an Amount Not to Exceed $289,000. Accepted.
(*21-493) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Third
Amendment to the Agreement with SCS Engineers for Targeted Zero Waste Technical
Assistance for Commercial Businesses and Multi-Family Accounts in an Amount Not to
Exceed $1,334,978. Accepted.
(*21-494) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Award a Contract to G & G
Builders, Inc. for Godfrey Park Recreation Building Renovations, No. P.W. 02-21-08, in
an Amount Not to Exceed $420,077. Accepted.
(*21-495) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment to the Homeless Emergency Aid Program Grant, Increasing the Amount by
$104,576 for a Total Amount of $861,100. Accepted.
(*21-496) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a One-Year
Agreement with Operation Dignity to Provide Mobile Outreach Services for Alameda's
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
3",14186,
107,"Homeless Population in an Amount Not to Exceed $149,717 for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
Accepted; and
(*21-496 / A) Resolution No. 15802, ""Amending the General Fund Budget to Appropriate
an Additional $27,317 for Operation Dignity to Provide Mobile Outreach Services.'
Adopted.
(*21-497) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Approve the Purchase of
Multiple Network Switches and Wi-Fi Access Points from SHI International Corp, a
Reseller of the Cisco Network Switches and Meraki Access Points, to be Located at
Various City Owned Buildings in the Amount of $220,334. Accepted; and
(21-497A) Resolution No. 15803, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget by
Increasing Appropriations for the Information Technology Internal Service Fund (606) by
$220,334."" Adopted.
(*21-498) Resolution No. 15804, ""Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local
Emergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government
Code Section 8630(c). Adopted.
Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item carried by the
following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.
(*21-499) Ordinance No. 3302, ""Approving a Third Amendment to the Greenway Golf
Lease Agreement for Operation of the Corica Park Golf Complex."" Finally passed.
COUNCIL REFERRAL
(21-500) Consider Reviewing the Decision to Award the Contract for Legal Notices to the
Alameda Journal, including a Possible Re-Vote to Terminate the Contract and Discuss
Ways to Tide Over the Alameda Sun. (Councilmember Daysog)
Councilmember Daysog gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she received emails from angry residents; one of the
eligible uses of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds is assistance for small local
business, which could include the Alameda Sun; direction to staff could include
exploring allocating ARPA funds to help sustain the small local business.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Referral was written to contemplate a scenario
where Council could make a decision other than revoting and includes: ""discussing
alternative ways to tide over the Alameda Sun;"" the key thing is to have staff come back
with both: the legal implications of a revote or pursuing tiding over the small business
that is a source of information for all businesses and consumers.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of staff returning at the next meeting,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
4",14186,
108,"if possible, to allow Council to vote to have the contract go to the Alameda Sun and also
explore the designation of ARPA funds to the small business.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is for both reassigning the contract
and giving the funds.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded Council would vote on how to handle it
when the matter returns; staff should research both.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated for a Council
Referral, the decision is to ask staff to bring back an analysis and not make a final
decision.
The City Clerk concurred.
The City Attorney stated Council should provide direction about what should be
reviewed and staff would return with a matter to vote on at the next meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Clerk and City Attorney have sufficient
direction, to which the City Clerk and City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella requested that the direction look at the price differentials and whether
there is a way to lower the amount due to lower circulation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated keeping the contract with the Journal would be more
prudent due to the greater circulation; she would like to review what can be done to
backfill the revenue loss with ARPA funds.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated a vote is needed.
The City Clerk restated the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an option would be to keep the contract with the
Journal and use ARPA funds, to which the City Clerk responded all of the analysis
would return.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he does not want to waste staff's time if
Councilmember Daysog is not going to reconsider awarding the contract.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would do so; he wants to accommodate Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft and does not know what the City Attorney will say in his legal analysis.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council would not need to revisit the
matter if it decides to allocate funds to the Sun as part of the ARPA discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
5",14186,
109,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is interested in having the contract
awarded to the Alameda Sun regardless of the ARPA funds; she wants both issues to
come back.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(21-501) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Constructing or Installing Temporary
Shelters, Transitional Housing, and/or Permanent Supportive Housing in the City of
Alameda; and Provide Direction on the Type of Homeless Housing Project to Pursue.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how the Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
(HVAC) system works for the pallet construction; stated Alameda Point can be cold at
night.
The Economic Development Manager responded the pallet option has heating and air
conditioning as part of each unit; the systems will need to be connected to utilities.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on the funding sources for each
project; inquired the reason staff did not bring back a bigger discussion about funding
sources and working with the Alameda Housing Authority (AHA).
The Community Development Director responded the funding sources require further
investigation; stated ARPA funding information has not yet been determined; Council
may choose to allocate funding during the ARPA discussion [paragraph no. 21-503];
Project Home Key is developing; applications will not be able to be submitted until fall;
staff estimates potential eligibility of $10 million for a larger project; the rules related to
the fund have not yet been finalized; staff will explore all funding options and return to
Council for a discussion of options; staff will be working with AHA on a potential
agreement for affordable housing vouchers.
Councilmember Knox White requested clarification on location choices; inquired what
details create a successful location; noted Alameda Point does not have many transit-
related options.
The Community Development Director responded a variety of elements and items need
to be considered with respect to each site; stated access to services, such as grocery
and other local amenities, are important; transit line access is considered; staff will need
to have a robust conversation with the community and neighbors to ensure a
comfortable relationship exists between various uses; outlined the bottle parcel; stated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
6",14186,
110,"staff has considered overall costs, long-term operating costs and utilities; staff will
include pros and cons of each site when presenting to Council; staff considers equity in
site placement.
Expressed support over the spending plan; stated the proposals are clear; questioned
the role played by the City within the larger regional approach to homelessness;
expressed concern about the hotel acquisition and operations; stated hotel operation is
costly and will not be reduced causing General Fund money to be spent: Nancy
Shemick, Alameda.
Expressed support over the proposals; stated the Marina Village Inn transformation is
most viable; the proposal is a logical use; urged Council approve the necessary
expenditures to convert the Marina Village Inn to a permanent facility; expressed
support for the facilities including a resiliency center where both residents and members
of the Alameda public have access to counseling and access to resources, including
financial assistance, behavior and physical health services, transportation, legal,
nutrition and food access, and shower and laundry facilities; urged Council to provide
space for community gardens at proposed locations; outlined the possibility of losing a
home; urged Council take the step toward eliminating homelessness in the community:
Cheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives.
Stated there are many well-considered options for the community; expressed support
for the Marina Village Inn project; stated Project Room Key is a short-term project; she
hopes the City will leverage Project Home Key and take an existing building, which is
connected to plumbing, to allow for temporary, transitional housing; the need to end
homelessness is both urgent and long-term; urged Council to use funds to invest in
something durable; Marina Village Inn is close to grocery stores and transit: Grover
Wehman-Brown, Alameda.
Expressed support for comments made by speaker Wehman-Brown; stated it will be
valuable to use the Marina Village Inn site: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Urged Council support the Marina Village Inn project site; expressed support for
comments provided by previous speakers: Austin Tam, Alameda.
Expressed support for the matter; stated that she looks forward to the City making more
of an effort to assist vulnerable neighbors; all proposed sites are a step in the right
direction; Marina Village Inn will be the best way to get people into shelter expediently;
an investment must be made in safety for all: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Outlined her experience working with Project Home Key; stated that she welcomes a
positive opportunity for housing the homeless in Alameda in the future; urged
consideration of auxiliary issues within the reuse options proposed; expressed concern
over fire hazards, safety and security: Lauren Eisele, Alameda.
Stated the best individual project is the Marina Village Inn; the project will be the fastest
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
7",14186,
111,"way to get the most units online; the location will provide opportunities and access to
transit; there can never be enough new housing; housing is desperately needed;
expressed concern about the lack of restrooms in the pallet shelters; stated having an
in-unit bathroom provides human dignity and privacy: Josh Geyer, Renewed Hope.
Expressed support for the matter; stated long-term unhoused residents of Alameda
deserve to have a safe and secure place to live; urged Council to consider thinking
about the Marina Village Inn and modular or pre-fabricated options; stated the projects
are all eligible under Project Home Key; existing facilities can have many inherent
problems; pre-fabricated units can be put together off-site and brought to appropriate
locations: Marguerite Bachand, Operation Dignity.
Expressed support for the comments of previous speakers; stated the motel purchase is
a good idea; the City needs to take permanent housing seriously; many of the unhoused
are people who previously had homes; rising rents have forced many out of their
homes; transitional housing works for those who have been homeless long-term;
transitional housing projects always mean there is an attempt at getting long-term
housing; permanent housing is a challenge; the motel is the best option; the City needs
to focus on creating permanent housing for people in need: Laura Thomas, Renewed
Hope.
Expressed support for the purchase of the Marina Village Inn; stated the location is
smart; stabilizing people earlier in their crisis is far more effective; discussed her
experience with housing insecurity as a senior living on a fixed-income; stated that she
appreciates the plan for a mental health center at the Alameda Hospital; there is a need
for a resiliency hub located in central Alameda; noted many renters do not learn about
relevant resources early enough; people are being displaced without receiving aid;
urged Council to consider land trust purchases of rental complexes: Catherine Pauling,
Alameda Renters Coalition.
Expressed support for the Marina Village Inn project: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated the Marina Village Inn is not new; the cost of retrofitting the space does not make
sense; modular housing is the best solution; homeless individuals need social help and
rehabilitation; she opposes the Marina Village Inn project; the waterfront should be used
for the public, shared by all Alamedans: Rosalinda Fortuna, Alameda.
Expressed support for comments provided by speaker Fortuna; stated the Marina
Village Inn project costs will be too high; urged Council to consider modular housing:
Kristin Van Gompel, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is a rare opportunity to provide something fantastic
in the Marina Village Inn project; Council is trying to serve families, particularly single-
women families with children, above all; the Marina Village Inn's proximity to the west of
Shoreline Park, east of Wind River Park, and the south to Jean Sweeney Park provides
an environment conducive to families transitioning out of a place of crisis; the project will
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
8",14186,
112,"cost more; however, the facility will be better than a modular house in the long run;
Council should not miss the opportunity to do something bold; the environment is
conducive in allowing families to make a recovery; another element which make the
location ideal is the proximity to the job-rich Marina Village business park; Council
should encourage staff to figure out ways to work with businesses in Marina Village to
get families into jobs; outlined businesses in Marina Village; stated the area is in close
proximity to transit; outlined the nearby free Alameda shuttle and Alameda County (AC)
Transit bus system; stated the wealth of natural and social amenities makes the Marina
Village Inn an ideal place to have the facility; Council will have to perform due diligence
related to costs; expressed support for the Marina Village Inn project; stated much of
the community has helped families in need; outlined a previous Alameda shelter for
homeless women; stated the project should be in a place that will help transition people
out of crisis.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Daysog see eye-to-eye; there
is a serious shortage of appropriate housing for families; outlined modular housing in
San Jose; stated transitional family housing is needed in Alameda; the Marina Village
Inn project can provide many opportunities; costs for rehabilitation are needed;
questioned the value of providing children and families a good, safe, and healthy place
to grow up; outlined comments of Marina Village residents and Project Room Key;
stated that she applauds the neighbors, City and County staff, and members of Building
Futures who worked to ensure an environment respectful of everyone; outlined a Town
Hall organized by Supervisor Wilma Chan; stated the response has been heartwarming;
the City will need to provide communication; the project should be pursued; multiple
funding sources will be coming down the pike; the City should seize the opportunity and
make a difference in people's lives; she is partial to the housing model presented by
Delphi due in part to the company being at Alameda Point; she is not a fan of the
argument that pallet homes should have community bathrooms; the community
bathroom model is a disfavored model for health reasons and lead to unnecessary
conflicts; the project is about human dignity; the San Jose project resulted in people
being pleased and excited to live at the site; there are better places to socialize instead
of a restroom; the projects would have laundry facilities and access to services, such as
counseling; the City can provide more than one option; the Marina Village Inn is an
attractive option; expressed support for the bottle parcel near the College of Alameda;
stated the project is about equity; all projects should not be placed at Alameda Point;
she is excited to see the upcoming funding opportunities.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there is a significant need for housing; the need will not away
any time soon; she is interested in finding opportunities for permanent affordable and
permanent transitional housing; units do not need to be transitional simply due to
someone transitioning their housing status; she seconds the comments by
Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; housing discussions need to lead
with the value of empathy and ensuring human dignity is addressed; she does not like
the palette recommendation; expressed support for pursuing the Marina Village Inn
project; stated the project is a huge opportunity; the discussion is a ""yes, and
""
conversation; the Marina Village Inn project should be pursued; Council needs to find a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
9",14186,
113,"number of opportunities for transitional housing; the Marina Village Inn project will not
be enough; opportunities for permanent affordable housing or permanent transitional
housing should be sought; she looks forward to the staff report related to project
administration; a number of different options exist; there is a difference between
permanent affordable housing and providing services needed to operate temporary or
transitional housing sites; expressed support for a more fleshed out recommendation;
stated that she likes the idea of modular home options; however, the option has
limitations.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted there are currently at least 57 children within Alameda
Unified School District (AUSD) which come from homeless families.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed funding reports from Alameda Housing
Authority (AHA); stated AHA could purchase 18 very-low and low income homes for
very-low and low income families; AHA could bid competitively on a land disposition
purchase from AUSD to house 30 affordable family housing apartments; AHA could use
$8 million to expedite the first two phases of federal funding for the North Housing
Development; AHA could buy existing units and restrict the units to at least 80% of the
area-median income; AHA could generate nearly 30 units of deeply rent-restricted
apartments for $10 million; it is important for City staff to work with AHA to see the
viable options; expressed concern about a disregard of costs in the Marina Village Inn
project; stated the focus has to be on the limited amount of funds; she prefers
permanent housing versus temporary housing; she does not think it is appropriate not to
have bathrooms inside housing units; some of the proposed sites have brought revenue
to the City over the years; the last five years of revenues, such as the Transit
Occupancy Tax (TOT), should be provided to show any potential revenue losses; she
would like to see an estimate for upgrades to the facilities; the total costs must be
reviewed; Council must keep options open and broad at this time; expressed concern
about the 55 year covenant; stated that she would like the language to be specific;
discussed the 55 year covenant ownership potential; stated the covenant could lead to
something that is not long-term affordable housing; it is important to draft the documents
to include City or AHA ownership; expressed concern about the units becoming market-
rate over time; stated that she would like the details to be vetted; she would like to look
at other uses for funding; Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been discussed; expressed
concern about Council narrowing options; stated that she would like to look at support
services and locations; the bottle parcel is near the College of Alameda, which is a
benefit for proximity to services; it is important to look at site amenities; public
transportation at Alameda Point is not always accessible, causing the location not to be
as viable.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff has reached out to AHA and are awaiting proposals;
nothing is stopping the AHA from using their funding to purchase buildings to address
housing needs.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like to double down in thinking about
other sites; noted the Carnegie Library has been vacant for 20 years; housing and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
10",14186,
114,"sense.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated San Jose City staff indicated that a lot of outreach to
neighbors occurred; there is a combination of security and constant outreach and
communication; much of the ground work was laid with the Marina Village Inn being a
Project Room Key hotel; expressed support for building upon the existing ground work;
inquired whether staff has sufficient direction provided from Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would be interested in looking at the
Carnegie Library as a viable housing site.
The Community Development Director responded staff would be better assessing the
Group Delphi option for transitional housing for the short-term; stated staff can conduct
further financial analysis around the Marina Village Inn, bottle parcel and any other sites
which lend themselves to something comparable; by the fall, staff will need to know
what to apply for through the County; staff needs to be cognizant of timing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is ready for staff to bring the matter back as soon
as possible.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:24 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:40
p.m.
***
(21-502) Recommendation to Receive Direction from City Council Regarding Uses for a
Potential Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Grant Award.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager gave a brief
presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
11",14186,
115,"In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiries, the Economic Development
and Community Services Manager stated staff has tried to create a stop gap measure
for shelter; the City needs a way to put people in shelter temporarily; the cost is roughly
$100 per night to have people in shelter temporarily; the cost allows staff to get some of
the most vulnerable people off of the street and into temporary shelter; staff is working
with a mental health provider; an agreement for services related to moderate to extreme
mental health services can be created; flexible funding amounts are based on providing
temporary shelter and mental health services.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the name of the provider for mental health
services, to which the Economic Development and Community Services Manager
responded staff is proposing Operation Dignity.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is the ability to provide 24 hours a day 7
days a week (24/7) on-call services and whether Operation Dignity provides outreach
services and during which hours.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated services are currently Monday through Friday.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the services hours could be extended through
weekends and evenings.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded staff can
look into the recommendation instead of the mental health portion; noted Operation
Dignity does not currently provide any of mental health services for the City.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City currently provides mental health services
to the homeless population.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded in the
negative; stated the City currently provides case management.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she can see the need for a program to begin with
services provided Monday through Friday; expressed support for the program hours
being expanded if successful.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the staff
recommendation; outlined the funding and financial impact portion of the staff report;
stated that she would like to see some of the money go towards getting shelters; she
thinks more than $14,000 in flexible funds is a good thing; expressed concern about
increasing the flexible funding to $100,000.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
12",14186,
116,"The Economic Development and Community Services Manager stated the funding
could span over a couple of years; flexible funds would extend over a longer period of
time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the proposed time period.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded the current
funding will likely last one to one and a half years; stated if Council extends the funding,
the program will last approximately two years.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is unsure whether Alameda Family
Services (AFS) providing mental health services has been reviewed; noted AFS offers
substantial counseling; inquired whether AFS would be eligible to help with the mental
health services recommendation.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded staff can
create a Request for Proposals (RFP); stated the City does not have to work with the
proposed entity; AFS is interested in providing services, but not of the type proposed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated AFS has the capability to perform 24/7 service;
inquired whether the allocation of funds is the best use; stated that she is unsure since
she does not know the basis of the formula used; expressed support for flexible funds;
inquired whether the City can reallocate any funds received based on costs and needs.
The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated the proposed cost for services would be $1,250 per week based on a
full weekly schedule, including weekends.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the length of the term, to which the Economic
Development and Community Services Manager responded the term would span one
year.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for some flexibility and for keeping
people in their homes.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the unhoused population has grown; there is a significant need
for members of the day shelter; many people do not have a place to go at night; the
recommendation is a good opportunity; the proposal will likely be substantially
insufficient to serve the need; expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated
the matter is maximizing the space at the day center, while still addressing needs with
dignity; she is prepared to support the proposal; she would like to remain cognizant of
staff time; staff is working on a number of different issues; she does not support having
staff go back and perform work multiple times; existing providers are currently operating
in the space; Council needs to honor the work being done; an RFP would further delay
the process of providing needed services.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
13",14186,
117,"On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(21-503) Recommendation to Assign a Portion of the $28.68 Million of Funding from the
Federal Government through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 to Assist
with Recovery from the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
The Assistant City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the current budget includes $8 million in
revenue loss or whether the recommendation is new funding not considered in the
current budget, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the recommendation
is
new funding not considered in the current budget; stated staff will bring the matter back
as part of a mid-year or mid-cycle update depending on when Council directions and
actions occur.
Stated groups have met to discuss how to use ARPA funds; Transform Alameda
believes the City has a once in a generation opportunity to use ARPA funds to establish
comprehensive, integrated public services for a safe, healthy, and thriving community;
ARPA was created in response to the public health and economic crisis which has
impacted the poor and marginalized populations; the goal of ARPA is to lift up members
of the community in ways which support and sustain well-being; urged the City to use
ARPA funds directly to address the community's inter-connected needs and struggles,
specifically around housing, mental health, economic security and climate vulnerability;
expressed support for the Marina Village Inn project; urged the City to consider looking
into funding a community land trust in order to preserve housing; expressed support for
a mental health clinic, a resiliency hub and a UBI which fits Alameda's specific needs:
Josh Geyer, Transform Alameda.
Stated Renewed Hope stands in full support of the priorities submitted in a letter;
expressed support for the priorities provided by speaker Geyer; stated the notion of
community resilience is going to be important in the years to come; cities and towns
everywhere are going to be called more and more in order to help residents survive
natural disaster and social upheaval; the loss of workers in the previous year has made
the City less resilient; the City's survival will depend on making sure everyone helps one
another; the proposals speak to values held by Renewed Hope; when there is
movement towards caring for the entire community, a safe and secure community will
emerge: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.
Expressed support for the matter; stated that she would like to ensure the City comes
up with a community criteria that reflects social justice and equity values; expressed
support for measuring funds using a scoring mechanism; stated the funds are a once in
a lifetime opportunity where every penny received needs to be spent to the best
possible use for the most effect; expressed support for discussing different housing
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
14",14186,
118,"options related to cost effectiveness and for looking at the social and equity impacts, not
costs: Nancy Shemick, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the strictness of ARPA reporting
requirements.
The Assistant City Manager stated the reporting requirements are frequent; staff must
update the federal government on the use of funds on a quarterly basis; the federal
government has stressed the importance of adhering to the eligible project list and
ensuring accountability for dollars spent; the funds are meant to be an investment in the
community; the City must ensure good care is being taken of the public dollar; the
overall intent is for local government to do their very best to be transparent with the
community and invest in a way that is consistent with the interim final rule from the
United States (US) Department of Treasury.
The Finance Director displayed a calendar for reporting dates; stated August 31st is the
first due date for an interim report; there are many strict requirements; by October 31st ,
staff will need to complete a second and third quarter report.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for coming back with concepts; stated
that he is supportive of the housing proposal; he is open to considering some form of
hybrid which includes business assistance; business assistance does not include
grants; the one-time funds are meant for rebuilding the resilience of the business areas;
expressed support for permanent draws to business districts in order to strengthen the
local economy; stated that he will only consider the matter be placed into revenue loss,
if the City has flexibility to use funding on desired projects; expressed concern for back-
filling the budget; stated that he appreciates the one-time only costs; the housing
proposal is the most impactful; he agrees that the funding is a one-time opportunity and
should be used to have ongoing and strong future outcomes; expressed concern about
squandering funds.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about dedicating funding to
purchase the Marina Village Inn; stated that she would like to spread the funding to
impact as many people as possible; expressed support for prioritizing internet and
Smart City wireless hot spots; stated the digital gap now has an opportunity to be
closed; some people cannot access the current meeting being held via Zoom; people
without internet access have been left out of society for one and a half years; outlined
Exhibit 5 of the staff report; stated the health services recommendation is important;
people impacted by COVID need help; expressed support for assistance to households;
stated services which cover low-income is a good use of the funding; expressed
concern about dedicating four-fifths of the funding towards a project that will impact
approximately 50 people versus a program which can help thousands of people.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would have supported some of the funding going
towards Jean Sweeney Park; he accepts staff's analysis of the park being ineligible; he
supports one of the categories being housing and Marina Village Inn; $20 million of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
15",14186,
119,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Tony Santare called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room
#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Vice Chair Tony Santare,
Secretary Betsy Gammell, Commissioner Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill
Schmitz and Commissioner Jane Sullwold. Absent: Chair Sandré
Swanson and Commissioner Bob Wood. Also present were General
Manager Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of August 17, 2005
The following correction was made:
Item 1-A, line 4
Commissioner Sullwold was present and
Commissioner Wood was absent.
Item 3-A, line 33
90' should be 90°.
Item 3-C, line 9
Cooridinator should be Coordinator.
Item 5-D, line 15
Omission of the word ""to"" before City Council.
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously with the
aforementioned changes.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission approved the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
AGENDA ITEMS:
3-A
Approval of the Golf Complex Policy Board. (Action Item)
The General Manager stated that the policy board was originally slated as an
Action Item at the last meeting and was changed to a discussion item. Decided at
the meeting was to have the policy board in the Pro Shop instead of on the first
tee of the courses so that customers can read them while checking in to play golf.
The question was raised as to whether the Risk Manager has seen the policies and
approves of them. The General Manager stated that he has reviewed the policies
Page 1 of 6",14186,
120,"with the Risk Manager and they are appropriate to post. It was mentioned that
people might not know what the phrase ""pace of play"" represents. The General
Manager responded that the volunteer marshals on the tee explain the pace of play
policy to the customers. The General Manager also mentioned that the Complex
is
looking at purchasing clocks to place on the courses to help with the pace of
play. The clocks will be on #1, #6, #12, and #18 of the 18 hole courses and when
the golfer arrives at those holes the clock should read their tee time if they are
playing at the correct pace. The suggestion was made to have a prize for golfers
who play in less than 4 hours, possibly a ball marker. Also suggested was to
include the phrase ""keep up with the group in front of you"" in the golf carts.
After discussion the following changes were made to the policy board:
To make your experience enjoyable the following rules apply:
1.
All players and spectators must check in at the Pro Shop before
starting play.
2.
Do not enter water hazards or sloughs.
3.
AED Medical Response units are located at EF #9, JC #5, Pro Shop
and Driving Range buildings.
4.
Please cooperate with golf course marshals at all times.
5.
Observe all pace of play policies. Please play ""ready"" golf.
6.
90-degree cart rule in effect at all times, unless otherwise specified.
7. No spectators allowed unless approved by professional staff.
8. Players under the age of 10 years must be accompanied by an adult or
have approval of professional staff.
9. Golf or tennis shoes only. No multi-purpose athletic cleats allowed.
10. Proper golf attire required.
11. Please observe appropriate cell phone etiquette.
12. No coolers. Outside alcoholic beverages are prohibited.
13. Players and spectators use golf facilities at their own risk.
14. Failure to follow all the rules of this Golf Complex may result in your
removal from the facilities.
The Commission approved the amended Policy Board unanimously.
3-B
Approval of the Revised Golf Course Management Practice Regarding a Policy
Allowing Handicap Golfers Access to Fairways in Golf Carts. (Action Item)
The General Manager reported that the original Management Practice #2
regarding the Medical/Disability Flag Access was put in place on
November 9, 2004. The revision is to reflect the addition of the blue flag
to identify the handicap golfers. The revised Management Practice #2 is
as follows:
Purpose
Page 2 of 6",14186,
121,"The purpose of this management practice is to establish and clarify
procedures regarding the use of a medical/disability flag for golf car
access to the Golf Complex courses (excludes Mif Albright).
Policy
It is required that the Golf Complex provide to customers with a valid
medical disabilities card a rental golf car to reasonably access the golf
courses.
Procedures
Unrestricted access when weather and/or maintenance conditions
permit.
When maintenance conditions restrict golf car access to cart paths
only, customers with valid disability cards may access the golf course
under the 90-degree restriction. (Drive parallel to fairways from cart
paths and rough, then perpendicular across fairway to ball.)
Recipients of Medical/Disability flags will be identified by staff
writing the word ""medical"" on the golf car liability acceptance form
and the golf car windshield. Recipients will also be issued a blue flag
to be attached to the golf car.
When it is no longer safe to traverse fairways, areas near sloughs,
lakes, tees, and green banks due to inclement weather conditions, no
access to fairways will be permitted.
The Commission approved the amended the Management Practice #2
unanimously.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional
Matt Plumlee.
The Head Golf Professional reported that the Complex recently hosted a
Taylor Made Demo Day at the Driving Range that went very well. Ken
Jones is conducting free instruction clinics every Thursday morning for
the Alameda Women's Golf Club. Also reported was that on Sunday,
September 26, 2005 the range balls will be replaced with new ones.
4-B
General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and
operational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.
Page 3 of 6",14186,
122,"The General Manager reported that he has been given authorization to hire
employees that are 16 years old. Employees previously had to be 18 years
old. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Restaurant Services was
completed and 19 RFPs were sent out. The General Manager has spoken
to many of the recipients. The team consisting of Chair Swanson,
Commissioner Gammell and Commissioner Sullwold will review the
proposals along with the General Manager to decide which one is best for
the facility taking into consideration various criteria. Once the proposals
have been reviewed and ranked the General Manager will meet with the
City Attorney to negotiate with the concessionaire. The General Manager
met with the General Manager of Alameda Power and Telecom, Val Fong
to discuss producing and running some commercials on various cable
channels. The General Manager will be meeting with Dan Bieber of
Sports Restaurant, Inc. to go over the particulars of winding down their
contract and vacating the premises.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
No report given.
5.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
5-A
Marketing and Promotions, Secretary Gammell.
Commissioner Gammell reported that Ken Jones started the Ladies Clinics
on Thursday mornings before the weekly tournament. Although the
participation is low it should pick up. The ladies are very happy about the
two for one coupon that was sent to the membership recently. New
promotions being considered for the winter months include offering
monthly ticket holders the option to hit a bucket of balls instead of golfing
during inclement weather.
5-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Gaul
Commissioner Gaul reported that the rounds on the Mif Albright Course
were down 22% from last month. Commissioner Gaul thanked the
Maintenance Crew for fixing the rubber on the bridge on #5 of the Earl
Fry Course. The suggestion was made to contact past tournament groups
to encourage them to reserve times for next year. Also mentioned was the
possibility of renting a corporate tent to set up for large events to
accommodate their banquet on site.
5-C
Men's and Senior Club Liaison, Vice Chair Santare.
Vice Chair Santare reported that he attended the Chuck Corica Senior Golf
Page 4 of 6",14186,
123,"Club Board of Directors meeting on August 18, 2005. The meeting
consisted of the nominations for 2006. The nominees were President-
George Humphreys, Secretary/Handicap Chairman-Marty Martinez,
Treasurer-Ralph Bertelsen and Director of Weekly and Tournament play-
George Newkirk. The ballots were sent to the membership on August 28,
2005. Other items discussed were the tournament format and revisions to
the by laws. Commissioner Santare also attended the Alameda Golf Club
general meeting on August 30, 2005 at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
The meeting included the results of the putting tournament and club news.
Also discussed were the Alameda Point Golf Project and the Front
Entry/Tower Project. A representative from the Golden State Warriors
stating that the Men's Club could qualify for group discount tickets to the
basketball games.
5-D
New Clubhouse Project, Commissioner Schmitz.
Commissioner Schmitz reported that the next step in the project is the
completion of the Financial Projection Report from John Ritchie, CPA.
The report will not be distributed in DRAFT form and will not be
presented until it is completed. The General Manager reported that he is
looking at ways to increase revenue while cutting expenditures to pay the
debt service. Some of the ideas being considered are increasing fees and
reducing the amount contributed to the General Fund yearly. Should the
report show no changes in the revenue and expenditures over the next 5
years it would show no way to repay the debt. The final report will
include suggestions and projections with changes to the fee structure and
expenditures. Also reported, the proposals for the Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Report have been received and work on that should start
soon.
5-E
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,
Commissioner Sullwold.
Commissioner Sullwold complimented the Maintenance Crew for the
repair on the bridge on #5 of the Earl Fry Course. She inquired on the
status of the men's restroom on #9 of the Earl Fry Course. The restroom
is tied into a clogged sewer pipe and numerous attempts to clear it have
been made but it continues to clog.
5-F
City Council and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.
No report given.
5-G
Front Entrance Beautification Project, Commissioner Wood.
Commissioner Wood reported that he is moving forward with plans for the
Page 5 of 6",14186,
124,"Fire Tower. He toured the building recently and found it structurally
sound, although there are windows stuck open that need to be closed due
to potential moisture damage.
5-H
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.
No report given.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)
No report given.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None to report.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for August 2005 of $16,219.
The year-to-date total to the General Fund is $36,637 for the fiscal year
2005/2006.
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Page 6 of 6",14186,
125,"Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday November 18, 2015
Commissioner Michele Bellows called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Michele Bellows (Chair)
Eric Schatmeier (Vice Chair)
Jesus Vargas
Christopher Miley
Michael Hans
Gregory Morgado
Members Absent:
Thomas G. Bertken
Staff Present:
Staff Patel, Transportation Engineer
Staff Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
3.A. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 7 pm
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that AC Transit has been actively compiling a service
enhancement plan that impacts the City. Commissioner Schatmeier provided a memo
summarizing the items that were discussed. He explained three priorities came about from the
discussion: 1. funding should stay local; 2. maintain existing AC Transit Line O on Santa Clara
Avenue and if they shorten the route as originally proposed by AC Transit then savings should
stay local; and 3. in the absence of transfers, AC Transit should maintain direct service to
Fruitvale BART Station on the current lines despite the additional cost of doing SO. He
recommended that the topic be agendized for the January 2016 meeting so the Commission can
discuss the priorities.
Staff Payne stated that the City has been working with AC Transit and the City supports their
expansion plan. She further explained that the biggest priority is the restoration of the Line 19,
Page 1 of 17",14186,
126,"which is in the northern waterfront area and a new development will be built in the area. She said
last week she went to an AC Transit hearing and summarized the need for restoration of the Line
19.
4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27, 2015
Commissioner Schatmeier stated he had a change to Item 5b discussion of the Central Avenue
Complete Streets proposal. He said that the minutes state Webster Street and Central Avenue
eastbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large amount of vehicles turning right onto Webster
Street. He explained that he meant to say was westbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large
number of vehicles turning right onto Webster Street and he was concerned about how that
would be treated.
4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - July 22, 2015
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes of May 27, 2015 with the corrections
provided by Commissioner Schatmeier and approve the minutes of July 22, 2015. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.
New Business
5.A. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Patel presented the quarterly report and introduced Rochelle Wheeler, Alameda Public
Works, to present an update on the Cross Alameda Trail.
5.B. Recommend City Council Approval of the Central Avenue Concept Including Safety and
Other Street Improvements
Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, presented the report and introduced
Staff Payne to discuss the public outreach, staff recommendations and next steps. Jennifer Ott
also presented Jean Finney, Deputy District Director of Caltrans District 4, who spoke at the end
of the presentation.
Commissioner Vargas said having worked with Caltrans there are design manuals and guidelines
and there are design exceptions for similar facilities that Caltrans has granted with lane widths of
10.5 feet.
Jean Finney replied yes and the standard width for this type of roadway is 11 feet, so there will
be a design exception for the 10.5 feet lane widths. She also reiterated the fact that traffic
engineers looked at the conceptual plans and gave conceptual approval for the 10.5 feet width.
Sean McPhetridge, Superintendent of Alameda Unified School District (AUSD), stated that he
was glad that the City and staff worked with the District. He explained that school leaders
Page 2 of 17",14186,
127,"support a walk and roll event every year to show and emphasize the need to be healthy and safe.
He also said the City of Alameda has worked hard to partner with them on numerous fronts and
he along with his colleagues support the plan.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he thought staff did a good job on outreach and the
presentation was conducted well. He said Jennifer Ott talked about safety improvements and the
disproportionate number of collisions the corridor is responsible for and he felt that was an
interesting case. He wanted to know if there will be a report on the before and after statistics as a
result of the project.
Staff Payne replied she would like to report back about the impacts after construction.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the presentation commented on the delays in traffic in the
year 2035 and he wondered how much of the delays and growth attribute to traffic growth that
would take place if the City did nothing. He wondered if that would be a similar level of delay
and growth. He also wanted to know if staff attributes the delay growth to the project or the fact
that the City will get bigger and there will be more traffic in the year 2035.
Staff Payne replied the numbers for the year 2035 do assume that all the planned development is
within the estimate including no mode shift and the project is built.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied the data reflects the assumption that the project is built, but
does the data also assume growth delays in the corridor if the project was not built so there
would be no net impact on delays.
Laurence Lewis, Associate Planner Kittelson and Associates, said the comparison that Staff
Payne mentioned was in addition to the growth that would happen from upcoming development.
He explained there was a comparison with the same level of traffic in the year 2035 meaning
existing conditions and with what was proposed without mode shifts.
Commissioner Schatmeier said the benefits listed included the improvements to bus access and
he wanted more detail regarding this.
Staff Payne replied the west end of the island where there is the two-way bikeway on the west
side of the street would have bus islands on the west end of the street to accommodate the
existing bus stop and staff would move the island a little bit north to the far side of that
intersection. She also mentioned that on 8th Street there would be a bus bulb-out for the
westbound bus stop with benches and shelters and that type of improvement along the corridor.
Commissioner Miley stated that looking at the Encinal High School side, he was happy to see
staff partnering with the school. He confirmed with staff that the reconfiguration of the school's
parking lot, which is the staff parking lot, will have no loss to parking spaces.
Staff Payne replied there is no parking loss.
Commissioner Miley replied since the parking lot is the staff's parking lot, where would the rest
of the encroachment of the existing school's facilities take place.
Page 3 of 17",14186,
128,"Commissioner Miley said to follow up on Commissioner Schatmeier's comments about 8th Street
and Central Avenue the intersection is tricky and he lived on 8th Street growing up. Overall, he
felt the project improves safety throughout the corridor, but staff could look to do more. He
wondered if staff could look at having the bike lane encroach into the park because it is
concerning what driver behavior would be like at the intersection, especially making that right or
left turn onto 8th Street going northwest.
Staff Payne replied staff looked at this option. She said the advantage is a more protected space,
but the disadvantages are conflicts with bicyclists getting into the park because there is a park
facility with a preschool and after care with a lot of parking activity at that intersection.
Commissioner Bellows replied staff could move the right turn lane over further and keep the
orientation the way it is and that could provide more room for the westbound traffic to not
merge.
Staff Payne replied there is also a concern when you get to the 8th Street intersection as a cyclist
how would you get across since you would not be orientated to go eastbound again.
Commissioner Miley said the lineup would not be ideal.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to accept staff recommendations with additional requests
and move the plan to City Council for review. He requested that staff conduct additional analysis
at the 8th Street intersection and to further review the short merge or if there is any way to extend
that. He also requested that staff provide the City Council with some analysis that shows what
encroaching into the park would look like, so they have some options in front of them.
Additionally, he asked that when the project is eventually implemented staff would present an
annual review to the Commission. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion.
Commissioner Vargas made an amendment to the motion that included having the engineering
department review the concept as it evolves, so they are officially in the loop. The motion was
approved 6-0.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
-
Cross Alameda Trail - Atlantic Segment
-
Main Street Ferry Terminal Improvements
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
None.
8.
Adjournment
10:21 pm
Page 17 of 17",14186,
129,"Staff Payne replied that would be the lawn space and they would be moving to the two kiosks
further south out of the path of the bikeway.
Commissioner Miley asked about the Webster and 8th Street intersection. He explained the
intersection is where the highest pedestrian incidents were observed. He wondered if there were
any treatments or improvements made within the 10 years.
Staff Payne replied there were four pedestrian injuries at Webster Street and Central Avenue over
the past 10 years and since that time staff has improved that intersection. She said staff created a
new marked crosswalk on the east side and they felt that would improve the intersection moving
forward. She went on to say that half of the injuries occurred before the intersection
improvement and half occurred afterwards, but she felt that did not occur on the eastern side.
Commissioner Miley inquired about Washington Park from Page Street to 8th Street, where the
bike lane would discontinue. He wondered if staff looked at going into the park to accommodate
a lane there.
Staff Payne replied staff reviewed the option and decided not to pursue that because park space is
very limited and they weighed that as a higher concern.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comments.
Kyle Long, Alameda west end student and east end resident, said he took a bicycle safety class
and obeys all traffic laws. He said he feels unsafe when bicycling and feels safer when there is a
dedicated bike lane.
Jay Katter, Alameda Community Learning Center (ACLC) student, said his friend who also
bicycles was hit by a car when riding to school. He felt having bike lanes on Encinal Avenue
would be very nice.
Jay Lucy stated that he does not support the project. He felt the elimination of the parking spots
and road access at the intersection of Central Avenue and Webster Street will be a business
negative and poor use of City funds. He asked for a loading and unloading study to be conducted
and he said West Alameda Business Association (WABA) does not support this project. He
pointed out that at the public meeting when the new cross walks were installed at the intersection
of Central Avenue and Webster Street staff stated that over 20,000 vehicles were crossing daily
and now the numbers have mysteriously dropped due to a different agenda even with the growth
pattern being 2.9 percent from 2009. He said with population density growing, limiting a major
arterial makes no sense when a back path exists on Santa Clara Avenue. He requested that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be considered on such a significant proposal. He also
requested that a Shore Line Drive usage survey be considered to see how the people living along
Shore Line Drive feel about the change. Having been to every meeting on this topic, he felt
disappointed by the changes that were made since the last meeting. He heard that the schools are
drawing from outside the area like the city of Oakland. He asked that the bulb-outs not be used
because they are a hazard and are not maintained.
Page 4 of 17",14186,
130,"Kathy Neilson, Central Avenue resident and parent to an Encinal High School student, said she
was surprised by the low collision incidents reported at the corner of Encinal Avenue and St.
Charles Street because she felt there are more collisions that took place than was actually
reported. She was happy to hear about the inclusion of curb extensions and crosswalks because
they will be effective. She felt that the loss of one parking spot in front of her home makes up for
increasing community safety. She was also happy to see the Sycamore trees would stay and
beautify the street. She wondered if the plan includes redirecting activity to go from Santa Clara
to Central Avenue. She also wondered if the school district considered changing the school
hours. She thought potentially staggering school start hours would reduce the traffic.
Colin Wainmain, Academy of Alameda student, said he rides his bike to school 3.5 miles each
way. He said he likes to ride in the bike lanes because they do not honk at him and the bike lanes
allow him to focus on riding safely and follow the laws. He explained that after school, he often
rides down to Webster Street to get a snack and then rides over to soccer practice at Alameda
Point. He said he would ride along Shore Line Drive after soccer practice, but his coach would
not let him ride in the dark because it is too dangerous.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that plans have changed from initial presentation from
workshop to workshop to tonight. He said what was shown tonight was new material not
previously shown to the public so #1, 2, 3 and 4 became 1, 2a, 2b and 3 from sections A-K. He
felt there should be more meetings on the project now that there are new revisions and the
community should review and have the opportunity to present questions and receive answers. He
asked staff how many citizens along sections A-F have stated that they want a cycle track in
front of their house or business, especially since it will be more difficult for them to enter and
exit their home or business. He also said, the parking widths on sections F, G, H, I, and K are 7
feet wide, not 8 feet wide and he wondered if staff would move the disabled off the street. He
noted that Section J, slide 48 on the presentation packet is something the community has not seen
before and public input was not received. He believed that was a bait and switch. He asked the
Commission about Commissioner Schatmeier's ideas and why they were not included in the plan
other than 8th Street. He said he bikes along 19th Avenue near Stern Grove in San Francisco and
San Francisco would never suggest taking away one traffic lane because that would make it
difficult for vehicles and emergency access vehicles to maneuver. Overall, he said some portions
of the plan he agreed with, but he did not approve this vastly changed project.
Todd Waimain, Central Avenue resident on the east end, said he and his children bicycle to the
west side of the island. He felt the City needs to have a safe way to get across the island and his
children have told him about unsafe drivers and how they are following the rules of the road. He
went on to say that he lives on a portion of Central Avenue that contains sharrows and the drivers
do not understand exactly what they are. He asked that staff construct dedicated bike lanes
because most drivers understand what that is and it is safer for cyclists. He explained that he
would cycle more frequently to the west end to Alameda Point for soccer games and Spirits
Alley if there were safer options to do SO. He noted that when coming out of Crab Cove cyclists
are spit out on a sidewalk and there is signage saying ""Do not bike on the sidewalk."" He also
pointed out that the plan has no loss of parking, so he does not understand why this plan cannot
be approved as it stands because the presentation was quite thorough.
Page 5 of 17",14186,
131,"Susan Sperry, Alameda resident, asked the Commission to reconsider the plan and carefully look
at the issues of the street. She came before the Commission because she was devastated to see
what happened to Shore Line Drive. She carefully gathered newspaper editorials about Shore
Line Drive and she is a property owner on Shore Line Drive as well. She said in the past she was
able to see the ocean from her window and now there is parking lot.
Bruce Kibbe, Santa Clara Avenue resident, felt the plan is excellent and to go ahead with it
because this plan is looking towards the future. He said every bicycle equals one less car and one
less parking space that needs to be provided by merchants.
Commissioner Miley said it was great to see so many young kids out tonight to speak and attend
the meeting and he said they were brave to bike to school.
Commissioner Bellows replied it was great to see the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD)
produce such articulate children.
Matt Winn, Central Avenue resident, said one of his kids attends Franklin Elementary School and
he does not see the school on the study. He went on to say that there is a whole subset of parents
who live on the north side and have kids who attend Franklin Elementary School. He stated that
there are four traffic lanes and when crossing the intersection you have to wait 30 seconds or so
until one of the lanes notice and stop. However, by that time motorists start getting impatient
because there are three other lanes that need to stop and you must wait for all four lanes to stop
in order to go. He explained that he uses Central Avenue to get across the City as a motorist and
he would gladly give up a lane to see this plan go through, so he recommended the plan.
Scott Mace, Central Avenue resident between Webster Street and 8th Street, said he bicycles a lot
throughout the island. He felt bikes belong on the street because they are traffic too and motorists
need to respect that and most motorists do. He explained that some of the proposed bike lanes are
too narrow on Santa Clara Avenue because there is a 7 foot parking lane and a 6 foot bike lane
and this gives cyclists a foot or more to avoid the door zone. He pointed out that on Central
Avenue staff proposed a 7 foot parking lane and a 5 foot bike lane and that is a legal engineering
minimum. However, the bike lane is a door zone bike lane. He requested that staff either widen
the bike lane or revert to sharrows. He noted that some statistics are lacking in this presentation
such as staff say conflicts occur at intersections, but separated facilities do not make it safer. He
stated that they do not know what the cyclists were doing when they were injured. He felt road
diets are good for pedestrians, but signage must state that cyclists are not mandatory, and then
perhaps sharrows could be painted next to the separated bike lanes. He wanted to see new
resources devoted to pedestrian, cyclist and driver education. Ultimately, he was not in favor of
the plan as currently proposed because of door zone issue.
Gerald Bryan, Alameda resident, stated that the concerns are at the intersection of 6th Street and
Central Avenue because it is a choke point across the entire island. He said if you have an
accident at the intersection, you will stop traffic going in each direction and that was proven last
week at the busiest time of the day. He felt if you cut off that line 6th Street does not go around
the corner except for Palace Court and that does not go anywhere. He said realistically staff
should look at the area a little differently such as reviewing the crosswalks on the corner and the
lack of proper driving and poor riding on the part of cyclists. He recommended erecting
Page 6 of 17",14186,
132,"stoplights especially by the school to regulate traffic. He said currently, there are two poles with
bright orange flags and that is the only way to get across the street safely. He exclaimed that
safety is the most important thing.
Commissioner Bellows asked that the speakers with children line up so she can pull their speaker
slips in light of the current time.
Cosma Hatragi, Maya Lin School student, said he bikes to school every day. He said he
sometimes ride his bike after school to Franklin Park Pool to his sister's swim lessons. He
explained during his ride there are many fast moving cars and he rides on the sidewalk, which is
not safe for pedestrians. He thinks there should be bike lanes on Central Avenue.
Deena Hatragin, mother, cyclist and Alameda resident, said she moved to Alameda because it is
a bike able town and she uses her bicycle for everyday transportation. She felt very strongly to
have her children ride bicycles as well and she hopes that more people will get out of their cars
and onto bicycles. She heard over and over again that the City needs to make the island safe
enough for everyone to ride, SO she approved the plan.
Marissa Wood, Alameda Community Learning Center student, said she regularly shops at the
farmer's market and Webster Street businesses. She explained when coming from the west end
and approaching onto Webster Street she attempts to bike onto Santa Clara Avenue, but the part
of Santa Clara Avenue west of Webster Street has many stop signs and the road is hard to share
with cars. So, she stated that when she does not bike down Santa Clara Avenue, she will bike
down Central Avenue which is very dangerous. She felt the project would help all members of
the community because there will be parking spaces for motorists and the plan will reduce speed
limits benefitting pedestrians.
Jerry Cevente, 5th Street resident, thanked the Commission and staff for embarking on the study.
He said he and his wife have been to all of the public workshops and he has lived on 5th Street
for 25 years. He went on to say that he drives, walks, and bicycles on Central Avenue and it is
harder to walk across and along Central Avenue. He said he likes seeing the amount of cyclists
increasing, but on Central Avenue the cyclists end up on the sidewalk. He noticed the vehicle
speeds along Central Avenue are a lot faster than the speed limit sign. He believed the bulb-outs
and the flashing beacons at the crosswalks will create an advantage for pedestrians and make
traffic flow better. He noted that the traffic signal installed at 3rd street is good, but that will
bend the end of Taylor Avenue and eliminate the right turn lane with the ability to turn right onto
3rd Street. He explained that the report stated that a traffic signal on 5th Street may be erected
and he felt it would be advantageous to have the signal sooner than later and possibly not run it
as a true traffic signal all day, but during peak hours and then have it as a flashing red the rest of
the day. He brought up the fact that Webster Street and the way that you see the traffic signals
work on Central Avenue one light is available and then there is a turn coming up Webster Street
going south has its own signal and coming up Webster north it has its own signal. Thus, each
direction should have its own signal. He requested that the City work with the merchants on the
northwest corner of Webster Street and Central Avenue about the impact to deliveries in the
morning. Overall, he felt the plan is a real benefit because of the bicycle lane and narrow streets
to have complete streets.
Page 7 of 17",14186,
133,"impacts on traffic going into the tube even with the development of the adjacent housing project.
He wondered how the planners figured there would not be a problem going into the tube. He
recommended that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be conducted in order to look at the
number of items that have not been pushed here. He also said that a study of the changes to
Shore Line Drive has not been published.
Jerry Harrison, Alameda resident, stated that he supports the proposal. He also explained that he
has cycled from coast to coast and the one place that makes him uncomfortable is riding on
Central Avenue between Sherman and Webster Streets.
Diane Brock, west end resident, said she is concerned about recommending the plan without the
research data. She explained that staff at the last public workshop said the Planning Department
would conduct a traffic study on what is happening at Southshore. She asked that the study be
done before moving forward with this plan because the public does not need vague statistics. She
also felt a project of this size should have an EIS and she needed data before any
recommendation should be considered.
Dave Maxi, Bay Street resident, said he is not against cyclists, but he is wary of the narrow
traffic lanes and the behavior of cyclists. He went on to say that cyclists would arrive at the
Chestnut Street and Central Avenue stop sign and not stop. The cyclists would then go off to the
sidewalk or crosswalk and then back onto the bicycle lane. He questioned whether the narrow
lanes would create congestion for truck, delivery and vehicular traffic because many delivery
trucks double park. He also stated that it is illegal to enter the center lane to pass cars and the
extra street trees will take up the car space and create more maintenance issues.
Dan Wood, Alameda resident, said he is in favor of the project and he heard a lot of people who
are in support of the project. He also heard the community speak about issues which are relevant
as well. However, he felt that the City should start with what they have proposed and they can
tweak it to make it even better.
Griff Neal, Alameda resident, stated that 450 homeowners who live on the south side of Central
Avenue between Burbank and Sherman Streets are fiercely opposed to the plan. He said he does
not drive much, but he has to leave the island for work and family obligations. He went on to say
that during rush hour it will be difficult to get onto Central Avenue and the plan does not
consider the south side residents. He brought up the fact that there is little support from people
attending Franklin Elementary and Saint Joseph Elementary Schools; many of whom ride their
bicycles on San Antonio Avenue and go over to Grand Street.
Klose Slidernagers, Shore Line Drive resident, stated that tonight's meeting addressed similar
issues made during the Shore Line Drive proposal. He stated that the Shore Line Drive project
was a godsend for people bicycling or walking to the beach. He explained that before the project
was implemented pedestrians had to cross four traffic lanes and now speeds are much lower and
cars are not overtaking an already stopped car. He said the outcome of the project created a huge
impact on bicycle and pedestrian safety. However, he was surprised by the number of cyclists
Page 8 of 17",14186,
134,"riding on Fernside Boulevard after including the cycle track there and he felt Central Avenue
will have the same outcome.
Bernie Matthews, west end resident, gave a shout out to Jennifer Ott because she's a true
professional. However, he felt there are many similar issues to Shore Line Drive where parts of
the community, especially renters, feel the plan is ugly and inefficient. He felt Appazatto Way is
a freight train coming down the track and the project is like my way or the highway. He said he
has been a resident of the west end for 18 years and cycles often. He encouraged the Commission
and staff to take a look at the traffic on Central Avenue because he does not trust the data. He
also pointed out that the bike group must have partnered with this project, which felt like a
conflict of interest.
Kelly Jackson, Central Avenue and 8th Street resident, stated that she generally supports the
project, but she has a problem with the plan along the Central Avenue and 8th Street segment.
Last year, she wrote the City about the intersection and she was surprised with the relatively low
number of reported accidents. She felt it was a step backward for this intersection and people
will speed to jockey past each other to get ahead because there is a quick merge ahead of the
intersection. She also felt this is an effort to compromise, but this is putting everyone at risk
including residents and visitors.
Julie Connor, Bay Street resident, said she understood the variety of interests and circumstances
that come into play. Were it not for the road diet proposed at 4th and Sherman Streets, she would
be in support and she felt the Commission should have more information about this intersection.
She referred to slide 7 of the presentation and noted there were three injuries on Sherman Street
within a 10 year span and one accident within the 10 year span. She said only Lincoln and
Central are thoroughfares and to cross Central Avenue is already difficult. She brought up the
survey data and noted that 25 percent of 4th and Sherman residents were not in favor. Also, she
stated that the streets along San Antonio Avenue and Sherman Street will have unintended
consequences of extra traffic.
Bonnie Waimain, bike safety instructor, thanked staff for their work and explained that the
benefits of bike riding connects to better health and reduces the need for parking spaces. She
explained that more people would bike if they felt safe. She said the separated bike lane creates
visibility and predictability for cyclists and motorists. Overall, she supported the plan.
Scott Milston, Bay and San Antonio resident, said he is pro bike, pedestrian and kids on bikes,
but he opposed the plan because he needs good data. When he read the literature he was
disheartened by what he saw was one minute increases to traffic time and that memo did not
support the statistic at all. He also explained that the memo readily admitted that no study was
done on the spillover affects to the side streets. He pointed out that the majority of tonight's
meeting was very pro and at the November meeting there were plenty of dissenters in the crowd.
He felt it was the responsibility of the Commission and staff to think of the macro effects of the
pro-growth initiative occurring within the island. Yet, the City is restricting one of the main
arteries on the island.
Rein Clostenter, Bay Street and Central resident, said he rides his bicycle to work daily to go to
work and supports the road diet. He explained that his mother-in-law lives on Shore Line Drive
Page 9 of 17",14186,
135,"and he can now ride his bicycle with his family. He stated that his children will start Franklin
Elementary and crossing Central Avenue is a barrier to get to the school. He also explained that
he would patronize the businesses on Webster Street more, but he does not want to take the car.
Overall, he supported the plan.
Karen Ratto, Caroline Street near Central Avenue resident, said she rides her bike around and
felt the grant money could cover the EIS. She also feared that San Antonio Avenue will take on
more traffic and she didn't hear much about the viability of using Santa Clara Avenue as a
bicycle route.
Dave Kimball, Advocacy Director for Bike East Bay, said safety is a huge reason to support this
project and the community receives a net gain of parking which is a first. He explained if the
City received an endorsement from Caltrans then that says something, so they need more
partnerships like that including working with the schools. He said his organization conducted
shopper intercept surveys to see how modes of travel relate to consumer spending when
consumers walk, bike or take public transit. There were two studies conducted locally in
downtown Berkeley and Oakland's Temescal neighborhood in order to have local shopper data
which support projects like this.
Jeffrey Berneford stated that two lanes in both directions offer a lot of flexibility for garbage and
delivery trucks to move around vehicles. He felt once the project is in place, a 1.6 minute delay
will produce a domino effect because there are three 20-second traffic signal cycles. He
suspected that the plan will be very unusable and he did not support the plan.
Benty Peterson, Burbank Street resident, said she has two children and she enjoys living in
Alameda because they can bicycle. Therefore, she supported the plan, but she had concerns with
the gap.
Carol Gottstein, disabled Alameda resident, said she was struck by staff's lack of outreach
towards the disabled community. She explained that the disabled rely heavily on vehicles and
she had concerns about the 7 foot wide parking strips. She wondered what the City would do if a
disabled resident requests a blue curb in front of their residence. She explained the City would
have to construct a bulb-out of their parking space into the bicycle lane because that is what the
resident is legally entitled to have. She also agreed with the other speakers who said the data and
reference to the data were vague.
Michele Elson, Bike Walk Alameda Board Member and south side of Central Avenue resident,
said she is the parent of Franklin Elementary and Academy of Alameda students. She said she
supports the plan and felt staff did the work to show the plan is needed. She felt the plan should
be focused on safety because where Central Avenue comes into Sherman Street she observed
motorists flying through the traffic signal as soon as the light turns green. She stated if motorists
could slow down and drive the speed limit that may be easier to get off Bay Street or St. Charles
and get on to Central Avenue or Sherman Street. Also, the plan will help young and older
pedestrians cross the street easier. Additionally, she said having dedicated bike lanes will provide
a continuous route on an arterial that is best equipped to handle it. Overall, she supported the
plan.
Page 10 of 17",14186,
136,"Lisa Foster stated that she does not live far from tonight's meeting location and she bikes with
her 1 and 5 year olds frequently. She said she regularly goes west towards Washington Park, the
library and other establishments. However, when she hits Sherman Street they have to go over to
Santa Clara Avenue, a busy street with buses, so she would love to stay on Central Avenue. She
also said when going past Webster Street and staying on Central Avenue she is okay with that,
but the cars that are stuck behind her are probably not okay because they have to negotiate
around her. Overall, she felt the proposal is a step in the right direction.
John Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated that he
rides his bicycle, drives, walks and takes public transit. He explained that he lived on San
Antonio and Encinal Avenues so he understood the different perspectives. He said Monday
through Friday from 6-7 am and 6:53 pm he has been stuck in the tube going to the Capital
Corridor Station in Oakland. He said the intersection of 8th Street and Central Avenue is the
chokepoint, but if they can save 16 people from being killed or injured over the next few years,
then 96 seconds is not a big price to pay. He was disheartened to hear former chief of police
Bernie Matthews say that traffic was more important to him because he was sure his heart bled
every time someone was in a collision or victim of a crime. He felt there are too many
preventable collisions and injuries and he supported the project. Yet, if the plan had to be revised
and there are no bikes lanes created the safest thing is to take the curb side lane, which is the
same thing as having a bike lane.
Lucy Gigli, Director of Advocacy for Bike Walk Alameda, stated that Central Avenue is not
Alameda's main highway it is a neighborhood because the corridor contains housing, schools,
parks and businesses. She said currently it is a four lane roadway with an average of seven
collisions per year. Staff has done an incredible job composing a detailed packet addressing the
diverse community and their needs. She felt it was an iterative process with many people
involved. She pointed out that the result and package seen before the Commission does not
match Shore Line Drive, but instead matches Atlantic Avenue, Broadway and Fernside
Boulevard. As the report showed, the middle turn lane will make it easier for people to turn onto
Central Avenue from San Antonio Avenue and Bay Street. She explained that the Commission
received over 200 letters and postcards of support and 72 people came that night from Franklin
Elementary and other schools, so let's support this project.
John Knox White stated that a previous resident spoke about how the flags were put up on the
corner of Central Avenue and if that intersection is broken and not working than there it is. He
exclaimed the question that should be asked is how many people are acceptable to hit on this
street because if the answer is greater than 0 feel free to shoot it down. He said the City must
create a safe environment and this is a best compromise plan. He went on to say that the City has
a 20-year experiment happening, which is Broadway. The corridor carries more vehicular traffic
and has neighborhood streets that cross into it including driveways that enter on to the street. He
said they don't have to wait for Shore Line Drive to be evaluated when they know there have not
been major accidents or backups. He brought up the fact that this will be the first bike lanes west
of Webster Street and if that is not a call for equity on the west end then that is it. He asked the
Commission to please move forward with the project.
Brian McGuire stated that there was a well-publicized article within the last couple of weeks
about two kids walking in the San Francisco Marina District with an almost identical road setup
Page 11 of 17",14186,
137,"(four lanes of traffic and uncontrolled crosswalks) as the area around Maya Lin School. He said
kids think it is safe to go and someone driving 35 mph can take them out. He felt two lanes with
a center turn lane is a big difference than a two lane road. He explained that he use to live south
of Central Avenue and motorists only have to go across one lane to get into the center lane and
merge. He went on to say if Caltrans approved a project it is not a takeover of the bicycle groups.
Ultimately, he supported the project.
Karen Bay, 5th Street and Taylor Avenue resident, said she is a 15-year ferry rider. She explained
that she attended a transportation meeting on November 16 and was told that the ferry
experienced a 30 percent increase in the last two years and she has seen it. She has also seen a lot
of people riding their bikes to the ferry and a lot of children riding their bikes to school. She said
the problem with Santa Clara Avenue is that it is not safe infrastructure for cyclists. So, she
approved the project because it is important for students and commuters going to the ferry and
for Alameda Point as whole.
Peter Baron stated that he organized the first bicycle symposium in Cambridge Massachusetts in
the 1970s and he spent his career doing waterfront redevelopment and restoration. He said he has
never seen a town with more bikeway and pedestrian potential unrealized than Alameda. He felt
the potential for the Alameda Point circumference trail is extraordinary and people will be
coming across the island and around the state to go there.
Lee Huo, Bay Trail Project Planner, said he supports completing the trail along Central Avenue.
He explained that the idea of the trail is to get along the shoreline on a Class I separated trail as
often as possible. He pointed out that you do see alignments such as Central Avenue where the
project essentially completes the trail between Pacific Avenue and Crown Drive. He thanked
City staff and the consultants who worked diligently with the concept. Furthermore, he said the
trail is a regional recreation trail and significant commute alignment adopted in the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) regional bicycle plan and Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC) bicycle and pedestrian plan.
John McKeenan stated that the Commission studiously paid attention to all the speakers and he
does not see that often. He said Indianapolis, Indiana known for motor cars and racing has put
together a tremendous complete street program in the last five years and has gone from
completely no infrastructure to trend setting infrastructure. He cited cities such as Copenhagen in
Denmark having 55 percent of its commuters bicycling and the rest commuting by public transit
or private vehicles. He felt bicycling and public transit is the way the community can survive on
this planet. He ultimately supported the project.
Commissioner Miley stated that he would like staff to respond to a few statements made by the
speakers. He explained that the last speaker hit the nail on the head about the fact that
multimodal communities are the future. He said he heard the concerns about loading zones
within the business district and the loss of travel lanes on Central Avenue. He understood that
people may double park on Webster Street more often when loading, SO he asked staff to address
and explain the plan moving forward.
Staff Payne replied the area of concern is along Webster and Page Streets and the northwest
corner, which was mentioned. She referred to page 4, cross-section I, which is right next to the
Page 12 of 17",14186,
138,"establishment that needs the loading zone or has a lot of loading. She explained that the merchant
is not interested in having a loading zone because that would restrict parking. So, she said double
parking occurs and that can still happen with this cross-section. She went on to say that
loading/unloading would occur in the bike lane in the painted buffer and motorists could go
around. She understood that this configuration is not ideal, but it happens all the time and staff
felt having the bike lane blocked every now and then to load and unload was the tradeoff for
having a bike lane. She also mentioned that this is a corner establishment so they could still have
loading and unloading occur southbound on Webster Street.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if the bulb-outs at the corner of Webster Street and Central
Avenue will impact delivery vehicles from being able to turn whether they are going north or
south on Central Avenue from Webster Street.
Staff Payne replied staff does not believe SO and the plan was designed to accommodate trucks.
Commissioner Miley recommended that staff work with the business district in order for the
streetscape to be designed appropriately for that intersection.
Staff Payne replied staff can do that, but they are not at that level of design. Additionally, from
what she has heard the area was designed a little tight so it is hard to get in and out when trying
to park on Webster Street.
Commissioner Miley said people shop online a lot and as a result FedEx and UPS double park
and take the travel lane. He asked Alameda Police Department if a car double parked is in the
travel lane is it against the law to go around using the center lane.
Commissioner Bellows repeated the police officer's answer and said a vehicle cannot drive into
the center lane just to pass a double parked vehicle, the vehicle must wait.
Commissioner Miley asked Staff Payne what is the cost of conducting an EIR for the project. He
also explained that this plan is talking about paint and curb extensions. So, he wondered if an
EIR was required and has an EIR been done for other projects similar to this plan.
Farima Brown, Alameda Attorney's office, stated that there will not be an EIR for this project
because after a lot of due diligence by staff including City Planner Andrew Thomas and herself
the plan is the poster child for a CEQA exempt bicycle project. She explained there are several
grounds for its exemption outlined in the staff report, but the strongest one is public resources
code 21080.20.5, which was specifically designed for this type of project in urbanized areas. She
went on to say the plan is statutorily exempt, which is a contrast to projects that are categorically
exempt. Furthermore, the project is also exempt from a variety of categorical exemptions, which
are outlined in page 15 of the staff report under Environmental Review, 15301C and section
15304H.
Commissioner Miley stated that other speakers compared Central Avenue to other roads such as
Shore Line Drive and Broadway. However, he felt this project is similar to Fernside Boulevard
and Broadway, which he drives on every day. He asked staff to talk about the door zone within
the bicycle lanes and how they reviewed that and came up with the width.
Page 13 of 17",14186,
139,"Staff Payne replied they are under constrained situations and curb to curb it is 56 feet in width for
most of the corridor. She explained that was the best they could do and this is not a best practice
bike way due to the door zone. Therefore, staff will have to implement public education around
this issue. Additionally, she felt having a separate bike space is much better than what is
available today.
Commissioner Miley asked staff about the 7 foot parking spaces and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) concern raised by Carol Gottstein. He said when he viewed the map he
saw some blocks with 7 foot and 8 foot spaces and he understood that some portions along
Central Avenue are constrained. He wondered if there will be ADA parking spaces added to the
plan.
Staff Payne replied there would be six ADA parking spaces added and staff has looked at the
corridor and they believe six would be most appropriate. The parking spaces would be located
west to east in front of Encinal High School, Patton Elementary, two parking spaces near the
Webster Business District, one parking space by Washington Park and one by the Weber
Commercial District.
Commissioner Miley asked staff how many ADA parking spaces are currently present within the
corridor.
Staff Payne replied none.
Commissioner Miley replied so this is an addition and they would be 8 feet.
Staff Payne replied when the area is 7 feet they would encroach into the landscape strip.
Commissioner Miley replied so staff would not encroach into the bike lane or into traffic it would
be into the landscaping.
Staff Payne said she met with WABA and they liked the two ADA parking spaces at the foot of
Webster Street on the east and west sides. She explained that would be accommodated without
any change and staff has not produced an exact placement, but that is the direction and their
highest priority is to place the spaces at the foot of Webster Street.
Commissioner Bellows made a motion to continue the meeting since the time was now 10 pm.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the disabled parking space issue was done in
consultation with disabled advocacy groups.
Staff Payne replied no.
Commissioner Vargas stated that the comments raised by Jean Finney (Deputy District Director
of Caltrans District 4) as part of her comments explained the need for additional traffic analysis
that was also brought up by a few community members. He asked staff if it is possible to find out
Page 14 of 17",14186,
140,"what studies are needed and he wanted to hear from Staff Patel about his perspective on some of
the technical issues that are involved.
Jennifer Ott replied that they hired Kittelson and Associates who performed the traffic analysis.
So, Staff Patel could talk about what Caltrans might inquire about, but she would like Kittelson
and Associates to talk about what analysis was performed.
Commissioner Vargas stated that Caltrans was looking for additional traffic studies in order to
grant the City design exceptions. He explained they only cover the part between Webster and
Sherman Streets, which is a state route, and the rest does not need approval but falls on the City.
However, for continuity sake he asked staff to talk about the studies Caltrans is inquiring about
and the studies that have been done so far, including what are the challenges this project has
from an engineer's perspective.
Staff Patel replied since this project is only a study they have not done detailed traffic operation
analysis. However, from Caltrans' or the City's standpoint staff is conducting analysis on each
and every traffic signal along the route and the proposed signals along the route. Yet, that level
of detail Kittelson and Associates may have done as an overview. He explained that design
exceptions usually go to the headquarters, which is why staff ended up having this route under
the City because they were asking for a standard shoulder width and the City did not have the
standard width.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if the traffic and operational analysis include a review of shifts
in vehicle traffic or only show the Central Avenue traffic or also movements to other streets.
Staff Patel replied that staff would look into the shifts in vehicle traffic.
Commissioner Miley asked staff when the plan would go over to engineering for detail design.
Staff Patel replied staff reviewed the conceptual plan and made comments, but the plan is turned
over to engineering for detail design when the final plan is approved by the Transportation
Commission and City Council.
Commissioner Bellows said what was happening tonight was reviewing and making a motion for
the conceptual plan and that was all that was funded. She said until additional funding is
identified they are not going forward with the design.
Jennifer Ott stated that staff has reviewed the conceptual plan with City and Coastal engineers,
Stantec Engineering, Staff Patel, Kittelson and Associates and Caltrans engineers. She also said
there will be additional analysis and engineering when they get into the design phase.
Laurence Lewis, Kittelson and Associates, stated that an overview of the analysis looked at seven
key intersections on Central Avenue and one limitation that would be addressed is looking at the
minor intersections as well. He said they looked at locations that have traffic signals with the
highest traffic volumes going west to east and during the design phase all the side streets would
be analyzed. Additionally, they looked at AM and PM peak hours to understand the existing
traffic volumes level of service and existing conditions to understand the impact. Overall, they
Page 15 of 17",14186,
141,"discovered there was a 1.2 minute increase in travel time going 25 mph from one end of the
corridor to the other stopping at all the traffic signals and experiencing delays there. He pointed
out that the limitations did not account for people shifting to cycling or walking or account for
people diverting to other routes. He heard several comments about the 8th and Webster Street
intersection and some of the compromises made for the bike lanes were for vehicular operations
and level of service. When he met with the Commission earlier in the year there was a level of
service identified at the location. He said they reviewed the intersection in consultation with the
community and the City and revised the concept so the intersection could operate at the level of
service.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that several intersections were called out as needing attention.
He wondered how staff analyzed those intersections, specifically whether traffic signals or new
treatments were necessary. He said one speaker stated there should be a light at 6th Street and
Central Avenue another speaker stated a traffic signal is needed at 5th Street and yet another",14186,
142,"Apd
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, October 11, 2012
TIME:
7:02 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice Chair Delaney, Commissioners Lola Brown and Ann Cooke
Absent:
Chair Restagno and Commissioner Sonneman
Staff:
Amy Wooldridge, Recreation & Parks Director
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve the Minutes of September 13, 2012 Recreation & Park Commission Regular Meeting
M/S/C
Brown, Cooke (unanimously approved)
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
Speaker - Robert ""Bob"" Ploss, of the Aquatic Task Force, an Ad Hoc Volunteer group,
addressed the Commission as an individual by stating he would like to see an aquatic center
as part of the Beltline project. He would like to be involved in the process.
Speaker - Dorothy Freeman, of the Jean Sweeney Open Space Committee (JSOSC), is very
interested in being involved with this project and being part of the process. She provided a
brief on how dedicated Ms. Sweeney was to acquiring the land and keeping it open space.
Speaker - Helena Lengel, Biology Department of the College of Alameda, stated she also
worked with the JSOSC on the ballot measure to acquire the property. She would like to stay
involved with the development of the land. She would like to see the students of the College be
involved from a scientific study standpoint and learning environment, such as sample testing
and measurements.
Speaker - Jim Sweeney, husband of Jean Sweeney, delighted this project coming to fruition.
Jean never gave up on this, which started in 1998 at a meeting at Mastick Senior Center. The
result was that everyone wanted open space for walking, and bike paths and she was able to
get 1,000 signatures and the initiative passed. Jean was lucky enough to find the original
contact for the buy-back and she was there every step of the way.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Beltline Property - Staff Wooldridge provided a map handout of the Beltline project
[Attachment A] and the land to be developed, which has become part of the City of
Alameda, although Union Pacific still owns a section along the southern portion. She
explained the details of the Rail Banking Agreement and its restrictions, specifically a
30-40' path that must remain dedicated to a rail line for future use.",14186,
143,"Recreation Commission
Meeting Minutes - October 11, 2012
Page 2
This is the very start of the community input process for the project, and the
Commission's task is to determine what the input process will entail. Commission will
lead the process with Wooldridge. Staff suggested the following potential process:
Initial community meetings in January or February with outreach including
mailing to residents, press releases, posting on web and email, flyers onsite
and contacting potentially interested user groups. This initial community
brainstorm process would help determine the uses at the Beltline.
The second step Council approval of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a
conceptual landscape design, paid by the City's available dedicated Open
Space Funds.
The next step would be additional community meetings to review the
conceptual design.
Once the conceptual design and cost estimate are complete, then Staff can apply for
State Funds such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Prop 84. The LWCF
applications are due by Nov. 1, 2013 so that goal is to complete the process prior to
that. Both of these funding sources are geared toward open space, which could include
active elements such as community gardens, bike and walking trails, playgrounds, etc.
It
does not include funding for athletic facilities such as a swim center or fields. These
are harder to fund and would require other funding sources.
Vice Chair Delaney - Are there limitations to lean one way or the other?
Director Wooldridge - The only limitation is the Rail Banking Agreement which requires
that the 30'-40' area along the length of the Beltline remain available, but there is
nothing specific as to where that path is to be. Funding sources are also a factor.
Member Brown - Due to the amount of time Ms. Jean Sweeney dedicated to this project
we should be conscious about taking our time with the process and getting it right. By
looking at the map it looks like a smaller amount of property than the full Beltline.
Member Cooke - When will the project be accepting proposals and will those proposals
be for mixed-use, a combo of uses?
Wooldridge - The community can provide input at the meetings. As we move forward
with input, we will have a better idea on timelines. This group should think about mixed-
use, an active recreation, parking issues (i.e., open space requires less parking), and
funding.
Director Wooldridge - Asked for feedback on community meeting.
Member Brown - January is a good idea, after the holiday, and location should be
discussed, along with whether to have meeting on a Saturday or week day.
Vice Chair Delaney - Evening meetings are good, weekends could work for some
people who travel for work. It would be best to have community leaders, membership
groups to provide outreach.
Member Cooke - Many in the community have little knowledge of this Beltline area.",14186,
144,"Elks Hoop Shoot event won an Elks National Award. Local youth groups and at our
after school sites, will send kids who shot the most free throws out of 25 throws.
These finalists will then compete in the finals in January 2013.
Teens are working hard on their Haunted House at South Shore.
Mastick Open House had 17 vendors and approx. 265 participants. Everyone
enjoyed themselves and were encouraged to visit the vendors through a bingo
game. Staff plans to increase the number of vendors next year. Good revenue and
helpful information for the seniors.
Receiving good feedback on the tennis courts resurfacing. Leydecker, Longfellow
and Franklin have been done, with Washington underway. This is a Measure WW
funded project.
Ritler Park lawn is almost fully restored. Became brown due to an adjacent pump
station project that cut the water and electrical lines for irrigation.
Krusi Park is out to bid, information is available online.",14186,
145,"Recreation Commission
Meeting Minutes - October 11, 2012
Page 4
Encinal Boat Ramp - Wooldridge met with the California Dept. of Boat and
Waterways for potential funding of a full renovation. If chosen, they will provide
engineers to create a conceptual design and cost estimates which are then used to
apply for funding in April 2013. Typically the boat ramp is non-operational in winter
but these improvements would make it available year-round and potential add
another dock for non-motorized craft. Also was approached by the O'kalani Canoe
Club who is interested in coming back to Alameda and making their home at the
Encinal Boat Ramp.
City Council November 20 - Lease Agreement with Alameda Soccer Club will be
discussed. These are the fields currently leased to Piedmont Soccer.
Miracle League of the East Bay - Previous agreement with ARRA needs to be
revisited. Waiting to hear back from Miracle League to see if they are interested.
Meyers House - looking at transferring the House to the Alameda Museum. On the
Historical Advisory Board agenda on 11/1/12 then going to City Council for
discussion in January or February. Museum has a 5-year capital improvement plan
for the house.
Currently negotiating with the Ala Costa Centers to provide space for an afterschool
program for developmentally disabled children.
Woodstock Park baseball field renovation was funded by a 2004 State Grant and is
moving forward with a community meeting scheduled for October 24th
Mayor's Tree Lighting is December 1st.
City website is being revamped
Alameda won American's Promise Alliance 100 Best Cities for the 3rd year in a row.
The second round of Recreation Specialist interviews have been completed and
staff are confirmed: Dennis McDaniels, Christina Bailey and Mariel Thomas.
ARPD will host an Open House for staff, Commission and Council on Halloween,
10am-Noon. Please join us if you are available.
C. Other Reports and Announcements - None
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS - None
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL - None
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
Update on Beltline next steps
11.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, November 8, 2012.
12.
ADJOURNMENT
M/S/C Cooke, Brown and unanimous
AW:sb",14186,
146,"LINCOU AVENUE
0
00
200
300
400
500
GOO 700 800 900 1000
2000
SCALE IN FEET
APN: 74-905-20-03
APN: 74-905-20-03
AREA: 4, 91.07 : S.F
AREA: 4,323.04 S.F.
ABL PARCELS
OR 0.096 ACRES
OR 0.010 ACRES
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 4
PARDEL 26
ATLANTIC AVE.
ABL TRACK
ATLAN
STA.12
STEWART
PARCEL 3
APN:.74-906-32-05
STA.|
AREA: I 4,809.23 S.F.
A. U. SCHOOL DISTRICT
APN:
74-905-20-03
OR 0.340 ACRES
AREA
11,527.55 S.F.
P'ARCEL 26
ALASKA PACKERS
OR 0.265 ACRES
PARCEL
|
SHEET I OF 3",14186,
147,"AM
P.M. 2938
E
COAST
LOT
LOT 2
DIVISION OF THE LANDS
is
ALASKA BASIN AND
ENCINAL INDUSTRIES INC OF
LOT 3
FORTMÁN BASIN
A
R
CLISTOD SLAND
P.M. 5435
S
LOT
8,
P.M. 4564
-
§
P.M.5158
ATLANTIC AVENUE
LOT 4
LOT 3
P.M.-5852
n
LOT-5
LOT /
LOT |
LOT 2
P.M. 5158
P.M.5158
APN:74-906-32-12SAREA
APN: 74-906-32
ALAMEDA BELT LINE YARD
Rak
AREA: 696,2
OR 15.983 AERES
PARCEL 23
en
MORITY
||
STALL
STALE
STAT
is
15
STAJO
S AUTHORITY
is
51
M 2996
ALAMCOA HOUS/NG AUTHORMY
15
EVENCE
EAGLE AVENUE
EAGLE AVENUE
EAGLE AVENUE
DEL MONTE
to
is
is
I
DEL/MONTE
BUENA VISTA AVENUE
V
BUENA VISTA AVENUE
BUENA VISTAjAVENUE
(BUENA VISTA AVENUE
une
OF
PACIFIC AVENUS
PACIFIC AVENUE
ACIFIC AVENUE
OR O.518 ACRES
LINCOUN AVENUE
UNCOLN AVENUE
LINCOUN AVENUE
à
SCALE: 1"" = 150'
O
100
200
300
400
600
700
800
900
1000
2000
500
SCALE IN FEET
H
DEL N
is
EAGLE AVENUE
CLEMENT AVENUE
IIAPN: 72-364-14
73.54 S.F.
OR_0.0017 ACRES
/PARCEL 27
(BUENA VISTA AVENI
APN: 72-383-
AREA: 197,33.72 5.F
EAGLE AVENUE
OR .453 ACRES
LITT
BUENA
XING N 18.1.25
PARCEL S
SHEET 2 OF 3",14186,
148,"E IO W 133HS
1331 NI JIVOS
000Z
0001 006 009 00Z 009 009 00€ 007 00
0
,09 I DIVOS
NI/NMOHS
MOVEL NOIN
IVM
N30711
9661 'ON
SV
00+0 ngv IV
GIHOIS asvord NOINO
&
N
t
0
7
to
1261
to
St
abod
S
&
M
w
]
by
N",14186,
149,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:25 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 5, 2008.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of November 18, 2008.
2-C. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 2, 2008.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Mariusz Lewandowski dba
Woodmasters at Alameda Point.
2-E. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Alameda Soccer Club at
Alameda Point.
2-F. Authorize the Sale of Four Boston Whalers to NRC for $44,500.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions:
0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of SunCal's Draft Redevelopment Master Plan.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, addressed several topics
actively discussed in the community and clarified that tonight's update is for information only,
neither staff nor SunCal has requested formal action on the Master Plan. It is an opportunity for
the community to comment on the draft Master Plan and for the ARRA Board to provide
feedback to SunCal. Because SunCal's plan is not consistent with the City's charter, as it
proposes a mix of residential structures that include multi-family rental and condo projects, this
master plan can only be approved by a vote of the people. SunCal anticipates placing its plan
on the ballot for the communities' consideration in November of this year, and the ENA requires
SunCal to notify the City no later than April 30 if it plans to proceed with the ballot initiative.
Tonight's presentation is part of the ongoing community dialogue that will continue over the next
18 months, as the City and SunCal negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)
for the long term redevelopment of Alameda Point. Two key issues have been the focus of
discussion: 1) the concept of a public trust modeled on the Presidio trust for Alameda Point, and",14186,
150,"2) the amount of the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) investment in the Alameda
Point project and whether or not that investment of redevelopment dollars adversely impacts the
City's general fund which is responsible for financing critical city services.
Ms. Potter discussed the Presidio conveyance model - a transfer from military ownership via
special legislation to the National Park Service and was not subject to BRAC requirements - it
was determined that the same conveyance model is not feasible for Alameda Point. Alameda
Point is subject to BRAC, was previously screened for other federal agency uses, was screened
pursuant to the McKinney-Vento act for homeless uses, and is required to be conveyed at fair
market value for private ownership and reuse. The ARRA is working with the Navy to negotiate
a conveyance term sheet to transfer the property and provide for its ultimate reuse as a mixed-
use community that generates jobs, provides housing for all incomes, and opens up the
waterfront and creates new recreational opportunities for Alameda and the region. To achieve
that goal, the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SunCal.
Ms. Potter addressed the issue of tax increment funds, clarifying that there cannot be a pledge
of tax increment funds without a DDA, approved by the City Council and CIC in public following
a public hearing, therefore, any approval of tax increment funding will only happen after input
and participation from the community. If tax increment funds are raised through the sale of tax
increment bonds, those bonds are secured and repaid solely by tax increment funds generated
in the Alameda Point Redevelopment Project Area (APIP), and in no way obligate the City's
general fund. Based on current projections of the property value to be created by the build-out
of the master plan, staff anticipates that a maximum of $184 million of tax increment will be
created over the life of the project. This number is well short of the $700 million being
referenced in the community. It should also be noted that large portion of the $184 million is
restricted to the production of affordable housing.
Furthermore, several years ago, the City Council adopted a resolution stating that all base reuse
activities must pay for themselves and be fiscally neutral to the City's general Fund. The
Council recognized the task of integrating former military property into the larger Alameda
community would have a cost in terms of a need for the increase police and fire services, more
demand on Parks and public libraries, and increased maintenance of new roads and
infrastructure, and that cost should be borne by the new development. SunCal's draft Master
Plan is supported by a Business Plan that provides for fiscal neutrality.
Ms. Potter introduced Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point Project Manager, who presented the
draft Master Plan via Powerpoint presentation. Following the presentation, there were several
speakers who discussed various issues about the draft Master Plan.
Member deHaan is concerned about some issues in the draft Master Plan, specifically regarding
the plans for residential development, the sea level rising, and transportation issues. He also
discussed the plans for the Sports Complex and that the plan has not changed, except for the
price. He continues to have strong reservations.
In response to public comment, Member Gilmore asked SunCal to explain its financial viability,
the effect of the bankruptcies of other projects, predevelopment funding and where that money
comes from, what happens during the predevelopment period if SunCal doesn't come up with
the money, and how SunCal sees the financing unfolding once we get to a DDA.
Mr. Keliher explained that throughout ENA period, SunCal is required to reimburse the City for
any expenditures, and deposit money to spend on predevelopment dollars. This is done every
quarter and is audited. Once we get through the ENA period, and the DDA period, and",14186,
151,"determine how to actually finance the project, once the land is conveyed, there are several
different mechanisms, including debt & equity. With regard to the bankruptcies on the other
projects that SunCal was the operator on, not necessarily the owner of, most all of those were
Lehman projects. When Lehman filed bankruptcy and decided to not fund SunCal, SunCal
decided, involuntarily, to throw each of those projects into bankruptcy in hopes of forcing
Lehman to start to fund those. These projects are independently financed and structured and
have absolutely nothing to do with the Alameda Point project.
Member Gilmore reiterated the concern regarding SunCall's ability to fund predevelopment
expenses. Mr. Keliher explained that if SunCal defaults under the ENA and doesn't perform, it
is simply over. He further stated that, to date, SunCal has deposited all the funds. Both
Member Gilmore and Mr. Keliher clarified and confirmed that the ARRA is not obligated in any
way to reimburse SunCal for the predevelopment funds that have been spent.
There was discussion about the historic structures. Mr. Keliher is in agreement with the Board
that it's not the wisest move to proactively rip down the structures, and that SunCal will work
with staff on working out a process of evaluating the best direction.
Member Matarrese offered comments for consideration, including requesting detail of
commercial space, and what impact of those spaces would be with regard to traffic and truck
routes, and the industrial-type uses. Member Tam also asked about industrial uses, mixed-use
and residential. Peter Calthorpe described another similar project in San Jose where there was
a
balance of use in the commercial, civic, and retail areas. He stated that industrial
development needs to be treated in special way, explaining that it has not yet been determined
whether there are industrial users that are appropriate for this site and that should be part of the
mix.
Member Tam asked about the BCDC sea level rise, and the 24"" that one speaker mentioned.
Mr. Keliher responded that he has heard various levels, but that no one has come out with
specific number to design to, an issue that SunCal does not want to ignore. Member Tam
stated that we are at the point of our best and last opportunity to provide an economic stimulus
package without public subsidies or a tax on our general fund. This draft Master Plan produces
economic growth, a realistic transit system, and that the phasing will make it flexible enough to
respond to varying economic conditions, whether it's 15 years, or the next 20-30 yrs. Member
Tam stated her appreciation to staff and SunCal that the plan has been vetted very thoroughly
with the community.
Member Gilmore asked what would happen if the City breached its obligations under the ENA.
Donna Mooney, Asst. General Counsel, replied that the ENA is a contract and if the City doesn't
fulfill an obligation to it, it would be considered a breach of contract. SunCal would have a legal
remedy to this breach, which could include asking a court to make us come back and continue
negotiating, or it could be that the contract is terminated and we give back the $1 million
deposit.
Member Matarrese clarified that tax increment bonds are sold based on tax increment at the
time the bond is sold, not based on the development for which those bonds will spur. Ms. Potter
confirmed and explained that, typically, when you go to the market with debt and desire to raise
money through the sale of bonds, the project has to be at least three years into its development
so that the underwriters and folks interested in purchasing the bonds have an expectation of the
track record and then projections about the increment that will be generated over the life of the
project.",14186,
152,"At Chair Johnson's request, Ms. Potter summarized the process and milestones of the ENA so
that the public understands that this is not the end of the process.
This report was for information only and no action was taken by the Board.
3-B. VA/Navy Presentation Regarding the Navy/VA Federal-to-Federal Transfer at Former
NAS Alameda.
Ms. Potter gave a brief overview about the 600 acres on western portion of Alameda Point
property. The Navy and VA have been in discussion for many years about its plans for the
development of the portion of the wildlife refuge property. She introduced Claude Hutchinson of
the VA. Mr. Hutchinson gave his presentation via Powerpoint to the Board and community,
summarizing the status of the fed-to-fed transfer The plans include a 50-acre above-ground
columbarium, a site for a VA outpatient clinic, and a non VA-owned hospital. Other presenters
included Patrick McKay of the Navy BRAC office; Dr. Ron Chun, VA outpatient clinic site
manager; Don Reiker, National Cemetary Assoc. regional director; Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset
Manager of the VA; and Jayni Alsep, the VA's environmental consultant from EDAW.
Chair Johnson clarified for the public that the ARRA is not a part of the transaction between the
Navy and the VA, and has no decision-making power in this transaction. She stated her
appreciation to the VA on its presentation and all its efforts for community involvement. Chair
Johnson also stated that although the ARRA has no control over this issue, we might be able to
cooperate if the VA was willing to look at other areas of the base.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of December 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese stated that the Dec. 4 RAB meeting was 1/2 Christmas party and 1/2 highlights
of the coming year's projects.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",14186,
153,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - MARCH 15, 2016--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie
and Mayor Spencer - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:01 p.m. and Councilmember
Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 6:05 p.m.]
Absent: None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(16-124) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of Litigation
Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code. Number of
Cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiated Legal Action).
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer
announced direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:02 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
March 15, 2016",14186,
154,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2016--7: P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:09 p.m. A member of Troup 73 led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(16-125) Mayor Spencer did a reading for the Season of Non-Violence.
(16-126) Mayor Spencer announced the Water Emergency Transportation Authority
(WETA) would be holding a meeting at City Hall on April 7th at 7:00 p.m.
(16-127) Proclamation Declaring March 2016 as Women in Military History Month.
Mayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Army Veteran Julie Thelen.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(16-128) Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda commended the former Interim
City Manager and welcomed the new City Manager.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced that the Investment Policy [paragraph no. 16-131], the
Annual Report on Alameda Landing [paragraph no. 16-133], the Settlement Agreement
with Renewed Hope [paragraph no. 16-135], the Two Year Port Services Agreement
[paragraph no. 16-136], and the Resolution Approving the Final Map [paragraph no. 16-
138 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*16-129) Minutes of the Special Meetings and Regular City Council Meeting Held on
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 15, 2016",14186,
155,"February 16, 2016. Approved.
(*16-130) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,079,295.47.
(16-131) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda Investment Policy.
Outlined changes made to the Investment Policy: Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the changes are in the Section 3e.
The City Treasurer responded that the section reflects the City's objectives and
community desires, not just State Policy; the addition to the section is coal based
industries; any coal based companies will be excluded.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the policy prohibits 51% of gross revenues from
cigarettes, gambling or alcohol products, yet 0% of any coal based products, to which
the City Treasurer responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City currently invests in any coal based company.
The City Treasurer responded in the negative; stated the restriction will not have an
adverse effect on the risk or return of the portfolio.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether CalPers has the same restriction.
The City Treasurer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated the changes to the Investment Policy are a good
statement for Alameda and impact climate change and global warming.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(*16-132) Recommendation to Endorse the San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution
Prevention, and Habitat Restoration Program June 7, 2016 Ballot Measure. Accepted.
[630-30]
(*16-133) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report on Alameda Landing
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and Review the
Recommendation to Expand the Transportation Management Association (TMA).
Councilmember Daysog read a report on the upward trajectory of the number of people
taking the shuttle; stated there has been a lot of movement with regard to Citywide
transit.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
March 15, 2016",14186,
156,"Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(*16-134) Recommendation to Approve Revision of Underground Utility District Policy to
Have Four Members of the Public Appointed to the Underground Utility District
Nomination Board Rather Than Three. Accepted.
(16-135) Recommendation to Amend Section 4.1 of the 2001 Settlement Agreement
with Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, Arc Ecology, the Former Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (now ""the
City""), the Alameda Housing Authority, and Catellus Corporation to Allow Site A at
Alameda Point to Move Forward with Building Senior Affordable Housing Units Where It
Had Previously Been Restricted.
Stated there is a need for senior housing; Renewed Hope supports the addition of more
senior housing: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(16-136) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Documents
Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Two Year Port Services Contract with Bay Ship
and Yacht Company at Alameda Point.
Urged acceptance of the contract with Bay Ship and Yacht; stated the company has
been in Alameda for 22 years and employees 350 people: Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship
and Yacht.
Stated Bay Ship and Yacht is a great contributor to the Maritime industry; urged
approval of the Bay Ship and Yacht contract due to the experience and relationship with
the community: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Urged approval of the Bay Ship and Yacht contract: Chad Peddy, Bay Ship and Yacht.
Urged approval of the Bay Ship and Yacht contract: David Mik, Power Engineering.
Stated Bay Ship and Yacht is proactive in addressing environmental cleanup for the
property they took over; they are committed to remediating the property and protecting
human health and the environment: Amy Wilson, TRC Company.
Stated Bay Ship and Yacht has invested over $20,000,000 in the infrastructure;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
March 15, 2016",14186,
157,"managing the customers in the business is a part of their core structure; the company
would like to continue to work in Alameda: Allen Cameron, Bay Ship and Yacht.
Stated the decision making process for awarding the contract was not handled in a fair
manner; there is lack of transparency; the criteria described to him significantly differs
from the final analysis; additional consideration is warranted before a final decision is
made: Kevin Krause, TKO Environmental and Marine Services.
Stated Bay Ship and Yacht does quality work and takes care of its customers; he
strongly supports the Bay Ship and Yacht contract: Robert Cullmann, Chamber of
Commerce and eon Technologies.
Stated Bay Ship and Yacht has a contract with College of Alameda to train people to be
in the industry and create jobs upon graduation; urged approval of the Bay Ship and
Yacht contract: Kari Thomson, Chamber of Commerce.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the issues raised by Mr.
Krause.
The Assistant City Attorney listed the criteria itemized in the RFP; stated that Mr.
Krause's issues are that TKO was the lowest bidder, Bay Ship and Yacht adjusted their
price before the interviews, and the price should have been weighted heavier than it
was; TKO has as much, or more experience than Bay Ship and Yacht; outlined the
steps in the bid dispute process; stated he is confident that staff followed the process;
the Request for Proposal (RFP) listed 7 criteria that the City uses in the decision
making.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the 7 items in the criteria were.
The Assistant City Attorney read the 7 criteria.
Mayor Spencer inquired what responsiveness to the RFP means, to which the Assistant
City Attorney responded completeness.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that before the interviews of the bidders, the scope of
the RFP changed; Bay Ship and Yacht lowered their price, while TKO and a third bidder
kept the price the same.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Bay Ship and Yacht's original price was $54,000 while
TKO was $36,750, which is a $17,250 difference per month, 30% more, on a two year
contract, which equates to over $200,000 per year, to which the Assistant Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the price was not the determining factor in
selecting Bay Ship and Yacht.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
March 15, 2016",14186,
158,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff took into consideration all 7
criteria, not just price, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Bay Ship and Yacht will be using a maintenance
software to keep track of all the maintenance and services requested and performed;
inquired whether TKO will also be using maintenance software.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated TKO did not mention they would
use any special software; it was compelling for the Bay Ship and Yacht proposal; the
City thought the tracking device to be important.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the City spoke with TKO about providing the special software
if it was a deciding issue.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated it was not the deciding factor, it
was one of many elements.
Mayor Spencer stated staff did not ask TKO if they could offer the special software.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the applicant is responsible for
providing their qualifications and level of service; the City understands the sensitivity of
cost; staff felt it was okay to go with the higher bidder because of the level of service;
the current port manager will be paying $530,000 annually for rent.
Mayor Spencer stated it does not mean that the City has an extra $200,000 to give
away.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the City is not giving the money
away; the City is getting a service.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether only Bay Ship and Yacht adjusted their price
when the scope of work was changed, not the other two bidders.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated after interviews with the three
applicants, the City decided to remove the Bilge Oily Water Treatment System
(BOWTS) in the scope of work and Bay Ship and Yacht adjusted their cost.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if Patriot kept their cost the same.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that Patriot elected not to
bid on the project.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the $36,750 was the same price that was bid
prior.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that Bay Ship and Yacht's
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 15, 2016",14186,
159,"bid is still higher than TKO.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired what the total budget is for maintaining the piers and the
port.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded $325,000 annually for the
port management services and $100,000 for maintaining the piers as a line item.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired what is the value of the revenue that comes to the port.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the Maritime Administration
(MARAD) ships pay over $2 million a year to the City.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether Power Engineering is also present at the port.
The Community Development Director responded Power Engineering will be moving
their barge to Pier 1 and paying the City $11.00 per linear foot.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to
execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a two year port services
contract with Bay Ship and Yacht Company at Alameda Point.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated the difference between the two bids is
significant and staff should justify spending the difference prior to bringing it to Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated Bay Ship and Yacht's proposal appears to be more
thorough; he is confident that the City is making the right decision with Bay Ship and
Yacht and the quality of service they provide; it is important to look at the quality of the
proposal, not just the dollars and cents.
Mayor Spencer stated what Bay Ship and Yacht does for the community needs to be
separate from the contract.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor
Spencer - 1.
(*16-137) Recommendation to Accept the Work of MCK, Inc. for Repair and
Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 34, No. P.W. 04-15-07. Accepted.
(16-138) Resolution No. 15132, ""Approving the Final Map and Bond, Authorizing
Execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and Accepting the Dedications
and Easements for Tract 10305 (2100 Clement Avenue). Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
March 15, 2016",14186,
160,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted no on the project and would remain
consistent.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(*16-139) Resolution No. 15133, ""Confirming the Terms and Conditions for
Compensation for Alameda Fire Department Responses Away from their Official Duty
Station and Assigned to an Emergency Incident (Mutual Aid)."" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(16-140) Resolution No. 15134, ""Appointing Michaela Tsztoo as a Member of the
Commission on Disability Issues."" Adopted;
(16-140A) Resolution No. 15135, ""Reappointing Arthur Kurrasch as a Member of the
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners."" Adopted;
(16-140B) Resolution No. 15136, ""Appointing Tina Landess Petrich as a Landlord
Member of the Rent Review Advisory Committee; and
(16-140C) Resolution No. 15137, ""Appointing Robert Schrader as a Landlord Member
of the Rent Review Advisory Committee."" Adopted.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates of
appointment to Ms. Tsztoo, Mr. Kurrasch and Mr. Schrader.
(16-141) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents
Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Ten-Year Lease with Two Ten-Year Renewal
Options and an Option to Purchase with Alameda Point Redevelopers, LLC for Building
8, Located at 2350 Saratoga Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Assistant Community Development Director and Ted Anderson, Cushman and
Wakefield, gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the market rate calculation is market rate after the
money has been put into the building during the lease.
Mr. Anderson responded that the calculation assumes a shell cost.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
March 15, 2016",14186,
161,"Mayor Spencer stated the calculation is not the money that is being put in during the
lease, to which Mr. Anderson responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired why the property is not currently leased; questioned why the
City is doing an option to purchase.
Mr. Anderson responded the building is not leasable in its current condition.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a tenant could lease the building and make the
improvements.
Mr. Anderson responded it is possible, stated the building was marketed to everyone
possible; a lessee's focus is typically to run their business, not to take on a renovation
before they can even start their business.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City had tried to lease the building.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the building has been on
the market since the Base closed without any bites because of the investment required;
buildings now have the purchase options to allow tenants to get the money to make
improvements; tenants want to own the buildings; ownership is used to leverage
financing; in order to move difficult buildings, people want to own them to get financing;
the building is in the adaptive reuse zoning area, which gives the future end user
flexibility; the old buildings need a lot of money to restore them; it is imperative to offer
the opportunity to own to allow people to get money and invest.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether in the scenario the City currently owns the property
and is now providing an option to purchase, to which the Assistant Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City has not had the money to
rehabilitate the building.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the buyer would pay into the master
infrastructure program if the option to purchase was exercised.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the City set the price of the
building to cover the fair share of infrastructure cost; the price has gone up to capture
the infrastructure investment on waterfront properties and buildings that are desirable;
the money goes into an infrastructure fund; the owner can use the money to make
offsite improvements that the City would have to make anyway.
Mr. Anderson responded the owner needs to use the money in the first 24 months after
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
March 15, 2016",14186,
162,"they purchase or the money goes into the General Fund.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired on the amount of the infrastructure fund.
Mr. Anderson responded the amount is $1.8 million.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what is the developer's commitment for making repairs
to the infrastructure of the building.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that the tenant is putting
$10 million in the purchase price and $8.5 million worth of improvements into the
building; the total investment in the building is $36.5 million.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the building is just leased and not purchased what
would be the price.
Mr. Anderson responded the lease would be $1 million as the lessee completes repairs
the first year; another $1 million year 2, and another $1 million year 3.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the total would be
approximately $3.4 million dollars.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what it would cost the City to bring the building up to a
tenantable situation.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded to make the building
habitable, would cost $8.5 million.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the lessee has to put in as a part of the lease.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the $3.4 million is only the
infrastructure burden; the lessee would have to pay rent and the Citywide Development
Fee.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the money to make the building habitable is a
requirement of the lease, to which the Assistant Community Development Director
responded in the negative.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded there are benchmarks in
the lease stating the lessee would have to spend $3.4 million; the aggressive rent
increases are designed make the lessee make the necessary improvements.
Mr. Anderson stated as time goes on, it will be more expensive for the lessee to have a
building that cannot be occupied.
The Assistant Community Development Director continued the presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
March 15, 2016",14186,
163,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if work/live spaces are currently a part of the
zoning for the area, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded
in the affirmative and continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is anything to encourage the 500 employees to
use public transportation or bike to work.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded Alameda Point is part of a
Transportation Demand District; stated there are a limit number of parking spaces
available; tenants will pay into a TDM program and will be encouraged to use public
transit.
Mayor Spencer inquired if tenants will need to provide public transportation alternatives
to their employees.
Mr. Anderson responded the building resides on 3.4 acres; the employees will need to
find alternate means of transportation to work.
Mayor Spencer inquired how the City would know the employees will not be parking in
surrounding neighborhoods.
The Base Reuse Director responded that every tenant or property owner will have to
prepare a TDM Plan Compliant Strategy and comply with the Alameda Point TDM; they
will have to pay per square foot; tenants will be required to pay annually into the
account; the fund will provide shuttles in the peak hours and provide bus passes to all
employees; tenants will be required to submit a compliance strategy to the City.
Mayor Spencer stated they do not have to buy a bus pass, they can bike or walk; she
does not want to have 600 more cars on the road and related parking.
The Base Reuse Director responded the overall TDM Plan is designed to encourage trip
reduction goals and meet the requirements of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Mayor Spencer inquired if anything requires the employees to not drive a car to work.
The Base Reuse Director responded the TDM provides frequent and reliable
transportation services so that people get out of their cars; stated the land is leased to
the tenants by the City so the parking could be enforced; the TDM makes sure people
have options for transportation.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is good evidence that the shuttle system is
working; the 15 minute headway turnaround will be good for commuters.
Councilmember Oddie questioned where the 600 new cars figure came from; stated
there would be only be 480 new jobs and 110 temporary; the temporary jobs will expire
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
March 15, 2016",14186,
164,"before the new jobs; a portion of the jobs will be jobs work/live units with tenants living
on the premises; a portion may take the ferry into Alameda; a portion may walk; for
those coming into the Island, it will be a reverse commute.
The Base Reuse Director responded the strategy is to provide more jobs and balance
the housing on the Island.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many work/live units will there be.
The Base Reuse Director responded that the work/live housing is highly restrictive;
stated the tenants would have to obtain a commercial license; the building is
commercial use under the zoning.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether people will be living there; requested an estimate on
how many units will be work/live units.
***
Councilmember Oddie left the dais at 9:00 p.m. and returned at 9:02 p.m.
Jonah Hendrickson, Alameda Point Redevelopers, gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many housing units will be in the building.
Mr. Hendrickson responded the current work/live zoning would allow for 100 units based
on the Alameda Municipal Code and the square footage; stated the issue of use will be
further discussed by the Planning Board during the master use permit process.
Mayor Spencer stated it is appropriate to discuss the number of units; inquired how
many people per unit.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the term work/live means that tenants
would live and work in the same place and a commute would not be a part of the
equation, to which Mr. Hendrickson responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired if a couple lives in the unit do both occupants need to work
there or only one.
Vivian Kahn, Alameda Point Redevelopers, stated the work/live ordinance was
specifically crafted to ensure the units are commercial spaces; it allows a maximum of
30% of the floor area to be devoted to residential uses and be no more than 400 square
feet; at least one of the people occupying the space must have a business license and
be conducting business; the ordinance is very strict and explicitly states the work/live
units are for commercial use.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the tenants would be working in Building 8; inquired
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
March 15, 2016",14186,
165,"whether the tenants have to work in Building 8 or if they would be allowed to work in the
City.
Ms. Kahn responded that a business license goes with the address and cannot be
carried to another address.
Stated the project will benefit the Alameda Point; the developers will be putting $8
million into the building before the lights can even be turned on; selling the building is
the best option for the City; the tenants would like to give back to the community with
apprenticeships and internships for youth: Michael McDonough, Chamber of
Commerce.
Stated Building 8 is an adaptable building; he has worked on many large buildings like
Building 8 and it takes a while to rehabilitate the large buildings: Dick Rutter, Alameda.
Stated that she is a banker and the option to purchase makes sense from a finance
standpoint; it is creating jobs, which creates an economic engine for the City and tax
revenues; urged Council to approve the project: Kari Thompson, Chamber of
Commerce.
Stated Epic Middle School is a stem school; all the students take engineering design
and fabrication; there is a need for space in Alameda for students to work with skilled
craftsmen as they prepare themselves for the workforce; read a letter from Florine
Roper urging Council to support the project: Francis Abbatatatuono, Epic Middle
School.
Stated that he leases a space from Mr. Hendrickson why he transformed and cleaned
up a once dilapidated building; Mr. Hendrickson will apply the same dedication to his
work and tenants for the adaptive reuse of Building 8: Brandon Canchola, Treasure
Island Woodworks.
Read different statements from tenants and community members of Berkeley regarding
the Berkeley Kitchen Project; urged Council to support the project; stated Mr.
Hendrickson will apply the same vision at Alameda Point: Adan Martinez, City of
Berkeley, Economic Development Manager.
Stated that he works on behalf of landlords and tenants; he supports the project
because warehouse and manufacturing space is needed; velocity and demand are
present in the marketplace, the product is absent: Jeff Starkovich, Cushman and
Wakefield.
Read a letter from Greg Harper with AC Transit Board who supports the project; stated
the adaptive reuse of Building 8 will be a greatly designed makerspace; strongly urged
support of the project: Vivian Kahn, Alameda Point Redevelopers.
Read a letter from Mayor Tom Bates of Berkeley in support of the project; discussed the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
March 15, 2016",14186,
166,"rehabilitation Mr. Hendrickson did on the Berkeley Kitchen Project; stated the adaptive
reuse of Building 8 will surpass the success he achieved with Berkeley Kitchen: Kiran
Shenoy, Berkeley Landmark Preservation Commission.
Stated allowing the project at Building 8 will attract more small businesses and allow
them to have commercial success; urged Council approval of the project; read a letter
from owner of Mission: Heirloom, Berkeley Kitchens; stated Berkeley Kitchen has
allowed him to grow his business: Alain Shocron, La Noisette Sweets.
Read a letter from Berkeley Councilmember Darryl Moore; stated Mr. Hendrickson
transformed a once vacant, landmark designated building into Berkeley Kitchens; the
adaptive reuse of Building 8 will meet or exceed the success of Berkeley Kitchens; the
City of Alameda will be greatly enriched by the development genius of Mr. Hendrickson:
Ryan Lau, Legislative Aide, Councilmember Darryl Moore.
Stated Mr. Hendrickson's designs enliven community and are very accessible to the
community; the City needs someone who can take the massive scale and bring it down
to make it accessible to the community: Elisa Mikiten, Architect.
Stated Mr. Hendrickson is a developer who equally prioritizes profit, people and the
planet; science, technology, engineering and math are used adding arts, innovation and
entrepreneurship; read a letter of support from Janet Smith-Heimer, President of Bay
Urban Economics; stated Mr. Hendrickson has a strong and effective reuse
entrepreneurship and will create a lively makerspace community which will foster the
City's goals for reuse and economic development in creative industries: Emylene
Aspilla.
Stated that he is a tenant in one of Mr. Hendrickson's buildings; Mr. Hendrickson turned
a
rundown old machine shop into a sleek, clean hub of studios and workspaces for
artists and small business owners; Mr. Hendrickson is a great developer; he strongly
supports the project; Alameda providing a place for artists to go would be great so that
they do not have to move to other places in the country: Patrick Dooley, Shotgun
Players Theater.
Stated Mr. Hendrickson is a developer that follows through on projects; Mr. Hendrickson
did a great job on Berkeley Kitchens; urged support of the project: Carrie Olson,
Berkeley.
Spoke in support of Mr. Hendrickson and the work he did on Berkeley Kitchens; stated
he will do the same for the Alameda project and the tenants will be happy because the
project fills a need: Craig Boon, Nuthouse Granola.
Read a letter from Wendy Ross; urged support of Alameda Point Redevelopers creating
an environment that supports the needs for small businesses in the community; stated
that she has the upmost confidence they will do an extraordinary job on the project:
Dalia Juskys, President of the Bank of San Francisco, Wendy Ross.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
March 15, 2016",14186,
167,"Stated that he is the owner of a makerspace in Oakland where kids and families can
come and do large projects; he supports the project and hopes to be a tenant in
Building 8: Parker Thomas, Steam Factory.
Read two letters from tenants of Berkeley Kitchens: Christy Kovacs, Muffin Revolution
owner, stated Mr. Hendrickson is a great manager and would be a great candidate for
the project in Alameda; stated the Berkeley Kitchens created a collaborative working
environment for all the tenants; stated Mr. Hendrickson's vision for Building 8 is
unsurpassed: Leslie Jacobowitz.
Read two letters from supporters of the project: Steven Camarretto and Jesse Rosalles;
urging approval of the lease for Building 8 which will fit the character and needs of the
community; stated the inclusion of Mr. Hendrickson and his team would only benefit the
residents of Alameda; Mr. Hendrickson will be an excellent landlord and the project will
work: Ira Jacobowitz.
Stated his company is a diverse operation, which hosted 35,000 people in their tasting
room last year alone; the Building 8 project can host food producers, artists, makers and
there is room for a lot of success stories in Alameda: Chris Jordan, St. George.
Read letters from tenants of Berkeley Kitchens: Shrub and Co. owner Juan Garcia
stated: since moving into Berkeley Kitchens their business has grown; Mr. Hendrickson
will do the same in Alameda; the City and citizens will be lucky to have him; Kathleen
Frumkin stated: Mr. Hendrickson created such a positive use of space in Berkeley that
is extremely rare to find; urged Council to support the project: Barbara Hendrickson.
Read two letters urging Council to go forward with the project; one from a very happy
tenant at Berkeley Kitchens and the secretary of the landmarks preservation committee;
stated Mr. Hendrickson has a track record of rehabilitating buildings into spaces that
provide local artisans and makers an opportunity to run their businesses; urged Council
approval of project: Alex Orloff, Berkeley.
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:16 p.m.
***
Mayor Spencer inquired where the presentation speaks of the work/live discussion.
The Community Development Director responded that the work/live discussion is not in
the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is a potential of 270 work/live units; inquired
what is allowed in the building; stated the building can be sold for anything within the
zoning.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
March 15, 2016",14186,
168,"The Base Reuse Director responded the tenant could submit an application for a
conditional use permit and say they want to do 270 work/live units; the current project
states the tenant does not want to do any more than 100 work/live units.
Mayor Spencer stated the 100 work/live units is not in the presentation.
The Base Reuse Director responded 100 units is a land use decision that the City has
not discussed yet; stated the City has left open the flexibility for the developers to do a
number of commercial uses; when the developer gets into the design, there is flexibility
to come up with a plan and submit an application; ultimately, the City Council will make
the decision.
Mayor Spencer stated there is a potential of 270 housing units; inquired if 270,000
square feet is allowed within the zoning.
The Base Reuse Director responded the zoning does not give the developer the right or
ability to build work/live units; a conditional use permit is required.
Mayor Spencer inquired if there is the potential in Building 8.
The Base Reuse Director responded only if the Planning Board approves the request
and the City Council upholds the Planning Board approval.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the person who arrived at the sales price valued the price at
the potential of having 270 work/live units.
The Base Reuse Director responded the building has been valued as commercial use
because work/live is commercial use; stated the building is not financed as residential;
the project is restrictive in the way that it is structured; it is priced and zoned as
commercial use.
Mayor Spencer stated it is zoned for work/live; the City's zoning states that every unit
must be up to 1,000 square feet and Building 8 is 270,000 square feet.
The Base Reuse Director responded approval of work/live units would have to go to the
Planning Board and could be called for review by Council.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a sale price is being agreed upon, to which the Base
Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the price includes the value of work/live units, to which
Mr. Anderson responded in the negative; stated basing the value on work/live is not
appropriate.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many buildings in the area allow work/live.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
March 15, 2016",14186,
169,"The Base Reuse Director responded work/live is a conditionally permitted use for the
adaptive reuse area.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Base Reuse Director stated the use is
allowed on 1/3 of Alameda Point.
Mayor Spencer stated with all the community discussions regarding housing at the
Point, the potential of the buildings being flipped has not been discussed.
The City Manager responded that a condition of approval could be added limiting the
amount of work/live units.
Mayor Spencer stated work/live should have been included in the presentation and
taken into consideration in the pricing; there has not been transparency with the
community; there it is a potential impact on the community.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated there is a housing parameter at the former Base; the fact
that the building is being adaptively reused is an important factor to consider; the
building currently has negative value and is costing the City money; he is ready to vote
to support the project; one reservation is the cost to rehabilitate the building; another
reservation is that Building 8 is ten times the size of Berkeley Kitchens; urged
accelerating selling the building; proceeding is worth taking the risk to get the revenue
stream.
***
(16-142) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda
item on the wetlands mitigation bank [paragraph no. 16-143].
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of considering the remaining item.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the testimony from the people who have worked
with the developer is great feedback; the project will be creating jobs; the development
is needed; there are safeguards regarding the housing and work/live units; she is ready
to support the project.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what the Assistant Community Development Director's
role is in these types of situations.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that she took an active role
in investigating the financials of the applicant, going on site visits, and looking at other
projects done by the applicant; stated she wants to ensure the City would get something
out of the deal if it fails.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
March 15, 2016",14186,
170,"Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Assistant Community Development
Director's job is to get the best possible deal for the City.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated
with leases at Alameda Point, the fund is very delicate and in demand.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the deal is the best possible the City could get
for Building 8.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
City was able to get a deal with more infrastructure for the building.
Councilmember Oddie stated the Assistant Community Development Director's job is to
maximize what the City can get from any deal; any implication that the Assistant
Community Development Director is not looking out for the best interest of the City is
frustrating; one of the priorities of the Alameda Point Master Plan is to generate new
economic development and employment opportunities; read some of the City's goals
from the Master Plan; stated that he supports the project.
Councilmember Daysog stated the cost for developing Building 8 is doubled; each
project should contribute towards major infrastructure; Alameda values the historic
character of the site and wants to reuse the sites; these are the types of businesses and
industries the City wants in Alameda; he supports the project; in terms of the
economics, the City has done its due diligence; the traffic generation from the work/live
housing would be less than typical housing.
Mayor Spencer stated according to the staff report, the work/live spaces are not
considered residential and are not considered housing under the Navy's residential
development cap; it is important to be transparent for the community.
Vice Mayor stated the debate over the number of work/live units can be done at the use
permit stage.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of staff executing the lease [introduction of the
ordinance].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4.
Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.
(16-143) Response to City Council Referral Regarding a Possible Wetlands Mitigation
Bank at Alameda Point.
The Base Reuse Director began her presentation.
Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
March 15, 2016",14186,
171,"The City Clerk stated the previous meeting went past 11:00 p.m., and the agenda for
the April 5th meeting is full and the meeting might go past 11:00 p.m., which would
require the Council to add meetings.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the matter could be adjourned to the next meeting.
The City Attorney stated the Council is not continuing the item, it will be re-agendized.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
In order to not continue past 11:00 p.m., Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:59
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
18
March 15, 2016",14186,
172,"OF
TERKA
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2006
1.
The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Members Avonnet Peeler, Michael Rich, Michael Robles-Wong, and Executive Secretary
Karen Willis.
ABSENT:
Member Roberto Rocha.
STAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Senior Management Analyst, and Stacey Meier, Administrative Assistant,
Human Resources.
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of July 12, 2006 were presented for Board
approval. Member Peeler moved to accept, Member Rich seconded, and carried by
a
3-0 vote.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Member Rich moved to accept the consent calendar with the exception of 4-D,
which he asked to pull for discussion. Member Peeler seconded, and carried by a 3-0 vote.
SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE
MONTHS OF JULY, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2006:
4-A ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Administrative Management Analyst
9/12/2006
206-44PR
Administrative Tech Il
8/23/2006
206-41PR
Assistant Engineer
8/15/2006
206-36
Customer Service Representative
7/20/2006
206-09
Electrical Helper
9/13/2006
206-47
Fire Apparatus Operator
9/19/2006
206-08PR
Intermediate Clerk
7/20/2006
206-34
Journey Lineworker
8/7/2006
206-26
Permit Technician I
7/3/2006
206-25PR
Permit Technician III
7/3/2006
206-24PR
Permit Technician III
8/28/2006
206-43
Planner I
7/18/2006
206-38
Principal Executive Assistant
9/20/2006
206-59PR
Supervising Planner
7/27/2006
206-29",14186,
173,"City of Alameda
Page 2
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006
4-B
ELIGIBLE LISTS EXTENDED:
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
EMS Education Coordinator
4/13/2005
205-10
Fire Captain
10/12/2005
205-46PR
Jailer
10/20/2005
205-48
Maintenance Worker I
3/1/2006
205-58
Maintenance Worker Il
3/23/2006
205-65
Planner III
4/5/2006
206-15
Public Safety Dispatcher
3/10/2006
205-25/26
4-C
ELIGIBLE LISTS EXPIRED/
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
CANCELLED/EXHAUSTED
ACE (Land Dev & Trans)
3/3/2006
205-24
Administrative Technician
I
8/12/2005
205-45PR
Assistant City Attorney I-II
2/2/2006
206-12PR
CATV Technical Operations Superintendent 4/11/2006
206-061
Engineering Supervisor
3/28/2006
206-17PR
Executive Assistant
10/22/2004
204-54
Facilities Maintenance Worker
2/15/2006
206-06
Plan Check Engineer
3/28/2006
206-05
Planning Services Manager
4/21/2006
206-21
Police Sergeant
9/15/2004
204-38PR
Program Specialist I/II
2/23/2006
205-64
(Community Programs)
Public Works Maintenance Team Leader
3/16/2006
205-59
(Concrete)
Public Works Supervisor
8/17/2004
204-37
Sales and Service Supervisor
2/23/2006
205-52
Supervising Civil Engineer
3/23/2006
205-55
System Dispatcher
3/17/2006
206-07
Transportation Planner
3/3/2006
205-63
Utility Construction Compliance Specialist
3/15/2006
205-66
4-D
LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS:
Assistant Line Superintendent (Revised)
Computer Services Coordinator (Revised)
Jailer (New)
Principal Executive Assistant (New)
Public Safety Dispatcher (New)
Redevelopment Manager (Revised)
Senior Public Safety Dispatcher (New)
Transportation Coordinator (New)
Discussion: Executive Secretary Willis explained that the reason there are a high number of new
specifications listed on the agenda is due to the fact that many positions were re-assigned from a
broad classification to more specific classifications with new titles as part of the PANS contract",14186,
174,"City of Alameda
Page 3
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006
agreement. Board President Robles-Wong asked whether the new classifications created a
competitive situation for the individuals who were re-assigned into a new job title, and questioned
whether or not those individuals were required to re- test. Executive Secretary Willis stated that
none of the individuals involved were required to re-test for their positions. Board President Robles-
Wong expressed concern that if the Civil Service Rules were not followed, the employees who were
re-assigned were not being protected by the system that was designed to do just that.
He
suggested that there should be a special meeting called in cases when individuals are involved.
Member Rich also requested a special meeting to discuss personnel actions and procedures, and
Member Peeler agreed. The Board agreed that a special meeting would be scheduled for mid-
November. Member Rich moved to approve item 4-D with the understanding that staff will agendize
a separate item on the next agenda to provide procedural background on the reclassification
process. Member Peeler seconded the motion and was carried by a 3-0 vote.
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A
Activity Report - June 1, 2006 through August 31, 2006.
Executive Secretary Willis presented the Board with Turnover Statistics as requested by Board
Member Rich at the July 12, 2006 meeting. She stated that the report showed percentages of
resignations, retirements and other separations for Miscellaneous and Safety employee groups
back to the year 2001. She explained that resignations had risen significantly in the last two years.
Member Rich asked if there was any idea why. Executive Secretary Willis stated that some
employees obtained jobs in other cities for better retirement or due to the fact that they had not
gotten a pay increase with the City, and others had resigned for personal reasons.
5-B
Proposed Change to Civil Service Ordinance, Section 2, Merit Principal 3.
Executive Secretary Willis stated that she had spoken with the City Manager regarding the
proposed change to the Civil Service Ordinance. She explained to the Board that the City Manager
would like the Board to review the entire Ordinance and make any and all changes all at once due
to the fact that it must go before Council before any changes are adopted. Board President
Robles-Wong stated that he had spoken briefly with the City Manager as well, and he does not
have any issues with changing the entire Ordinance at once.
5-C
Review of Civil Service Ordinance No. 2130
Discussion: Regarding staff suggested changes, Executive Secretary Willis explained that
department head titles have changed over time and thus, Section 4 (c) needs to be changed, as
some of the listed position titles no longer exist. She stated that Human Resources staff will put
together recommended changes and suggested language before the next Civil Service Board
meeting. Board President Robles-Wong asked if there is another term that can be used besides
""permanent"" as stated in Section 8, since there is no such thing as a ""permanent"" employee.
Executive Secretary Willis stated that the usual term is ""regular"". Board Member Rich stated that
some wording was either too broad or too narrow. Executive Secretary Willis stated that she will
agendize the Ordinance and Rules review for the special meeting in November.
5-D
Rule Change- Article VIII. Appointment, Section 1. Certification of Eligibles and Section 2. Method
of Appointment.
Executive Secretary Willis explained that Human Resources had failed to send the Rule Change
notification to the Bargaining Units as required. These have been sent and it is anticipated that the
Board will be able to approve as its next meeting.",14186,
175,"City of Alameda
Page 4
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
Referring to the Turnover Statistics presented with the Activity Report under 5-A, Board Member Rich
shared his concerns regarding the rising number of resignations from Miscellaneous Employees as
compared to the low number of Safety employee resignations. He encouraged the City to resolve this
matter as quickly as possible. Executive Secretary Willis stated that they are working on it and are getting
much closer.
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
Executive Secretary Willis explained that Mr. Michael Soderberg, who was supposed to have been the new
Board Member, moved to Southern California between submitting his application and being notified of his
appointment and that consequently, he would not be appointed. She stated that the City is soliciting
applications for Civil Service Board Members.
9.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director &
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board",14186,
176,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, June 24, 2010
1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL President Wasko called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Present were: Vice President Villareal, Soglin, James, Dailey, and Biggs. Absent was: Nielsen
Staff: Franz
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the Regular March 25, 2010 meeting were
approved as corrected (Biggs/Soglin) and the Minutes of the Regular April 15, 2010 were approved
as presented (Dailey/Soglin)
3.
3-A. RESOLUTION COMMENDING OUTGOING MEMBER JONATHAN SOGLIN
A Resolution commending member Soglin's service to the community as a SSHRB member was
read by President Wasko and approved by the Board -M/S (Villareal/Dailey) Unanimous (Soglin
abstained). The Resolution was presented to member Soglin, and Vice President Villareal expressed
his pleasure working on ATAH with member Soglin. President Wasko thanked him for his help with
the Dental Clinic.
The Board suspended business and held a brief reception in member Soglin's honor.
3-B.
A REQUEST FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE A LETTER
OF SUPPORT FOR THEIR SUBMITTAL OF A SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
(SRTS) GRANT
Staff distributed sample letters of support for a SRTS Grant being applied for by City of Alameda
Public Works, and explained that they are requesting that the board provide a letter in support of their
effort to secure the grant. The funds would be used for capital improvements in targeting Franklin
and Wood. Some of the grant would be used to provide safety education.
While the Youth Collaborative has already voted to provide a letter of support, they voiced concern
that similar improvements were needed at schools on the West End and that Public Works should be
encouraged to apply for additional funds for these schools. They also hoped that the funds to provide
safety education from the current grant could be used for West End schools.
The Board voiced support for the current grant, but also had interest in a second letter regarding
SRTS improvements for West End schools, after more information could be collected. Board
discussion included a 2004 grant to create a study related to needs on the West End. Traffic issues at
Chipman were also discussed a should be considered in drafting a second letter.
It was agreed that the Board letter should include explanation of the Board's purpose/mission, and
that the educational component of the grant should be highlighted. Member Biggs noted that it might
be best to support this grant proposal as written rather than suggest changes that might adversely
impact the success of the grant.
M/S (James/Soglin) to write a Letter of Support for the SRTS grant being submitted by Public
Works. Unanimous",14186,
177,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Special Meeting, June 24, 2010
Page 2
It was agreed to have staff gather additional information before a second letter is drafted.
M/S (James/Villareal) to write a letter to Public Works (Ccing other departments as appropriate)
encouraging them to use the current grant request as a model for improvements in other
neighborhoods, and to add relevant information gathered from the 2004 Survey and any information
available regarding traffic surveys. Unanimous
3-C.
PARTICIPATION IN THE MAYOR'S 4TH OF JULY PARADE
Discussion regarding the Board's participation in the Parade included our need for a ""single drop""
trailer to make it easier to get off and on, the need for people to help build the float, and people to
ride on the float.
M/S (Villareal/James) for the Board to support and participate in the parade, and to authorize up to
$250 for supplies. Unanimous
3-D.
NOMINATIONS OF OFFICERS
Staff explained that while the Board can make nominations at this meeting, they will need to wait
until there is a fully constituted Board before they can vote.
Member Villareal nominated President Wasko for President and Member Biggs nominated Vice
President Villareal for Vice President.
M/S (James/Soglin) that nominations be closed. Unanimous
3-E. WORK GROUP PROGRESS REPORTS
Alamedans Together Against Hate Workgroup - Villareal
It was suggested to write a letter to former Police Chief Tibbett thanking him for working with the
Board. ATAH can write a letter themselves rather than waiting for it to be agendized.
Sister City Workgroup - Wasko
There will be an Exhibit of sister City Photographs at the Free Library the entire month of August,
with a reception on August 12th. The group is still seeking a pro-bono / reasonable lawyer to apply
for tax exempt status.
Resource Sharing Workgroup - Biggs
The workgroup (Biggs & Dailey) met with member Nielsen to discuss how they could work in
partnership with the A&AW. Ideas",14186,
178,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Special Meeting, June 24, 2010
Page 3
4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
-
Staff suggested: taking off either July or August, waiting until after the elections to meet with the
new Mayor and City Council, and having a ""meeting of the whole"" work session to discuss Board /
Workgroup plans for next year. The work session would include discussing the upcoming needs
assessment.
Member Biggs announced that a book vending machine in front of the APC offices would have its
Grand Opening on June 30th It holds 900 books, and 300 new library cards have been issued on the
West End. This machine is the 1st of its kind in the country. He also mentioned that it would be good
to encourage positive discourse during the upcoming election.
President Wasko echoed Member Biggs concern.
Member James announced that he and Member Biggs were present at the city council meeting
representing the Board's CDBG recommendations.
Member Villareal voiced concern regarding the West End taking the brunt of cuts resulting from
Measure E not passing.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Information - 3 minutes per speaker
6. ADJOURNMENT
M/S (James/Soglin) to adjourn. 8:50
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Franz
Community Development Coordinator",14186,
179,"of
of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., JULY 29, 2019
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:32 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Secretary Nancy Bronstein, Nancy Elzig via teleconference, Bill
Soderlund. Absent: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
Staff: Elliott Otto, Finance Representative, Chad Barr, Human Resources
Technician.
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 28, 2019 were moved for
acceptance by Trustee Soderlund and seconded by Nancy Elzig. Passed 2-0
(Soderlund abstained due to absence from January meeting). The minutes of
the Regular Meeting of April 29, 2019 were moved for acceptance by Trustee
Elzig and seconded by Trustee Soderlund. Passed 3-0.
4.
AGENDA ITEMS:
4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending June 30, 2019
and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the
Period Ending June 30, 2019.
Finance Representative Otto explained the quarterly reports. There was
a
decrease from the prior month due to Lucymay Schrieber, 1079 Pensioner,
passing away. Offsetting the decrease was the uniform allowance being paid
out. Representative Otto further explained the quarterly financial report showing",14186,
180,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, July 29, 2019
Page 2
that $732,657 would be moved to pay down unfunded liability. This will be
reflected in the September 2019 statement.
Trustee Elzig asked what are the contractual services listed. Representative
Otto replied those are actuarial costs. Trustee Soderlund asked how often than
happens and Representative Otto replied he thought it was every 2 years, but
could check.
Trustee Elzig moved to accept the financial statement as presented and Trustee
Soderlund seconded. Passed 3-0.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):
There were no oral communications from the public.
6.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):
There were no oral communications from the Board.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
me
Nancy Bronstein
Human Resources Director",14186,
181,"APPROVED PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2012
1. CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Vice-President Burton
3. ROLL CALL:
Present:
President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board
members Ezzy Ashcraft, and Knox White.
Board Member Köster arrived for item 7-A
Board Member Henneberry Arrived during item 7-A
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6-A.
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Pending and Recent Actions and
Decisions.
6-B.
2013 Meeting Calendar
Board Member Knox White motioned to approve the consent calendar.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Motion carried 4-0; no abstentions.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A.
Economic Development Strategy for Alameda Point - Presentation by Keyser
Marston Associates of a proposed economic development strategy for Alameda
Point.
Development Manager Eric Fonstein gave a brief introduction of the job-based Strategy and
introduced Keyser Marston Associates' consultants Tim Kelly and Ernesto Vilchis who
provided a summary of findings via PowerPoint presentation.
Consultant clarified for Board Member Knox White that the vision for Alameda Point is to
build upon existing businesses and uses, i.e., food, maritime, recreation and breaking
Alameda Point into smaller pieces.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 6
November 26, 2012",14186,
182,"Board Member Köster clarified with the Consultant that current businesses such as St.
George got started on existing infrastructure by breaking larger building into smaller spaces
and are models for future businesses. The five prototypes selected for study represented a
broad spectrum of criteria.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with the Consultant their role in commercial
development at other bases. KMA's services included developing business terms and they
were very much involved in the implementation of the economic development strategy,
especially developer selection. Consultant helped identify which developer entity/team had
the financing, the vision to realistically put tenants into the buildings. Board Member Ezzy
Ashcraft asked for examples of having tenants as ambassadors. Consultant clarified that
McClellan Air Force Base actually created a marketing opportunity for existing businesses.
In response to her inquiry as to where lease revenues go, Alameda Point Chief Operating
Officer Jennifer Ott responded that funds primarily go into the maintenance of City services
at the base and property management, also into a ""rainy day"" fund. Ms. Ott confirmed that
Building 5 is one of the most contaminated buildings at the Point and will not be controlled
by City until 2019.
President Zuppan asked the Consultant to clarify whether there were any parallels with
other bases with main gate entrances for both commercial and residential uses. Consultant
responded that there are multiple entrances to Alameda Point that can be primarily for
residential but residential was not a part of this analysis. In response to infrastructure
needs, Consultant responded that telecommunications are important. Infrastructure will be a
challenging exercise and stressed the need to be flexible and able to accomplish
incrementally.
President Zuppan opened public comment.
Cheryl and Byron Zook, Alameda Point Studios, spoke in favor of the Strategy and
commented on the success of their business and desire for expansion and long-term lease
to take advantage of their improvements.
David Mik, Power Engineering and Construction, spoke in favor of the Strategy and
commented on their desire for long-term lease.
Richard Bangert, resident, commented on desire for improvements at Enterprise Park,
creating amenities to attract businesses.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC), expressed disappointment in their lack of
involvement in this Strategy and that the Standards of Reasonableness were ignored in the
analysis. APC brings in jobs and sales tax revenue and is worth noting.
William Smith, resident, concurred with Doug Biggs' comments and spoke in favor of
Strategy, noting concern about amenities and infrastructure.
Karen Bey, resident, spoke in support of Strategy, noting concern about housing and how it
helps pay for infrastructure. City is challenged by lack of funds for branding and marketing.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 6
November 26, 2012",14186,
183,"Need to make Alameda Point a high-profile project.
Jon Spangler, resident, spoke against Strategy but in support of comments made by
previous speakers Bangert, Biggs, Smith and Bey. No clear vision at Alameda Point after
several plans completed. Issues still needing to be addressed include open space, Measure
B and transportation. Piecemeal approach to infrastructure will be more costly than a
master development.
Helen Sause, HOMES, urged Board not to call a good marketing analysis a strategy. Not
sure how mix-use dream can be achieved without integrating residential. Urged Board not to
lose vision of walk to work.
Irene Dieter, resident, commented on actual branding missing from the Strategy. Need to
clarify what it is we want people to think of when they think of Alameda Point.
President Zuppan closed public comment.
Ms. Ott stated the City is willing to discuss long-term leases with tenants but must also
consider future development plans. She stated Standard of Reasonableness was an
oversight in the Strategy and should be incorporated.
In response to Board Member Köster's inquiry as to the process of incorporating the
comments from tonight's meeting, Lori Taylor, Community Development Director, noted that
comments/changes would orally be presented to Council on Dec 5. Board Member Köster
reiterated that housing and transportation are very important issues in Alameda.
Board Member Knox White commented that Strategy reads more like a marketing proposal
and concurred with others that there is no real clear vision. Ms. Taylor clarified that since
the time the Planning Board packets were distributed; KMA completed the narrative that
went out in the Council packets. President Zuppan recommended that the presentation to
Council state that the Planning Board did not see the narrative.
Board Member Knox White questioned when City is going to prioritize efforts. Current
services of property management company should be addressed. He questioned why
Strategy recommends targeting specialty foods when Harbor Bay has land and already
carved out this niche. He commented on the need to better streamline leases and signage.
Also a need to have long term discussion about zoning and vision. A timeline needs to be
developed. New market tax credit should be part of Planning Board's recommendations.
Vice-President Burton endorsed the comments made by Board Member Knox White. He
commented that vision should be broader than Alameda Point and should be a vision for all
of Alameda. He noted the need for short, medium and long term strategies/goals which
would include the need to have a road map for development and permitting, creating a
sense of place/town center, building upon our strengths and understand the reasons why
these companies are located at Alameda Point, and the idea of some sort of annual festival
at the Point.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 6
November 26, 2012",14186,
184,"Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted this was a good report. She suggested trying to find a
way to market the Point to Alameda residents so they could become familiar with the type of
uses out there. She noted the need to pursue the film industry and position ourselves to
take advantage of opportunities. She emphasized the community's desire for a mixed use
development.
Board Member Henneberry noted that a certain amount of industrial space needs to support
maritime uses at the Point. He stated he supports submitting the Strategy to Council.
President Zuppan stated that she agreed with other board members who didn't feel like this
was a strategy, but a step in the process to develop an economic development strategy.
She noted that a lot of hard choices need to be made regarding what to fund. Tenant
management should also be addressed.
Board Member Knox White suggested holding off the presentation of the Strategy until the
new Council is seated.
7-B.
Public Hearing on an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Tentative
Map for 89 Lots at 1551 Buena Vista Avenue (APN72-384-21. The project was
originally published as 69 lots. The Planning Board will consider approval of an
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Marina Cove II, 89 residential lots
and a Tentative Map within the area bounded by Ohlone Street, Buena Vista
Avenue, Clement Avenue and Entrance Way (currently occupied by the Chipman
Company). The site is zoned R-4-PD, neighborhood residential with a Planned
Development overlay.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief presentation.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that the six lots fronting Buena Vista would
have access from Buena Vista via 3 shared driveways on Buena Vista and not side street
access.
Staff noted that that Parcel Map was approved several years ago for fewer units. Units were
increased to meet the City's housing requirements.
Board Member Knox White clarified with Staff that Tentative Map is establishing a Parcel 53
and that dotted lines are adjustable or not necessary if designed in a different way. Project
will contain 52 single-family lots and 1 multi-family lot with up to 37 units.
Board Member Köster clarified that the shared driveways are throughout the site and not
just on Buena Vista. Material for 20-Foot Emergency Vehicle Access will be under future
consideration.
Board Member Knox White motioned to extend the meeting to 11:30.
Board Member Köster seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 6-0; no abstentions.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 6
November 26, 2012",14186,
185,"President Zuppan opened public comment.
Board Member Knox White motioned to reduce speaker time to 3 minutes.
Board Member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Motion failed, 3-2-1 Köster abstained; no quorum. Speaker time will remain 5 minutes.
William Smith, resident, noted that the design has improved, although he is still concerned
about fulfilling the capacity for the Housing Element.
Helen Sause, HOMES, spoke against the density of each parcel and suggested that condos
might take advantage of the great views over the estuary and relieve the density of each
parcel. Integrating affordable homes would be a much improved social aspect of the
development.
John Spangler, resident, noted that he was not in favor of the Marina Cove I development
and not in favor of this proposal.
Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES, concurred with comments made by speakers Sause and
Spangler. Distressed with lack of number of affordable units and design.
Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope, commented that more affordable housing units are
needed, although pleased with the proposed 37 unit multi-family housing lot.
Karen Bey, resident, spoke in favor of the project and encouraged approval.
President Zuppan closed public comment.
Board Member Köster r noted concerns about courts, Buena Vista frontage, and emergency
access. Staff clarified that decisions on courts A, B and C can be postponed until layout of
multi-family buildings is finalized. Multi-unit housing can be increased at a later time. Map is
being addressed tonight and not the architecture. What's referred to as ""Street C"" in report
should be ""Street B"". There is no ""Street C"".
Vice-President Burton motioned to extend the meeting to 11:50.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 6-0; no abstentions.
Board Member Köster commented that he'd like to see more density on Parcel 53, Street B
connect through to Arbor Street and rear access to lots facing Buena Vista.
Board Member Henneberry supported acceptance of project.
Board Member Knox White supported acceptance of project.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft commented on desire to see rear access/back alleys for lots
facing Buena Vista and encouraged more multi-family units on Parcel 53.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 6
November 26, 2012",14186,
186,"Vice-President Burton supported acceptance of project. Proposed adding condition that
developer provide, at a later date, some sort of distinctive paving to Emergency Vehicle
Access.
President Zuppan supported acceptance of project, although concerned that more housing
units are not included.
Staff clarified that rear-access to the Buena Vista fronted lots can be considered at the
Design Review stage and concern can be included in the report to Council.
Board Member Knox White motioned to accept the Tentative Map as proposed minus
dotted lines for courts A, B, and C and addition of emergency vehicle access materials
language and addendum with the correction of typo (53 lots not 52).
Board Member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 6-0; no abstentions.
8.
MINUTES:
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Written Report
None.
9-A.
Future Agendas
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 6
November 26, 2012",14186,
187,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Revised 6/16/08
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Jane Sullwold called the regular meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. in the Ladies'
Lounge at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road,
Alameda, CA 94502
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Commissioner Betsy Gammell,
Vice Chair Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill Schmitz and Chair Jane Sullwold. Absent:
Secretary Bill Delaney and Commissioner Jeff Wood. Also present were Interim
General Manager Dale Lillard and Assistant Golf Professional Mike Robason.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 16, 2008:
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission adopted the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
3.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4.
AGENDA ITEMS:
4-A
Response from the City Auditor.
Chair Sullwold read a letter from City Auditor Kevin Kearney dated May 20, 2008,
purportedly explaining the accounting procedures concerning the golf cart lease.
The Golf Fund is being charged the entire amount of the four-year lease --
$449,000 -- in this fiscal year. Mr. Kearney did not answer the question of why this
was necessary in his letter. He compared the golf cart lease to a home mortgage,
but, of course, a home owner is not required to put aside the entire amount due to
be paid over the 30-year term of his mortgage during the first year, making the
comparison inappropriate. The Commission intends to ask Mr. Kearney additional
questions.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 1
06/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",14186,
188,"Prior to the meeting Chair Sullwold asked Interim General Manager Dale Lillard to
explain the components of the Services category in the Golf Complex financial
reports for May, as this figure is substantially over budget this year. Mr. Lillard
reported that the Services category included the four years of payments on the
golf cart lease, payments to the National Golf Foundation for the Operational
Review and Master Plan, and a charge of $115,063 for Beltline eminent domain
litigation expenses. The Golf Commission questioned why the Beltline expenses,
which have absolutely nothing to do with golf or the Golf Complex, are being
charged against Golf Complex revenues. [Note: The next day, May 22, 2008, Mr.
Lillard clarified by e-mail to the Golf Commissioners that the Services category
included a charge of $374,794 to date for the golf cart lease, and $79,522 for
payments to date to NGF. The charge of $115,063 for Beltline expenses was
attributed to risk management, and was included under the category of Transfers
to Other Funds.]
4-B
Score card advertising.
Assistant Golf Professional Mike Robason said that he had contacted the
company that offered to prepare free scorecards in exchange for advertising rights
and had begun negotiations with them to see what they would be willing to do for
the Golf Complex.
4-C Feedback on elimination of complimentary rounds; discussion regarding possible
changes to various categories of greens fees.
Commissioner Schmitz and Commissioner Gammell, neither of whom was present
at the April meeting, expressed serious disagreement with the April vote by the
Commission to impose a $15 charge for employees to play golf at the Golf
Complex. Commissioner Gammell said she considered it embarrassing that Pro
Shop employees would be allowed to play for free at other courses but would be
charged to play at their home course. Commissioner Schmitz moved, and
Commissioner Gammell seconded, that the decision to impose employee greens
fees be rescinded. Chair Sullwold said she was opposed to the motion as phrased
because it went too far. She stated her opinion that greens fees should be waived
for part-time hourly employees who do not receive benefits, and that the amount
for others should be reduced from $15 to $10, but she feels that full-time
employees should be required to pay a modest fee in these difficult financial times.
The motion passed by a 3 to 1 vote. It was noted, however, that Mr. Lillard had
previously sent Commissioners an e-mail indicating that he had approval from
Human Resources and the City Attorney's Office to impose an employee rate
regardless of the position of the Golf Commission on that issue, and that he
therefore did not intend to rescind the policy.
Chair Sullwold expressed her annoyance that a $15 rate for Golf Commissioners
had not been input into the computer at the same time as the charge for
employees. Both charges were part of the same motion by the Golf Commission
at its April meeting, and the Golf Commission had never asked Mr. Lillard to
reconsider the charge for Commissioners, only for employees.
Golf
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 2
06/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",14186,
189,"Commissioners who expected to pay the $15 rate starting on May 1 were told by
Pro Shop staff that no such rate existed, so they had to ask to be counted as
employees in order to be properly charged. She instructed Mr. Lillard to have the
Commissioner rate set up as soon as possible.
A general discussion ensued regarding possible ways to enhance Golf Complex
revenues by changes to greens fees. The Golf Commission approved a
recommendation to City Council to (1) equalize rates on the Clark and Fry courses
by bring Clark rates up to Fry rates, (2) create a ""super super"" twilight rate of $10
per round after 6:00 p.m. on a 90-day promotional basis, and (3) raise the
weekend rate at the Mif Albright course from $7.00 to $9.00. Mr. Lillard was asked
to present these proposals to City Council as quickly as possible. Chair Sullwold
asked Mr. Lillard and Mr. Robason if either had any additional revenue-enhancing
ideas for the Golf Commission to consider, but neither could think of any. Both
were encouraged to come forward immediately if they had any new ideas, or if any
new ideas were suggested to them.
4-D
Discussion on marketing plan by Secretary Delaney.
Chair Sullwold read an e-mail dated May 21, 2008, from Secretary Delaney as
follows:
I have secured an individual who will add a great deal to our marketing
discussions. He is available after June 6th, thus I plan to schedule an input and
brainstorming session shortly after that. It would be a 5-hour meeting initially to
discuss issues, characteristics of the course/facility, competitive activities, other
entertainment facility events, etc. The objective is to find a common ground to
begin the brainstorming session. There would be a second meeting to get into
actual strategic issues, messaging and maybe some creative approaches.
Execution efforts will come from the second meeting. We'll also want to consider
how we measure our efforts (i.e. ROI and impact). All of this will be part of our
discussions. I would think we should have no more than 7 people involved. 3
Commissioners, 2 course staff (Mike and Dale), one ""friend"" of the course (Tony
Corica?) and my professional contact (Larry Kurtz). Any more than that and it
becomes difficult to manage. As chair, you need to decide if you want to be a part
of the process or want to be one of the decision makers who reviews the task
force recommendations and blesses them. Once that is done, you and I (and the
commission) would present our thinking and plans to the council/mayor. We will
need someone like yourself to view this effort separately to make sure we are
thinking correctly and not getting caught up in our own beliefs. If you chose to take
that role, I see us communicating to you after each meeting to offer insights to
what we discussed and to give you insight to our next steps.
The Golf Commission felt that only one member should be on this committee, and
the other three members present felt that the committee member should be Chair
Sullwold. Former Golf Commissioner Tony Corica agreed to serve on the
committee as well. Chair Sullwold will contact Secretary Delaney to get this ball
rolling.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 3
06/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",14186,
190,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Assistant Golf
Professional Mike Robason.
The Assistant Golf Professional reported that the Taylor Made Demo Day held on
May 17, 2008 was very successful bringing in $6,500. The Golf Complex will be
hosting a Ladies Day on June 11, 2008 in conjunction with the PGA of America's
Women's Golf Month. The activities will include a ""Demo Day"" with Titleist/Cobra
and teaching clinics. The event is free.
5-B
Golf Complex Maintenance activities report by Superintendent Doug
Poole.
Absent.
5-C
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
No tape transmission available.
5-D
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course.
No Restaurant representative was present. Mr. Lillard reported that ceiling tiles
had been replaced, and plans were in the works to replace the carpet.
6.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
6-A
Marketing and Promotions, Commissioner Gammell.
Nothing to report.
6-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Secretary Delaney.
Absent. Financial matters discussed earlier.
6-C
New Clubhouse Project, Vice Chair Gaul and Commissioner Schmitz.
Nothing to report.
6-D Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Commissioner
Wood.
Absent.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 4
06/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",14186,
191,"8.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for April 2008 was $11,790. The
year-to-date total to the General Fund is $112,231 for fiscal year 2007/2008.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Golf Complex financials.
11.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:00 PM.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 5
06/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",14186,
192,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
June 27, 2005-7:00 - p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:13 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani, and
Piziali.
Board members Kolhstrand and McNamara were absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development
Services Department, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005.
Vice President Cook advised that page 8, paragraph 9, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook advised that periodic review for a variety of parking issues had been attached to use permits in
the past.""
M/S Piziali/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as corrected.
A quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that the Board had requested that all Consent Calendar items with the
exception of Item 7-E, be placed on the regular agenda.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
June 27, , 2005",14186,
193,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
PDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant proposes a
Planned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and
lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203. This Amendment would affect
Lots 1-6, 8-12 and14 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots are fronting on or southerly
of 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned Development Amendment
would allow a five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5
acres. Currently, maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots
larger than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum
lot coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed
Planned Development Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by
five to ten percent (5 to 10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage
is required on lots smaller than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for
parcels larger than 5.5 acres. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would
decrease the landscaping requirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of
size. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned
Development.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern
that this item would chip away at the rules established for building on Bay Farm Island. He had not
heard any good reasons for allowing slightly less landscaping or more construction density of
warehouse structures on these parcels. He inquired whether further subdivision would then be
allowed.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Garrison noted that this business park was originally conceived as a campus-like setting with
larger office buildings, and some high-rise office buildings as well, with open space between the
buildings. He noted that kind of development has not materialized, and the developer found a market
for somewhat smaller buildings that focused more on warehousing, distribution and light
manufacturing. From their perspective, it was not feasible for convey a larger lot to an individual
business owner, and then require extensive landscaping. This item was proposed to make things
economically feasible for the developer, and to balance that against the public interest.
Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, stated that it was important to note that the
developer was not just trying to make an economical development, but to respond to a drastic change
in the office market in the Bay Area. She noted that more density had originally been planned for
this park vertically; the floor plate was spread over a greater area, but the buildings would be lower.
She added that the applicant overlandscaped in other parts of the park.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
June 27, , 2005",14186,
194,"In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the future possibility of building up, Ms.
Eliason noted that the Final Development Plans would preclude that choice because the applicant
would have to meet parking requirements; parking was based on a partial warehouse-type use, which
was less dense than office. She noted that the entire lot would have to be redeveloped entirely; they
would not be able to just add a second story.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about having a balance in the public interest, including
safety for children and traffic. She had been uncomfortable approving these speculative projects
without more information about traffic, parking and other issues. She suggested a potential
mitigation by allowing 7-B to be approved without also approving all the parcelization and changing
the landscaping requirements.
Ms. Eliason noted that the PDA could be limited to only Parcel 14 (Ettore). That would not allow 7-
C (four flex warehouses) to move forward at this time. The Parcel Map referenced was already
approved by the Planning Board and will be heard by City Council in July.
Vice President Cook did not feel she had enough information, and needed more environmental
analysis and examination of the schools and roads. She believed the business park as a whole was
excellent quality.
Mr. Lynch suggested that the 15 parcels be brought back for discussion of circulation, landscaping,
and building design, and to move the Tentative Map forward.
Ms. Eliason noted that the Tentative Map had been approved, and that the entire business park was
under a development agreement, which specified the land uses that may be included in the business
park. Those uses included Office, R&D, as well as any use in the C-M District, which also included
warehouse/light manufacturing. She noted that the Board had limited ability to change the uses.
Vice President Cook would like the parcels, except for Ettore, to return for further analysis and
discussion of compatibility of uses with schools and future plans for the other side of North Loop
Road, as well as the impacts associated with trucks and related uses.
Mr. Joe Ernst, applicant, SRM Associates, would like to avoid putting the entire Parcel Map on hold
because portions of that Map would not be affected by the PDA. He noted that transactions were tied
to those portions that were conforming uses with respect to current development standards.
M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-23 to continue
this item with the exception of Lot 14.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
June 27, , 2005",14186,
195,"proposed for the garage. She noted that it would not staff-intensive, and that there would be no pay
gate to queue up for at the end of the evening.
Vice President Cook noted that there had been more opposition to the theater than the garage, and
added that the Board listened carefully to each public speaker. She noted that some items had been
addressed previously, such as retail on the ground floor.
Mr. Piziali supported the use of variegated brick to add more detail to the façade.
Ms. Ott noted that Michael Stanton believed that the symmetry of the pattern with respect to the
horizontal openings would look better with a more subtle brick design.
President Cunningham believed that the header courses should be fixed, and he was very concerned
about the current brick detail design.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that one of the criteria was that the
exterior façade would be consistent with whatever the Planning Board approves. She noted that
Michael Stanton specified the quality of the materials in a very detailed way, based on the sample
board provided.
Vice President Cook noted that the DDA discussed the City's parking operations plan, which would
be submitted in a timely manner and examined in detail by the City Council.
President Cunningham addressed Mr. Spangler's comment regarding an exit strategy, and noted that
there was no way to tell what would happen in the future. He believed the floor-to-floor heights
could be adjusted, and that the conversion of a parking garage was problematic. He noted that
designing structures with an eye towards adaptive reuse before the intended use has begun will
compromise the project from the beginning. He hoped that Park Street business would require this
volume of parking.
Vice President Cook believed that without the Cineplex, this parking structure would appear too
massive on its own.
Mr. Lynch requested the inclusion of the financials at the next presentation. He suggested that with
the recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain, that the City Council and City
Attorney provide information with respect to potential litigation.
Ms. Mariani noted that she agreed with the modifications suggested by the Board. She did not agree
with the scale of the parking garage, and agreed that the City needed parking.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-28 to approve a
Use Permit and Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-
space parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video
Maniacs site, with the following modifications:
1.
The size of the poster boxes would be enhanced with contrasting brick detail and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 22
June 27, , 2005",14186,
196,"accents;
2.
The header courses would be corrected;
3.
A lighting consultant would be utilized;
4.
A landscaping plan would be included, and returned to the Planning Board.
AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN -
0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
President Cunningham advised that a letter from Sarah [Unavolta], commenting that she was not in
favor of Item 8-A.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that their last meeting was held the previous week. Staff will make a
presentation before the Planning Board to discuss the future of the project, and what kind of regular
review the Board would like.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Eliason advised that the preliminary concept for Alameda Point was distributed to the Board
members. There will be a meeting on that subject in July.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
Planning Board Minutes
Page 23
June 27, , 2005",14186,
197,"Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the July 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 24
June 27, , 2005",14186,
198,"7-B. FDP05-0001/DR05-0050 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates for Ettore Products
(DG). 2100 North Loop Road. The applicant requests a Final Development Plan and
Design Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and light manufacturing
facility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map No 8574).
The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
This item was discussed under Item 7-A.
M/S Lynch/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-24 to approve a
Final Development Plan and Design Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and
light manufacturing facility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map
No 8574).
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
June 27, , 2005",14186,
199,"7-C.
FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant
requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse,
office and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on
6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative
Parcel Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until
the final map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing- -
Planned Development.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
This item was discussed under Item 7-A.
M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to continue this item, which will be renoticed following discussion
with the applicants.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
June 27, , 2005",14186,
200,"7-D.
TM05-0001 - Regency Realty Group, Inc. 2599 Blanding Avenue (AT). Applicants
request approval of Parcel Map 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside
Shopping Center. The site is located within the C-2 PD, Central Business Planned
Development District.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the timing of this action, Mr. Tai replied
that it was appropriate because before the public access easements can be recorded on the site, the
parcels must be recorded first. He noted that should not be affected by any change in public access
easements. Those easements would be recorded by a separate instrument at a later time. The Broadway
Street right of way through the site would be permanently abandoned.
Vice President Cook noted that she was concerned about the current proposed location for the
transformers in the view corridors and welcoming area.
Mr. Tai noted that staff was reviewing those issues, which were unrelated to this item.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-25 to approve Parcel
Map 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside Shopping Center.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
June 27, , 2005",14186,
201,"7-E.
DR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The proposal is an
appeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the demolition of a single-
family residence, located at the above address, is in violation of the AMC $13-21-10 b
(removal or demolition of an historic structure without proper permits) and is, therefore,
subject to the five (5) year stay that prevents the issuance of any building or construction-
related permits for the property. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval
in July 2004 for proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage,
interior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square feet to the
dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The property is within the R-4,
Neighborhood Residential District. (Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)
M/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to schedule this item for the City Council.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
June 27, , 2005",14186,