body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-01-07,1,"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",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-01-07,2,"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",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-01-07,3,"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.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-01-07,4,"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",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-11-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
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 October 6, 2010.
Member Matarrese moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair deHaan
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Consider Request from Alameda Point Collaborative to Support their Community
Planning Efforts by Reimbursing Unpaid SunCal Consultant Expenses and
Collateralizing a $50,000 Loan for Relocation Planning Studies Should Funds from
Private Development Be Unavailable within 36 Months.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Johnson inquired if the expenditure is considered a predevelopment cost for SunCal, to
which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services answered in the affirmative. Chair
Johnson inquired if staff has made efforts to have SunCal fulfill their commitment for payment.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the Alameda Point
Collaborative (APC) has tried diligently, without success, to have SunCal fulfill its commitment.
Chair Johnson recommended continued efforts to pursue SunCal and inquired why funds from
the SunCal escrow account are not being used to pay this bill. The Executive Director
explained that the predevelopment escrow account is for obligations that SunCal has to the City
and that the terms of the escrow account do not allow the City to direct the escrow agent to pay
any invoices. Also, the City cannot interfere in the contractual relationship between SunCal and
APC.
Doug Biggs, Executive Director of APC further explained that he has contacted SunCal multiple
times to request payment, and the responses provided no resolution to the problem and
payments have not been made. Chair Johnson asked Mr. Biggs if APC has filed a lawsuit
against SunCal to collect the funds owed. Mr. Biggs explained that the contract SunCal
required APC sign has a no-lawsuit clause and that APC would have to go through mediation.
Chair Johnson inquired whether APC has demanded mediation pursuant to its contract, to
which Mr. Biggs responded in the negative. Chair Johnson recommended that APC go through
the binding arbitration process.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-11-03,2,"Member Matarrese commented that SunCal had no problem spending approximately $50,000
on an election mailer a month ago. Member Matarrese supports APC's request, but would like
to require that APC start the proceedings on their contractual remedy to the outstanding bill.
Member Gilmore requested an update and report on the status of the predevelopment costs,
and of the ARRA budget. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed Member
Gilmore and the Board that staff will incorporate the ARRA budget and Predevelopment costs
information into the update/staff report that will be presented to the Board in January.
Vice Chair deHaan inquired how the APC will pay back a $50,000 loan. Mr. Biggs explained
that the Project Implementation Loan (PIL) is from the Corporation for Supportive Housing.
Traditionally, these loans are paid off by development fees, but since the development plans for
Alameda Point are uncertain at this time, APC is asking the City to back them up.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the predevelopment planning
cost will be wrapped into the total cost of the project and financed through every available
funding source to make the consolidation and relocation work.
Speakers: Jon Spangler spoke in support of APC's request.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the recommendation to collateralize $50,000 for
the pursuit of the planning study, with the requirement that the APC formally invoke their
remedy in their contract in pursuit of reimbursement by SunCal. Member Matarrese also
requested that the work done by the contractor be under public domain so that it is not
proprietary to APC since it is being underwritten by the ARRA. Vice Chair deHaan
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of October 7 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese did not attend the October 7th meeting but will attend the RAB meeting on
Nov. 4. Member Matarrese provided comments on Dr. Russell's highlights, stating that most of
the activities described are actual remediation activities. He called particular attention to the
record of decision on Site 2 which is the southwest portion of the base. There was discussion of
a cap and cover for that contamination. Member Matarrese would like Dr. Russell to
recommend a strategy to make sure anything that is radioactive is removed from Site 2.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
6-A. Presentation on Request for Qualifications for a Resource Team for Redevelopment
of Alameda Point.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief summary on steps staff is
taking to move the going forward process. In the next week or two, staff will send out a Request
for Qualifications (RFQ) for land use planning, urban design, sustainable green design and
infrastructure planning, civil engineering, transportation planning, fiscal impact land use",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-11-03,3,ARRA Secretary,AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Vice Chair Tam presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
Chair Johnson arrived at 7:52 p.m. (during item 3-B).
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 4, 2007.
2-B. Approve Three-Year Sublease for Sustainable Technologies at Alameda Point.
2-C. Approve the Waiver of License Fee for Alameda Unified School District Student Activities.
2-D. Authorize the Executive Director to Amend the Consultant Agreement with Trident
Management, Inc. to Modify Exhibit C and Accommodate Technical Changes.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes, o noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation by Friends of the Wildlife Refuge - An Update of Their Activities at
Alameda Point.
A power point presentation was made by Leora Feeney, Chair of FAWR, and Eli Saddler,
Conservation Director for Golden Gate Audubon, to update the Board and community on the
resources at the Alameda proposed Wildlife Refuge to ensure the resources are protected while
transfer negotiations continue. Eli Saddler thanked the Board for the opportunity to present the
update and encouraged them to do whatever possible to protect the resource. He expressed
concern about the current plans that have been proposed that are within the area that was
considered in the Biological Opinion. They want to continue to work cooperatively with the VA
to protect the resource and honor the veterans at the same time.
Member deHaan commented on how nice it is to look at the maturity of the site, referring to the
photos included in the presentation. He asked if the resources, the ponds and wildlife area, are
getting to a better state. Ms. Feeney replied that the ponds are wonderful, but that Alameda Point
and the breakwater is vulnerable. She discussed the increase in the Pelican numbers, and the use
of the willows by migratory birds, including a hawk, one winter. Ms. Feeney also mentioned
how far the recognition of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge stretches, explaining that two college
students chose the Refuge site for their graduate work, one from Los Angeles, and the other from",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,2,"Toronto, Canada. Also, the first magazine issued by the National Wildlife Refuge Association
included an segment on Alameda and asked the FAWR to be an affiliate of theirs.
Member deHaan asked how successful the mating pairs have been up to this point. Ms. Feeney
summarized the progress of the lease tern colony, explaining that Alameda has the sixth largest
colony in the world, but that we are isolated from the other colonies (most in Southern Ca).
Member Matarrese really enjoyed the pictures included in the presentation and appreciates the
fragility of the ecosystem of the site. He discussed another upcoming item on the Agenda, Site
1, an uncharacterized waste pit which is adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge, and the importance of
addressing the clean-up issues and how it relates to the water-borne life of the refuge. Mr.
Saddler added that once construction begins at Alameda Point, it would inevitably impact how
the clean-up is managed.
Vice Chair Tam asked if they have seen some of the latest conceptual plans from the VA. Mr.
Saddler said that he and Ms. Feeney met with the VA and were able to see three versions of
proposed plans. They were concerned that the new concepts proposes the area between the
proposed Golf course and the refuge site as a buffer zone, but also expressed their desire to stay
engaged with the VA and keep things in perspective as to what's best for Alameda, what's best
for the Veterans and what's best for the wildlife. Member Matarrese clarified that the VA is a
fed-to-fed transfer, and not the Alameda development.
Member deHaan recommended the Board receive periodic updates of the VA's proposals and
requested a briefing. Member Matarrese agreed and asked whether the updates can be obtained
officially. Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that there is no official proposal
available yet from the VA. Member Matarrese requested that when there is an official proposal,
he would like the Board to see it. The Board agreed.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - oral report
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, reported that the VA is
currently engaged in informal Section 7 consultations with the USF&W and have a potential site
plan, but there are no additional details beyond that.
Member deHaan asked what role the ARRA would have, since the property would be a fed-to-
fed transfer. Ms. Potter explained that it has been properly characterized as a fed-to-fed transfer,
and, as such, the VA would work directly with the Navy on the conveyance of the property. This
opportunity is one that the VA would be interested in exploring because the property would be
conveyed to them for free; different than the conveyance we're involved in for the remainder of
the property. ARRA and staff would be involved at an informal level, but because the
development is adjacent, we have interest in some issues like the submerged lands adjacent to
dry lands. Ms Potter stated that staff would continue to consult and work with the VA, the
USF&W, and the Navy, but key issues are hammered out at the federal level.
Member deHaan discussed his understanding that the USF&W made a claim to property, said
that they would be the governing body and provide financially, but they could not fulfill their
commitment and this is why the Navy is looking for a different avenue. Ms. Potter explained
that, in the USF&W's own words, ""the status of refuge is at an impasse""; that they are unable to
reconcile their issues with the Navy regarding a fed-to-fed transfer, and that their key concern is
future liability regarding environmental cleanup. They have not perfected the transfer
arrangement, so the Navy has been in discussions with the VA in lieu of USF&W. Because
there are endangered species on the property, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,3,"consultation to make sure that whatever the VA does, they cannot harm the endangered species.
Ms. Potter clarified that the USF&W are not pursuing ownership of the property at this time and
that if the Navy goes forward with the property transfer to the VA, the Navy will retain clean-up
obligations for the property.
Vice Chair Tam questioned what SunCal's follow-up with the VA has been to this point
regarding the site, if their dialogue with the VA includes potential alternative sites. Ms Potter
responded that SunCal has had one additional follow-up meeting with the VA and that SunCal is
aware of their need ultimately, and that this issue is a key item on SunCal's Project Master
Schedule.
It is noted that Chair Johnson arrived at this point in the discussion (7:52 p.m.).
Ms. Potter gave her update on SunCal, including that the first two community meetings have
been scheduled, the first on 10/24 at Mastick Senior Center. The agenda for this meeting
includes introduction of SunCal and their partners to the community, framing the project and
their approach to the project, and site constraints. A second meeting is tentatively scheduled on
12/12 at the O'club to solicit feedback from community regarding the range of development
scenarios, and their key focus to continue surveying property and preparing to do sampling - the
technical work to support the land-planning effort.
Member Matarrese asked if we're on track with zoning issues. Ms. Potter explained that she has
prepared an off-agenda report discussing that the status of the public trust designation protects us
more than locking in zoning, and recommends that staff not do anything ahead of the entitlement
process. FM requested that this item be agendized.
Chair Johnson asked if the mortgage crisis is a risk to SunCal. Ms. Potter said that SunCal has
reassured they are not impacted by that crisis. Chair Johnson wants to be kept updated of
SunCal's activities regarding the project.
This report was for information only. No motion or action was required.
3-C. Approve and Submit Comment Letter on the Draft Record of Decision for Installation
Restoration Site 1 (1943-1956 Disposal Area).
Ms. Potter summarized a letter sent to the EPA requesting additional investigative work be done
at IR Site 1. She explained that trenching activities are concluded at the site and key concerns
identified: no intact drums were found, but the waste had low-level radioactivity. The cost of
digging up and hauling off the landfill is very expensive so staff's recommendation is to take the
Navy's approach outlined in their draft ROD to cap the landfill.
Member Matarrese had deep concerns about the radioactive and hazardous waste and
groundwater migration of the contaminants out of the landfill. Dr. Peter Russell addressed the
concerns and explained that the landfill was closed and no waste put in for 50 years, with a good
deal of monitoring and investigation, it appears not to be any migration of contents. Dr. Russell
further explained that 11 trenches were dug and there were no drums or containers whatsoever,
except for one broken which was consistent with the Navy's supposition that what drums were
placed in there were crushed. It is unlikely that there are many, if any, drums. Another issue
was the volume of waste - the Navy over-estimated by a factor of two or three, so accordingly,
they inflated the cost by two or three. Their feasibility study did not consider radioactivity in
landfill, and now that there is, we do not have an argument that the cost for the removal is at the
Navy's estimate.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,4,"Member Matarrese motioned to send a letter that is policy in nature requesting that the
Navy excavate and remove the contents of the radioactive contaminated landfill, and
dispense with institutional controls on surrounding properties that are deemed to be
cleaned.
The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, o noes, and 0 abstentions.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
The RAB met regularly and again on Sept. 28th to discuss six alternatives for the draft feasibility
study for IR Site 32. Their recommendation endorses a chemical oxidation and institutional
controls for that site to alleviate groundwater contaminations.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
none.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese was contacted by a member of boating industry regarding development in
Jack London Square that will displace their annual boat show in 2009. The representatives are
interested in another venue for the boat show and are looking at Alameda Point. Member
Matarrese expressed that this would be a great thing to pursue a boat show of that magnitude,
and that it would be an economic boom for our city. He requested a report when/if this can be
done.
Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said that ARRA staff has been in discussions with the
representatives of the boat show and will update the Board with information.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Have Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-03-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 5, 2008- 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:14 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Estuary Park
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The Navy's offer of a license, rather than a lease, and the ability of the Navy to terminate
the lecense on short notice was discussed. The City desired a lease, which would five the
City the right to use the premises for a longer period of time and would justify the
investment of City money in the park. The City will not pursue an agreement any more, at
this time.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Alameda Point
Negotiating parties: ARRA and SCC Alameda Point LLC
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Staff provided an update on negotiations regarding Alameda Point. No action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:48
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Iruna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
March 5, 2008",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-03-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. February 1, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:43 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 4, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring Procedures for Special Legal
Counsel; Resolution Amending Resolution No. 002 Regarding the Powers and Authority
of the General Counsel.
Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, pointed out that the only difference between the City
Council policy and the ARRA policy is the unlawful detainer policy.
Approval of 2-A was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
Member Gilmore motioned for approval of 2-B as written, with the caveats to receive a
written report on unlawful detainers and revisit the policy in 6 months. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes -0;
Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of the Final Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, requested formal acceptance of the PDC. Acceptance of
the PDC represents an important step in completing some obligations made in ARRA's
agreement with the selected master developer, APCP: complete a plan with the help of the
Alameda community to identify the development opportunities at Alameda Point and the key
tradeoffs and challenges.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,2,"Page 2
As described in the plan, the PDC does not represent the FINAL development plan for Alameda
Point. It is a planning study with the basic message that to get through an entitlement process
and a planning process, and to actually see implementation will require some tough compromises
and decisions that have not yet been made. The PDC clarifies that when the important decisions
are made, all the necessary information will be available to the public and to ARRA. Important
issues are emphasized in the Next Steps chapter. The plan for the redevelopment of Alameda
Point will continue to evolve as we move through the entitlement process.
Member Daysog thanked staff for the memo provided by Darin Smith of Economic Planning
Systems (EPS) detailing the assumptions. He requested further sources, methodologies and
assumptions regarding information in Table 3 and in Table 4 - property taxes, assumptions in
terms of housing values, industrial and commercial, property transfer taxes. Member Daysog
explained that this information would be helpful for future generations of Alamedans to track the
fiscal health of this project.
There were several speakers on this item:
Birgitt Evans - represents the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS). Thanked
staff and Andrew Thomas for the PDC. Discussed concerns with removal of two seaplane
lagoon hangars (Bldgs. 11 & 12). Recommended construction of height-limited buildings to
preserve vista for future generations.
Elizabeth Krase, AAPS - thanked Andrew Thomas. Discussed concerns regarding the timetable
for the Preservation and Adaptive Reuse Studies, and the potential loss of the BOQ, Big Whites,
etc.
Joan Konrad - discussed importance of examining Measure A non-compliant alternative plan for
Alameda Point redevelopment and safe and easy walking distance to destinations - schools,
work and shopping.
Diane Lichtenstein - concerns about the constraints of Measure A. Reiterated that the PDC is
only a draft and wanted to emphasize the flexibility of the plans.
Helen Sause - commended Staff and the City on the PDC, stating that the public input has been
valuable. Discussed priority to see the development without restrictions of Measure A. Urged
ARRA to keep flexibility in development of the PDC and keep the alternative plan that would
permit AP to be developed in accordance with good planning principles.
Chair Johnson closed the public comment portion of this item.
Chair and Boardmembers thanked Andrew Thomas and the staff for the PDC. Member Gilmore
was particularly pleased with staff's response to public input and the Board's comments about
the Next Steps chapter. She emphasized that what's outlined in the Next Steps chapter gets
accomplished, yet not to tie ourselves down to a specific timeline, particularly since we don't yet
have the property. Chair Johnson agreed, stating that it was surprising how many residents don't",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,3,"Page 3
know that ARRA does not own the property yet. Member Matarrese repeated the notion of
ensuring ample time for dealing with Historic properties, having advanced notice for ARRA,
Planning, and the public - to understand what's ahead.
Member Daysog motioned for approval of this item. The motion was seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
3-B. Recommendation to Approve a 20-year Lease with the Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration (MARAD).
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager of DSD, presented the Board with the
lease, gave an overview of MARAD, a tenant on the base since 1997, and explained that the
lease negotiations have been going on since May 2002. The lease being presented included two
components: the lease combines the MARAD warehouse and pier uses.
In addition to generating, under this new lease, a proposed $1.8 M in the first two years with 3%
increases, MARAD is the largest electricity user in Alameda and responsible corporate citizens.
They' ve already spent $1M on dredging, an ARRA obligation, but MARAD put the money up
front. Chair Johnson discussed security fencing, possibilities of reconfiguring least intrusive
manner.
Member deHaan asked whether MARAD discussed possibilities of shouldering relocation of
Hornet and the different scenarios regarding the Hornet's location. Ms Banks replied that
MARAD couldn't make an initial investment and it is an obligation of ARRA, but that the 3%
increase in rent should pay for whatever decision is made. Member deHaan stated that MARAD
should strive to find dollars to relocate the Hornet, since it's to their benefit. Chair Johnson
suggested that MARAD may have better access to homeland security money.
Under the new lease, gross lease revenue for the first 2 years is 1.8M per year. Net is $800,000
to ARRA Chair Johnson requested a copy of pro forma. She also emphasized an important
attachment - Exhibit H - which outlines ARRA's obligations under the lease. Ms. Banks
explained that those obligations were negotiated down from the standard lease.
Member deHaan stated that MARAD is one of the best tenants at Alameda Point, but is
concerned about the 20 year cost to maintain the operation, and that they're not an asset for the
ambience of the development. Member Matarrese doesn't have a problem with MARAD being
here, recognizing that it's a multiple-use development; there is some industrial and commercial
use.
Chair Johnson expressed concern about a provision, in the MARAD lease, relating to Trident.
She questioned why they were intertwined, and why there is not separate, employer liability
insurance.
Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, explained that insurance is something that MARAD
and the Federal government can't get and it's in our interest to have this insurance in place.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,4,"Page 4
Mike Hampen, PM Realty Group, further explained that liability insurance of piers is required
whether there is a port manager or not. Ms. Banks said that the reference to Trident will be
removed, as there is no reference in naming the port manager in the agreement.
Member Matarrese requested an analysis on the risk assessment and liability of lease, stating that
staff and the City Attorney are being paid to review leases and contracts, not the responsibility of
the ARRA Board (to review leases, etc.). He recommended bringing this item back and the need
to keep MARAD as a tenant, to see the Navy in legacy.
Chair Johnson agreed with Member Matarrese's request, stating she'd like a better definition of
what the potential expenses and risks are. She stated that MARAD is an excellent tenant, and we
don't want to lose them; we just need to understand the lease better. She also requested that the
Trident provision be completely separate and not included in the MARAD lease.
Member Gilmore expressed concern about the lease not being included in the packet for review.
She prefers to receive copies of complex documents and decide how deeply to look at the
documents or how much to rely on the staff report. Chair Johnson recommended that, at the
least, significant attachments (like Attachment H, etc.) be summarized in the staff report, or
be
included in the package.
Without a formal motion, all members agreed to continue this item to the March 1, 2006
ARRA meeting with a request for a more detailed analysis of the ARRA's risk assessment
and obligations under the MARAD lease.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese gave an overview of the Jan 5th meeting: The major item on the agenda was
the Petroleum Hydrocarbon Program update, highlighting the status and technical explanations
of the remediation taking place on sites spread across Phase 1 and several in Phase 3. He stated
that there was an amazing mass of contaminants being removed: jet fuel, gasoline, etc. The next
RAB meeting is Thursday, Feb 9.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan requested an update on the Tinker Ave. / Webster St. exchange, stating that it is
key to fully developing FISC.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,5,"Page 5
Member Matarrese reiterated the Dec. 2004 ARRA-approved intent of requesting all ARRA
leases (and licenses) come to ARRA, so they know what the arrangements are with tenants on
the property and to maintain their responsibility to the LIFOC.
Chair Johnson requested an update on the Hornet. Leslie Little, Development Services Director,
informed the Board that there is no lease negotiations ongoing at the time, and there has not been
an existing lease with the Hornet for 2 years. Ms. Little will provide a report to the Board at the
next meeting. Ms. Little reiterated that updates are provided to the ARRA in monthly financial
reports.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-02-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:15 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
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 January 6, 2009.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of January 7 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the January 7 RAB meeting, including a report of
Site OU-2C which has a contaminated discharge line under a slab in Bldg. 400. The RAB
recommends it be removed, but the Navy is citing potential compromise to the structural
integrity of building. The second highlight was a report on the block of cement in the seaplane
lagoon, to which the Navy made no comment. Member Matarrese would like a presentation and
technical summary from the Navy of cleanup activities and costs, including dollar figures,
completed to date. Member Matarrese stated that it is good for the community to understand
that remediation is an ongoing process. He will attend the next RAB meeting tomorrow (2/4).
Member Gilmore asked if it was requested of the Navy to substantiate their claim about the
structural integrity of Bldg. 400. Member Matarrese replied that a letter was sent to them with
that request.
Richard Bangert, speaker, supported the suggestion made by Member Matarrese calling for a
public presentation of the clean up activities at the base. He agreed that such a presentation
would benefit the community at large. He discussed the Record of Decision (ROD) document
for Site 1, explaining that it comprises 43,000 pages of data, emphasizing the need for the
community to have a deep understanding of the clean-up efforts. Mr. Bangert also
recommended that the regulatory agencies who oversee the clean-up be featured in the
presentation.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
03-03-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-02-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-02-03,2,"Chair Johnson agreed with Mr. Bangert that the regulatory agencies, including the Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the
Water board should participate in the presentation.
Chair Johnson further stated that the Board supports Member Matarrese's recommendation for
a public presentation regarding the remediation activities at Alameda Point.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were several speakers. Jean Sweeney suggested a before and after"" powerpoint
presentation of the clean-up sites.
Jim Sweeney agreed with Richard Bangert and Member Matarrese about a presentation to the
public. Mr. Sweeney encourages educating the public about remediation, the plan, and what
can be done realistically at Alameda Point.
Gretchen Lipow - attends RAB meetings, was impressed with the bright, talented members and
how they interact with the agencies. Ms. Lipow invites the public to observe these meetings,
stating that the group looks out for the communities' welfare.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Vice Chair deHaan discussed the Special Election of Feb 2nd regarding Measure B. There were
14,000 votes cast - 85% NO and 15% YES.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
June Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-02-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-10-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:36 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Authorize Execution of a No-Cost Sublease for Alameda Development Corporation at
Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member Tam,
and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - O.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Approve the Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Disposition of the
Notices of Interest for the Homeless Accommodation/Public Benefit Conveyances for
the North Housing Parcel and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate the
Required Legally Binding Agreement
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief overview of the
item, stating that in November 2007, the Navy declared the North Housing Parcel, an additional
42 acre parcel, as surplus. The ARRA, as the Local Reuse Authority (LRA) is charged with
conducting the federal screening process, a mandated step before the Navy can dispose of
property. Three Notice of Interests (NOIs) and two requests for Public Benefit Conveyances
(PBC's) were reviewed in early September. The NOIs were analyzed against a number of criteria
including what project was being proposed, how well the project met unidentified needs of
homeless needs assessment, financial feasibility, and the organization's capacity to carry out the
project. One NOI from the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC), didn't
meet the threshold requirement and was notified that they did not meet screening process. Of the
remaining two NOIs, the evaluation committee does not recommend moving forward with the
NOI received form Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) and Building Futures with Women and
Children (BFWC), to provide location for the Midway Shelter, in the event it loses it's lease
where currently located. There is a path forward to working with Navy on the existing location
of the shelter, which the Navy has committed to in writing to retain midway shelter in current
location. Also, the 42-acre site was not an appropriate location for a multi-service center, which
should be in central location accessible by public transit.
The committee is recommending the NOI received from the City Housing Authority, APC, and
BFWC for 120 units of permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless people, with the
recommendation to move forward at 90 units rather than 120 units.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-10-01,2,"The two PBCs received were from the City's Recreation and Park department and from Habitat
for Humanity for self-help housing. We are recommending the PBC from Rec and Park, and will
indicate our support for Habitat for Humanity for 20 to 30 units of self-help housing. The Habitat
for Humanity PBC is approved by the federal housing agency, HUD; and the Department of
Interior would approve the Rec and Park PBC.
The next step is to begin negotiating a Legally Binding Agreement (LBA). The LBA is an
agreement document that goes forward to HUD, along with our amendment to the Community
Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan), HUD reviews the Reuse Plan and makes the ultimate determination of
how well it meets the needs of homeless accommodation. We are scheduling two community
meetings in November, on the 3rd with the Planning Board, and on Nov. 24th on the amendment
to the Reuse Plan, and draft LBA at its Dec. 3 meeting. The statutory requirement is to get
everything to HUD in December.
Member Matarrese asked how HUD weighs different factors during their evaluation of the
proposals. Ms. Potter explained that typically, the screening process regulations are broadly
drafted in order to give local jurisdictions a lot of leeway and opportunity for the Reuse Plan to
meet their needs. What they are looking for is a balance of homeless accommodation, and what
they call ""other community goals"", in terms of job generation, economic development, housing,
and open space. Member Matarrese asked if there is a previous process which we were involved
in. Ms. Potter replied that the 1996 Community Reuse Plan was the last time we were involved
in that process. Member Matarrese informed staff and the Board that he just received a letter
from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regarding the remediation of site
where the Midway Shelter is located. The letter informed of DTSC's plan to evaluate the impact
of removing viscous material and widespread contaminated material from that site. Staff will
follow-up.
Chair Johnson called public speakers. Doug Biggs, Interim Executive Director of the APC spoke
in support of the city's recommendation. He discussed the homelessness crisis in today's
economy. Liz Varela, Executive Director of the BFWC, supports Doug Bigg's comments, and
appreciates the City's recommendation on the BFWC NOI and its efforts of relocating the
Midway Shelter.
Member deHaan asked staff to give a background on the remediation requirements and how the
Navy is going to address that. Ms. Potter explained that the south east corner of the North
Housing parcel, there is a plume which extends to that area and will be remediated. The Navy
has started remediation of the plume, and we made it clear when we put out the request that there
is an environmental issue. None of the proposals we received asked for property anywhere near
that site. There has been prior time-critical removal that has all been completed. Ms. Potter
added that there was no removal under hardscapes or roads, so anyone who will develop that site
has to take that in consideration.
Member Matarrese expressed concern that we should not move forward where uncalculated
liability for any unremediated land is passed on to any future to non-profit.
Member Matarrese motioned to provide direction that in the Community Reuse Plan and
in the negotiations of the LBA we include disclosure of significant liability of
uncharacterized contamination under hardscape and contamination beyond two feet, and
that we have these LBAs come back to ARRA. The motion was seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-10-01,3,"3-B. Report on Restoration Advisory Board Comment Letter on Installation Restoration
Site 1.
Ms. Potter summarized that at the ARRA meeting on September 10, the Board received several
letters regarding Site 1. Staff was directed to work with the environmental consultant, Dr. Peter
Russell, to prepare a response to RAB letters. The ARRA's position is that land fill should be
dug up and hauled off, this position has been consistent during the public comment process,
which is not concluded. A final draft Record of Decision (ROD) is due on Oct. 28th, which will
give us further opportunity to provide comments on the final draft ROD. However, as all of this
work has been going on, the results of the additional trenching did not reveal waste, so the sense
is that there is no longer a landfill at Site 1. We would like to send a letter to the Navy
requesting they do a little more work to determine whether a land fill is still present at Site 1.
The Navy began remediation on groundwater contamination.
Member Matarrese reminded staff that the original concern expressed was, not that there was a
landfill, but that it was uncharacterized and unknown. He wants to make sure all contaminated
materials are removed, and inert ones remain in place. Ms. Potter stated that we must go through
the CERCLA process, and that the time-critical removal was for the material down to two feet.
Member Matarrese asked how Site 1 could be closed if there is still objectionable material there.
Ms. Potter responded by stating that the work effort and investigation as part of IR Site 32 work
includes going further than two feet, and the moving of the materials allows the changing of the
boundaries of the IR sites and what they are studying. Member Matarrese would like a risk
assessment provided to the City with anticipated development in mind - to build a case for the
ultimate price tag for the property, i.e., if the property goes to auction, the contamination status
would affect the price.
There were two speakers on this item. James Leach, RAB member for 9 years, is there
voluntarily because they are experts and have done clean-up and provide oversight to a high
degree. George Humphreys, Co-Chair of the RAB, commented on Dr. Russell's evaluation of
the Site 1 issue.
Member Matarrese motioned to accept the report with future reports to include a risk
assessment of the significant issues being discussed from a technical standpoint. The
motion was seconded my Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes -
5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
Ms. Potter discussed two additional recommendations included in the staff report; first was the
request for authorization to request that the Navy further explore issue of whether there is still a
landfill, and second, that staff be given authorization to prepare and send a letter on the draft
final ROD. Since there is no opportunity to provide back to ARRA before it's sent, Member
Matarrese suggested it come back to the Board at a the second Council meeting in November
(November 18).
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the two additional recommendations, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions -
0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
- Highlights of September 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-10-01,4,"Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow night and the minutes from the
last meeting have been presented.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
There was one speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan asked if there was an update on the GSA property behind Foster Freeze. Ms.
Potter informed him that staff will get and update and provide it to the City Manager as an Off-
Agenda item.
Member Matarrese stated that the Board has received a stack of documents from SunCal, but has
not seen a document that fits the description of a Business Plan. He requested that staff ask
SunCal for a business plan. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, affirmed Member
Matarrese's request.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airan Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-03-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Member Matarrese presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Absent:
Chair Beverly Johnson
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 3, 2010.
2-B. Approve a Third Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc., Increasing the Budget by $60,000 to Provide Ongoing Negotiation Support for
the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of February 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the February 4 RAB meeting, including a report
on remediation and field work: The Navy is continuing to dig up and remove radioactive
contaminated storm drain lines from Bldg. 5, there is active groundwater treatments at two sites
along the Oakland inner harbor, north of Pier 1; and a petroleum contaminated groundwater
treatment recovery operation near the Atlantic avenue entrance. There was discussion
regarding issues relative to the disturbance of nesting of migratory birds at the Bay Trail, and
that meetings with the Fish & Wildlife Service have been scheduled. There are expanded site
inspections along the south east portions of Alameda Point to Hangar Row, on the western side
of the lagoon. Lastly, there was discussion on RAB's purpose and processes governing the
RAB, and how well the RAB communicates to the general public about clean-up efforts. ARRA
will have a meeting on May 6 to promote and highlight clean-up work. Regulators from the
EPA, DTSC, and Water Board will attend. The meeting is scheduled on May 6, 2010 at the
Mastick Senior Center. The RAB will hold their regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., and the Special
ARRA meeting will follow at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
04-06-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-03-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-03-03,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No speakers
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese said that he and Chair Johnson attended the Association of Defense
Communities (ADC) conference in Feb in Albuquerque, NM. He stated that they participated in
various sessions and will prepare notes highlighting topics discussed in the sessions, including
base conversion stories and reuse of former military bases that were better, similar, or worse off
than Alameda Point. Regarding the base conversion and reuse, the spectrum ran from rural
conversion of an army weapons depot in Kansas, to a small village in Illinois. Member
Matarrese stated that there were a lot of contacts and exposure to all branches of service, their
experts and their experience, including the Director of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority.
Ann Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director, expressed that she was pleased with the ARRA's
involvement in ADC and that she, along with executive staff, was invited to sit on the host
committee to plan the Annual ADC Conference taking place in San Francisco this year. The
anticipation is that there will be more than 1000 people in attendance. She stated that the ADC
accepted the ARRA's invitation to host an event at Alameda Point. She also said that the ADC
is interested in having the ARRA do a forum on the base and its history, including all the
different elements and components on remediation, phase-out issues, and that it would be a
good case study in terms of how they can learn some lessons.
Member Matarrese discussed two key items: 1) legislation on defense authorization bill, which
help communities grapple with the cost of closed bases, and 2) the new Undersecretary's
initiative to deal with green approaches, sustainability, and alternative energy sources.
Member Gilmore asked what the dates for the ADC Annual Conference were. Ms. Gallant
replied that it was early August, the 8th thru 11th. Member Tam reminded the Board of the
Charter provision to make a conscious effort to go dark in August.
Member Tam also asked if there was information on the status of conveyance of Treasure
Island. Jennifer Ott, Deputy Executive Director, spoke with the Project Manager of the Treasure
Island Development Authority (TIDA) and explained that TIDA was able to hammer out a very
brief term sheet, very similar to Alameda; and that now they are working on details. Nothing
official has been presented and no funds have exchanged hands. Because of the economy and
provisions of that agreement, additional density (more units) on Treasure Island will be worked
through with developer as well.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Member Matarrese.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-03-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-04-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday - April 5, 2006- 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 5, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-04-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A
Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the Approval of Subleases at
Alameda Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The
motion was seconded by Chair Johnson and passed by the following voice vote:
Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A.
Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
Steven Proud, project manager for Alameda Point, gave a brief update on Navy Negotiations,
focused on two fronts: submission of the conveyance proposal to the Navy; and the public planning
process. The conveyance proposal was submitted to the Navy in May and is under consideration by
the Navy right now. There have been meetings in support of that with some of the regulatory
agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and EPA. The next
meeting with the Navy to discuss the contents of the proposal is June 2, 2005. Mr. Proud reminded
the public and the Board that the next public workshop is on June 8th at the Mastick Senior Center,
starting at 6:30PM.
Chair Johnson thanked Mr. Proud and commented on all the positive feedback she's received from
the public regarding the workshops: that they appreciate all the hard work and effort and how
informative and helpful the presentations were.
Mr. Proud gave credit to Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, for coordinating the workshops, and
to Irma Frankel for coordinating the public outreach, and other staff members who have worked hard
to make sure the workshops are successful.
1
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,2,"Member deHaan asked when we're expecting the Navy to respond. Mr. Proud stated that we asked
for a response from the Navy by June 30th, which corresponds to the date in the conditional
acquisition agreement with Alameda Point Community Partners for there election to proceed.
3-B. Video presentation by the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM).
Marilyn York from the Alameda Naval Museum gave a brief (4 minutes) video presentation of the
Alameda naval Air Museum (ANAM).
Marilyn York and Barbara Bach were two public speakers, both requesting a long term lease with
the right of renewal and the same terms for the ANAM.
Member deHaan thanked them for the effort they put in it and remarked that the video was
extremely informative. He commended them for the effort to get the shell improvements which were
over $700,000.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITMES
4-A. Report authorizing the Acting Executive Director to Execute a two year lease renewal (1-
year with 1-year owner option) with Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) for Building
77 at Alameda Point.
In response to Member deHaan's question regarding why the agreement is in front of the Board if
it's already been signed, Bill Norton explained that the agreement has not been signed by the
museum association, as they indicated they want at least a 5 year and probably a 20 year lease. So
they have not signed it. Mr. Norton further explained that the ANAM did have a 5 year lease.
However, there were performance criteria in the lease, but they did not have the ability to perform
over a 3 year period because they did not have time to actually occupy the structure until they got a
certificate of occupancy in March 2004, it's not reasonable to expect them evaluated on the
performance measure that they were required to. The original thought was to give them this prior
year plus 2 years upcoming, so that we could review the performance criteria during that period of
time. Mr. Norton advised, based upon some of the concerns that ANAM has, to modify the item to
authorize the Executive Director to enter into negotiations with ANAM for the lease, rather than
authorizing the existing lease agreement to be signed - enter into negotiations for a new lease.
There were several speakers, including the representative from Red Bridge Media, Ken Robles, who
is partnered with Veterans Administration Archival Department in Washington, D.C. in a historical
video project (video taping veterans) to keep the history alive.
Member Matarrese motioned for staff's recommendation to enter into negotiations for a
new lease with ANAM. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - O.
2
Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,3,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Oral report from APAC.
Chair Lee Perez was not present and the ARRA Secretary read written comments from Helen Sause
regarding her concerns on the redevelopment of Alameda Point. Chair Johnson advised that it was
unclear whether Ms. Sause's written note were drafted with Lee Perez as the APAC oral report, or if
she intended them to be just public comment.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese said he would have two RAB at the July 14th ARRA meeting.
6. ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body
has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
There was one speaker slip, Virginia Roberts, who supports Helen Sause's comments regarding
appointing a citizens committee to assist with the Alameda Point redevelopment.
Chair Johnson noted that public involvement is always encouraged and would like people to
continue to participate in the process.
7. COMMUNICAITONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
There was no additional communications from the Board.
8.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Chair Johnson advised that this item was a place holder in case it was needed, but that there was no
item to discuss.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-20,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
The meeting convened at 11:37 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Recommendation to Approve the Fourth Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
between the City of Alameda and East Bay Municipal Utility District.
Approval of the Consent Calendar item was passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;
Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
4.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-20.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-04-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:14 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 March 4, 2009.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the ARRA/HABOC of March 4, 2009.
2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Antiques by the Bay,
Building 13, at Alameda Point.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Antiques by the Bay,
Building 459, at Alameda Point.
2-E.
Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Bay Ship & Yacht
Company at Alameda Point.
2-F. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners, Building
29, at Alameda Point.
2-G. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners, Hangar
22, at Alameda Point.
2-H. Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council, BSA Sea Scouts, Ancient
Mariner Regatta.
Staff requested to pull Items 2-E, 2-F, and 2-G. The balance of the consent calendar was
motioned for approval by Vice Chair deHaan, seconded by Member Tam, and passed by
the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. LRA Presentation of Treasure Island Redevelopment - Jack Sylvan, San Francisco
Mayor's office.
Jack Sylvan of the San Francisco Mayor's office gave a powerpoint presentation of the Treasure
Island redevelopment project. After the presentation, Boardmembers asked questions
regarding the Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA), its relationship with the Navy, and
if they were able to disclose their purchase price terms. Mr. Sylvan replied that he is not at",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-04-01,2,"liberty to discuss the term amount. The redevelopment challenges of the ARRA and TIDA are
very similar (transportation, density, etc.) noting that ARRA's Measure A and environmental
issues are a greater challenge.
3-B. Alameda Point Update.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an overview of
SunCal's work over the past 60 days, including its work toward the March 26 submittal of its
Ballot Initiative. SunCal requested a Tidelands Summary be prepared. The summary was
prepared by City Attorney's office and transmitted to City Clerk's office. Once the notice is
published, SunCal can begin its signature-gathering process to be completed by June 17. If the
required number of qualified signatures is received, the City Council will have to take action to
place the initiative on the ballot by Aug. 7. Pursuant to the ENA, SunCal has until April 30 to
elect whether they're going to formally move forward with the ballot process or submit an
application that is consistent with existing law. A second milestone to be completed by April 30
is the required deposit to begin CEQA work. Staff anticipates coming back to the ARRA in May
with an award of contract for an EIR consultant. SunCal will also provide a presentation and
summary of the components of their initiative which will include a specific plan, community plan,
a Development Agreement, and various other amendments to the zoning ordinance and city's
general plan.
Member Matarrese requested that the timeline of the process be posted on the Alameda Point
website.
One speaker, Ashley Jones, directed a question to Mayor Johnson regarding her ability to be
impartial regarding the Measure A issue as it pertains to the redevelopment at Alameda Point.
Mayor Johnson replied that the speaker time is for the public to comment on the item and not for
discussion.
Janet Davis expressed concern about the contamination and the safeguards in place before
development begins. David Brandt explained to Ms. Davis that the agencies that are overseeing
the clean up are the EPA and the DTSC. Boardmembers also recommended Ms. Davis attend
the RAB meetings for more information on the environmental issues of Alameda Point.
Helen Sause spoke in support of the SunCal initiative and encouraged Alameda citizens to read
the information and understand it before making a decision.
3-C. Alameda Point Environmental Issues Update: Radiological Substance at West Shore
of Seaplane Lagoon and Block of Oversize Debris at North Shore of Seaplane
Lagoon.
This update is being provided to notify the ARRA board of several recent discoveries made by
the Navy in conjunction with a couple clean-up projects in the vicinity of the Seaplane Lagoon.
The Navy is currently working on amending a current clean-up contract to deal with radioactive
material, and also further investigating the block of concrete. Staff recommends that the ARRA
send a letter to the Navy with specific requests to resolve these issues including: requesting that
the Navy, as part of the analysis that they do on the radioactive material, that they rule out any
possibility that radioactive material could have come from anything other than the outfall that is
in the vicinity which carried a lot of waste from several buildings that dealt with radium paint -
and if they can't rule out that as the only possible source for that material - that they conduct a
base-wide radiological survey; the second request: that the Navy characterize the cement block
and inform of their decision on how to dispose of the concrete debris.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-04-01,3,"Respectfully submitted,
Airan Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-12-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Alameda Point
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and SunCal
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA Board provided instruction to the Real Property Negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:50
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itura Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 2, 2009",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-12-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:03 p.m. with Vice Chair deHaan presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
Absent:
Chair Beverly Johnson (arrived at 8:00 p.m.)
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 2010.
2-B. Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 001 Amending the Order of Business of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting.
2-C. Approve a Fourth Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.,
Increasing the Budget by $25,000 for Providing Negotiation Support for the
Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Member Tam asked to pull Item 2-C, and moved to approve the balance of the Consent
Calendar. Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by following voice vote
- Ayes: 4.
Member Tam requested more clarification on the amount of the EPS contract amendment and
asked if SunCal was consulted on the overage, to which the Deputy City Manager,
Development Services, responded in the affirmative, explaining that the Negotiating Cost
Ledger has been made available to SunCal, and all invoices are included in the ledger.
Member Tam asked what the ENA obligations are if the budget or scope is exceeded for
consultant contracts. The Deputy City Manager, Development Services, responded that
contracts are separate from the SunCal Cost Recovery account, and the amount of the EPS
contract has not exceeded any Cost Recovery provisions under the ENA.
Member Tam asked what the total budget was for EPS under the Cost Recovery Account, to
which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services, responded that the total budget for the
quarter was approximately $372,000 for all consultants. Based on this clarification, Member
Tam stated she will abstain from this item.
Member Gilmore asked if there are sufficient funds in the Cost Recovery account to cover the
overage of the EPS contract amendment, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development
Services, responded in the affirmative.
Member Gilmore asked if there is a mechanism in place if charges are disputed, to which the
Deputy City Manager, Development Services, responded in the affirmative.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,2,"Member Matarrese moved for approval of Item 2-C. Vice Chair deHaan seconded the
motion, which carried by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 1
(Tam)
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Adopt a Resolution Supporting the United States Navy's Transfer of 549 Acres of the
Former Naval Air Station in the City of Alameda to the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs for the Development of an Out-Patient Clinic and Columbarium.
The Deputy City Manager, Development Services clarified that the staff report combines an
information piece which addresses the VA-NAVY deal, and requires no action; and a
'recommendation' portion to adopt a resolution in support of property transfer to the VA.
The Deputy City Manager, Development Services summarized the background of the proposed
VA project and property transfer.
Member Tam inquired if it was necessary that the resolution exclude the 9.7 acres of the Least
Tern colony, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services explained that the 9.7
acres is included, along with the buffer zone surrounding the Wildlife Refuge, which is more
than half of the 549 acres.
The Deputy City Manager, Development Services introduced Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset
Manager from the Department of Veteran Affairs. Mr. Jaynes gave a brief presentation of the
status and projected timeline of the VA project.
Speakers: Proponents: Mark Chandler, Commissioner of the Alameda County Veterans Affairs
Commission; Alex McElree, Operation Dignity; Aidan Barry.
Opponents: Gary Bard; Leora Feeney, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge (FAWR)
Committee; Ron Barklow; Cindy Margulis; Michael Lynes, Golden Gate Audubon; Jean
Sweeney; Jon Spangler; Jim Sweeney; Adam Gillitt; William Smith, Sierra Club; Joyce Larrick,
FAWR; Nancy Hird
Chair Johnson inquired if there is a specific location identified in the resolution for the VA
project, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in the negative,
further explaining that the 549 acres are part of a formal request that includes the specific
property.
Vice Chair deHaan clarified that there was discussion by the Board that the old Phase 3, the
area near the USS Hornet, is a feasible location for the VA project, but there are still options to
be pursued.
Member Tam inquired whether this Fed to Fed transfer from the Navy to the VA is going to
happen irrespective of whether or not the Board endorse it or oppose it, to which the Deputy
City Manager, Development Services responded that there is a process that has to be followed
in order for the Fed-to-Fed transfer to occur, which includes NEPA and a Section 7
Consultation. At this time, there are no guarantees that the process will be completed, but the
assumption is that once the process is complete, the transfer will occur.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,3,"Member Tam brought attention to the alternative resolution from the Golden Gate Audubon
Society which includes recognition that there should be protection for the Least Terns, based on
a biological opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife.
Member Gilmore inquired why the VA was requesting 549 acres when they only require
approximately 100 acres for their project, to which Mr. Jaynes replied that the Navy stated the
transfer would be the 549 acres or nothing. Mr. Jaynes further explained that it is not part of the
VA's mission to manage that portion of property, so the VA is planning to have a separate
agreement with the USF&W to oversee the remaining 449 acres, just as the Navy has the same
agreement with them right now; the funding will come from the VA instead of the Navy.
Member Matarrese inquired if the property was transferred to the ARRA, could the ARRA then
dispose of it to the VA, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in
the affirmative. Mr. Jaynes expressed that there may be stumbling blocks without proceeding
with the BRAC process.
Member Matarrese inquired whether the city will be able to participate in the VA project process,
to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in the affirmative.
Member Gilmore requested more details from the VA regarding what their plans are with USFW,
and the proposed annual budget, so that it does not become an afterthought.
Member Tam suggested adding the language from the Golden Gate Audubon Society regarding
the protection of the Least Tern colony to the ARRA Resolution.
Vice Chair deHaan moved for approval of Item 3-A, with a revision to the Resolution
adding ""Whereas, the City of Alameda will continue to prioritize the protection and
conservation of the California Least Tern in its planning documents and decisions"".
Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote: 5
Ayes.
3-B. Presentation: Alameda Point - 'Going Forward'.
The Interim City Manager announced that Item 3-C will be combined with 3-B into a single
presentation. The presentation focused on a planning and assessment model for a going-
forward approach for the development of Alameda Point. The Interim City Manager
emphasized that this model is not a development plan, not a land use plan, or anything that
requires actual legislative decision, it is a recommendation and topic for discussion. The
presentation included seven key components of this approach: lessons learned, new structure,
strategic alliances, development delivery systems, asset management police application,
financial resources, and implementation schedule.
Vice Chair deHaan inquired who will comprise the team for this model approach, to which the
Interim City Manager responded that familiar staff members, including the Deputy City Manager,
Development Services; the Planning Services Manager, Public Works Director; and various
consultants, will comprise the team.
Speakers: Adam Gillitt, Tony Daysog, Jean Sweeney, Jon Spangler, Alex McElree, Richard
Bangert, Nancy Hird, Doug Biggs, Gretchen Lipow.
Vice Chair deHaan remarked that the timeline for this plan is very aggressive, and suggested
compressing the timeline. The Interim City Manager clarified that the ambitious timeline doesn't",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,4,"mean the base is going to be completed in 15 months, rather, the 15 months timeline is for
planning an assessment. The Board will have an opportunity to augment the timeline in more
detail after subsequent discussions and at subsequent meetings.
Member Matarrese stated that on strategic alliances, the regulators should be recognized, the
EPA & DTSC for clean-up, and USF&W for the environmental. Regarding policy questions,
Member Matarrese also expects certain questions to resurface, i.e., finances and how tax
increment might be used, where the shortfalls are, how they will be backfilled, and where there
are opportunities for early transfer for land that has already been cleaned up. Member
Matarrese also suggested looking at the potential for having a citywide Project Labor Agreement
(PLA) . There also needs to be discussion about jobs-housing balance, to give an opportunity
for public to weigh in on it. Member Matarrese remarked on the notion of using ""other peoples
money"", i.e., funds from the Federal Government and MTC, as these funds could add up.
Member Gilmore echoed Member Matarrese's comments and requested to see a primer of what
the lease environment looks like in the Bay Area, regarding the asset management application.
If the ARRA is renegotiating leases, it would be good to know realistically what the competition
is, in order to have a more realistic expectation in terms of putting in more capital into a building
or not.
In terms of leasing strategy, Member Tam inquired whether or not there is opportunity to adjust
the restriction in the LIFOC which says the Navy can give minimal notice to terminate a tenant,
recommending that it is something that should be pursued.
There was discussion about the amount of documents that have been produced and compiled
through the years, and where they are made available to the public on the City and Alameda
Point websites. The Interim City Manager stated that staff is working on implementing a new
Alameda Point website which will focus strictly on Alameda Point and the development project
going forward.
3-C. Presentation: Citywide Asset Management Strategy - Alameda Point Application.
(This item was combined with 3-B)
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative
- Highlights of August 5 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese stated that there were a number of interesting documents that were
presented at the August RAB meeting, including a report on IR Site 35, which is action sites that
are in the very center of the property being transferred to the ARRA; a presentation on
groundwater remediation at OU-2A, which discussed clean up; and communications from the
RAB to the Navy. Member Matarrese remarked that the most interesting handout was an
abstract done in concert with the Navy, EPA, Shaw Group (the contractor) and federal money
from a SERDP grant through the University of Florida, Gainesville. The abstract depicts the
results of a method of clean up of TCE (trichloroethene), Plume 4-1. Member Matarrese stated
that this should be of interest to Alameda because it is being published in a scientific journal, it
brings focus on what is going on at Alameda Point, and creates notoriety on methods that could
be used at other bases. Handouts were provided to the Clerk for copies to be made and
distributed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,5,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airan Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:14 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Report from the Executive Director recommending the Approval of Alameda Power &
Telecom Sublease at Alameda Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Tony Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of the Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development concept (PDC) - A
Planning Feasibility Study for the Redevelopment and Reuse of the Former Alameda Naval Air
Station.
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the revised PDC and discussed what the major
revisions were, including: alternative plans approaches, various constraints affecting the layout and
design, and a clarification in the executive summary that the PDC is a feasibility study, and not the
final ""plan"".
The revised PDC also included expanded discussion regarding Measure A issues, and a good
foundation for a solid transportation strategy. Mr. Thomas further summarized the revisions, stating
that the phasing program is conceptual and there was text added to include information on civic
community type facilities, churches and plazas, etc. emphasizing that the general plan calls for these
kinds of uses. There were a number of revisions to the Next Steps chapter, primarily the
environmental review and entitlement process for the first phase should our master developer choose
to proceed.
Chair Johnson called up the several speakers who discussed the following topics:
- concern about the insufficiency of neighborhood centers
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,2,"- a representative from AAPS requested a reuse study be included in the PDC for the historic
buildings
- a representative from the APC expressed their interest in continuing to be involved in the
development plan process
-
a representative from Operation Dignity expressed concerns about the Board accepting the
PDC in draft form
- representatives from HOMES and the Sierra Club expressed their appreciation and support
with the progress of the PDC compared to other developments.
Member Matarrese thanked the staff for providing the input and revisions. He agreed with the
speaker who mentioned that the Board should not approve a draft document; and rather, approve a
final document. He would like to see more information on a green standards plan and a plan for
sustainable communities and expressed concern about the word ""feasibility study"", afraid it might be
dismissed because it does not ""comply"" with the PDC. He further stated that the PDC document is
still conceptual. Members Gilmore and Daysog agreed with Member Matarrese's statements.
Member Daysog would like to see more information on the fiscal implications of the PDC, especially
on Phase II and Phase III.
Member deHaan reminded folks that there was a community reuse plan prior to this PDC, which
included the development of commercial and industrial spaces to maximize transportation.
Member Matarrese motioned for Council to direct staff to simulate the comments that were made
and produce a final document for approval. He requested the document be in red-line/strikeout
format so that revisions are clearly seen in the document.
City Manager, Debra Kurita, recommended that the draft revisions be text-only to save cost. It was
agreed by all Boardmembers to just bring back the document at the regular ARRA Board meeting in
November; there was no need to make a motion for this action.
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, clarified some points to the Board. He stated that the
PDC is a component of the conditional acquisition agreement (CAA) that we have with APCP. Other
components include getting a conveyance agreement structure set forward with the Navy and then the
completion of the preliminary development concept. Based on the timing with regards to meeting
with the Navy, Mr. Proud recommended the revised document be brought back at the December
meeting, instead of November. All Boardmembers accepted this recommendation.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report, as Member Matarrese stated the meeting was the following day.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith spoke about various topics.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,3,"Alex McElree, Executive Director of Operation Diginity, requested the ARRA Board encourage the
City Council to fulfill the promise they made to Operation Dignity and to the homeless through the
homeless conveyance of the McCain/Feinstein Act and build the 39-Units (homes).
6.
COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:11 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only.
There were no speaker slips.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
Study Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget
Acting Executive Director, Bill Norton, gave a brief overview about the work session on the
ARRA Budget and introduced Development Services Director, Leslie Little, who introduced
staff : Nanette Banks, Jennifer Ott, and Stephen Proud.
Leslie Little gave a powerpoint presentation on the Budget Planning for Alameda Point. The
presentation focused on transition planning and preparation for the development of Alameda
Point. The information presented expresses the existing conditions in the current ARRA
budget and also the implications of some of the decisions that have been made during current
negotiations. Ms. Little discussed two options to consider: 1) how to transition in the event
that the developer (APCP) elects to proceed with the development of Alameda Point and, 2)
how to transition if APCP chooses NOT to proceed.
Ms. Little discussed the first scenarios (APCP proceeding), including the Alameda Point
Bond, and that the activities that are currently being paid from it would transfer as direct cost
to the developer; approximately 18 months. Other responsibilities would also shift to the
developer, leasing and property maintenance activities, other financials responsibilities like
project related tax increments, and current debt obligation.
The second option was discussed (APCP electing not to proceed). Ms Little noted that this
issue is a ""structural deficiency"" in the ARRA Budget. She stated that there are expenditures
that are greater than the revenues at this point. She explained that if the developer doesn't
elect to proceed, the key issues moving forward are: the Alameda Point Bond will be
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,2,"exhausted some time around Sept and October; there are a number of deferred costs, or
capital costs, that are expected would be part of the developer's pro forma; and the debt
payments that began to come due in 2006. Also included in the presentation was the current
ARRA staff load on the existing ARRA budget.
Ms. Little continued to discuss some challenges to the ARRA budget. She explained that by
2006 and 7 we will have spent down our fund balance and, by 2008, we won't have enough
to balance our budget. She discussed how a large part of the ARRA budget is contributed to
municipal services -- about 1/2 of what we take in annually, $10M in revenue. She stated that
the presentation is intended to start the conversation about the need to either increase
general fund revenue opportunities to tackle some of the costs, or decrease the general fund
expenditures out at Alameda Point because we don't have the resources to continue to
support them.
Ms. Little discussed the current pro forma and its assumptions regarding new public
revenues, primarily in property tax pass thru, the sales taxes, property transfer taxes, etc.
with the sale of the homes (new development) = revenues coming into the general fund.
She concluded the presentation, summarizing that staff is preparing for APCP to move
forward in the next two months and that we will need to transition quickly negotiate a
disposition and development agreement at 18 months and move into an implementation
mode; subsequently, if APCP does not move forward, there are implications regarding
dealing with long term costs over time. Ms. Little mentioned a subsequent ""phase 2"" ARRA
Budget workshop.
Councilmember de Haan expressed concern with the Navy's inability to fulfill the
commitment to the 18 mos. transition period. Stephen Proud addressed his concern by
explaining that we are trying to expedite the time line as much as possible, to the extent that
the Navy would be able to make the property available to us sooner. He discussed various
issues on the timeline that we (ARRA) have to accomplish, specifically the environmental
review process.
Boardmembers and staff discussed general leasing issues/opportunities at Alameda Point,
with Chair Johnson mentioning activities to attract film productions.
Member Matarrese expressed concern about the ""structural problem"" of the ARRA Budget,
stating that perhaps we' ve set the system up for failure - and that we may be providing
services that we simply cannot afford given our leasing capability. Leslie Little addressed
his concern by explaining that once there is a DDA, the actual costs that are being born by
the budget now, would have to be reduced significantly, specifically the municipal services.
Member Gilmore asked about insurance expenses. Leslie Little explained that the tenants
themselves carry liability insurance as part of their lease requirement.
Member Daysog initiated discussion about the proposed mitigation where the general fund
reduces dependency on the ARRA and absorbs 1.8million dollars in expenses. The
municipal services funding resources was discussed.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,3,"Member Gilmore summarized the challenges of reducing the amount of expenditures in the
ARRA budget, by allowing the general fund to absorb those expenditures. Bill Norton
replied that staff provided the ARRA Board with this detail to see the impact of the changes
on the general fund.
3-B.
Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Direct P.M. Realty, Acting as
Property Manager, to Enter Into a Contract with Courtney Giampolini to Waterproof
City Hall West (Building One) in an Amount not to Exceed $966,650
Nanette Banks provided photos of the extensive water damage in various locations of
Building 1(City Hall West). Building 1, like other buildings at Alameda Point, have
problems that require a lot of work, specifically asbestos remediation, lead paint and
waterproofing, roof and other capital upgrades. Ms. Banks introduced Rick Jones,
construction manager from PM Realty Group.
After Mr. Jones explained the problems with the buildings, he and Chair Johnson had
conversation about the contractor bidding process and if this process was approved by the
ARRA. Ms. Banks explained that in an exhibit to the property management agreement with
PM Realty, PM Realty is allowed to use their own process for selecting contractors for us.
Member deHaan, as well as the other boardmembers, expressed concern about the almost
$1M.cost for the building repair. Member Gilmore questioned the long-term ""guarantees"" to
this costly solution. She wanted reassurance that the same problems don't resurface in a
year, after spending $1M. Mr. Jones explained that there is a 10 yr warranty, which is pretty
standard in the industry.
Staff and boardmembers discussed other options for housing City Staff. Bill Norton
explained that there is no other space available for city staff to move into. There was also
further discussion about window replacements. Mr. Jones stated that 40 windows would be
replaced, and the other 200 are aluminum.
Member Daysog stated that the ARRA is in a fiscal crises and as such non-life threatening
projects, like waterproofing, I believe need to be delayed especially if the professional
opinion is that delay doesn't result in significant cost increases to the project.
Chair Johnson agreed with Member Daysog but stated that (Building 1) is a workplace for
our workers and we can't have our city employees working in those conditions. She also
requested a briefing for discussion of the ARRA board the bidding process and requirements.
The Board approved the staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-1
(Daysog); Abstentions-0
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,4,"4. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\April 19.Special ARRA minutes.doc
4",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-06-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 6, 2007-6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
2151 Ferry Point, Alameda, CA
Negotiating parties:
City of Alameda and Alameda Naval Air Museum
Under negotiation:
Lease price and terms
ARRA received an oral briefing from its Real Property Negotiator, no action was taken.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and SunCal Companies
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator regarding the status of
negotiations with SunCal, and provided negotiating direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 6, 2007",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-06-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The meeting convened at 9:34 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of August 7, 2007.
2-B. Approve Two-Year Sublease for Architectural Glass & Aluminum at Alameda Point.
2-C. Approve the Proposed Sale and Disposition of Surplus Property at Alameda Point, Itemized
as Five Rapid Electric Rectifiers, One Industrial Oven, Two Abrasive Blasters, and One
Abar Ipson IVD Machine, for a Total Amount of $84,000 in Revenue to the ARRA.
2-D. Approval to Provide Building 24 for No Cost for Alameda Boys & Girls Club Fundraiser.
Member deHaan pulled Item 2-D. Approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar was
motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the
following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions. Member Gilmore abstained from Item
2-A (Aug. 7 Minutes), as she was absent from that meeting.
Member deHaan asked why Item 2-D was brought before the ARRA on short notice. Debbie
Potter, Base Reuse & Community Development Manager, explained that the ARRA Board meets
once a month, and often times requests come through, particularly from non-profits or small
businesses that might not be familiar with the steps and processes necessary to approve their
requests. Their lack of familiarity that any requests would have to come to the board is the
reason for the short notice, and as soon as the request was received, it was placed on the agenda.
Ms. Potter further explained that it is not unusual to take and approve requests for fee-waivers
from non-profits; but in the past, this was done administratively, and just more recently, the
policy was to bring these requests to the ARRA.
Member deHaan motioned to approve Item 2-D, seconded by Member Tam, and passed by
the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update -- Presentation of Master Project Schedule Prepared by SCC
Alameda Point LLC",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,2,"Debbie Potter summarized the Alameda Point project to date and introduced Pat Keliher,
SunCal's Project Manager, to present the Master Project Schedule. The ENA calls for the master
plan to be prepared initially, and updated on a quarterly basis and presented to the ARRA. The
first update of the Master Schedule will be presented in the Dec. - Jan. timeframe.
Pat Keliher walked through highlights of the Project Master Schedule and explained that the
schedule was put together in a logical manner, first with the public planning process, which
clearly is important to set the stage for a final development plan. The first community meeting
will be scheduled very soon, and consist of land, site, design constraints and charettes. The
second stage of public process includes returning back to the public to present a development
concept. Mr. Keliher emphasized how critical it is to remain consistent and continue the public
process throughout the project timeline. Next critical item on the schedule is the traffic, location,
and infrastructure impacts of the VA issue and scope of their project. Mr. Keliher stated that
SunCal began early on working together with the VA.
The next key phase is the Planning and Entitlement phase where the development concept,
public amenities, adaptive reuse, and historic district issues are refined. Mr. Keliher explained
that SunCal has met with members of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS),
and with Chris Buckley and Richard Rutter, to evaluate buildings and uses in the historic district.
SunCal's next key item on the schedule is the submittal of the Entitlement Application in March
2008. Mr. Keliher did not go into detail with the balance of schedule which includes the DA,
DDA, CAA, Business Plan, MOA, Tidelands Trust Agreement, etc. He further explained that the
NEPA & CEQA processes can't start until project description is in place. He expressed how
critical the next three to six months are and that SunCal is committed to meeting the milestones.
Member Matarrese focused on the zoning issue and asked when Zoning will be adopted. He
requested that the Zoning is put under the control of the City and is locked so that the City
protects itself. Debbie Potter explained that the city anticipates the entitlement package
(Development Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment,
Zoning amendment, and Master Plan) will all come together as one package, and, pursuant to the
ENA allows this in July 2009. One of the mandatory milestones is the submittal of an initial
entitlement package by May 2008, which will trigger the CEQA process. David Brandt, Deputy
Executive Director, explained that the milestone is not an actual exchange, just a framework
agreement of how we'll proceed. Chair Johnson requested it is made clear that the milestone is a
framework. Mr. Brandt further explained that once the CEQA process is complete, the City
Council can then adopt Zoning, but legally it cannot be done without an environmental review
process. Member Matarrese expressed concern about zoning changes and that any changes have
to go thru the City so that it is not left open if the Navy decides to change the rules. Debbie
Potter explained that the intent is to execute all required documents simultaneously such that we
protect our existing position as our role as the trustee. Ms. Potter assured that she will discuss
with the Planning dept. about whether or not the existing EIR done for the General Plan
Amendment is sufficient, or whether we will have to undertake additional environmental review.
An update on this issue will be reported at the Oct. ARRA meeting.
Member deHaan asked if the Navy will be able to meet the timeline, and if not, what the
consequences are. David Brandt stated that we cannot guarantee that the Navy will perform and
we cannot control third party delay. Debbie Potter stated that we should be hearing from the
Navy about the schedule in the next day or so.
Member Gilmore commented that our sense of urgency does not match the Navy's and that they
need to come to the realization that time is money for everyone involved. The costs of",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,3,"construction, infrastructure, etc. makes the project difficult, and the factors that affect our
developer, and would affect any developer, affects the Navy as well.
Pat Keliher stated that SunCal has a tactical strategy to deal with the Navy - that they have a
streamlined process of sharing technical studies and other documents that underpin the CEQA &
NEPA processes; but that there are still a lot of unknowns, including whether there will be
funding for clean-up. Chair Johnson compared the Oaknoll site to Alameda, that Oaknoll was a
clean site without Tidelands Trust issues. Mr. Keliher reiterated SunCal's commitment to the
challenging, but necessary task, stating that SunCal would work with the City of Alameda, their
consultants and lobbyists, to deal with the changing climate ahead that may affect things moving
forward.
The Board thanked Mr. Keliher and SunCal for presenting the Master Project Schedule and
expressed it was a job well done.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-05-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Vice Chair deHaan presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
Absent:
Chair Beverly Johnson (arrived at 8:40 p.m.)
2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
2-A. Alameda Point Environmental Update - Presentation by the Navy and Regulatory
Agencies.
Vice Chair deHaan introduced Jennifer Ott, Deputy City Manager, to open the presentation. Ms.
Ott gave an overview on what will be presented: a summary of the environmental program, the
accomplishments that have been made to date, funds that have been expended by the Navy to
date, as well as some of the economic development impacts of the process. The presenters
were Derek Robinson of the Navy, Anna-Marie Cook of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and Dot Lofstrom of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
After the presentation, the Board discussed key issues with the presenters.
Vice Chair deHaan commented on the long process and gave a brief background on the
remediation efforts. He thanked the community and past chairs for their continued support.
Member Tam expressed her appreciation for the update and the amount of work & effort that
goes into the clean up. She asked how the funds are controlled and administered, who they
flow through given the various jurisdictions involved (i.e., is the funding centralized through the
BRAC and then through the other agencies) and how they are allocated through congressional
authorizations.
Derek Robinson explained that he will get clarification on the funding process and will report the
information back to Member Tam. He also clarified that the Navy's focus is not on recouping
the funds spent in the clean-up. Vice Chair deHaan discussed the change of philosophy
regarding the remediation of Alameda Point. He clarified that the clean-up was under the
complete control of the Navy, and that in 2000, the Navy allowed the developer to consider
privatized clean-up, and then it went back under the control of the Navy.
Member Matarrese asked for more clarification about the process after a parcel is determined to
be cleaned to the level at which it was assigned - how notification, information and
documentation is given to the next successor agency in order for them to continue the work. Dot
Lofstrom explained that there is an official administrative record that the Navy maintains and
information & documentation will always be in the Information Repository. In addition, there is
an informal repository that DTSC is maintaining through their Envirostore Database. There is a
Agenda Item #2-A
CC/ARRA/CIC
06-01-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-05-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-05-06,2,"certification process after a parcel has been cleaned. Ann Marie Cook of EPA further explained
this process: Once a site has reached a point where it is considered meeting the goals set for it
to be cleaned, the Navy prepares a ""Remedial Action Completion Report' and the EPA, because
it is a Superfund site, is required to make the determination that all clean-up action necessary
has been completed. The Navy then drafts a Finding of Suitability report to transfer that
property.
Member Gilmore asked for the status of the transfer process of cleaned VA lands and whether
or not the Navy and the VA have reached a basic deal. Jennifer Ott explained that the transfer
is moving forward, but awaiting approval from the administration to move forward. She stated
that at this time, there are no details of a basic deal, but she will keep the Board updated on any
further developments.
Vice Chair deHaan asked about the status of remediation of the Seaplane Lagoon. Mr.
Robinson stated that they are currently in Stage 1, which includes removing large debris piles
on the north side, and that Stage 2 will include remediating soils from the outlet of the storm
drain systems. Construction activities will start in Sep./Oct. 2010. Vice Chair deHaan also
asked about Site 2 wetlands. He was concerned that the estimated cost of clean-up for Site 2
was approximately $100 million. Mr. Robinson stated that number seems high, and is more
likely $20 million - but will get the correct information to report back to the Board.
There were three speakers: Jim Sweeney discussed the potential adaptive reuse of Building 5.
According to Ann Marie Cook, Building 5 is one million square feet, is 65 feet tall, and qualifies
as a historical building. She managed to secure funding from an EPA pilot program and they
are looking at costs associated with reusing portions of the building and demolishing other
portions. She will be able to provide an update in three months, with a final report in about
seven months.
Irene Dieter, speaking on behalf of community, expressed her concern about lack of information
and public relations to the community about all the remediation efforts and other activities
regarding Alameda Point. Ms. Ott reiterated that there are monthly RAB and ARRA meetings,
as well as notices on the City and Alameda Point websites.
The third speaker, Maria Hargrove, expressed concern about traffic and congestion in and out
of Alameda Point. Chair Johnson informed Ms. Hargrove that the Planning Board meeting on
Monday, May 10, will discuss traffic issues and present a plan.
Chair Johnson thanked all the presenters for coming together to coordinate this Special
Meeting, and for the important information they provided in their presentation. She reiterated to
the public how important the information provided by these agencies is in helping the community
understand all the activity and efforts in cleaning up Alameda Point.
3.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Jana Glidden
Trma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-05-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-20,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-B
Thursday, January 20, 2005
The meeting convened at 8:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only
There were no speaker slips.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3-A. Amending Resolution No. 010 establishing rules and procedures for Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority meetings by amending the starting time of regular meetings from 5:30 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m. (requested by Boardmember Matarrese)
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
Member Matarrese noted that this item is approved with the intent to increase public participation.
4.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
4-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel,
ARRA Secretary
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\1-20-05 Special.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-20.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Member Daysog presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 19, 2005
2-B. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to direct PM Realty Group, acting as
Property Manager, to enter into a contract with Manson Construction Company to dredge
The Alameda Point channel in an amount not to exceed $575,000.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
Presentation
3-A Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager gave a brief update on the AP conveyance
activities. There is a meeting scheduled with the Navy on September 29th to discuss, and come
to a resolution, on the ""divide' in the analysis of the value of the property. The outcome of that
meeting will be reported to the Board at its next regular meeting on October 5th Mr. Proud
introduced Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, to give an update on the Preliminary
Development Concept (PDC).
Mr. Thomas discussed staff's review of comments received from the public and from the ARRA
Board (of the July 14th meeting) and efforts to use this information to make revisions to the PDC.
The revisions include addressing and clarifying a number of issues, such as its role, its purpose,
and the Next Steps to clarify Historic Preservation issues. The document will also be revised to
include an additional appendix in response to some of the requests for more financial information
- the financial trade offs that are embedded within the PDC. The plan is to present the revised
draft PDC to the ARRA Board and the public at the October 5th ARRA Board meeting.
Revisions to the document will be in a red-lined, strikeout version so the public can very clearly
see where changes were made.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-07,2,"Mr. Thomas announced that we received a $250,000 grant Metropolitan Transportation
Commission Grant, a land planning grant to help with next phases of the planning for Alameda
Point, particularly around the transit center. There is also progress toward a memorandum of
agreement with BART on a $485,000. grant, a federal earmark that was received over a year ago
We have been meeting with representatives from the Navy and the Local Historic Preservation
Community to continue the discussion on the Historic Preservation issues that were generated by
the PDC, and that is in the context of the Section 106 consultation which is really a Navy lead
effort. A briefing to discuss the PDC and the 106 consultation process with the Historical
Advisory Board on Alameda Point is planned for October 6th. City Staff has also been invited
to
attend a League of Women's Voters workshop on September 29th and November 15th
Member Daysog called 2 speakers, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, and Neil Garcia
Sinclair of Cybertran who gave a quick update on the Cybertran/University of California/BART
coalition and the proposal of establishing a research center in transportation energy at Alameda
Point.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilmember Matarrese was unable to attend last week's RAB meeting, so there is no report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker slip, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the VA,
development at Alameda Point; and various unrelated topics as well.
7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Daysog welcomed the new City Manager, Debra Kurita, who is also the Executive
Director of the ARRA, to her first ARRA meeting.
8. ADJOURMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, July 14, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:25 p.m. with Member Gilmore presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 6:45 p.m.)
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
After the Pledge of Allegiance Member Matarrese motioned to move the Closed Session (Item
3-A) to the end of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by
the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only
None.
3.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
3-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, U.S. Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
This item was moved to the end of the agenda.
4. PROCLAMATION
4-A. Proclamation to members of the APAC for their dedication and unwavering commitment
to the reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore addressed the audience and APAC members. She spoke about how APAC has
helped the community understand the challenges and issues regarding Alameda Point. Member
Gilmore then read the proclamation and handed one out to each of the APAC members.
APAC Chair Lee Perez thanked the ARRA Board for the opportunity to serve over the last
several years - he spoke about how pleased they (the APAC) were with the response to the
Reuse Plan & the participation from the community. He also mentioned that it's been a long
haul over the last 12 years since they first started and they were pleased with the outcome so far.
Member deHaan, expressed his gratitude for the leadership and dedication that Chair Perez and
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,2,"all the other members of APAC contributed toward the planning efforts of Alameda Point.
Members Daysog, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson (who just arrived at this point) also expressed
their gratitude.
5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of March 2, 2005.
5-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 6, 2005.
5-C. Approval of an Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources extending the term for 90-
days and adding $54,000 to the budget for environmental consulting services.
5-D. Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the approval of Subleases at
Alameda Point.
5-E. Recommendation to amend the approved FY 2005-2006 ARRA Budget to include $225,000
for repairs to the Al Dewitt O'Club.
Member Gilmore motioned to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -
0.
6.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6-A. Presentation of the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point
establishing land use goals, transportation strategy and historic preservation strategy.
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, discussed the updates on the Conveyance
process with the Navy and the status of the budget. The key topic discussed was the progress
with planning efforts regarding the PDC and introduced the document to the Board for their
review.
Mr. Proud advised that there are continuing discussions with the Navy on disposal strategies and
constraints with the property; and that we're moving forward with the Navy regarding a conveyance
agreement. He discussed the community meetings and the success in each of the workshops to
tackle specific topics that helped produce this draft document (the PDC). He further discussed
issues at Alameda Point (AP) about Navy conveyance and the land planning process.
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, focused on the Community Reuse Plan and the draft
PDC. He discussed what the community's expectations for the development of AP and what the
real priorities are. He advised that the PDC was an integration of ""new"" with the ""old""
(Community Reuse Plan). Mr. Thomas explained the several Appendices of the PDC, which
included the Transportation Strategy, specifically the Broadway/Jackson feasibility study; and
the Historic Preservation element.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,3,"Regarding the Historic Preservation, Mr. Thomas discussed that there was a lot of community
involvement with questions regarding which buildings and homes to keep and which to get rid
of. The residential portion of the plan included 3000 new units: homes for sale and rentals.
There were several speakers who discussed various topics related to the PDC, including:
- Conversion of the naval base - Measure A
- Adequate school facilities at AP.
- Transportation planning
- Solar energy equipment
- Keeping the BOQ building for Veterans or Senior Housing
- Historic District Preservation
- Housing for all income levels
7.
ORAL REPORT
7-A. Oral report from APAC.
No oral report.
7-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilmember Matarrese discussed topics from the last RAB meeting, including clean-up
methods, and how petroleum is being extracted. He also gave an update on the BCT activities
and the schedule for the site management program, which lists all the clean-up activities.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No speaker slips.
9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None
10. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:21 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-06-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 3, 2009- 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Alameda Point
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and SunCal
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator and provided direction on
negotiations.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 3, 2009",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-06-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-08-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday- August 2, 2006-5:46 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of Case:
Kienowski Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
ARRA gave direction to legal counsel to support the Chapter 11 Plan.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
Staff briefed the ARRA on the status of negotiations. ARRA provided instructions. No
action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Since Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
August 2, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-08-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. October 4, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:05 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6, 2006.
Approval of 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.
Member deHaan had questions about two of the subleases due to their duration and requested
information about the specific tenants, as well as an overview of current leasing prospects.
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration of DSD, explained that TransFreight Express wants
to relocate their corporate headquarters and distribution center at Alameda Point. The other lease
is to Makani for Building 19 to be used as R&D and office space. It is an alternative energy
(wind-based) company that may also be interested in using the runways for experiments. Leslie
Little, Development Services Manager, indicated that there continues to be ongoing interest in
the buildings at Alameda Point, but pointed out the obviously expensive building improvements
necessary to make them usable, which tends to limit some potential businesses.
Approval of 2-B was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
2-C. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to Execute a contact agreement with
WRT/Solomon E.T.C. in the amount of $250,000 to complete Station Area planning activities
for Alameda Point.
Member deHaan inquired about the source of the $250,000 and whether we are in a position
today to approve the contract, given the master developer situation. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse
and Community Development Manager, explained that this is pursuant to a $250,000 grant
received from MTC - with City contribution of $3,000 - for the purpose of more detailed
planning of the transit node. To not go forward at this time means losing the grant. This study
will impact future land development plans; traffic and transit issues will need to be addressed
regardless of who the developer is.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,2,"Page 2
There was one speaker on this item, Diane Lichtenstein, who praised the four workshops
outlined in the contract and requested that after each workshop a summary report to be generated
(perhaps in the local newspaper as well as the City's website). She also recommended
expanding the scope of the ferry analysis beyond the half-mile radius of the station as presently
indicated. She also requested that all drafts of the report be available electronically.
Approval of 2-C was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Status Report on East Bay Regional Park District Request for Long-Term Lease.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, stated that, at the September
ARRA meeting, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) representatives Doug Siden and Mike
Anderson indicated that EBRPD is ready to begin funding improvements at the 26-acre
Enterprise Park through the use of Measure AA and Proposition 12 money (totaling $500,000).
A portion of the Proposition 12 funds ($100,000) specify that land must be secured by the end of
this year, and the project must be completed and the money expended by the end of next year. It
also requires a 20-year lease on the land. According to the staff report, there could be a smaller,
Phase 1 lease or a lease for the entire 26 acres. There are several other leases in place that
encumber some portions of the 26 acres, including Alameda Soccer Club (until 2008) and the
Hobby Shop (until 2010).
Member Daysog mentioned that 11 years ago, there was concern that EBRPD wanted an RV
parking lot as part of their plan for this land. Ms. Potter confirmed that this is no longer an
option.
Doug Siden, elected EBRPD representative, reiterated the funding and timing requirements. He
introduced Mike Anderson, Assistant General Manager, who presented a map of the proposed
area and plans. It consists of 10.6 acres and excludes current leased properties. Ultimately, the
District would like the entire 26 acres but could start with this plan. Proposed plans include
family picnic sites, clean up of the tennis and basketball courts, development of the shoreline
trail to tie to the existing beach area, and clean up of the beach and boat launch areas. Future
plans include a natural planning resource area and interpretive center, as well as boating
instruction at the marina.
Chair Johnson pointed out that other community groups have looked at this site, and also
questioned what would happen if the community would rather keep some of the facilities as they
are. Mr. Anderson responded that if the City prefers to have more community input about use of
this area, EBRPD could either use $100,000 of the funds somewhere else in order to not lose
them - trimming their ultimate project to $400,000 - or use that first $100,000 to simply clean
up the beach area and shoreline trail. Chair Johnson stressed that more community feedback
about what type of use for the area is preferable is needed before committing to a 20-year lease.
Member Matarrese felt that the primary areas to spend the $500,000 should be the beach, bay
trail and picnic grounds. Mr. Anderson agreed that this should be doable and hoped to move",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,3,"Page 3
forward in negotiating a lease for these specific areas. Member deHaan expressed his desire that
EBRPD continue to be involved in the area and asked how the funding stream would be
maintained in the future. Mr. Anderson indicated that possibly a small assessment district would
have to be established if the project becomes larger. Member Matarrese stated that he would like
a long-term commitment from EBRPD for the area. The consensus among ARRA members and
EBRPD was the first priority is extending the Bay Trail from the boat ramp along the beach to
the Hornet; if additional funds remain, the other areas will be considered.
Member Matarrese motioned that EBRPD make improvements on the Bay Trail from the
existing boat ramp as far north as possible, including cleaning up the beach. If additional
funds remain, they would be used for the picnic area and former RV parking lot. Staff was
directed to negotiate a lease with EBRPD to accomplish this. Member Daysog seconded the
motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update.
Debbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an Alameda Point update
presentation to the Board. The presentation included a chronology of the ARRA's negotiations
with the Navy and an explanation to the community on how we went from ""no cost"" to paying
$108.5 million for the Navy property. Ms. Potter also discussed the master developer, APCP's,
election not to proceed with the project and presented staff's recommendation for an initial next
step.
Ms Potter summarized the genesis of how we got from a no cost EDC to a 108.5 million dollar
purchase price: She explained how the ARRA's PDC and the general plan call for over 3 million
square feet of commercial development. In January 2004, however, the Navy sent a letter
requesting that we submit a formal amendment to our ""no-cost"" EDC application to formerly
make the case about why we felt like we continued to be eligible for a ""no-cost"" EDC. The
Navy's letter further stated that it could not continue to work with us to negotiate on our early
transfer without such an amendment. The letter also said that they were more than happy to
negotiate a ""for-cost"" EDC with the ARRA. Because the Navy would be the ultimate entity to
deciding whether or not we were still eligible for the no cost EDC and because they had clearly
communicated to us that they felt we were no longer eligible and because legislation was in the
works to preclude no cost EDC's in the future, the ARRA made a decision that it would be more
effective if we sat down and negotiated with the Navy for a for-cost""conveyance. We started
our ""New Beginnings"" with the Navy in 2004 but the federal government also eliminated no cost
economic development in 2004 and none of the bases that are closed as part of the BRAC 5 are
going to eligible for a no cost economic development conveyance, most of those properties are
going to be disposed of as is where is. So it took us a little over 2 years to negotiate with the
Navy to prepare the PDC and to negotiate a land price. And in June of this year we concluded
negotiations with the Navy with a draft term sheet that included a $108.5 million dollar purchase
price. On September 21st, APCP withdrew from the project, citing the downturn in the
residential market and that they could no longer support the $108.5 million line price given the
land plan.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,4,"Page 4
With that negotiation process and chronology behind us, and the withdrawal of our Master
Developer, Staff is proposing, as the initial next step, that we test the market through a request
for qualifications (RFQ) process with the current term sheet. In the event that we are unable to
identify a replacement development then we would work with the Navy on an alternate
disposable strategy, most likely a public sale, an approach that the Navy had been taking of late.
Chair Johnson asked about the on-going work with the Navy, in the event that a buyer under the
current term sheet doesn't come forward. Ms. Potter answered that we will continue to run our
leasing program, and the Navy will continue to run it's environmental clean up program. Chair
Johnson also asked about the cost of working with the Navy to move forward with alternatives if
a replacement developer isn't identified. Ms. Potter explained that the ARRA's budget did
consider a scenario where the master developer didn't go forward and staff is funded in the
ARRA budget and consultants would probably need far fewer consultants then we've had when
we've been in activity negotiations on a term sheet and those kind of things, but we would still
need to work with our environmental consultant and our out side counsel, those costs are
included in the ARRA's budget.
To answer Chair Johnson's question about what types of consultants would we still continue to
need, Ms. Potter answered that we would continue to use an environmental consultant because
we comment on all of the Navy environmental clean up documents. Chair Johnson asked if we
should ask the Navy to pay for the consultants at that point.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, clarified that these are consultants that we use to
protect the City's interest when it comes to the work that the Navy's doing on clean up as well as
if there gonna be issuing opinions about the tidelands trust, then we need to have our experts
weighing in about the tidelands trust and where were believe the legal issues are and those kinds
of things.
Member Daysog began a discussion regarding the ARRA's no-cost EDC agreement with the
United States Navy. He referenced several paragraphs of the Navy's letter to Debbie Potter dated
April 7, 2003 regarding the basis for the Navy approval of a no cost EDC. Member Daysog is
very concerned about the $108 million purchase price, stating that if APCP couldn't work
it
through, that it would be difficult to find a replacement master developer. He'd rather see the
$108 million go toward public amenities that have been contemplated.
The Chair, Boardmembers and Staff discussed, at length, the challenges we faced and the
available options we continue to deal with in order to move forward. Member deHaan and Chair
Johnson discussed researching a concept that looks at phases in the future to anticipate changes
in the market. The Board also expressed their interest in going back to a no-cost EDC (build less
residential), but Ms. Potter explained that, according to the Navy, a no-cost EDC was dead,
because a project that included less residential was not economically viable. She said, however,
that if the ARRA desires, we could continue discussions with the Navy about convincing them
that were still eligible for our no cost EDC. She further discussed that the ARRA does have an
agreement, an executed MOA with the Navy, but that the Navy is going to require us to submit
an amendment to that no cost EDC.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,5,"Page 5
David Brandt further clarified the more fundamental legal problem which is, we would have to
amend our EDC application and unfortunately, the Navy will argue that there's no more legal
authority over a no cost EDC so we would be essentially be giving up our no cost EDC.
Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese would like more information and analysis about whether
we are legally able to hold the Navy to the existing no-cost EDC agreement.
Member Daysog expressed the importance of involving the public so that the $108 million isn't
spent on projects that veer so far away from the community resource reuse plan and the public
amenities that have already been contemplated. Ms. Potter addressed Member Daysog's concern
by noting that the negotiated price of $108.5 million was based on a proforma that provided
fiscal neutrality, provided for the sports complex, provided for the open space, provided for 25%
affordable housing, so all of the goals that has been identified over the years were taken into
account and provided for with that land purchase price. Granted that tax increment was pledged
to the project that was part of it too, but it provided in all of the transit, the shuttle, the ecopath is
all of the things that have been talked about over the last several years, were all accounted for in
the proforma that had the $108.5 million dollar land purchase price.
Member deHaan asked about the process used at other closed military bases, including Mare
Island and the Presidio. David Brandt explained that the Presidio was conveyed under a trust but
that federal legislation is needed for that. Mr. Brandt said that we could approach our delegation
to ask if that's feasible.
The first speaker on this item, Pam Telschow, expressed how glad she was that the ARRA was
going back to consider every option and that they are not just going to jump into looking for a
new Master Developer. Chair Johnson expressed her opinion that she felt it was a remote
possibility that another developer would just step right in where APCP left off. The second
speaker, Helen Sause, also echoed Ms. Telschow's concerns and the direction of the Board,
urging them to select and find those developers that have very deep experiences in commercial,
light industrial retail, and other forms of development. She also suggested that the selection
process involve the community. Chair Johnson wanted the public to have a full understanding
that although the Development Services Dept. has received numerous inquiries, those inquiries
may not be viable. The third speaker, Elizabeth Krase, recommended we find a master developer
that would keep keeps more of the historic buildings.
Member Matarrese commented that he is heartened by the attendance of tonight's meeting and
that it's very important that we also look at the strength of our controls on the planning and our
city restrictions on development. He further stated that the comments from the speakers are
valuable and would like to see them translated into where we go forward. Member Daysog
commented that it's absolutely vital for the City of Alameda through the ARRA to continue to be
a leader in converting the base and to not allow the Navy to be in the drivers seat through
a
public action process. There was further discussion about the caretaking of the property and
requesting that the Navy return to those responsibilities.
Debbie Potter summarized the direction from the Board and other issues to explore: researching
the legality and shear logistics of the numbers to see if we can revert back to a no-cost EDC; the",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,6,"Page 6
parallel path of moving forward with an RFQ process to see if there is a developer who wants to
step into the existing field; a public sale; federal legislation on a trust; caretaker issues, etc.
A motion to initiate an RFQ and to reevaluate all other options discussed was motioned by
Chair Johnson and seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote:
Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese attended the September 7th meeting, highlighting issues regarding additional
radiological testing of sites 1,2, and 32. There was also an update on site 25, the Coast Guard
north housing and a observation of a violation of the marsh crust ordinance (trenching and
digging). Member Matarrese would like the City to investigate further.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Per Member Matarrese's earlier discussion of the RAB meeting regarding Site 25, Member
deHaan requested an update at the next regular ARRA meeting on the status of Site 25.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday. May 8, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:13 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 2007.
2-B. Review and approve all new and existing subleases at Alameda Point.
2-C. Disposition of Personal Property - Proposed Sale of 45 Foot Yard Tug Boat.
Item 2-C. was withdrawn. Approval of items 2-A and 2-B. was motioned by Member
Matarrese, seconded by Member Tam and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;
Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Consideration of Master Developer Partnership Agreement and Master Developer
Selection.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an overview on the
status of the of the Master Developer process. She summarized that, on April 4, the ARRA
selected Catellus and Lennar Urban as co-master developers and the Board requested they return
with a Partnership Agreement in 30 days. On May 2nd Catellus and Lennar submitted a non-
binding term sheet that described general provisions that would be included in a yet-to-be-
determined Operating Agreement. The term sheet contemplated a 60-day time frame for
completing the partnership agreement. The evaluation team reviewed the term sheet and
concluded that it raised more questions than answers regarding the potential to reach a
partnership agreement. Missing terms included: the use of third party equity capital, how
additional partners could be added, and what constitutes default under the agreement. Important
items deferred were remedies for breach of contract, dispute resolution, percentage of vertical
development reserved for each partner, etc. Concerns about the ultimate management structure,
cost of third party equity funds vs. self financing and approach to development resulted in the
determination that it was unlikely a partnership agreement can be negotiated that maximizes
timely, cost effective, market driven redevelopment of Alameda Point. Staff recommended that
the Board reconsider the partnership approach and select one master developer. Staff identified
Catellus as the better partner for ARRA as they are self financing and their minimum IRR
requirement is the lowest.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,2,"Page 2
Each of the master developer teams was given 10 minutes to make final comments (in this order:
Catellus, Lennar, and SunCal) before the Board began discussion of the item.
There was one public speaker, Richard Rutter, who discussed his support of staff's
recommendation to select one Master Developer.
The following motions were made:
Member Matarrese motioned to set aside the Partnership Agreement approach and select
just one Master Developer. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 4, Noes - 1 (Gilmore).
Member Matarrese motioned to appoint Catellus as the Master Developer. Motion was
seconded by Chair Johnson and failed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 2 (Matarrese,
Johnson), Noes - 3 (Tam, deHaan, Gilmore).
Member Tam motioned to select SunCal as the Master Developer. Motion was seconded
by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3 (Tam, deHaan,
Gilmore), Noes - 2 (Johnson, Matarrese).
3-B. Approve Draft Comment Letters on Record of Decision for Installation Restoration
Sites 1 and 25 and Authorize Executive Director to Submit Comment Letters to the
Navy.
At the last meeting, Member Matarrese asked staff to prepare comments on the draft ROD for
Sites 1 and 25. Member Matarrese requested that the bottom-line and desires of the ARRA is
stated right up front as an introduction of the letters.
Member Matarrese moved to approve the letters with the edit of repeating the end goal
right at the front of the letter. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report, as Member Matarrese was on vacation and did not attend the meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker, David Howard, who spoke about car-ownership for low income
individuals and families of the affordable housing development at Alameda Point.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,3,"Page 3
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
none.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:57 by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Have Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-06-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 7, 2008.
2-B. Approve the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement for St. George Spirits at Alameda
Point.
2-C. Approve a Second Amendment to the Agreement with Marc Associates to Extend the Term
for Seven Months and Add $45,000 for a Total Budget of $120,000 for Provision of
Intergovernmental Relations Services.
Vice Chair Tam abstained from Item 2-A (May 7 Minutes) because she was absent from
that meeting. Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 1.
The balance 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
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an update focusing
on legislation approved by the House, and pending in the Senate, regarding the conveyance of
Alameda Point. Staff worked with the Navy to pursue this legislation because they felt it was
necessary to streamline the conveyance of the property. Since 1993, there have been lots of
barriers and the strategy was to look at an approach that would be as efficient as possible in
conveying the property. The legislation outlines three possible options: 1) take the June 2006
negotiated draft term sheet with the Navy and provide a timeframe for allowing SunCal to work
with the Navy and ARRA on a Term Sheet that works for them to convey the property; 2)
provide a land price formula that SunCal could elect to pursue if they were interested in that land
price formula or felt that they couldn't work out a Term Sheet with the Navy on conveyance
terms, and; 3) in the event the master developer withdrew, allow the ARRA to work with the
Navy to auction the property. Special legislation is necessary due to public trusts lands which
preclude the Navy to auction the property on its own. If the bill passes, it will go into effect on
October 1st.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-06-04,2,"Member Matarrese requested that staff provide more detailed information under 'budget
consideration /fiscal impact', i.e., how much did we spend, did we exceed budget, etc. Ms.
Potter explained that all the activities undertaken by staff and consultants to prepare the
legislation is an eligible reimbursement activity pursuant to the ENA with SunCal, that all costs
are borne by SunCal. Member Matarrese would like to see these details in the staff report. He
also asked about the activities SunCal is currently undertaking. Ms. Potter discussed that SunCal
is
particularly focused on examining sea level rise on Alameda Landing and Alameda Point, fill
and geotechnical grading, updating the infrastructure numbers and hoping to have an updated
proforma in 2-4 weeks that reflect those numbers. SunCal is also working on scheduling
community meetings at the end of July or beginning of August, and on Sept. 19, their
Development Concept is due.
Member deHaan was hoping for more detail or progress report on each of the myriad activities
that SunCal is doing. Ms. Potter explained that staff heard the desire expressed by the Board last
month for a detailed progress report. She stated that SunCal will be back next month with a
detailed update the Board is looking for. Member deHaan clarified the purpose of the options of
the legislation and Ms. Potter affirmed his clarification.
Vice Chair Tam asked for clarification on the consent calendar item just approved regarding
increasing Marc Associates' budget. Ms. Potter confirmed that Marc Associates is the firm that
worked with staff and the Navy on this legislation, and that their entire effort is covered under
the contract amount of $120,000. In an effort to understand our coalition partners and how we
are stacked in the bill, Vice Chair Tam commented that the Alameda Point legislation Section
2851 is a small piece. Ms. Potter explained that the entire bill is approximately 1000 pages long
and Alameda Point is sandwiched between a number of other bases (all branches, not just the
Navy - including Army, Air Force, etc.) across the country that also have special legislation.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director further explained that, in Washington DC, there are
two acts: the Annual Defense Authorization Bill and the Annual Appropriations Bill, and there
cannot be an Appropriation for any activity without first having Authorization. He stated that
Marc Associates also works with the City and County of San Francisco and the League of Cities.
Chair Johnson commented on how effective Marc Associates has been on this defense
legislation.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A.
Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese reported that there was no RAB meeting between the last ARRA meeting and
this one. He did attend a walkthru of some of the sites on Saturday and has photos to share.
Member deHaan also attended the tour, which he said was presented as an overview on the
remediation of the sites, but the tour was sidetracked and the focus was more on the fish and
wildlife activities.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-06-04,3,"Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airan Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-011) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011.
(*11-012) Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-013) Endorse ""Going Forward"" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services/project manager, summarized the Going
Forward process. The interdepartmental team includes the Planning Services Manager and Public
Works Director. The Going Forward process is a two-tier process: Tier 1 is developing a vision and
project description for Alameda Point through July 2011 to use as a basis to start the City's
environmental review process (CEQA); and the Navy for their NEPA process in terms of
conveyance. Tier 2 is the Entitlement process from July 2011- - July 2013, which has four major
entitlements: Specific Plan, Master Infrastructure Plan, a Conveyance Agreement, and State Lands
Exchange Agreement. A community-planning workbook was developed and provided online. The
workbook was used to facilitate several community workshops that were held. Staff will prepare a
summary report that will be presented at the March 2 ARRA meeting. A tenant forum is scheduled
next week. The next six months of the Going Forward process will focus on several efforts. The
first and biggest is the Master Planning effort, which will include the project management team and
a team of consultants: land use planning, economics, civil engineering, transportation,
environmental, sustainable infrastructure. There is also a plan to work with ARRA staff and PM
Realty on a long-term leasing strategy to leverage additional funding and create momentum for
longer term leases on buildings that will be remaining, as well as work with the Navy and State
Lands on joint proposed conveyance objectives and principles regarding land conveyance. There
will be a pro forma, and discussion of land value and structuring how the land is transferred from
the Navy.
Member Johnson inquired whether there is an ARRA agreement with PM Realty and the status of
an RFP for a property manager. The Acting City Attorney responded that there is a property
management agreement with PM Realty from 2004. Regarding the status of the RFP for a property
manager, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that an RFP has not been done
yet, but staff will make it a priority as time permits.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,2,"Chair Gilmore reminded staff that she has asked for a real estate leasing primer from staff, and
would like this primer before a property manager RFP, because it will inform the RFP. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services replied that the leasing primer has been put in a draft scope
for an economics firm to help staff put together a presentation. The primer will be done as soon as
there is an economist on board.
The project management team is working with the Federal Government, Veteran's Administration,
on their project as a potential institutional user; as well as with the Alameda Point Collaborative
(APC) and Building Futures for Women and Children, consolidating their facilities to meet their
longer term needs, but on a smaller piece of land. The Public Works department will be
implementing a federal transportation administration grant for transportation improvement and
routes at Alameda Point.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services prepared a budget of the project, which will be
discussed further on 2/15 at the mid year adjustment.
The Planning Services Manager discussed the adopted general plan for Alameda Point.
Member Tam discussed the importance of engaging the school district, East Bay Regional Park
District (EBRPD), Peralta Community College District, as they were not included in the outreach.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that staff will be meeting with the
EBRPD tomorrow, and will include these agencies in the outreach.
Vice Chair Bonta supports moving forward with the Going Forward process, as the plan provides
specificity and focus, with flexibility - an important balance. Member Johnson and Chair Gilmore
also support moving forward. Chair Gilmore emphasized the importance of flexibility. She stated
that the process and plan couldn't be so rigid that opportunities are missed.
Speakers: Doug Biggs, Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Helen Sause, Carol Gottstein, Nancy Hird,
Gretchen Lipow, Karen Bey.
Member deHaan moved to approve endorsing the Alameda Point ""Going Forward"" Process.
Member Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(11-014) Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve
Issuance of Request for Qualifications for Developers.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave an overview on the Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab (LBNL) RFQ for a second campus. The interdepartmental team lead by the Deputy
City Manager - Development Services, includes the Public Works Director (Matt Naclerio), Planning
Services Manager (Andrew Thomas), Alameda Municipal Power General Manager (Girish
Balachandran), and Economic Development Manager (Eric Fonstein). The team has prepared the
first draft of the response, identified key aspects and would like policy direction on four key points to
finalize a competitive response: 1) Site Location, 2) Planning Guidelines 3) Financial Incentives 4)
Developer RFQ.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed the Next Steps and timeline for the
decision-making process and selection of development team.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,3,"Chair Gilmore inquired where the developer's economic incentive would come from. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services discussed initial ideas, including fee development and
private development to land adjacent, and that it was structured in the RFQ to ask each of
developers to put forth recommendations.
Member Johnson commented that the zero cost idea is worth it to have LBNL at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson stated that the project should have a defined, tight design and review process.
The Planning Services Manager discussed various ways to structure a design and review process
that would give the community assurance of high quality design buildings that would fit within the
design expectations of the city and minimize the time and energy LBNL would have to spend in a
normal design and review process.
Member Tam discussed LBNL's expectation that the ARRA will engage an entity with appropriate
development experience. Member Tam inquired whether LBNL could be part of the developer
evaluation process so that there is an even playing field with everyone else. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that LBNL clearly stated that a developer team was
not required in the initial process but that the project team would check to see if LBNL would like to
weigh in on the evaluation so that the ARRA doesn't end up with a partner that could be of a
disadvantage.
Speakers: Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Seth Hamalian, Phil Owen, Karen Bey, Nancy Hird.
Vice Chair Bonta asked for clarification on the $14M in benefits to the city, inquired about the time
period and the assumptions. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the
$14M is based on an economic impact study done for the second campus, and contemplates 800
jobs in the first phase. The economic development manager stated that the study is based on
facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville, and how much revenue and impacts there were on those
host communities. Since that study was done, the LBNL's conception of the second base initial
phase has grown much larger, as it would be consolidating not just those two facilities, but also the
Oakland & Berkeley facilities. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the ARRA would be proposing a no-
cost long-term lease and an option to buy at no cost. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services confirmed that when the City receives the land from the Navy, it would then be transferred
to LBNL. The Acting General Counsel explained that the ARRA has a Lease in Furtherance of
Conveyance (LIFOC) so will be providing a sublease, and when title to the property is received, it
will be title going to LBNL.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired whether there is a site that staff determined to be second best, and what
were the drawbacks as compared to the preferred site. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services explained that there are some outstanding leaseholds the project team felt would create
some uncertainty, so the preferred site had the least number of issues. The Planning Services
Manager stated that both sites are great and the ARRA is open to discussing variations of the sites.
Vice Chair Bonta suggested the ARRA be more bold to attract LBNL by offering to provide a menu
of other options and be aggressive in financial incentives and no-cost incentives, AMP discount,
reduced planning fees, and tax rebates. Member Johnson agrees and supports making that part of
the initial proposal so that it is more attractive and highly competitive.
Member Tam inquired if LBNL's existing facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville were able to
generate the $14M tertiary economic benefit from those communities. The Economic Development
manager explained that the analysis by CBRE looked at direct and indirect spending and the
tertiary, multiplier effect of payrolls, of employee spending; including spending in restaurants,
shopping, and sales tax.
The Board discussed the existing amenities on Alameda Point, Webster Street, and Marina Village.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,4,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not
propose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on
potential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to
the table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the
financial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon
because there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of
other incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented
that owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has
discussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns
about load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage.
Staff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is
short listed.
Member Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the
user goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of
Alameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power,
which was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL
scenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity.
Chair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The
Acting City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2.
Member Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer
for the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-015) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of January 6, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan reported that the RAB discussed Building 5 and 5A (Site OU-2C), a 1.5M square
feet complex, to make a determination to bring the site to remediation level. The site was the
center and hub of industrial operation, there was lots of activity causing a major impact to the
environment, including radiation concerns. The Navy has four proposals: 1) take no action, 2)
cement the pipes, 3) tear the building down, and 4) dig and haul. Member deHaan commented that
he is impressed with the dedication of the RAB members and the community, they have depth of
knowledge which they lend as community support and have come up with good recommendations.
The RAB also discussed the conveyance status and the redevelopment planning status. Member
deHaan stated that the Deputy City Manager - Development Services presented the Going
Forward process to the RAB and it was well received. Member deHaan stated that he will not be
able to attend the February 3 RAB meeting due to a scheduling conflict.
Member Johnson also reminded staff and the public not to forget the commitment of the Navy
during the remediation process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff
would ask the Board for policy direction on the OU-2C site in coming months.
Speaker: Gretchen Lipow
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,5,"None.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 3, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of October 16, 2007.
2-C. Approve a Five-Year Sublease with the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) at Alameda
Point.
2-D. Approve a Ground Lease at No Cost for Kids Chalk Art Project.
2-E. Approve General Release and Compromise Agreement with The Reuse People of America,
Inc.
Member deHaan pulled Item 2-B. (Oct. 16 Minutes) for discussion. The balance of the
Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member
Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, o abstentions.
Item 2-B: Member deHaan pulled this item because he wanted to clarify the action that occurred
at the Special Meeting of Oct. 16th. He specifically addressed the item discussed at this meeting,
Item 3-A. Establish an Alameda Point Advisory Task Force. The discussion that he understood
was that one member from each of the boards and commissions plus the Housing Commission
would be selected and that the individuals would report back to their commissions and boards.
At the recommendation of the Executive Director, Debra Kurita, Member Gilmore suggested we
hold approval of Item 2-B until Item 3-C (AP Advisory Task Force: Clarification of Roles and
Responsibilities) is discussed. Member deHaan said since he placed Item 3-C on the agenda, he
would pull it if Item 2-B is clarified.
Chair Johnson stated that 3-C should not be pulled and should be discussed because more
direction needs to be provided. Member Matarrese agreed with member deHaan to correct the
minutes first, and agreed with Chair Johnson to keep Item 3-C on the agenda for discussion.
Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, further clarified that in addition to the Housing
Commission member, that there would be a representative from the Climate Protection Task
Force as well. All Board members agreed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,2,"Chair Johnson recommended keeping Item 3-C on the agenda, affirmed by staff that it would be
helpful for further discussion.
Vice Chair Tam requested a correction of the 10/16 minutes to reflect that it was Member
Matarrese who seconded the motion, and not her.
Member Gilmore motioned for approval of Item 2-B with the following corrections: to
include full complement of the Boards and Commissions with one member representing his
or her Board/Commission's position and reporting back to that board or commission, and
this includes the Climate Protection Task Force and Housing Commission representatives;
and to reflect that Member Matarrese seconded the motion, and not Vice Chair Tam. The
motion was seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
There were two speakers on Item 2-D (Kids Chalk Art Project), Mark Wagner, who thanked the
Board for waiving the fee for the use of Alameda Point for the project; and Trish Spencer,
President of the Alameda PTA Council, who gave a brief explanation of the project, which
spotlights art and brings art to the students and families of Alameda schools. They plan to draw
the largest chalk project in the world.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Proclamation for Ken Hansen, Community Co-Chair of the FISCA RAB.
Chair Johnson proclaimed Nov. 7, 2007 as Ken Hansen Day in the City of Alameda, and
presented the Proclamation to Mr. Hansen. Mr. Jim Sweeney also presented Mr. Hansen with a
Letter of Appreciation from the US Navy, signed by Laura Duchnak, Director of the BRAC
Program Office. Mr. Mike Quillen of ERM presented a letter of appreciation and recognition to
the ARRA Board to honor Mr. Hansen for his contribution and achievements to the ARRA and
the City of Alameda.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - Oral Report.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief project update:
SunCal held its first community meeting on October 24th. There were over 200 members of the
community in attendance. SunCal introduced their team and gave a presentation which focused
on various constraints and work they have done so far. There were various technical consultants
on hand, and following the formal remarks, there was opportunity for the community to talk on a
one-on-one basis with the consultants. SunCal is preparing for a briefing with the Navy on 11/15
regarding their progress to date. The next meeting is scheduled on 12/13 at the O'Club at 6:30
p.m.
At the 10/16 Special ARRA meeting, there was a request that staff prepare a stakeholder process
for involving the folks that have special interest in Alameda Point. An off-agenda regarding this
item was distributed end of last week.
Chair Johnson asked if we are meeting the benchmarks in the process and keeping the timeline.
Ms Potter replied that so far, yes, and that SunCal has two mandatory milestones on the near
horizon, the first is March '08 when they have to submit a development concept, along with
infrastructure plan and business plan; and the next milestone is May '08 where they are required
to submit their draft master plan application.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,3,"from the Planning Dept.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, wanted clarification on the task force member role
to represent their board or commission.
Member Matarrese discussed that the memo distributed by Andrew Thomas regarding the roles
and responsibilities accurately captured the intent and purpose - which was to increase the
familiarity with all the boards and commissions of the plan when it's finished, so they are not
seeing it for the first time. The task force is responsible for two things: 1) report back, and 2)
advise SunCal on positions their boards and commissions have taken. It is a very clean and
efficient way of getting to the point of having the boards and commissions versed in the plan as it
is presented to them.
Vice Chair Tam expressed her concerns about the members of the task force being asked to
refrain from speaking at the Oct. 24th meeting until their roles and responsibilities were clarified.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,4,"She explained that it is not her view that we should deprive the advisory boardmembers of their
constitutional right to speak out or constrain them from sharing their views and experience. We
chose these people because of their expertise and their broad experience in Alameda and outside
- and that these boards and commissions have chosen them to help lead the discussion. It's
appropriate for them, once they're on the advisory task force, to interact productively with
SunCal to ask questions, and not simply be a human tape recorder.
Member Matarrese stated that his explanation of the roles of the task force members does not
preclude them from asking questions. Member deHaan added that the liaison to SunCal should
be staff, and not the task force member.
Andrew Thomas clarified that the advisory task force is an ad-hoc group, not a separate formal
commission. The task force meetings are the public workshop meetings - everything is publicly
noticed, there are no plans to hold ""task force"" meetings separate from the workshops.
Speaker, Bill Smith, spoke about various topics.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese was not able to attend the last RAB meeting and did not have a report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
none.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan requested further discussion on the Coast Guard Housing Surplus process be
placed on the next Regular ARRA agenda.
Member Matarrese also requested a report on all the fields at Coast Guard Housing. Deputy
Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that an off-agenda is in preparation regarding this issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
James Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-12-01,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:01 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
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 3, 2010.
2-B. Approve a Waiver of License Fees for American Red Cross, Bay Area Chapter at Building
8.
Member Gilmore moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Designate a Member of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board to
Serve as the New Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board Representative.
Vice Chair deHaan offered to serve as the RAB representative.
Member Gilmore moved for approval to appoint Vice Chair deHaan as the new RAB
representative. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. Effective first RAB meeting in January 2011.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of November 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese addressed three key points: 1) The Navy will be revamping the records
Repository, including all of the Records of Decision (ROD), environmental studies,
presentations, and information on the history of characterization; 2) there was a presentation on
the draft final site investigation of the Federal Parcel Transfer, the south west portion of the
base. The Navy is completing the surveying; 3) Member Matarrese would like Member deHaan
and staff to continue tracking Sites 1, 2, & 32 on the north west side. These sites are the most
vulnerable parts of the base in that they have high ground water, are susceptible to sloughing
off into the bay, and are replete with radium T26 contamination. Member Matarrese stated it is
important the City take a position that the Navy should not leave any detectable radiation on the
site.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-12-01,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
6-A. Alameda Point Community Forums Update.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a presentation and an overview of the
community forums. She provided a link to the workbook that people can participate in the going-
forward process: ww.alamedapoint-goingforward.com
Speakers: Philip Tribuzio, Henry Hernandez
6-B. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board Composition: Options for New
Structure (continued from November 16, 2010).
The Interim City Manager provided a presentation to update the Board on the 'Going-Forward""
plan.
Speakers: Honora Murphy, John Knox White, Anne Spanier, John Spangler
There was confusion among the public regarding the topic of Item 6-B. Member Tam explained
that the confusion comes from the wording of the item. The item is an update of the Going-
Forward plan, and not a recommendation to change the ARRA Board Structure. Chair Johnson
further clarified that this item is not before the Board for a decision, and that the Interim City
Manager presented the item as an introduction of the concept, which the Board could either
pursue or abandon.
Member Gilmore expressed concern that there were advisory groups for Alameda Point that
were active for many years [Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG), Alameda Point Advisory
Commission (APAC)], but that they were ultimately dissolved by the ARRA. Member Gilmore's
concern was that expanding the ARRA Board meant putting important decisions in the hands of
non-electeds.
Vice Chair deHaan expressed concern that he didn't want his elected position to be undermined
by introducing a new structure or re-establishing an advisory group. It would be counter-
productive to the long-standing mechanisms currently in place.
Member Tam premised her statement by requesting that her comments be taken in the context
that she is giving her opinion, and not trying to develop consensus for direction. Member Tam
commented that the ARRA's amended bylaws and JPA included provisions to appoint an
advisory body, not a voting body. Member Tam suggested an approach that included the parks
and school districts (EBRPD and AUSD), the Peralta community; as they all have their own
governing boards. The representatives from each of these agencies would have accountability
and would foster democracy. Member Tam stated an expansion of the ARRA Board is
something that should not be pursued.
Member Gilmore and Vice Chair deHaan agreed with Member Tam and support the idea of
including other stakeholders.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-12-01,3,"The Interim City Manager suggested adding an element to the process -- a community forum for
principle stakeholders and other governmental agencies/bodies focused on government
regulations.
Member Tam requested that this issue be included as a future item where the Board can give
direction. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that it will be placed on the
February agenda.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Gilmore reminded staff that she requested a presentation regarding the commercial
real estate market as it exists.
Vice Chair deHaan stated that the ARRA should be involved in the City of Oakland's
discussions regarding the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Oakland A's stadium in Jack
London Square. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed Vice Chair
deHaan that Alameda city planning staff is aware of the NOP and will be following it.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-D
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 7:37 p.m.)
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 16, 2004
2-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 12, 2005
2-C. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of June 1, 2005
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1 (Member Gilmore).
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the ""text-only"" changes made to the July 5th Draft
PDC. The changes were made in response to comments heard at the July and October 2005 ARRA
Board meetings. Mr. Thomas summarized the major changes and asked that the ARRA approve the
changes as well as other modifications to the text, and identify final revisions in order to bring a
finalized document back to the Board at its regular meeting in February 2006.
A summary of the changes included:
- clearer description of the purpose of the PDC, identifies it as a planning study and not a
regulatory document without any legally binding effect.
- there is more emphasis and clarity that the plan for Alameda Point is a mixed-use plan,
maintaining financial feasibility and historic preservation.
- recommending work-live ordinance.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,2,"Changes were made in the Introduction, Land Use and the Next Steps chapters emphasizing that it is
the City's goal to have a sustainable environmentally sensitive development at Alameda Point. The
Next Steps chapter outlines the key issues that are still going to require additional study, particularly
the compromises and trade-offs. There is more description about how the non-Measure A
alternative will be evaluated in the EIR process; and further exploration of maintaining historical
preservation, as well as financial possibilities surrounding the historic buildings. Also included are
the next steps to implementing the Transportation Strategy.
Two appendices, the Transportation Strategy (Appendix A) and the Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality (Appendix E), were also revised.
Member Gilmore allowed the several speakers to make their statements prior to the Board making
their comments. The speakers discussed various PDC-related topics, including Historic
Preservation concerns regarding the Big Whites and the Hangars; requests for additional buildings
identified for Historic Preservation be placed on the HAB agenda/study list for February, and to
request and Historic Preservation Master Plan and an Adaptive Reuse Study to be done soon, or as
part of the Navy's Section 106 process. Also discussed concerns about the Seaplane Lagoon
development encroachments and non-measure A alternatives. Consideration of Building 3 for the
Neptune Beach Amusement Museum was discussed.
Alameda School Board representative thanked staff and the ARRA board for including the issues of
school facilities in the PDC. Alternatives in Action representative discussed issues regarding the
early termination of their lease and the ARRA's request of them for removal of a portable building.
Member Daysog asked what were the major changes to Appendix E (Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality). Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that there was clarity added
to the language and that the financial feasibility study done for the first phase will be replicated for
subsequent phases. There will be a better understanding of the financial feasibility and fiscal
neutrality questions once we are clear on the development programs. Member Daysog further
discussed his concern regarding the Measure A and non-Measure A options, and Phase I revenue
generation. Mr. Proud explained that projections made in the document have a built-in fiscal
mitigation payment which will come directly from project proceeds to offset public expenditures and
public revenues that we collect. Member Daysog requested more detail and clarity on the property
taxes for use on a range of services; he also requested a better understanding on the fiscal mitigation
payment and operational issues.
Member deHaan addressed issues in the body of the PDC and, with the consensus of the other board
members, requested several action items to be completed by staff:
1. Expand the paragraph in the Next Steps chapter to elaborate on the Historic
Preservation - what the Navy is doing concurrent with us on their studies.
2.
Provide more clarity on the commercial development plan for the 336,000 sq. ft. of
retail and identify the commercial endeavors being pursued.
3. Provide separate analysis (off-agenda) on the HazMat clean-up, scenario of costs
between single family vs. multi family, etc. for financial feasibility.
4. Regarding the timeline and series of studies to be completed on the Historic
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,3,"Preservation: Emphasize the need to get information at the earliest possible date so that
the information could be used in the process of developing a plan which is then
ultimately evaluated in the EIR, and NOT when the final EIR comes out.
5. Appendix E - What would Phase I of Fiscal Mitigation payment be? And an
explanation of why we are not contemplating municipal services fee (like Bayport)?
6. Continued emphasis that this ""Preliminary"" plan document is a step to a ""Final' plan.
All Boardmembers accepted staff recommendation to bring back a Final version of the PDC in
February 2006.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Boardmember Matarrese reported on the RAB meeting from November because he did not attend
the Dec. meeting (he was attending D.A.R.E.) There was a presentation on the remediation
strategies for Site 27, between Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Nelson's Marine. There were a
wide range of options (9 remediation strategies), and there was a uniform recommendation and vote
to advise the Navy to use the most efficient and rapid remediation strategy.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Marilyn York, Barbara Bach, and Ken Robles of the Alameda Naval Air Museum spoke about their
proposed 10-year lease. Chair Johnson advised that they are looking forward to receiving the lease
for review but have not seen it come to the Board yet.
6.
COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.
Boardmember Daysog requested the Board address Gail Greeley's issues regarding Home Sweet
Home and moving a portable building. Member Matarrese requested an off-agenda report
addressing this same issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,4,4,AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-01-05,1,"1
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:02 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Marie Gilmore
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Beverly Johnson
Vice Chair Rob Bonta
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-001) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 1, 2010.
(*11-002) Approve a Waiver of License Fee for Michaan's Auctions for Use of Portions of
Building 20.
Member deHaan moved for approval of Item 2-A of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam
seconded the motion, which carried by voice vote - 4, Abstentions - 1 (Bonta).
Member deHaan moved for approval of Item 2-B of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or
adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-003) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of December 2, 2010 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan did not attend the December 2, 2010 RAB meeting and has no report.
Member deHaan will attend the next RAB meeting on January 6, 2011 and will provide a report
at the February ARRA meeting. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services will also
attend the January 6th RAB meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11-004) Mayor Gilmore asked the Deputy City Manager - Development Services to provide an
update on the Lawrence Berkeley Lab (LBL) RFQ for a 2M square foot campus, with Alameda
Point in consideration. The RFQ was sent out on January 3 and is due March 4th. Staff and
a",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-01-05,2,"2
consultant team are working together to respond to the RFQ. Placeholders have been put on all
Council/ARRA agendas before the March due date in case policy direction is needed. The
Deputy City Manager - Development Services summarized the RFQ, stating that the initial
phase is for 500,000 sq. ft. of space. Staff is working closely with the Navy (property owners)
on policy issues that may need to be discussed with the Board. The short list will be in April.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services will discuss the developer solicitation
process on the 18th in response to the RFQ, and before the short list. Other bases have been
jump-started by large institutional user like LBL, it is a great catalyst and opportunity to get
Alameda Point started.
Member Johnson asked about the location and competitors. The Deputy City Manager
-
Development Services responded that the location was very specific: 20 - 25 minutes from
blackberry gate; and that the biggest competitor is LBL's own property at Richmond Gild
Station, 90 acres along the waterfront. The cities of Berkeley and Emeryville are also included.
Member deHaan inquired if LBL is looking for land site or adaptive reuse. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that since LBL needs state of the art R&D facilities,
they want to find new construction. In initial conversations, the area that stands out is the area
south of Atlantic. Construction would start in July 2013 in areas without cleanup issues. Chair
Gilmore requested the RFQ be posted on the City's website so that the Board can access it and
be prepared to get questions answered.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the Golden Gate Yacht Club and
Oracle Racing announced that the America's Cup #34 will be held in San Francisco in 2013. In
anticipation of the event, staff sent event organizers a letter reemphasizing the city's support for
the San Francisco bid, and where Alameda can be helpful, i.e., host supportive services on
Alameda Point for the America's Cup - hangars, ferries, potential economic benefit, strong
marine industry, sailing syndicates, and being involved in the planning process.
Member deHaan asked if the Board is taking the lead with regard to the community support
efforts, or if there is a separate professional organization taking the lead. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services replied that it has been a cooperative effort - specific
community members are involved in the maritime and sailing world and have the connections
that staff doesn't. There are shared ideas and support. The City and staff lends credibility as a
government entity to their interests.
The Acting City Manager discussed the website which was developed by a community member
who is connected to the sailing world and is leading the charge, working with the City for bigger
mobilization in support of America's Cup #34. The business community wants to get involved,
and a partnership of residents, business and the city could help bring some aspect of the event
to Alameda.
Member Bonta commented on the amazing efforts from the community, recognizing Jack
Boeger and Bob Naber. Member Bonta stated that he looks forward to working with staff and
the community to maximize this opportunity and realize the full potential economically and
otherwise.
Member Tam requested to be informed of any opportunities for the elected body to get involved.
Chair Gilmore requested that updates of the event be placed as a regular item on the ARRA
agenda.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-01-05,3,"3
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
(11-005) Referral from Chair Gilmore to change the order of the ARRA meetings.
Member Johnson moved to approve the referral to change the order of the ARRA
meetings. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
(11-006) Member Tam commented that with the emerging opportunities, the ARRA should focus
on reshaping its Going Forward process and be more ""shovel ready""- more prepared with
property, parcels, and infrastructure to maximize its competitiveness at Alameda Point.
Chair Gilmore requested a timeline of the Going Forward process so that the Board and the
public can makes comments and any changes necessary. The Deputy City Manager -
Development Services stated that an update will be presented at the 2/2 ARRA meeting, and
the ARRA predevelopment budget would be presented at the 2/15 mid year budget adjustment.
Member deHaan asked if staff has interfaced with the new owners of Catellus, TPG Capital LP.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that the Economic Development
Director and City Manager were getting up to speed with the new partner. A designated project
manager is working with staff. TPG Capital will likely need to come to the Council/CIC because
they are changing the development entity in agreement with the CIC. The Deputy City Manager
- Development Services discussed that there will be a staff report, update, and presentation
from the new partner in the next couple of months.
Member deHaan inquired about the interview timeline for the Alameda Point RFQ consultants.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that there were two days of
interviews with four consultants: real estate economics, master planning, sustainable design
and green infrastructure consultants, and transportation consultants. Contracts will be
negotiated in January and will be brought back as part of the mid year budget adjustment to
demonstrate to the ARRA how the project will be paid for. There are also plans to come back
with community feedback in March.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-05-19,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:47 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 April 1, 2009.
2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Extension for General Services
Administration at Alameda Point.
2-C. Accept the Interim Executive Director's Statement of Emergency Regarding Expenditures
for the Fire at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Approve the Project Budget
Item 2-C was pulled by Member Tam for discussion. The balance of the Consent Calendar
was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed
by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.
Item 2-C - Member Tam asked for clarification on whether or not the debris retrieved was
tested. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, explained that the debris was tested by
quarter, and not tested individually, because the intent is to haul everything off. Member Tam
also asked what kind of thresholds should be met to determine whether it was cleaned
accurately. Ms. Little stated that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) set
the standards for the cleanup.
Vice Chair deHaan and Member Matarrese expressed concerns that the ARRA is now footing
the $1.6M bill for the demo of the burned building. They discussed Catellus' DA which obligates
them to do demolition, which included this building. Ms. Little explained that they're not
obligated to do the demo because they have not moved forward with any initial phase. She
further explained that an issue such as this is an unanticipated cost which clearly demonstrates
what these do to the fund balance.
Member Matarrese requested that the cost be transferred to the project and that Catellus
remain obligated to reimburse the ARRA. He requested the City Attorney provide feedback on
the proper legal options we have so that the project becomes encumbered. Terri Highsmith,
City Attorney, understood the direction and will provide the information requested.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of Item 2-C with the provision of receiving
feedback from legal counsel on the possibilities of encumbering the cost to the project.
Member Tam seconded the motion and it was passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, 0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-05-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-05-19,2,"3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
4.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Vice Chair deHaan and Member Matarrese attended the last RAB meeting and had
concerns about the Navy's cleanup direction - whether it is predicated on the PDC, or if
the Navy is remediating according to SunCal's concept plan. Member Matarrese
requested clarification of their method and also requested this item be agendized and
brought back to the ARRA at its next regular meeting.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-05-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-07-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The meeting convened at 8:20 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 June 3, 2009.
2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Vigor Marine, LLC at Alameda
Point.
2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Bay Ship & Yacht Co., Inc.
at Alameda Point.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Puglia Engineering of
California, Inc. at Alameda Point.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by Vice
Chair deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of June 4th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese was unable to attend the June 4th meeting in which the OU-2 feasibility
study was discussed. The July RAB meeting is cancelled, so Member Matarrese will report on
the August Meeting.
Member Gilmore asked a question about the RAB's decision to have a facilitator from the Navy
to assist in conducting effective meetings. She was curious of the genesis of the idea, since the
RAB has been in existence for many years, why only now is the Navy providing a facilitator?
RAB member Michael Torrey stated that this is not the first time that the Navy is providing a
facilitator, but that the previous ones had to be cut due to funding issues. George Brooks, the
Navy's Environmental Coordinator, asked if there could be another facilitator. Member
Matarrese explained that the RAB Board changed and agreed that it was a positive step for the
RAB.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-07-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-07-07,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Vice Chair deHaan asked for an update on the SunCal milestones. Assistant City
Manager, David Brandt, stated that there is a payment requirement due on July 19th, , and
qualified signatures, or an alternative plan, was due in mid September for the City Council
to accept. The Navy requirement is now July 2010.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m., by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-07-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-07-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:21 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
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. Responses to Questions Posed by the ARRA Board at the May 6th, 2010 Special ARRA
Meeting Regarding the United States Navy's Environmental Program at Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore requested additional information regarding the VA transfer and related
agreement in response to the May 25, 2010 letter from the Navy which addressed the questions
from the May 6th meeting. Staff stated that the information will be provided at the next ARRA
meeting.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of June 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese gave an overview of the June 3rd RAB meeting. He discussed the summary
of the radiological surveys and clean ups that have been done at Fed sites 1 and 2. He also
discussed the Bldg. 5 storm drain which was removed because of radium contamination, and
that additional contamination was found in other storm drains; and site 17 sediment sampling of
the seaplane lagoon. Member Matarrese stated that there is a new schedule of evaluation and
remediation that runs from Aug thru Nov of 2010.
Member Matarrese discussed two commentary papers prepared by RAB member and physical
engineer, George Humphreys. One of the papers was on basewide radiological contamination,
and the other on site 25 ground water plume above the FISC near Coast Guard Housing,
Tinker-Stargell extension.
There is a Navy-sponsored tour of the sites on Saturday, July 17 from 9-11:00 a.m. Interested
parties can go to the BRAC website to sign up.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
09-01-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-07-07,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
One speaker, Jon Spangler, discussed clean-up of Alameda Point. He inquired what will happen
with everything that is above-ground at Alameda Point, the crumbling infrastructure, buildings
that were built with toxic materials, and contaminated buildings. He asked who will pay for
remediation and up-keep if SunCal's contract is not renewed.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Considering the investigatory report against Councilmember Tam, Vice-Chair deHaan offered to
attend the League of California Cities meeting as the alternate representative for the City of
Alameda. He asked if this issue should be agendized for the next regular Council meeting.
The General Counsel clarified that because Vice Chair deHaan is already the alternate, no
official action is required, but if the Board would like to take a vote, this cannot happen tonight
and would have to be at another meeting. Member Matarrese concurred with Vice-Chair
deHaan and requested this issue be agendized for the next council meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-08-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 9:54 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Vice Chair Lena Tam
Absent: Boardmember Marie Gilmore
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 18, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority/Community Improvement Commission of July 18, 2007.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), o
noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Approve a 12-Month Contract with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in the
Amount of $185,000 to Provide Negotiation Support and to Conduct a Fiscal Impact
Analysis for the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Leslie Little gave an overview of the contract and work scope of Economic and Planning
Systems (EPS), explaining that they will assist in developing the business plan and fiscal impact
assessment for Alameda Point. Leslie affirmed Chair Johnson's question about whether the cost
will be reimbursed by SunCal. Member Matarrese clarified that, since EPS is the current
financial consultant under contract with the ARRA, this is an extension of that contract. Chair
Johnson encouraged holding negotiation briefings and sessions in open session, to the extent
possible, in order to keep the public better informed on significant issues. Member Matarrese
agreed and complimented staff, stating that having the last ENA negotiations right in full public
view was successful.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the contract, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), 0 noes, 0
abstentions.
3-B. Authorize Executive Director to Initiate Negotiations for a Short Term Large Parcel
Lease and Caretaker Agreement for the Former Alameda Naval Air Station North Housing
Complex",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-08-07,2,"David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, summarized to the Board that the Navy's caretaker
obligations for the former North Housing Complex will expire in September, and recommends
that the ARRA assume caretaker and maintenance responsibilities. He discussed that it would be
a simple conveyance to gain control of the property so that it can be leased. The property is still
fully operational but deteriorating rapidly. Mr. Brandt discussed the BRAC process: as soon as
the property is declared as surplus, the Local Reuse Authority (ARRA) is responsible for
screening the property. This process could take as long as a year, but there are several options
for conveyance, including a public benefit conveyance for the park, a homeless accommodation
request, or negotiated EDC for cost. Chair Johnson suggested trying to acquire all the property.
Member deHaan questioned the legal ramifications for the conveyance process, and taking over
with a no-cost EDC. Mr. Brandt explained that the Navy's position is that they are not governed
by the old BRAC rules - that they are applying the post-2005 ""No no-cost EDC"" rules. All
Boardmembers agreed that the ARRA should move forward expeditiously in order to preserve
the parkland and prevent further deterioration of the property.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the staff recommendation with further direction
to convey the entire property (Marina Village and North Housing complex) to the City.
The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4
ayes (Member Gilmore absent), o noes, o abstentions.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith spoke about various topics including clean-up problems, liquefaction, and the surplus
housing at former North Housing.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed a side trip tour he had of Fort Ord with Mr. Michael Houlimard, and
compared the Fort Ord redevelopment project with the Alameda Point project. Member deHaan
explained that at Fort Ord, they are only redeveloping 8 acres (out of 28,000 acres) of disturbed
land. The rest became one habitat or recreation areas. He expressed how successful the Fort Ord
project is because they focused on their award-winning Community Reuse Plan, which, to their
benefit, had many special interests, including the University of California and two major retail
operations, one lifestyle and one big box. Even the Army itself wanted to retain some of the
property. Member deHaan further explained that Fort Ord's reuse authority could dissolve in the
next two years, since their cash flow has put them into a positive, quite contrary to where
Alameda Point is. Fort Ord has also begun building a phase of housing units around the existing
golf course (there will be 12,000 residential units total); there is one hotel and another bid for a
Ritz Carlton. Member deHaan attributes the success of the Fort Ord project to their focus on the
community reuse plan, their expedient manner and that they did not veer from that plan.
Member Matarrese suggested agendizing a report of the Fort Ord project as an update and called
to move the agenda.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:34 by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:26 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 10, 2008.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 1, 2008.
2-C. Approve a Permanent Waiver of License Fees for Alameda Unified School District Student
Activities.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Building 43 & Associates,
Inc. at Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member
deHaan, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - O.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update - Review and Comment on SunCal's Development Concept
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, summarized SunCal's
submission of Development Concept pursuant to the ENA on September 19th. During October,
SunCal presented its Development Concept to eight boards and commissions, and received
feedback. Comments received were provided in the staff report and presented to give the ARRA
an opportunity to follow-up on the comments from the boards and commissions, provide
feedback, and to hear additional comments from the public. The draft Master Plan, a more
detailed land plan, is due to on Dec.19, and will be presented to the ARRA Board at its January
7th regular meeting.
As SunCal has indicated, the current land plan has residential densities beyond those permitted in
Measure A, therefore, SunCal would need a vote of the people to implement its land plan. They
have until April 30, 2009 to decide to pursue a ballot initiative. Business terms between SunCal
and the CIC is due by June 2010. There is a Council resolution of Fiscal Neutrality mandated for
base reuse, so a project proforma, an analyses of project cost and revenues to determine project
feasibility, is being prepared. Alameda Point is within the APIP redevelopment area. When
Alameda Point is conveyed, that new development will generate revenue and value, which will
result in incremental increase in property taxes paid. The project must create the value to
generate the tax increment that the CIC can then choose to invest in the project. There is no tax
increment without project, therefore it is not possible to determine which tax increment funds, if",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-05,2,"any, are available without completing the project proforma and negotiating a DDA, which is due
in June 2010. The CIC has made no commitment of funds to the project. Its only obligation is to
negotiate in good faith on both the land plan and public./private partnership until the ENA
expires in June of 2010. The DDA must be approved by the City Council and the CIC; and until
the DDA is approved, it is not possible for the CIC to commit funds to the project. Under the
terms of the ENA, SunCal is paying for all city staff costs and third party consultant costs
consistent with the requirement for the fiscal neutrality that we demand.
Member Matarrese referred to the comments included in the staff report and stated that it was
important to make a distinction whether the points being raised were from the boards or from
individuals.
Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point Project Manager gave the presentation. The presentation
will be made available on SunCal's website. At the conclusion of the presentation, Chair Johnson
called all of the speakers first:
Corinne Lambden - concerned about the historical relevant structures, and would like Board to
consider all options of adaptive reuse before permanently destroying them. Mary Fetherolf -
thanked SunCal for the presentation and asked a couple of process questions about where to find
the financial models and assumptions of the project, and about the draft Master Plan. Elizabeth
Krase - spoke on behalf of AAPS. She discussed concerns about the historic buildings planned
for demolition, stating that it's not acceptable. Doug Biggs - APC has enjoyed participating in
the SunCal community process and supports SunCal's plan. 'Chelle Fredrick - excited to see
the progress that has been made, encouraged by the plan that acknowledges the unprecedented
potential of Alameda point yet still recognizes the constraints. Diane Lichtenstein - echoed what
Mi'Chelle Frederick said. Interested in how the development will happen, and would like to see
more of the integration and diversity in the types of housing and structures. Helen Sause -
congratulated Member deHaan and Member Gilmore for their re-elections. Had a request that the
city undertake an active role in developing the transit system which addresses the whole island.
Gretchen Lipow - discussed fiduciary responsibility of the Alameda Point project. Nancy
Heastings - from HOMES, complimented SunCal on its transit oriented design, and wanted to
know the date and review process for the transportation plan. John Knox White -requested the
ARRA really give direct direction to SunCal as to what they would like to support before the
process moves forward. He discussed that we cannot try to react to the market, we need to look
at something that has that flexibility, and a plan we can be proud of in 50 or 100 years. Arthur
Lipow - discussed the poor economy and traffic mitigation issues, and suggested an alternative
of a public trust modeled on the Presidio trust that could have productive uses of the structures.
Susan Decker - supports SunCal's plan and the flexibility in their process. Encouraged that it
would produce something that is truly an asset to Alameda. Michael Krueger - agreed with most
of the speakers and is supportive of SunCal's plan.
Chair Johnson explained that this meeting has to be recessed in order to reconvene the PUB
meeting of earlier.
Meeting was recessed at 9:15 p.m. by Chair Johnson. All Board members agreed that Item
3-A (SunCal's Development Concept) and the balance of the 11/5 agenda be continued at a
Special ARRA Meeting scheduled on November 18, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
ArmaElidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-02-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 6, 2008- 7:01 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:55 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA was briefed and discussed price and terms. The Board provided instruction
to staff. No action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:35
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 6, 2008",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-02-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-12-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 6 2006- 6:15 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at 7:00 p.m. to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA staff provided the ARRA with facts and background information regarding disputes
with Trident Management Inc., our port managers. Direction given to staff. Nothing more
to report at this time.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:12
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itura Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-12-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The meeting convened at 9:43 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to Agreement with Russell
Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term
for 12 Months and Adding $147,500 to the Budget.
2-B. Approve a One-year Lease with Two One-Year Options with Makani Power for a Portion
of Hangar 12.
Member deHaan motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member
Matarrese, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
This portion of the meeting is a continuation of the Regular ARRA Meeting of 11/5, which
was recessed by Chair Johnson. On 11/5, all Board members agreed that Item 3-A
(SunCal's Development Concept) and the balance of the 11/5 agenda be continued at the
Special ARRA Meeting scheduled on November 18, 2008.
3-A. Alameda Point Update - Review and Comment on SunCal's Development Concept
(Continued from the November 5, 2008 Regular Meeting)
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an overview
regarding the purpose of presenting SunCal's Development Concept, which was to solicit
feedback and comments from the ARRA to move forward with the draft Master Plan, which is
due Dec. 19th
Chair Johnson called the public speakers first. Michael Krueger reiterated a point that if any
board member cannot support the plan for whatever reason, now is the appropriate time to
discuss and raise objections, and what changes need to be made. Arthur Lipow discussed his
concerns about the impact of the bankruptcies of SunCal Companies to the Alameda Point
project. Susan Decker discussed her continued support of the Plan.
The Board reminded the public that the list of questions from the last meeting on Nov. 5th has
been summarized and will be addressed this evening. Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point
Project Manager, Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers, Peter Calthorpe and Peter Tagami, of
California Capital Group, were present to answer questions.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,2,"Member Gilmore stated that a key issue revolves around the feasibility of implementation and
the traffic solutions - how to move people on and off the island. She discussed this as being a big
part of her comfort level with regard to whether the plan can be executed. She wants to see real
life examples of the solutions in place and working, and does not want Alameda to be the
experiment. Member Matarrese had two transportation-related points: how we are addressing
commute in the tube into China Town, and truck routes, how are we moving goods?
Matthew Ridgway, consultant from Fehr & Peers, addressed the transportation issues. He stated
that traffic congestion is expected to be worse, regardless of Alameda Point redevelopment, as
moving traffic to/from Alameda Point is secondary next to the traffic moving through the tube
and the 880 corridor. One of the questions was whether the option of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
was out. Mr. Ridgway responded 'no', but is reserving the right of way to bus transit alignment.
He further discussed that the project is developer funded and funding will be sought from AC
Transit and other funding sources. Another question was regarding buy-in of other stakeholders.
Mr. Ridgway explained that they are working with AC Transit for funding issues and Caltrans on
Broadway/Jackson improvements, but there is a much larger group of stake holders, and they are
not assuming things outside of Alameda's purview.
The Board had requested a matrix be created. Mr. Ridgway prepared a draft which highlights
major differences between the three plans, the APCP plan, the WRT plan, and the current SunCal
plan. One of the major differences they realized was having an onsite school, which was carried
forward to the current AP transportation strategy. A rapid bus element was not definitive in
other plans, but in the current AP transportation strategy, it is definitive to fund a rapid bus
transit system, also proposing to fund construction and operating costs for an additional BRT line
across the whole island to the Fruitvale BART station in order to increase transit use throughout
the island. A bikeshare program is being proposed; and another dramatic difference is a
progressive parking plan, which was in the APCP plan, and is carried forward to the current plan.
Shared parking, unbundling cost of residential parking, commercial fee based-parking, parking
maximums, limit number of auto trips - new elements included in the summary of the matrix
proposed to reduce auto trips.
Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese were concerned about the passive incentives of parking,
which did not have the effect that was intended, because other transportation hasn't been
provided. Member Gilmore discussed these unintended consequences and not being able to lure
business to site because there is not enough parking. Member deHaan discussed the real life
situation in Alameda, that streets upon streets are constrained because of no parking. He stated
his concern that lack of parking has not driven Alamedans to use public transportation.
Mr. Ridgway explained that possibly parking shortages weren't in tandem with a whole host of
transportation alternatives. They are proposing to implement the transportation alternatives and
provide the level of parking that would balance with those alternatives - to be effective
economically and be viable. They are trying to develop a plan that addresses all these issues.
Chair Johnson stated that if we insure other transportation alternatives were available, people
would use it.
Vice Chair Tam discussed the City's settlement with Oakland China town over the impact of the
Alameda Point project with traffic in China Town - a traffic level threshold was generated, and
the appropriate level was 1800 units. She asked Mr. Ridgway if their mitigation measures are all
to get back to that threshold level. Mr. Ridgway affirmed, stating that they are marketing the
plan as a green development - you live here because you only have one car or no car - the
people that have a lifestyle with fewer or no automobiles would want to live here.
Another question addressed how the water emergency transit authority will interface and will
meet the needs for maintenance and fueling facilities, and if this can be accommodated at",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,3,"Alameda Point. Mr. Ridgway explained that they have looked at the issue of relocation of the
ferry terminal to the estuary or to sea plane lagoon, but have not looked at dredging or fueling
stations; and have not reached that level of detail at this point.
Another request from the Board was to provide examples of transit alternatives. Fehr & Peers
provided a handout with information which cites several examples. Studies included comparative
analysis of transit uses among specific cities in the bay area. They are diligent in citing statistics
and research conducted nationally to reduce the number of auto trips. Regarding funds for island
wide transportation solutions, Mr. Ridgway stated that operating and capital cost are being borne
by the Alameda Point project. In response to the request to have an analysis of how many vehicle
trips this plan will create, Mr. Ridgway said that a detailed phasing plan will be included in the
Dec. 19 draft master plan.
Member Matarrese reiterated that the PDC and concept plan didn't address the issue of goods
and services moving on and off Alameda Point - truck routes, etc. for commercial and retail. He
stressed that this is a critical component that needs to be addressed.
For Peter Calthorpe addressed the next category of issues regarding adaptive reuse and light
industrial questions, and questions regarding examples of other transit oriented development.
Mr. Calthorpe gave a presentation of several examples of comparable mixed use developments,
housing over retail, live-work - in other bay area cities including Oakland, Richmond, Daly City,
San Mateo, and San Jose. Alameda Point has a unique component to offer which attracts entities
to the various mixed-use elements, that Alameda Point has the ability to have a large company
""campus"".
Vice Chair Tam asked Mr. Calthorpe to comment on creating that buffer between the different
types of uses so there are no inherent conflicts that city councils have to deal with. Mr.
Calthorpe explained that, until you get to real industrial uses, you don't have to buffer. The
beauty of that mix, the services, parks and shops are double duty - if you put a store in a
typically residential neighborhood, it won't be used - but if you put it in mixed use - it's used
throughout the day, a better viability and keeps folks out of their cars. We're all focused on
transit mode.
Member deHaan asked about adaptive reuse and light industry, and the compatibility of this? Mr.
Calthorpe stated that the parcels for commercial development are not best used as light
industrial, rather as low-rise office, and some historic reuse that can be industrial; explaining that
when you invest this much in public infrastructure, the parks and transit - you don't want to
dedicate land to light industrial - it would be underutilization for light industrial. Member
Matarrese wanted to discuss the potential reuse of hangars.
Phil Tagami, of California Capital Group, continued the presentation by discussing adaptive
reuse of the historical district structures. He discussed the tax credits and identified the protected
historic districts. His focus is on 23 of 86 buildings identified, including the flight tower and the
dive building. In total, he was asked to study 1.3M sq. ft. of space, as well as preserving and
protecting the open space that is part of that. One of the tests of being able to restore the
buildings is to give equal attention, respect to the buildings, and early involvement is key -
having the opportunity to transition and put the site into reuse NOW would protect from further
decay, create use and activity, and generate more revenue. There is a demand for certain
activities and good transitional uses; now is the opportunity to have the time to become intimate
with these buildings and begin process of next phase.
Member deHaan stated that the Navy had an inventory of the historical buildings and had desires
and needs for specific ones. He asked how far we are in that process and does it relate to the 23
of 86 buildings. Mr. Tagami stated that they are 1/3 of the way done and there is a lot of due
diligence that needs to be exercised. He further explained that the Navy hasn't fully processed",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,4,"the application for the historic district. Clear policies and a well-thought-of redevelopment effort
requires patience, due diligence, and there will be verbal sparring - a challenge and constraint
that they are ready to engage in. Mr. Tagami discussed a similar situation with the Fox Theatre
in Oakland - there were more reasons why you can't renovate the building versus why you can -
and there's a shorter time horizon here at Alameda Point, so they are willing to explore adaptive
reuse prior to transfer and are ready to take that risk.
Member Matarrese asked whether Mr. Tagami has had discussions with the City regarding
transitional use prior to transfer and whether we are pursuing this. Member Matarrese stated that
this option was a way to get us closest to the plan without losing the assets out there, as there is
copper mining, vandalism, and no funds to secure property. Mr. Tagami said that he
has
expressed this desire and that SunCal has beginnings of communication with the City. It is an
ongoing process, but they want to mind their role, focus on due diligence and underwriting, but
said that when the time is appropriate, they would be prepared to engage in that dialogue.
Member Matarrese asked if the appropriate time is now and if they are prepared to engage in that
dialogue now. Member Matarrese expressed to the Board that they consider giving direction to
move this issue as a priority. Vice Chair Tam discussed that the heavy capital makes the council
and the board reluctant to make investments for property we don't own. Mr. Tagami explained
that they often go at risk and are not asking the city to go at risk. They evaluate current
increment expense, have a good track record of delivering value, all of which requires a team
approach. They will expend the time, energy and money. Chair Johnson asked if DSD wants to
move forward with interim adaptive reuse.
Debbie Potter explained that the key components to the partnership and business deal is the
leasing program and at what point to transition that leasing program. These discussions are
underway, and staff is interested in understanding what SunCal and Phil Tagami are proposing.
Taking over the leasing program and expanding that program, renovating and identifying what
uses can be derived from those if renovated. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, added
that there was also discussion of starting with restoring one building at a time.
Chair Johnson stated that there are lots of benefits to adaptive reuse prior to transfer and that we
should move forward. Member Gilmore asked how many of the 23 buildings are currently under
lease, to which Ms. Potter replied that most are not, because they are in poor condition. Member
Gilmore discussed working something out with Suncal and Mr. Tagami for taking over historic
properties that are not under lease, to rehab and get them for productive use, and the sooner the
better. Ms. Potter explained that we should continue the analysis, what they can expect for a
revenue stream, and how willing are they to go at risk for buildings we don't own. Mr. Tagami
explained that all properties need time on task; they need to take stock of the buildings, introduce
them back on marketplace. It will take lots of work, and there will be obstacles and tears shed,
but they are up for the challenge and there is no excuse not to engage.
Mr. Keliher wanted to make it clear that SunCal has not engaged staff in any kind of detail about
this particular issue, in response to Chair Johnson's request that SunCal communicate with staff
on more regular basis staff so they can have a better understanding of possibilities, and they are
not caught by surprise. Ms. Potter stated that she didn't intend to give that impression, and that
the issue just hasn't been discussed in great detail. She explained that SunCal and Tagami have
to do their deal before they can come to the City with a proposal. The Board and staff were all in
agreement that there are advantages to moving forward with rehabilitation on the structures that
can be saved, and to make it a priority to move forward on discussions and do it as quickly as
possible.
Member Matarrese proposed that the ARRA direct staff to get into discussions with
SunCal and Phil Tagami tomorrow and bring an update back on what the discussions have
been like and what the choke points are; and this issue can be discussed as a separate
activity that runs parallel to the development. All Boardmembers agreed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,5,"Vice Chair Tam expressed that the key to a successful project is flexibility in reacting to the
changing economic conditions. In the next decade there is some expectation that the sustained
downturn in economy will require job creation, and looking at the potential for self sustaining for
energy level for the entire island, maybe there are some partnerships with AP&T, such as a solar
farm, or other type of renewable energy source. Vice Chair Tam supports the plan, as it reflects
and captures sentiment that we've been hearing throughout the community and public
workshops. Chair Johnson stated that there needs to be discussion about the phasing of public
amenities at some other appropriate point.
FM - reiterate some comments from last time including that the plan needs work on
environmental issues such as the working waterfront, which showers noise upwind. He
expressed that it's an odd place to put a neighborhood. He also mentioned not wanting to see
plans that have sidewalk dining because it's freezing cold near the waterfront - and no water
play in park. He cited that there are plenty of lessons in town to learn from, discussing the Bay
Street, Emeryville situation where there is residential over retail and the problems that come
from that type of development. Member Matarrese stated examples are all around that we should
consider, and would like the same level of detail in the final plan that has been given to
residential, given to commercial and light industrial.
Member dehaan asked SunCal about a survey that they were conducting with Alameda residents.
Mr. Keliher clarified that the survey is preliminary and is sponsored by SunCal and not the City.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative.
- Highlights of October 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. (Continued from the November
5, 2008 Regular Meeting)
Member Matarrese provided a brief presentation. He discussed highlights from the ARRA
meeting of Sept. 10th The BCT gave an update and of the fiscal year and their activities, and
there were comments on the transfer of FOST for site IR 15.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:34 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-02-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. February 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 2, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 16, 2007.
2-C. Approve Sublease for Tenant at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Selection of a New Master Developer for Alameda Point.
Each of the four master developer teams provided a formal presentation to the Board, in the
following order, chosen at random: Lennar, Suncal, United World Infrastructure, Catellus. After
the formal presentations, there were several public speakers, most of who encouraged the Board
to not make a selection tonight and/or until further information was provided by each of the
teams. At approximately 9:50 p.m., Chair Johnson closed the public comment period and
recessed the meeting for 10 minutes. After the recess, each team approached the podium and
answered questions from the Board. Because of the in-depth nature of the questions, the Board
allowed the teams an opportunity to take the questions as ""homework"" and provide responses at
a later date to be determined.
The Board requested canceling the Regular ARRA meeting of March 7 to consider
scheduling a Special ARRA Meeting on March 21 to continue this item. The Regular
ARRA meeting of April 4 will be the fall-back date in case staff isn't ready by 3/21.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-02-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-02-07,2,"Page 2
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
The RAB meeting on Feb. 1 gave a very interesting presentation on heat removal of volatile
materials in the groundwater and in the soil. Apparently when the electro-heaters are activated,
they use more electricity than the entire rest of the island. It heats the grounds up to 28 feet deep
up to 98 degrees C, which is just under boiling. It takes approximately 1.5 years to cool back
down but is a very effective means of remediation currently in progress at two sites: Bldg 360
(Phase 2 and very contaminated), and Parcel 17 near the seaplane lagoon east. There was also an
update of that area with a data gap sampling near the Hornet soccer field and bay trail. Surface
samples upwind of the Hornet soccer field was highlighted as an area of concern.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Eugenie Young spoke about the cruise ship opportunities at Alameda Point.
At approximately 11:52 p.m., Member Matarrese moved to continue the meeting beyond
midnight, seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5,
Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
Bill Smith spoke about various topics.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:59 p.m with a moment of silence in honor of Assistant City
Attorney, Byron Toma's father, Takeyuki Toma, aka ""Dick"" Toma, who passed away this
weekend. He served in WWII as part of the 447th Japanese American Regiment.
Respectfully submitted,
Stune Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-02-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-06-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Vice Chair Bonta presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice Chair Bonta, Members deHaan, Johnson, and Tam
and Chair -4.
(Note: Member Johnson arrived at 7:07 p.m.)
Absent:
Mayor Gilmore - 1
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-048) Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of April 6, 2011 and the Special
ARRA Meeting of May 17, 2011.
(*11-049) Approve a No-Cost, Two-Year Lease Agreement with Friends of Alameda Theater,
Inc. for a Portion of Building 91 at Alameda Point.
(*11-050) Transmittal of May 18, 2011 Webinar Presentation.
Vice Chair Bonta pulled item 3-B (Building 91) for clarification.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired why the rent for Building 19 is being waived, instead of having a
paying tenant. Nanette Mocanu, Economic Development Division Manager, explained that
Building 91 is being split between two tenants, one on a month-to-month term. The entire space
is currently being marketed, and the lease has a 90-day termination clause. The building would
be vacant otherwise.
Member Tam moved for approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Member
deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
Member Tam moved for approval of Item 3-B. Member deHaan seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-051) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative
- Highlights of April 7 and May 5, 2011 RAB Meetings.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-06-01,2,"Member deHaan reported that the RAB is starting to look at the fuel distribution system
underneath the runway, adjacent to the lagoon. He explained that since it is fuel, the
clean up might be problematic, but easier to remediate than heavy metals and PCBs as
in other sites.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11-052) Alameda Point Update
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a short update. Alameda Point was
among six other sites LBNL short-listed for its second campus. Staff is working with the
development team daily to prepare high quality responses to upcoming submittals to LBNL.
The final selection process will be in November.
A two-hour developer interview was held on May 31st, which included a 30-minute presentation,
by the development team. The presentation included case studies of projects they worked on,
project delivery, and public outreach plans. Staff plans to have other informal meetings with the
development team.
A community meeting is scheduled for July 13th from 7-9:30 p.m. Staff is looking at various
suitable venues, in terms of capacity and access. There will be an extensive outreach plan,
including revamping and developing a separate website focused on LBNL, and a Facebook
page which will be managed by a marketing company - all in an effort to access different
populations that have not been accessed before. Staff and the development team will be
making presentations to different organizations throughout the city. Staff will provide a packet of
the community outreach materials to the City Council at its June 21st meeting.
Regarding the larger master planning efforts of Alameda Point, staff held its first webinar on
May 18, 2011 to impart the financial basics on how the pro forma works more generically, and
details on infrastructure costs related to the existing entitlement, which is the general plan. A
Transportation workshop was held on May 26, 2011. There was a presentation that detailed
case studies of how other communities dealt with traffic congestion issues, how they addressed
those issues and moved forward, including Santa Monica, CA and Boulder, CO, which has
similar density to Alameda. A Sustainability Workshop is scheduled on June 14th to look at
other communities to achieve sustainability and implement some sustainability concepts.
Another webinar will be scheduled in July to follow up on details of pro forma, and the approach
to get the community involved in the financial side. More developer interviews will be done.
Member deHaan inquired if the transportation study is posted online, to which the Deputy City
Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative, stating that the report will also
be transmitted to the Board. Member deHaan complimented staff on the financial webinar,
stating that he was impressed with a job well done.
Member Tam inquired what proportion of backbone infrastructure cost will be needed for the
LBNL site. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the amount is being
calculated. Phase one will not have much new infrastructure, but for build out, there will be",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-06-01,3,"more improvements needed. Staff is also working with Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) on the
calculations. AMP will be able to serve the first phase without a lot of improvements.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired what the average number of participants was for the community
engagement events and how the information is being disseminated. The Deputy City Manager -
Development Services explained that the Transportation Workshop was not well attended, as
there was a League of Women Voters event on the same night. There were fewer than 20
people at the Transportation Workshop, and approximately 50 people attended the webinar (35
people attending online with approximately 10-15 present in person). The recording of webinar
is available online, and the pdf of presentations will also be posted online.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired if the Sustainability workshops will be recorded, stating that the
community would take the opportunity to participate and view if it were available online, and that
there is value to holding the events in Chambers so that they can be broadcast and recorded.
Member deHaan agreed, stating that the community watches meetings on the City's channel
15, and although the audience is small in chambers, there are a lot of home viewers and may
reach more people. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that with the
Sustainability Workshop in particular, the element of interaction from community is needed.
Vice Chair Bonta expressed his appreciation for staff's efforts regarding the July 13th event and
inquired about other smaller events for community outreach. The Deputy City Manager -
Development Services stated that the team has a calendar of events scheduled. They have
met with the Chamber of Commerce, and plan to attend and present at several joint mixers with
the WABA, PSBA, Rotary, League of Women, Business Association newsletters, Concerts at
the Cove etc.
Member Johnson suggested giving a presentation to school board. Member Tam suggested
including the Peralta Community College District Board community to gain support of
environmental community. The Acting City Manager meets with a realtors association and
plans to bring something more formal to them. Vice Chair Bonta asked that the Hospital Board
be included in the outreach.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Tam provided a brief report on the Legislative Action day of May 18th. On the budget
scene, the delegation - Loni Hancock, Joan Buchanan, Mary Hayashi, Nancy Skinner, Bob
Wieckowski, and Mark DeSaulnier - seemed determined that they would have a budget to send
to the Governor on June 15th because this is the first time Prop. 25 has been implemented,
which stipulates that they won't get paid if the budget is not presented.
Regarding redevelopment, the league is very clear about the priorities, they understand at least
in the East Bay district, not all the legislators will be supportive, Hancock, Buchanan, Hiyashi
and Wieckowski were opposed to keeping redevelopment, as they have seen through the
Governor's discussion that there has been abuses by some agencies. Assemblymember
Swanson has seen benefits of redevelopment and understands LBNL's need for RDA funding
(several cities in his district are on the short list). An option that the league is exploring is reform
to deal with the abuses, including Senator Wright's bill, which tightens the definition of blighted
areas in redevelopment and putting caps and mechanisms to avoid some of these abuses.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-06-01,4,"Member deHaan inquired how the legislators discussed slicing out base conversion.
The
Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed a bill in circulation that carves out
military bases, a new bill from the League of Cities, and the CAL Redevelopment Agency and
Association of Defense Communities. Senator Wiggins introduced a bill on behalf of
communities with Bases, which staff will be monitoring.
The Acting City Attorney reminded the Board that this discussion couldn't continue, as it is not
on the agenda. It can be agendized on a future meeting if they want to discuss it further.
Member Tam concluded her report.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Vice Chair Bonta adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-07-01,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
The meeting convened at 12:44 a.m. (7/2/08) with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
(Chair Johnson was absent at the time of roll call, returned at approximately 12:50 a.m.,
during Item 3-A)
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 4, 2008.
2-B. Approve a Sublease for Stafford Stafford Sent Packing at Alameda Point.
2-C. Accept a $128,000 Grant from the Federal Office of Economic Adjustment in Support of
the North Housing Parcel Screening Process and Authorize the Executive Director to
Execute Related Documents.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions:
0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief update on
Alameda Point activities. She stated that the highlight was the meeting that SunCal and ARRA
staff had with Navy staff in San Diego on June 5th. Discussions included talking to Navy staff
about beginning a process to kick off renegotiation of the term sheet, and the Navy has embraced
a schedule that will get us to a term sheet by July 2009. SunCal has been working over past 6-8
weeks on land use and infrastructure assumptions, and the costs associated with the infrastructure
proposals. Staff has also been working on the Federal legislation which was the focus of the
update at the last meeting. Not much has changed, legislation was passed by the House in May,
and is now awaiting activity in Senate. The Senate has not yet addressed the authorization bills,
but we expect that it will happen in the next couple of weeks. Ms. Potter introduced Pat Keliher,
SunCal's project manager on the Alameda Point project, to answer questions from the Board.
Member deHaan asked whether the language revisions on the legislation had been ironed out.
Ms. Potter explained that the revisions were made reflective of the direction from the ARRA and
that the Navy and the VA are currently reviewing the proposed changes.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-07-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-07-01,2,"Member Matarrese requested, for the public, that Ms. Potter comment and describe the letter the
Navy sent to the ARRA in response to the ARRA's request for funds to provide services to
Alameda Point. Ms. Potter explained that the Navy sent the ARRA a response that there is a 50
year Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) Agreement that allows us to lease the
property, collect revenue, and use the lease revenues for maintenance of the property. The Navy
further stated that they did not anticipate revisiting the terms of the LIFOC for maintenance
activities.
Member Tam asked if the Navy is implying we increase our lease rates in order to generate the
necessary funds we were requesting. Ms. Potter replied that that was the conclusion the Navy
has eluded to, but that they were not offering to step in, nor did they offer any options to
augmenting anything.
Member deHaan expressed his concern and dissatisfaction with the Navy's response - given that
the property is in a state of deterioration and does not make economic sense - and requested
further discussion. Chair Johnson agreed and requested the item be agendized and brought back
for discussion at the next ARRA meeting.
Pat Keliher gave a brief update on the high level topics, including infrastructure, baseline
assumptions, and mitigation on some of the issues. He stated SunCal's goal for their consultants
and City Staff to agree on baseline assumptions, which affect the entire land plan. He's
optimistic that progress is being made to achieve that goal. The number one issue that SunCal
and City staff has agreed on was what to assume for global warming, sea level rise and the
design parameter, which is 18 inches - a reasonable baseline to set design standards. All of the
land plan will be based on that assumption. Another important issue is the Floodplain and
mitigation. SunCal is evaluating the pros and cons of three main options: 1) elevate everything,
2) levy systems, or 3) a combination of the both. Mr. Keliher further discussed that their
Environmental consultants are working with the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to agree upon what these agencies will
allow SunCal to build - housing? housing over retail? What are the requirements? SunCal is
slowly getting answers from the agencies. Another high level topic is the Sports Complex -
Nick Kosla of SunCal has been working with Dale Lillard, Recreation and Parks Director, to
identify and interview three master planners for the Sports Complex. They are hoping, that in
the next week or two, to select a master planner and begin the public process. The next
community meeting is scheduled on August 7th, which will include a summary of the last
meeting and new information to date, as well as information on the Sports Complex. There is
also a plan to schedule the next meeting with the Navy at the end of July to discuss the Business
Model and Plan.
Mr. Keliher informed the Board that SunCal has conducted a survey on most of the existing
historic buildings to determine if their floor is above floodplain. Some hangars are still in the
floodplain, but most are out, including City Hall West. The survey gave SunCal an important and
good datapoint which is useful in evaluating their adaptive reuse formula.
Mr. Keliher concluded by informing the Board that SunCal has a new capital partner, which they
will bring back to the Board in August.
There was one speaker on this item, Bill Smith, who discussed several topics, including the 18-
inch baseline.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-07-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-07-01,3,"4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese did not have a report, as the next RAB meeting in on Thursday, July 3rd
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Chair Johnson reported that she attended the Spring Meeting for U.S. Conference with Mayors,
and that it was very good. Member Tam asked if Chair Johnson had the opportunity to meet
Senator Obama. Chair Johnson said she heard and saw Senator Obama speak, but did not meet
him. She did, however, get Bill Clinton's autograph.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m. (7/2/08) by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Arma Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-07-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-04-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Member Matarrese presiding.
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 March 3, 2010.
2-B. Approve a Third Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc., Increasing the Budget by $60,000 to Provide Ongoing Negotiation Support for
the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of March 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the February 4 RAB meeting, including a report
on remediation and field work: The Navy is continuing to dig up and remove radioactive
contaminated storm drain lines from Bldg. 5, there is active groundwater treatments at two sites
along the Oakland inner harbor, north of Pier 1; and a petroleum contaminated groundwater
treatment recovery operation near the Atlantic avenue entrance. There was discussion
regarding issues relative to the disturbance of nesting of migratory birds at the Bay Trail, and
that meetings with the Fish & Wildlife Service have been scheduled. There are expanded site
inspections along the south east portions of Alameda Point to Hangar Row, on the western side
of the lagoon. Lastly, there was discussion on RAB's purpose and processes governing the
RAB, and how well the RAB communicates to the general public about clean-up efforts. ARRA
will have a meeting on May 6 to promote and highlight clean-up work. Regulators from the
EPA, DTSC, and Water Board will attend. The meeting is scheduled on May 6, 2010 at the
Mastick Senior Center. The RAB will hold their regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., and the Special
ARRA meeting will follow at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
05-06-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-04-06,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No speakers
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese said that he and Chair Johnson attended the Association of Defense
Communities (ADC) conference in Feb in Albuquerque, NM. He stated that they participated in
various sessions and will prepare notes highlighting topics discussed in the sessions, including
base conversion stories and reuse of former military bases that were better, similar, or worse off
than Alameda Point. Regarding the base conversion and reuse, the spectrum ran from rural
conversion of an army weapons depot in Kansas, to a small village in Illinois. Member
Matarrese stated that there were a lot of contacts and exposure to all branches of service, their
experts and their experience, including the Director of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority.
Ann Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director, expressed that she was pleased with the ARRA's
involvement in ADC and that she, along with executive staff, was invited to sit on the host
committee to plan the Annual ADC Conference taking place in San Francisco this year. The
anticipation is that there will be more than 1000 people in attendance. She stated that the ADC
accepted the ARRA's invitation to host an event at Alameda Point. She also said that the ADC
is interested in having the ARRA do a forum on the base and its history, including all the
different elements and components on remediation, phase-out issues, and that it would be a
good case study in terms of how they can learn some lessons.
Member Matarrese discussed two key items: 1) legislation on defense authorization bill, which
help communities grapple with the cost of closed bases, and 2) the new Undersecretary's
initiative to deal with green approaches, sustainability, and alternative energy sources.
Member Gilmore asked what the dates for the ADC Annual Conference were. Ms. Gallant
replied that it was early August, the 8th thru 11th. Member Tam reminded the Board of the
Charter provision to make a conscious effort to go dark in August.
Member Tam also asked if there was information on the status of conveyance of Treasure
Island. Jennifer Ott, Deputy Executive Director, spoke with the Project Manager of the Treasure
Island Development Authority (TIDA) and explained that TIDA was able to hammer out a very
brief term sheet, very similar to Alameda; and that now they are working on details. Nothing
official has been presented and no funds have exchanged hands. Because of the economy and
provisions of that agreement, additional density (more units) on Treasure Island will be worked
through with developer as well.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Member Matarrese.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, November 2, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:32 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-073) Approve the Minutes of the Special Meetings of September 20, 2011 and the Special
and Regular Meetings of October 5, 2011.
(*11-074) Approve a 47-Year Legally Binding Agreement with Alameda Point Collaborative for
Buildings 802, 803, 806, 809, 810, 811 and 812 (30 Units of Housing) and Authorize the Executive
Director to Execute the Agreement and any Related Documents.
Chair Gilmore pulled Item 3-A (minutes) to make a correction. Member Tam moved for
approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Member Tam moved for approval of Item 3-A with the corrections. Vice Chair Bonta
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (Note: Chair Gilmore and
Member Johnson abstained from approving the Minutes of Sept. 20, as they were not
present at that meeting). [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-075) Presentation on Status Report of Environmental Conditions of the Alameda Point
Site.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point introduced the Environmental Consultant of the
Alameda Point Project, Peter Russell, Russell Resources. Dr. Russell provided a powerpoint
presentation on the status of the remediation and environmental issues of Alameda Point.
Dr. Russell's remediation experience includes numerous sites: Fort Ord, Tustin Air Station, Benicia
Arsenal, Mission Bay clean up, and the Southern and Union Pacific rail yards in Sacramento.
Member deHaan commended Dr. Russell and the RAB for all their efforts in the environmental
program of Alameda Point.
Speakers: Dale Smith, Community Chair of RAB and member for 10+ years. Ms. Smith discussed
soil issues not being addressed and CERCLA sites that are still of concern at Alameda Point.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,2,"Chair Gilmore thanked Dr. Russell and members of the RAB for their technical expertise and
diligence over the decade and more.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-076) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -
Highlights of October 6, 2011 RAB Meetings.
Member deHaan echoed the statements from Dr. Russell's presentation and reminded the public
that the remediation is ongoing, and that a vast majority of property will be given to the ARRA with
certain restrictions.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,3,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
Comments by Dale Smith, Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board Community Co-Chair
33:49
The residential standards are for groundwater only, and they
At Alameda Point, cleanup to residential standards means
are not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,
that the health risk and health hazard from both soil and
cadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil that is
groundwater (combined) are health-protective for single-
not being addressed.
family residential land use; which is the most stringent land-
use standard. This principle applies to both the CERCLA
(Full Comment: The talk of residential standards, when I talk
and Petroleum Programs. Accordingly, the concentrations of
to community members, they seem to get confused because
toxic metals in soil are explicitly considered by the Navy
the residential standards are for groundwater only, and they
and the environmental regulatory agencies in deciding
are not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,
whether soil remediation is needed to allow residential land
cadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil, and
use and, if so, the type and extent of that remediation.
that is not being addressed as far as we can tell.)
34:14
Slide 13 represents the CERCLA sites only. There are
Contamination in soil and groundwater at Alameda Point is
petroleum sites that move in and out of CERCLA. One
addressed by either the CERCLA or Petroleum Program,
month they'l be in, and the next month they'l be out. For
whichever appears to be most appropriate. For example, a
example, the plume under Kollmann Circle originally was in
site with petroleum contamination is typically managed
the petroleum site, got put in the CERCLA site.
under the Petroleum Program, unless non-petroleum
contamination also is present. Occasionally, management of
(Full Comment: The graphs in the document, according to
a particular site will transfer from one program to another
the EPA representative, represent the CERCLA sites only,
during the course of investigation and remedial decision
and I don't know if you changed those or you basically used
making. For example, a site may move to the CERCLA
those graphs. You know the tall Yeah,
so
those
are
Program if contamination by a CERCLA substance is found
CERCLA sites only, and there are petroleum sites that move
at a Petroleum Program site. The goals for protection of
in and out of CERCLA. They do a little hula dance. One
human health and the environment are the same with both
month they'll be in, and the next month they'll be out. So
programs.
there are sites that are still of concern, such as the plume
under Kollmann Circle, which originally was in the
petroleum site, but then because of problems in Bayport, it
got put in the CERCLA site. So just bear that in mind. As I
said, the soil is not being remediated.)
35:09
According to the presentation, ""cleanup"" means active
This comment primarily applies to cleanup of groundwater
Page 1 of 1
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,4,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
remediation. However, the cleanup is going on for much
contamination. The remediation of many Alameda Point
longer than that. For example, the RAB had a presentation
groundwater contamination sites follows two principal
on one site (groundwater at OU-2B), where the cleanup was
steps. The first is an initial phase, during which the
going to take 22 to 35 years, and there'll be severe
contamination, especially the source area, is treated, for
restrictions on the use of that site.
example by injection of chemicals or by heating. The
second phase typically consists of periodic groundwater
(Full Comment: Cleanup as defined in the presentation, as I
sampling to monitor progress of natural processes in further
read it or I hear it, means the active remediation done by the
reducing contamination concentrations. The first phase often
military, meaning trucks and things are out there. Scoops are
takes three years or less. The second phase lasts until clean-
digging up dirt. Otherwise the cleanup is going on for much
up goals are reached. The commenter is correct in that the
longer than that. We had a presentation on one site two
second phase can last for several decades, as in the example
months ago where the cleanup was going to take 22 to 35
of Operable Unit 2B (OU-2B).
years, and there'll be severe restrictions on the use of that
site. So bear that in mind.)
During the second phase, land-use restrictions may be
applied to protect monitoring wells and to prevent use of the
groundwater. Depending on the type of groundwater
contamination, land-use restrictions may also require that
building designs include vapor barriers, special ventilation,
etc. to safeguard public health. Land-use restrictions during
the second phase typically do not preclude most uses of the
site. Thus, ""severe restrictions"" on land use typically apply
only to the first few years of cleanup.
35:44
Quite a bit of money is spent on cleanup using innovative
CERCLA requires that clean-up decision making evaluate
technologies. But the Navy is using experimental
the extent to which each remedial alterative under
technologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of
consideration reduces the amount, toxicity, or mobility of
money, so the Navy is able to make presentations to
contaminants through treatment. This statutory preference
scientific boards.
implies that innovative technologies sometimes will be
selected as the preferred clean-up alternative.
(Full Comment: One of the RAB's concerns has been that
there has been quite a bit of money spent on cleanup using
Sometimes it is unclear whether a promising emerging
innovative technologies. But they' re using experimental
technology will be effective under conditions found at
Page 2 of 2
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,5,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
technologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of
Alameda Point. In such cases, a pilot test (a form of
money. So, but they, the Navy then is able to make
experiment) typically is conducted to evaluate how well the
presentations to scientific boards saying that they tried this
technology would work. A pilot test of in-situ thermal
technology and it did not work.)
treatment to treat groundwater was tried at OU-2C and
found to be very cost-effective. Alternatively, a pilot test of
nano-zerovalent-iron injection was tried at OU-2B and
found not to be effective. In both cases, the Navy and the
environmental regulatory agencies unanimously agreed the
pilot testing (experimenting) was a prudent way to evaluate
the promising technology.
The principal instance where experimentation with
technologies has occurred at Alameda Point is regarding
groundwater in another area of OU-2B. In this case, a
university and an EPA national laboratory approached the
Navy for permission to conduct an experiment on
groundwater contamination. The experiment was primarily
funded externally, and the information obtained by the
project has improved clean-up decision making for OU-2B
groundwater.
36:16
An ""active cleanup"" site on Slide 13 means a site for which
The ""Active Cleanup"" column in the graph on Slide 13
the regulators have signed off on site characterization and
includes sites which have completed their RODs and design
remedial investigation, and is to move on to Proposed Plans,
or implementation of the active remediation is in progress.
RODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of sites in that category
Sites that are in the Proposed Plan or draft ROD stages are
don't have those in place yet, but they're put in the active
categorized on Slide 13 as ""Under Investigation"" CERCLA
cleanup column anyway.
requires that remedial activities in the field begin within
fifteen months of completing the ROD.
(Full Comment: So active cleanup on that slide show means
anything that has moved to the point where the regulators
The distinctions the comment focuses on will be explained
have signed off on site characterization and remedial
more explicitly on future versions of this slide.
investigation, and now and has moved into a place where
Page 3 of 3
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,6,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
there are Proposed Plans, RODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of
it doesn't have those in place yet, but they're put in the
active cleanup column.)
36:46
The presentation (Slide 15) indicated portions of the
The IR Site boundaries on Slide 15 accurately reflect the
Northwest Territories are white (outside of IR Sites). But
BCT's current understanding of the extent of radium in soil
most of these areas have recently been found to have radium
at Northwest Territories. Within the last few years, the
contamination in soil. There is no plan for remediation of
boundaries of the site in the area the comment references
this contamination.
(IR Site 32) were expanded to account for low-level radium
contamination in soil extending over a greater area than was
(Full Comment: The map showed the Northwest Territories
originally recognized. The Navy is currently completing an
to be white, but they have recently been found to be covered
extensive radiological survey of soil in this area. The
with radium to a depth of a half foot to a foot and a half, as I
preliminary results from this investigation indicate that the
recall, in most of it. And there has been no plan as to how
extent of radium in soil does not extend beyond the current
that's going to be remediated, as far as we know.)
IR Site boundaries (into the white areas shown on Slide 15).
37:09
Natural attenuation hasn't occurred for 60 years. Why expect
Natural attenuation consists of a variety of natural processes
it to occur in the next five or ten years?
that reduce contaminant concentrations over time, usually
relatively slowly: biochemical degradation, dispersion,
(Full Comment: And one of, George Humphries, who is my
volatilization, etc. These are commonly effective in
cohort in this battle, likes to point out that natural attenuation
reducing contaminant concentrations to remedial goals after
hasn't occurred for 60 years. Why do you think it's going to
the initial active-cleanup phase.
occur in the next five or ten years?)
A fundamental component of the monitored natural
attenuation part of a clean-up alternative is ongoing
groundwater sampling and analysis to verify that
contaminant concentrations drop as expected. If the levels
do not drop, CERCLA requires that the ROD be changed to
ensure clean-up goals are achieved.
More technical response: Two factors support the
expectation that natural attenuation will work well after
active remediation.
Page 4 of 4
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,7,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
First, underground bacteria and other microbes degrade
many contaminants, often an important component of
natural attenuation. However, initial site conditions may
include contaminant levels that are so high that they are
toxic to the very microorganisms that, with more dilute
concentrations, would readily consume the contamination as
food. Thus, following an initial phase of active cleanup of
the higher concentration zones, natural attenuation can
proceed more effectively.
Second, with initial high contaminant concentrations, the
effect of natural attenuation often is not discernible. This is
because of the inherent variability of sampling and analysis.
A simple example illustrates this point. With an initial
contaminant concentration of 10,000 micrograms per liter
(ug/L) and an inherent sampling variability of plus or minus
ten percent, duplicate sampling and analysis of the same
groundwater could yield analytical results anywhere
between 9,000 ug/L and 11,000 ug/L. Say for discussion
purposes, that natural attenuation reduces the contaminant
concentration by 10 ug/L each year. This rate of natural
attenuation would be difficult to detect in a reasonable
period of time by sampling. On the other hand, after an
initial phase of active remediation that reduces contaminant
levels, to say 300 ug/L, then analysis of duplicate samples
would yield results between 330 ug/L and 270 ug/L (+/-
10%). Now, natural attenuation at a rate of 10 ug/L would
be both meaningful and discernible by sampling and
analysis.
37:25
Planting trees will not be allowed. Gardening and fruit
Restrictions on digging are used sparingly at Alameda
Page 5 of 5
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,8,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
growing will be allowed, but digging a hole in the soil will
Point: in only three instances.
not.
First, the Marsh Crust Ordinance restricts digging below the
(Full Comment: And then to answer, I think, your question
Threshold Depth, unless a permit is obtained first.
about planting trees: no, you will not be able to plant trees.
You'll be able to plant You'l be able to have a garden,
Second, soil cleanup at North Housing (IR Site 25) was
and you' 'll be able to grow fruit, but you will not be able to
conducted in landscaped areas, but not under buildings or
dig a hole in the soil.)
pavement. Accordingly, major site work is restricted
without first obtaining approval from the BCT.
Additionally, digging deeper than four feet below ground
surface at North Housing is prohibited without approval
from the BCT. These restrictions may affect tree planting. In
any case, BCT approval would be granted provided digging
were conducted while following a site management plan
that appropriately manages potential encounters with
contaminated soil.
Third, at Todd Shipyards (IR Site 28), a non-residential
area, digging deeper than two feet below ground surface is
restricted without first obtaining approval from the BCT.
Page 6 of 6
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. November 1, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006.
Member Daysog pulled Item 2-A to articulate what he meant when he referenced certain letters
regarding the ARRA's No-Cost EDC with the Navy. He reiterated his point that if we could
return to the original understanding of the housing units that could be built-out per the
documents agreed to by the ARRA and the Navy, perhaps we would not have to pay the
$108,000 million the navy is now requiring. Member Daysog wanted to make sure this point
was captured in this evening's meeting, since it was missed in the Minutes of October 4th.
2-B was motioned by Member Daysog, seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Gilmore was not present
at the 10-4-06 ARRA meeting).
2-B. Recommendation to approve consultant agreement with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers for
Pier Condition Analysis at Alameda Point in an amount not to exceed $170,226
Approval of 2-B was motioned by Member Daysog, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Project Update
Debbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an overview on the Master
Developer RFQ process. At the direction of the Board, the RFQ was issued on October 19th with
a mandatory bidder's conference on Monday, October 30th. There were 20 firms that attended
the bidder's conference. All due diligence documents were provided on a CD and an FTP site
available for all interested firms, and a comprehensive download of the land planning, the
environmental issues, the public trust, summary of term sheet; and an opportunity for those
present to ask questions. One-on-one meetings were also offered with the firms intending to
respond, with nine firms signed up. Responses are due December 4, 2006 and need to be",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,2,"Page 2
accompanied by a $20,000 non-refundable filing fee. The responses received will be evaluated
and brought back to the ARRA should we receive responses with a recommendation to enter into
a 45-day negotiation period.
There was one speaker slip, Andrew Slifka, long-time Alameda resident and also a representative
of the Carpenter's Union in Alameda County, and speaking on behalf of the Construction
Building Trades Council of Alameda County. Mr. Slifka addressed concerns and disappointment
with the Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) withdrawal from the project since they had
a Project Labor Agreement with APCP. He urged the Board to look at the same requirements for
any developer that should come forward, because Project Labor agreements bring value to the
community, well-paying jobs with benefits, careers and local work opportunities.
Member Daysog asked if specific questions regarding the financing of the project were outlined
in the RFQ. He commented on the financing/business model associated with revitalizing the
Catellus project and how it was distinct from the business model that was employed for the rest
of Alameda Point. He also discussed incorporating a different business model.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, responded that developers will be asked who their
source of capital is and for a deposit of ""earnest money"" in the amount or $1 million before a
developer is selected. This information will be provided to the Board.
Member Daysog asked if the potential developers understood the amount of property open for
redevelopment. Ms. Potter responded that the $108 million purchase price is based on Phases 1
and Phases 2, which is essentially everything but the Wildlife Refuge and the area south of
Atlantic Ave. and north of the 26-acre park, plus the golf course. David Brandt also clarified that
we were careful to let the developers know that the PDC wasn't an entitlement.
Member Matarrese asked whether a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) was presented to the
bidders as part of the package that APCP (former master developer) put together. Debbie Potter
responded that a PLA was not included in the RFQ and that it was not a requirement of the City
when the first master developer was selected; but that a PLA was voluntarily agreed to by at least
two out of the three finalists during the first master developer selection process.
Member Matarrese requested that bidders be notified that a PLA was part of the original
agreement and that the City does have a policy on prevailing wage. He was concerned that
bidders would try to make their numbers work at the cost of labor. Ms. Potter said that a copy of
the previously agreed-to document will be posted on the RFQ FTP site.
Member deHaan discussed extending the current month-to-month leasing policy to a year-to-
year policy in anticipation that the master developer would start taking down property. David
Brandt acknowledged that the current ARRA direction is that all leases over a year come to the
ARRA, and that potential tenants are told that redevelopment is imminent so long term leases are
not being offered. This is being reevaluated to decide whether to start bringing longer term leases
to the ARRA.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,3,"an agreement (not even actually shoveling dirt or tearing down buildings, etc.) David Brandt
responded that the soonest would be two years. Member Gilmore commented that this increases
the timeframe ""window"" and recommended that when staff returns in January with the study
session of the leases, it might be worthwhile to take a look at not just the 3rd and 4th phases, but
the 1st and 2nd phases, too. Ms. Little clarified that we will be presenting an entire overview of
all the leasing and it can be compared against the PDC.
No action was taken on this item - it was an update and for informational purposes only.
3-B. Alameda Point Environmental Remediation Update: Western Shoreline - IR Sites
1,2, and 32, Soil at IR Site 25 (Coast Guard North Housing), and Compliance with
Marsh Crust Ordinance
Debbie Potter gave an update on the clean-up status of these specific IR sites, as requested at the
October 4 ARRA meeting. Peter Russell, environmental consultant from Russell Resources, was
available to answer questions from the Board as a follow-up to the staff report provided.
Member Matarrese's main concern was the Navy's option to install an engineered cap rather than
a soil cover over landfill waste. Member Matarrese, along with the rest of the Board members,
discussed at length their preferred alternative: having the Navy scoop out the landfill sites and
haul it away.
Debbie Potter discussed the process by which Peter Russell reviews all documents the Navy
promulgates regarding all IR sites. She explained that we comment during the public comment
period, but we do it at a staff level. She agrees with Member Gilmore about the policy-level
decision that we want clean-up to a level that supports the community reuse plan and the PDC,
and that the Navy has committed to clean-up to the reuses that are identified in the PDC. Ms
Potter further explained, and reiterated by Peter Russell, that the ARRA-preferred option to
scoop and haul the landfill is not economically feasible - and an engineered cap is potentially
equally effective. She said that the City advocated the engineered cap since the beginning when
we secured the pilot grant from EPA. Ms. Potter stated that the engineered cap is financially
viable and is scientifically the best solution, a decision staff concluded in consultation with
environmental experts.
Member Matarrese commented that he had issues with the feasibility, that it didn't sound so
daunting at the RAB meetings and that the scoop and haul option is actually feasible. Peter
Russell responded that from a technical standpoint, the scoop and haul option would cost more.
Debbie Potter sought direction from the ARRA as to a response for the public comment period
due to the Navy by Nov. 10th",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,4,"Page 4
Member Matarrese motioned to direct staff to submit a letter to the Navy during the public
comment period to include the ARRA policy aspect and endorse the preferred solution of
scoop and haul, rather than an engineered cap. This motion was seconded by Member
Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Report was covered in discussion of Item 3-B, above.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Mayoral Candidate, Kenneth Kahn, stated that it would be an honor to serve with all of the
members of the Board.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan clarified a comment that was made regarding parolees working at Alameda
Point. He stated that we indeed had parolees working at Alameda Point about 10 years ago
through the Volunteers of America Program, under the control of the Navy. He explained that
we were short of man-power, so we utilized San Quentin inmates that were being transitioned for
landscaping and maintenance.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-09-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 2, 2009- 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Alameda Point
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and SunCal
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The Executive Director discussed price and terms regarding Alameda Point. No action was
taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
September 2, 2009",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-09-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, May 12, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
One speaker slip from Helen Sause, however she was not present.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
4.
PRESENTATION
4-A. Presentation/Update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud briefed the Board on two different fronts: 1) the Navy conveyance process, and 2)
the land planning effort. A proposal has been submitted to the Navy - they wrote a counter
proposal that we responded to which is under consideration right now with them. We're hoping
to have an official response from the Navy by the end of June and that coincides with Alameda
Community Partners election to proceed timeline.
Mr. Proud gave a brief overview of the May 7, 2005 Community Meeting, commenting that staff
is pleased with the community's continued participation in the planning process and there was a
lot of good feedback. The next community workshop is June 8th at Mastick. The next step would
be to come back to the ARRA board with a copy of the preliminary development concept for the
regular July ARRA meeting.
Member Mataresse requested that a section be included that has a summary of compliance with
the General Plan amendment, compliance with the Economic Development Strategic plan and
compliance with other relevant plans, for that preliminary development concept that will be
coming back in July.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,2,"5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Provide Direction to the Acting Executive Director regarding the term of the lease
extension for Building 613 Sublease Agreement between the ARRA and Alameda
Point Collaborative.
Debbie Potter requested direction on a sublease between the ARRA and APC for building 13
which is currently being used as an office to house the Red Cross. She gave a brief history of the
lease and requested extension thru Dec 31, 2006 SO that it coincides with the overall development
plan for Alameda Point. Several representatives from APC spoke in support of a lease extension
until 2012, including Doug Biggs and Jim Franz.
In response to Member Matarrese regarding the time frame for development of that parcel, Bill
Norton replied that plans are for the Navy to turn that property over to the City at the end of
2006. Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, also noted that if we reach an agreement
with the Navy and the developer at the end of 2006, infrastructure and geotechnical work would
start in 2007
After discussion from Boardmembers regarding the timing of development, Chair Johnson
advised that it would make more sense to have the shorter term now and consider a longer term
when we know more at the end of Dec 2006, supporting staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-5; Noes-0
Abstentions-0
5-B.
Study Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget
Bill Norton, acting Executive Director, introduced this item with an overview of Part 1 of the
Budget Study Session. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, presented Part 2 - a
summary of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget - by walking the Board through the staff report. She
discussed overriding issues: the pro forma and the development assumptions at Alameda Point.
Member DeHaan raised the question regarding $1.8M that should be absorbed back into the
general fund. Bill Norton confirmed Member DeHaan's comments and advised the Board of a
new proposed budget for 05-06 for all city funds, including the general fund, noting that
revenues for different departments are down and we have accounted for this in our budget for the
next fiscal year.
There was brief discussion about the storage of surplus equipment the Navy left for the City.
Leslie noted some plans for the surplus equipment, including an auction to raise funds. She then
discussed the organizational structure for the Development Services Department, namely the
Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division - where 4 staff members are paid from the ARRA
Budget. Leslie discussed Building One tenants: Development occupies the entire 2nd floor; the
Alameda Development Corporation which maintains a 2nd floor office; and a storage room for
the Navy's records. Public Works, Fire Prevention and Information Technology occupy the first
floor and balance of the building.
2
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,3,"Leslie discussed the employee positions and vacancies in the department and how they fit
together with the three budget categories: Community Development, ARRA, and the CIC.
Municipal Services funding was noted in length, with Member Daysog requesting a separate
report/background information on the mitigation fund.
Bill Norton advised that there are still negotiations with the developer upcoming and if the
developer exercises their notice to proceed, they will make direct cost recovery payments, until
we have a disposition and development agreement, to DSD and the general fund.
Member Matarrese advised that we have to be prepared for the developer not exercising their
right to proceed, and that if we are able to segregate general fund obligations from ARRA fund
obligations, that would be the foundation for making a decision on anything less than the best
case scenario. Leslie Little concluded her presentation.
6.
ORAL REPORTS
6-A. Oral report from APAC.
There were no representatives from the APAC to give a report.
6-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese gave a brief overview of the last RAB meeting he attended.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
9.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
9-A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, U.S. Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
9-B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and U.S. Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
10. ADJOURNMENT
3
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,4,"Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
4
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-10-05,1,"80
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, Ocotber 5, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:07 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
Chair Gilmore requested that the Pledge of Allegiance be added to the ARRA agenda.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-069) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular ARRA Meetings of September 7, 2011.
Member deHaan moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Johnson seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-070) Approve Term Sheet between United States Navy and the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority for No-Cost Conveyance of Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point summarized the Term Sheet.
Pursue no-cost
conveyance for LBNL, Navy Comprehensive conveyance strategy for entire base - discussed the
major terms. Next steps to negotiate amendment to existing economic development conveyance
memorandum of agreement bring back to ARRA for approval.
The Acting City Attorney asked the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point to explain the
Environmental Review of the term sheet. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point explained
that Alameda Point does not constitute a project under CEQA, therefore the Board is able to
approve the term sheet without conducting additional environmental review.
Speaker: Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES, congratulated staff on a job well done after 14 years. Ms.
Lichtenstein discussed hope for the housing plan to move ahead, and hopefully with LBNL at the
Point.
Regarding the enforcement provision of the market rate residential, Chair Gilmore requested
confirmation that the City will not have to pay the $50,000 fee per unit to the Navy. The Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.
Vice Chair Bonta reemphasized that the Navy will maintain their obligation to clean up the
property. The City Manager also reiterated that the City has incurred no environmental liability.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
September 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-10-05,2,"81
Member Tam discussed the City's other obligation to provide work-force and affordable housing.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point informed the Board that since staff has been
receiving a lot of inquiries regarding remediation, there will be a presentation from the
Environmental Consultant, Peter Russell, at the November ARRA meeting.
Chair Gilmore stated that, in addition to the no-cost conveyance, the City gets control over the
land. This is a valuable opportunity to develop more long term leases because we can provide
tenants with certainty.
Member deHaan recognized and thanked the members of the BRAG and other numerous
community organizations over the past 15 years. Chair Gilmore joined Member deHaan in
recognizing the community organizations that brought us to this point.
Member Bonta moved to approve the Term Sheet. Member Tam seconded the motion. On
the call for the question, the motion carried by a roll call vote:
Member deHaan - Aye, Member Johnson - Aye, Member Tam - Aye, Vice Chair Bonta -
Aye, Chair Gilmore - Aye. Ayes: 5. Noes: 0. Abstentions: 0
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-071) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -
Highlights of September 1, 2011 RAB Meetings.
Member deHaan introduced Richard Banger, RAB member, who was present in the in audience.
Mr. Banger compiled a great amount of information on the history and activity regarding the
remediation of Alameda Point on his website: www.alamedapointenvironmentalreport.com
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point added that, with Mr. Banger's help, key information
about remediation will be included on the City's website. Staff is also working with the
Environmental Consultant, Peter Russell, to provide a less technical, shorter executive summary,
but have technical minutes still available.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Carol Gottstein, Alameda citizen, spoke about the base cleanup and informed the public about the
repository at City Hall West which includes a large amount of information regarding the Alameda
Point remediation. Ms. Gottstein recently joined the RAB and encouraged others to join or attend
the RAB meetings.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
The City Manager stated that staff and the Council owes a debt of gratitude to Jennifer Ott (Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point) for all her hard work in bringing us to this point. Vice Chair
Bonta thanked Ms. Ott publicly, commending her on the great work and that the Board is proud of
the fantastic results. Chair Gilmore thanked Ms. Ott for staying the course and working through
many years of frustration. Member Johnson thanked the attorneys for a team effort.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-10-05,3,"82
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
September 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
2-A
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 2, 2006.
2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
Recommendations to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Three-Year
Consultant Agreement with Trident Management, Inc. in the amount of $325,000.
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, presented an overview of the Trident Management
Agreement and the port services they provide to Alameda Point, primarily to MARAD and the
Navy to Service the ships. Trident has been providing port services for Alameda Point since
September, 1996. Their original contract expired in 2002, and they are currently on a month-to-
month status with an annual rate of $474,636.
In 2004, the operating subsidy to Trident was reduced, and in return, the ARRA relinquished its
share of the Trident sublease revenue. In the fall of 2004, Trident and the City Manager (Jim
Flint) mapped out an agreement for a new five-year contract, which was never memorialized into
a contract. Since that time, staff has been attempting to renegotiate the contract.
Before the Board tonight is a three-year contract that can be mutually agreed upon by the City
and Trident",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-06,2,"Member Gilmore asked for an explanation of why we did not go out to bid. Ms. Little explained
that, since Trident was the inaugural port service provider, we tried very hard to work something
out with them that was less expensive than what would have been charged historically. Staff
also recommends that at the end of this three year contract that we do go out to bid.
Member Matarrese requested that the Board receive the policy on bidding and what the contract
is, recognizing that it is a legacy and wants to make sure, going forward, we eliminate that
uncertainty.
Approval was motioned by Member Gilmore and seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow (9/7) and will have a report in
October.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker, Elected East Bay Regional Park representative, Doug Siden, Alameda
resident. Mr. Siden discussed as background that the EBRPD has been participating with the
City of Alameda in the planning process for the former Naval Air Station over the last 10 years.
EBRPD's concern has been to see parkland included at Alameda Point located at what has been
called Triangle Park (between the Hornet and the City's mini park along the shoreline). It has
always been shown in the studies that this property was going to be a parkland. In support of the
City's process, the EBRPD has applied to the State of California for a grant from Prop. 12
monies, and EBRPD has received $250,000, which is designated for the Triangle Park.
Mr. Siden expressed the concern of the EBRPD that under the provisions of Measure 12, land
tenure has to be secured by the end of this year, and the project has to be completed and the
money expended by the end of next year. So there will be another planning process, but the
money will be lost in terms of the City of Alameda using it at the Triangle Park, if it cannot be
expended by the end of next year. The Park Agency will re-apply and be able to use the grant
money somewhere else, but will need to move forward on an alternative grant use because of the
same requirement of completing the project by next year. EBRPD would like to get started with
the first portion of improvements to the Triangle Park. Included in their plans is to begin
creating a grassy area for picnics, parking, and tie-in with the City park upgrade, with an
interpretive center. They would also like to showcase green building, install solar cells for
energy and upgrade for an aquatic center.
Mr. Siden also discussed Measure AA, a $225m bond with the first 25% going to cities based on
population. The City of Alameda received over $2m, and that money would soon be expended.
EBRPD is looking toward the year 2008 to ask the voters to extend the same provisions so that it
would not be a new tax but rather a continuation of an existing measure.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-06,3,"Member Matarrese and Chair Johnson asked what portion of Triangle Park Improvements the
$250,000 would buy us. Referring to a map, Mr. Siden described the lower end toward Encinal
High School and the City's mini park and said that the EBRPD will maintain it.
Member Matarrese asked the ARRA Executive Director, Debra Kurita, to get staff to work on a
way to accomplish us getting this investment in town. He expressed concern that the deadline
for getting the land dedicated and completing the project is fast approaching and requested this
item be moved up on the priority list and brought back to the ARRA Board.
Debra Kurita responded that staff will agendize and bring this item back to the Board at its next
meeting on October 4, 2006.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-01-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday- January 4, 2006- 6:40 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and Auctions by the Bay, Inc.
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
Staff briefed the ARRA on the status of negotiations. The ARRA provided directions to
the real property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:55
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 4, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-07-18,1,"Approved
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the
City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:53 p.m. with Mayor/Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor/Chair Beverly Johnson
Councilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Marie Gilmore
Councilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Doug deHaan
Councilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Frank Matarrese
Vice Mayor/Boardmember/Commissioner Lena Tam
2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Item 2-A. Recommendation to Approve Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) between
ARRA, CIC, City of Alameda (Alameda) and SCC Alameda Point, LLC (SunCal).
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, introduced staff and those involved in the ENA
process: for SunCal was Bill Myers, Amy Freilich, their Counsel, and Steve Elieff, President of
SunCal. For ARRA was Matt Fragner, Real Estate transaction attorney and special Counsel to
the ARRA, and Jim Musbach Financial Consultant from EPS.
Ms. Little gave a powerpoint presentation as an overview of the ENA process, citing the purpose
of the ENA:
-
Define redevelopment and entitlement process for Alameda Point
-
Provide a framework for negotiation of a Disposition and Development Agreement
-
Establish a process for negotiating and executing various other transaction
documents.
Included in the presentation was a summary of the major terms of the ENA, including the length
of term, schedule of performance, initial payment and cost recovery, project labor agreement,
fiscal neutrality, project pro forma, existing city leases, and transfers.
Next steps included:
-
SunCal to provide a pre-development schedule for achieving mandatory and non-
mandatory milestones within 30 days to be updated quarterly
-
SunCal, in conjunction with ARRA staff, to commence project planning and
negotiations
At the conclusion of the presentation, there was concern by all Councilmembers/Boardmembers/
Commissioners of three issues included in the ENA, specifically regarding: 1) the financial
structure and knowledge of who the financial partners are before the DDA process, including the
reference to the 5% contribution relative to the DDA; 2) the liability of the acquisition price of
$108.5M ; and 3) prohibiting transfers during the ENA period.
At 9:50 p.m., Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess so that the SunCal team could discuss these
issues with their principals. The meeting reconvened at 10:22 p.m.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-07-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-07-18,2,"Matt Fragner, with the Councilmember's/Boardmember's/Commissioner's approval, revised and
recited the precise language modifying the three specific issues of the ENA.
ouncilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner deHaan motioned to approve the ENA with
the modifications to the specific sections in the ENA. Motion was seconded by Vice
Mayor/Boardmember/Commissioner Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 5 Ayes,
0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.
3.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:27 by Mayor/Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-07-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
5-B
Wednesday, April 6, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Vice Mayor Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 2, 2005.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Doug DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation on the March 3rd and March 23rd Community Workshops regarding
Transportation and the Preliminary Development Concept
Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, gave an overview of the planning process for Alameda
Point and the transportation planning process with presentations to follow. The consultant team
was also present for the first time at an ARRA Board meeting. Mr. Thomas updated Members of
the four major community workshops - that they've been very well attended. The Alameda Point
Land Use team has also had a number of briefings with the Planning Board, Transportation
Commission and other Boards and Commissions. There are two more major workshops planned,
the next one is scheduled for Saturday, May 7th, with the final community workshop in early
June. The plans are taking shape. For the next couple of workshops, the plans will be refined
with input from the community (both the transportation and the land use plans).
The March 3rd land use workshop will be rebroadcast on local cable channel 15 on April 7th, and
the March 23rd transportation workshop on April 14th.
Walter Rask and Jim Adams from Roma (Land Use consultants) were present, as well as
Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers Transportation consultants) to give respective
presentations.
1
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,2,"Walter Rask: Our agenda for this evening is two parts. The first part is to give an overview of
the preliminary development concept including the next steps. Part 2 - Fehr and Peers will be
presenting an overview of the transportation strategy focusing largely on the off base
transportation issues having to do with capacity of tubes and bridges and the major street
network. We'll be doing more work later internally on the base itself and their presentation will
conclude with discussion of the next steps in that process.
Land Use Slide Presentation
Mr. Rask presented the history of the Reuse Plan the ARRA adopted in 1996, which set forward
a basic framework for development not only of Alameda Point but also of the FISC and Annex
properties on the East side of Main Street. He discussed that we are only dealing with the area
west of Main Street. In 2003, the City Council adopted an amendment to the General Plan that
refined the Reuse Plan for mostly for the areas west of Main although there was a small area on
the northeast of Main and this set the basic framework for redevelopment of the base and the
targets for build out, the framework for the larger transportation system and perhaps most
importantly it set forth seven goals for redevelopment of the base: 1) to seamlessly integrate
Alameda Point with the rest of the community, 2) that Alameda become a vibrant new
neighborhood with a variety of uses in it; 3) to maximize the waterfront accessibility, 4) to
deemphasize the auto and to make new development compatible with the transportation capacity
that is available, and 5) to insure economic development, 6) provide a mixed use environment
and finally, 7) to promote neighborhood centers.
Mr. Rask discussed the challenges, including contractual commitments, large Historic district
area, ground water contamination, the Tidelands Trust places restrictions on the use of lands
under state tidelands and specifically excludes housing, the Wildlife Refuge, the green area, as
the effect of constraining development on the blocks between the western boundary and
Monarch Street, the 100 year flood area has to be mitigated either by raising the ground or
providing some kind of a sea wall, young bay mud poses problems of structural stability because
of the danger of liquefaction in earthquake events. There is also a whole gamut of regulatory
agencies that have a say on these matters. The plan as it currently stands has two major aspects.
The first is what we refer to as the framework plan that fixes the location and character of the
major streets and open spaces on the base and also identifies opportunities for certain civic
functions. The land use plan is the second half of the two part preliminary development concept.
Mr. Rask discussed the community concerns about Measure A, the Historic areas, etc. He stated
that the next steps in the planning process is to refine the plan and respond to the major issues
that have come up in the last workshop. One is a desire to more closely examine the notion of
neighborhood centers as the general plan calls for. More generally to address neighborhood
character issues. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit enhancements are a similar theme. At the next
workshop they will present some refinements, as well as new information on alternatives, and
then the refined transportation plan. Mr. Rask stated that the final workshop in June will be to
actually present the preliminary development concept and the transportation plan with the intent
is to bring it to the ARRA board in July.
Transportation Presentation
2
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,3,"Matthew Ridgway and Michael Keeling from Fehr and Peers gave the transportation
presentation. (Both the entire presentations are available for review and are on file with the
ARRA Secretary)
Mr. Ridgway gave an overview of the transportation strategy that has been developed and
discussed some of the major components for sustainable transportation, including land use
strategy, employment and retail, residential and retail, and to discourage auto use.
The
presentation included a menu of options and the challenges that go along with those options.
There was much discussion about the Tubes getting more constrained and congested from the
development within the region and Oakland. Mr. Ridgway presented some ideas about how to
minimize the impact on the tube.
The initial transportation strategy includes the use of ECO passes - the cost of purchasing ECO
passes will be built into the homeowner's association fees for anybody who lives at Alameda
Point. It will be built into the fees that are part of the employment component of Alameda Point
as well.
The plan also includes shuttle buses, enhanced ferry services to include bike stations, car share
programs, multi modal transit center, onsite transportation coordinator (a person who organizes
the car pools and van pools, makes sure the shuttles are operating efficiently) etc.
The presentation also included BART and AC Transit options/route alternatives as well as a light
rail option (Cybertran).
In June, the transportation options will be moved on to a more detailed evaluation and the next
steps include two major components: 1) continue to look at the long term transit options and 2)
take the short terms transit options that we've talked about and look at them with much more
detail so that we have something that is ready to construct on opening day of the project.
Another point, according to the MTC, in terms of land use densities to support transit, Alameda
would be considered suburban - rural, the density that you are talking about would fit into that
category, which in their mind would be something that in terms of regional funding you would
be very low on the list to compute for regional funding
Member Gilmore thanked Mr. Ridgway and commented that the presentation was very
informative ""if somewhat sobering."" Member Gilmore called several speakers:
first speaker, Helen Sause, made comments on the community workshops she's attended, stating
that the transportation system being developed is very critical. She discussed the need to find
partners with the rest of Alameda, not just with Alameda Point, and to engage the rest of
Alameda.
Second speaker, Neil Sinclair of Cybertran, commented on the light rail option and stated that he
anticipates being here in Alameda and continuing their development.
3
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,4,"Third speaker, Diane Lichenstein, APAC Chair, commented on the tremendous amount of work
and effort put into the community workshops and the preliminary development concept (PDC).
Emphasized continued dialogue with community.
Member Gilmore opened the item for discussion. Member Mataresse thanked staff and APAC
for hosting the community workshops with the boards and commissions, etc. and appreciates the
summaries of the meetings. He discussed the use of electric buses and liked the idea of the
duplex shop houses in the historic buildings. Has one regret regarding ""the Wall"" and
commented on the speed limit being dropped along Ralph Appezzato Pkwy.
Member deHaan: Stated his appreciation for everything that's gone forward and particularly
transportation, probably the most important segment. Had some concerns about the ferry service,
that it should service Oakland as well. He stated he liked the idea of the ECO Pass but had
concerns about how the fees are paid. He slso liked the idea of the tram. He stated that the
realism is that the ferry system, the bus systems and some other rapid bus system is the solution.
Member Daysog: Stated he was excited about the ECO pass and the BART shuttle alternative.
Stated that the transportation solution for Alameda Point is really the transportation solution for
the City of Alameda.
Member Gilmore: Excellent presentation with an incredible amount of information in great
detail yet very easy to understand. Agreed with Member Daysog that whatever transit solution
that we end up with is a transit solution for the entire island and not just for Alameda Point, and
that it needed to be in place yesterday. She made a specific comment about the potential light rail
connection from Alameda Point to the Fruitvale BART station. Stated that we can't lose sight of
the need for connections going off the island, but given our future developments - an ""across
island"" transit corridor as well which has the potential of taking people out of their cars as they
go from one end of the island to the other and generating more tax revenue for the city.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
APAC Chair Lee Perez commented on the tremendous amount of data received during this
evening's presentation. He thanked staff and the experts for their wonderful job of drawing in
citizens. Following the board's instructions, the APAC spent considerable amount of time
discussing what could replace the APAC. He mentioned the letter which was sent to the board by
APAC and hope that they will give it serious consideration. Mentioned the need of citizens'
input.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked and congratulated the APAC as well as staff for the incredible
outreach that was done because it has really shown in the increased attendance at the last several
4
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,5,"meetings. The APAC worked very hard to get the word out and it was nice to see the result and
to have a reasoned dialogued among all the citizens of Alameda.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese had nothing to report as he was unable to attend the last RAB meeting due to
illness. He stated he would be unable to attend the next meeting as well due to a special City
Council meeting being held at the same time. He will provide the secretary with the minutes of
the two meetings, so that they may be included in the packet.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
One speaker, Bill Smith spoke on various topics .
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the open session meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
5
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-A
Wednesday, January 5, 2005
The meeting convened at 5:46 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
None.
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Recommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Agreement with LFR, Inc. For
environmental consulting services at Alameda Point in the amount of $175,130 for a total
agreement amount of $249,000.
2-B.
Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute sublease(s) at Alameda
Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A.
Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
None.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,2,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
Chair Lee Perez noted that they did not hold a business meeting during December, although a
very nice social gathering was held. He noted that there was no discussion, and that the next
meeting would be held on January 19, 2005. He noted that they would decide how to carry out
the ARRA's wishes at that time.
Member DeHaan noted that while he was not part of the decision made at the last ARRA
meeting, he supported that decision. He was concerned that the process took much longer than
anyone could have anticipated, and that when he was Chair of EDC, he ensured that they were up
to speed on Alameda Point issues. He recalled several team members (Al Clooney and Dan
Meyers) who had passed away during this process.
Mayor Johnson noted that she and Member Daysog had been members of the BRAG as well.
Chair Perez noted that three active former BRAG members sat on the City Council, and that
hoped that their dedication would reach Sacramento and Washington, D.C. He noted that it had
been an honor to serve in this capacity, and acknowledged that change was necessary.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese recalled previous discussions to bring the redevelopment of the Point to the
mainstream consciousness of Alameda. He noted that the very light turnout at the ARRA
meetings did not meet that goal. He requested that the regular meeting time be changed to 7:30
p.m. in order to encourage more community participation. He noted that the closed session could
be held before the regular meeting.
Mayor Johnson suggested agendizing that item for the next meeting, and noted that a 7:00 start
time could be tried. A special meeting would be held on Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.
Member DeHaan requested an update on the Consultant Agreement to be placed on the next
agenda.
Chair Perez did not anticipate that there would be any further amendments to current consultant
contracts. He added that they could make an updated budget presentation at the next regular
meeting. They had anticipated some changes to the consultant contracts, and that they did not
2
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,3,"impact their contingency or any other line items contained in the ARRA-led predevelopment
budget.
8.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
8-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session: The ARRA received a briefing
from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 6:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
3
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-01-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 12:54 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
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 December 2, 2009.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of December 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the December 7 RAB meeting, including that he
received a preliminary report from Derek Robinson of the Navy stating that the large object
in
the Sea Plane Lagoon is a concrete block with pier material, not hazardous waste. Member
Matarrese requested that the ARRA write a letter to the Navy to remove the concrete block.
Member deHaan asked if radiation was found on that piece. Member Matarrese replied that it is
unknown and a primary reason why it should be removed. Member Matarrese also discussed
that the Navy wants to leave the radium contaminated sewer line in place under building 400,
stating that removing it would cause the structure to be unsound. Member Matarrese, along
with RAB members insist that the sewer line has to be removed. Another important point
discussed was that the University of Florida and Purdue University received a large DOD grant
to conduct remediation development studies; this grant represents several hundreds of
thousands of dollars and put Alameda Point remediation on the map.
Chair Johnson agreed that the ARRA send a letter to the Navy regarding the two key items:
concrete block removal, and contaminated sewer line removal.
Vice Chair deHaan discussed looking at the option of filling the area in order to bring back the
shoreline. Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese agreed, stating that if the Seaplane Lagoon is
eventually going to be a Marina, and boating activities will be taking place there, it needs to be
cleared out.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
02-03-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-01-06,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese discussed the visit to El Toro and Hamilton bases, particularly that the City
of Irvine established a local development corporation to develop the Great Park. Member
Matarrese would like to put an item on a future ARRA agenda to evaluate that particular option
to see if it has utility for the ARRA or successor to the ARRA. He stated that Hamilton is farther
along than most other bases - there are lots of houses; 10 hangars in use, eight of which have
been rehabbed for public and private, with two hangars remaining in the Coast Guard. Member
Matarrese recommends looking for potential military use for the hangars at Alameda Point. He
stated that the most important and striking feature of Hamilton was that they were taking the
runways and returning them to wetlands. Member Matarrese discussed that a wetlands option
for the west end of Alameda Point might be a superior option to bolster the shoreline with an
engineering solution. The wetlands are a carbon sink, and there may be future carbon credits; it
filters runoff, provide better habitat for the environment and is a superior buffer to storm or wave
action because it doesn't require maintenance.
Vice Chair deHaan discussed that some of the dredging from the Port of Oakland was used for
establishing that wetlands. Member Matarrese added that levies were built as well. Vice Chair
deHaan stated that getting ""tipping fees' is extremely important to jumpstart this type of
operation.
Chair Johnson liked the idea of wetland restoration. Member Matarrese reiterated that the
ARRA remain insistent that the Navy scoop and remove Sites 1 and 2.
Member Matarrese stated that there was concern expressed by two members of the RAB (one
representative from the EPA and one from the Audubon Society) of rumors that the Bay Trail
was in jeopardy, either from the Wildlife or the VA. Member Matarrese would like to find the
source to the rumor to see if it has any merit.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 1:05 a.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-09-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, September 7, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-063) Approve the Minutes of the Special ARRA Meetings of July 13, 2011 and July 19, 2011.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member deHaan seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-064) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -
Highlights of August 4, 2011 RAB Meetings.
Member deHaan stated that Site OU-2C, a major contamination area, was discussed. The site
has been worked on in many phases. The RAB has set an alternative for Site D-6 which is $16M,
stating that the Navy wants to go with the $5.8M. The issue is still being discussed and under
evaluation.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11-065) Provide Update on Status of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Process and
Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated that LBNL members visited the site
and were given a guided tour and presentation. LBNL and consultants are currently
reviewing site submittals. In Sept/Oct staff will compile one final response. LBNL stated
that they will review final submittals and make a recommendation to the UC Regents in
Regular Meeting
ARRA
September 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-09-07,2,"November. Regarding the larger redevelopment of Alameda Point, there are ongoing
negotiations with the Navy re: conveyance of property, continuing conversation with State
Lands re: Tidelands Trust Exchange. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point will
come back to the ARRA with updates in the next couple of months.
Member deHaan asked to confirm the LBNL timeline. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point explained that the UC Regents meets every two months, if the timeline were to slip, or if they
were not ready to make a selection in November, the issue will slip to the next meeting in January.
The City Manager informed the Board that staff has informally heard that the selection may indeed
slip to January, but reassured the Board that staff is completely ready and has not asked for any
extension as others have. Alameda is on time, on budget, and will be ready for a November
meeting if it happens. Staff is urging a prompt decision.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed that the Associated Community Action Plan (ACAP) will have their last
meeting next week. He recommends that community members view their audit, which was
released to the public.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
September 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-01-02,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:33 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 5, 2007.
2-B. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Agreement with Russell Resources for
Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point for 12 Months in an Amount not to
exceed $117,500.
2-C. Approve Sublease for American Bus Repair, LLC at Alameda Point.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update -- Presentation of Quarterly Update of Project Master
Schedule Prepared by SCC Alameda Point LLC.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a quick update of
Alameda Point activities. On 12/12, SunCal met with the Navy to discuss their due diligence and
progress on the project. On 12/13, SunCal conducted their second community meeting with over
200 community residents and business people in attendance. The community members
participated in small workgroups and identified pros and cons of two broadly defined concepts
for Alameda Point. SunCal will take the information and feedback from this meeting to put to
use for the next community meeting. Ms. Potter introduced Pat Keliher, SunCal's Project
Manager for the Alameda Point Project, to give the first quarterly update of the Project Master
Schedule.
Mr. Keliher summarized past public meetings, explaining that the public would like more
specific feedback on multiple planning concepts. SunCal has aggregated most of the information
and feedback and will present this to staff. To update the master schedule -- originally, SunCal's
pretense was that they would move forward with the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC),
but over the course of the last few months, due to constraints, the PDC is not feasible. SunCal
has communicated this to the Navy, to the public, and to staff, and the Project Master Schedule
has been updated. Most of schedule triggers project description, which is still in process and will
take several more months, but does not affect the two-year ENA period. Mr. Keliher discussed
that the City hired an independent peer review team to evaluate SunCal's results and this peer",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-01-02,2,"review will continue over the next 12-18 months. The conclusion of the peer review thus far is
that there are issues for which SunCal will discuss the mitigation techniques. SunCal has met
with multiple federal agencies, and their meeting with the Navy was to introduce them to the
concept that the PDC didn't work, and, as the existing term sheet is predicated on the PDC,
SunCal will come back to the Navy in Jan-Feb with an outline on their strategy. Mr. Keliher
explained that the Alameda Point project is very complex, but nothing that is insurmountable.
Member deHaan expressed concern with economics of the project and what issues SunCal was
anticipating will be covered at the next public meeting. Mr. Keliher stated that it is SunCal's job
to present more specifics on each of the different planning concepts, i.e., Measure A, non-
measure A, or a hybrid of these two, etc.
Member deHaan stated that the loose ends and driving force was the transportation issue. Mr.
Keliher agreed that the transportation issue was a trigger and that it would take several years and
a
lot of different agencies involved to tie up this loose end. Member deHaan commented that the
public meetings were well-received.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese attended the 12/6/07 meeting and the main agenda item was a summary
handout of 2007 activities and a look-forward to 2008 with remediation at Alameda Point. He
provided the handout, ""Environmental Progress at Alameda Point"" and requested that it be
provided to ARRA members and posted on the City's website. He requested that the map
identifying the sites be included with the handout.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
none.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-07-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. July 5, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:50 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
Member Gilmore lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 7, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions
-
0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese did not have a report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-07-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:27 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, ARRA, and CIC of
August 19, 2008.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: O.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with St. Francis Electric for
Pier 2 Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a contract not to exceed $1,344,744.
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, gave an overview of the item and discussed the
Spring 2006 sublease of MARAD approved by the ARRA for 20 years for use of the piers at
Alameda Point. Pier 2 is an older, unreliable facility, and doesn't comply with current standards.
To upgrade to code, the underground transformers would need to be relocated above ground to
meet Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) requirements. In January 2007, the ARRA approved
design work for the electrical upgrade for Pier 2 improvements and the project was bid. A bid
was received for $1.7M for the project. The Board then directed staff to revise the project to
reduce the total cost. Staff and MARAD worked closely with AP&T to revise the technical
requirements to just upgrade the existing systems, which reduced the project cost significantly
for the next bid. Three bids were received, with St. Francis Electric with the lowest bid at
$1.29M. Staff is requesting approval to add a 5% contingency with add-on alternative for
concrete x-raying and independent testing for the Pier 2 Electrical upgrades, for a total cost not
to exceed $1,344,744.
Member Matarrese commented that the impact to the ARRA budget is that we are + $400,000,
and asked how much the ARRA owes to the City General Fund. Ms. Little replied that the
ARRA has two loan obligations, 1) ARRA debt obligation of $2.4M, and 2) the Alameda Point
Improvement Project (APIP) of $1.258M. Member Matarrese recommended it be considered
that the $400,000 be paid back to General Fund as part of a loan payment. Ms. Little explained
that the ARRA currently carries that as an expenditure, and it would go back to the General Fund
Reserve.
Staff and the Board discussed the ARRA lease revenues, and how they are not sufficient to cover
expenditures in totality. Member Gilmore asked whether there were any other large capital",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,2,"projects that were going out for bid on this year. Ms. Little replied that the last roof repair project
was finished, as well as the preliminary assessment of the pier conditions, and that work will be
scheduled to start the piling and pier replacements. The greatest issue is that there are old
systems at Alameda Point - if there were a water or sewer problem or other major activity, we
need cash on hand to resolve those issues.
Member Matarrese expressed his concern that we're funding infrastructure that doesn't belong to
us, the City doesn't own the property, it still belongs to Navy. We're adding value to what the
Navy is putting a high price tag on. He stated that he would much rather put that money toward
unfunded liabilities of General Fund services. Member Gilmore agreed, stating that, in theory,
should we have a major system malfunction, there are tenants that pay to cover these issues.
There should be a balance while we're in a holding position with the Navy.
Vice Chair Tam motioned for approval of the Contract with St. Francis Electric, the
motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5,
Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3-B. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of the Draft Development Concept.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, introduced Pat Keliher and
Peter Calthorpe, Urban Designer, who presented a powerpoint presentation of the draft
development concept to the Board and public. The presentation can be viewed at
www.alamedapointcommunity.com. After the presentation, Chair Johnson opened the item to
the Boardmembers for discussion. Member Matarrese asked if both plans assume a $108M
payment to the Navy, to which Ms. Potter replied, ""yes.""
Member Gilmore asked Mr. Calthorpe for more specific information regarding his comment on
the importance of phasing the transportation enhancements so housing could keep pace with the
capacity in the tube, asking if it can work, and when we will know. Pat Keliher, SunCal's
Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that Fehr & Peers, their Transportation Consultant, is
doing a detailed study on the traffic improvements and what the triggers are for the
enhancements. Mr. Keliher further stated that there is $90M worth of traffic improvements up to
the 4000 unit threshold, and that Fehr & Peers plan to have a public meeting focused specifically
on the transportation issues.
Chair Johnson asked if the Sports Complex will be part of the SunCal Presentation, to which Mr.
Keliher replied, ""yes."" He said that the Business Plan will include the commercial and retail
assumptions. Mr. Calthorpe added that the core area has to be built last, that a Main Street
environment cannot be built until the retail demand is in place.
Chair Johnson opened discussion to the public speakers. There were several speakers, most of
whom were in favor of supporting SunCal's plan. The ones that were not in favor of the SunCal
plan were concerned about the density of proposed mid-rise (12-20 story residential units), non-
Measure A compliance, and transportation issues.
Member deHaan requested Mr. Keliher verify that the density of Alameda on the west end,
specifically the Summer Homes, was 30 units per acre and three-stories high. His concern
regarding the density was the Tube traffic and the alternative of bringing the bus service through
the Tube. Mr Keliher assured member deHaan that all these details are currently being vetted
out with Fehr & Peers and will be presented at their public meeting. Ms. Potter further explained
that there is always only going to be two lanes in the tube, and what one of the alternatives is, is
for a queue-jump lane for the bus, which doesn't require additional lanes. The queue-jump lane",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,3,"gives priority to the buses and encourages increased ridership. Mr Keliher added that all
questions will be answered between the concept plan submittal and master plan submittal, and
that the transportation solution is a driving factor.
Member Gilmore requested a meeting before the City Council which is focused on transportation
issues be part of SunCal's presentation schedule. Mr. Keliher affirmed her request. Member
Gilmore further discussed that the two plans are not Measure A compliant, and asked what
SunCal's plan was if the citizens were to reject their proposals. Mr Keliher responded by saying
that they have no magic Measure A plan that could be financed, and there is no third alternative,
they would have to start over. Member Gilmore appreciated his honesty on the matter.
Member Matarrese addressed the transportation issue regarding commercial traffic - truck
routes, etc., and asked whether there was going to be a recommendation from the Transportation
Commission. Ms. Potter explained that the plan is to route the Development Concept to all the
boards and commissions for review and comment. Member Gilmore requested that the school
year commute traffic also be addressed.
Member Matarrese requested to see a commercial and industrial component of the plan, to be
examined with the same depth, what might be envisioned, and what are some of the plans to
bring the commercial and businesses in. He further discussed that Alameda does not have a
large commercial tax base. Economically, the tax burden is spread and residential tax payers are
shouldering the main load and maybe are at capacity. He would like to know the best mix of
commercial and how we might attract commercial business.
Vice Chair Tam discussed the importance of their role (as the ARRA Board) for the long-term in
guiding and approving a Development Plan that future councils and the community can
adaptively react to, manage, and govern under different challenges; as this plan will manifest
beyond the time that they're on this Board. She stated it is important to focus on the vision and
the core principles incorporated in the General plan, as they will all be pertinent 15 years later.
Chair Johnson thanked Pat and SunCal for doing a good job of working with the community and
being forthright with them. It's a difficult challenge and she appreciates all their efforts.
Member deHaan asked about the Fed-to-fed transfer to the VA of some of the property. Mr.
Keliher replied that SunCal has to assume the potential impacts of the VA hospital whether it
happens or not, stating that it devalues the other phases. They would work hand-in-hand with
the VA, making certain that the infrastructure and traffic impacts are taken in consideration. For
example, a VA Hospital is a 24/7 facilities hospital, it doesn't operate just during peak hours, so
when the traffic element is applied, it's another challenge. Member Matarrese requested dollar
figures attached to any reports on the this issues, stating that if the plan is for a Fed-to-Fed
transfer, then that cost should be shaved-off the $108M price for the impacts caused by the
remaining federal land.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
- RAB Comment Letter Regarding Installation Remediation Site 1
Member Matarrese wasn't able to attend last meeting, but received communication, a letter, from
Co-chair, George Humphreys, regarding the Site 1 remediation plan and Record of Decision
(ROD) which raised a lot of questions. The ARRA board took the position that they would not
accept uncharacterized landfill from Site 1, which was supposed to be scooped and removed",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,4,"after characterization. Mr. Humphreys provided a summary of his letter and discussed some of
the technical details, highlighting the deficiencies in the Navy's proposed plan to remediate Site
1.
Mr. Humphreys explained that his letter is straightforward, stating that Site 1 has been releasing
contaminants to the bay for a number of decades and deficiencies in the site need to be remedied.
There is uncharacterized industrial-type waste that could be released in event of earthquakes,
shoreline erosion, inundation by global warming, and by burrowing animals. The City asked for
trenching, with the stated objectives to verify there weren't any intact drums. The trenching
report showed that, of the 11 trenches the Navy identified, seven of them showed levels of
radioactive contamination. It was concluded that the radium contamination is widespread and
scattered. He said a letter was sent from the Navy to the environmental agencies proposing to
move portions of Site I to Site 32, to shrink site 1, because they had found radioactive waste
deeper. He also described photos of liquefaction and sand boils during the Loma Prieta
earthquake, which he explained was a mechanism of how contaminated waste could be released
in the future, if left in place.
Member Matarrese reiterated that we have expertise on this board and commended the RAB for
taking a vote, making a stand and bringing these issues to light. He had two key concerns; first
that the material found was not ordinary household waste, rather, it is industrial waste plus
radioactive, which appears to be pervasive. It seems the Navy glossed over this in their proposed
plan. Secondly, Member Matarrese commented that it was disturbing that the plan was to
excavate some of the radioactive material and just bury it on another part of Alameda Point. He
requested the Board get a technical recommendation corroborating this report so that the ARRA
can take a position with the Navy and the regulators that what is proposed is not acceptable.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, said that staff would have something by the next
ARRA meeting.
Debbie Potter, in response to Member Matarrese's concern about the waste being relocated,
clarified the process. She explained that, at the request of the City, additional trenching was
done which identified more radioactive materials than anticipated. The Navy conducted a time-
critical removal of hot spots at Site 1, and proposed to move some of the remaining fill to Site
32. The plan was to grow Site 32, continue to test and modify boundaries so that Site 1
boundaries no longer included radioactive material. All this would trigger a brand new public
process for comment, new proposed plans, and provide input on how it should be remediated.
Member Matarrese viewed the relocation plan as a stall tactic and stated that the Navy should be
forced to remove the waste to a secure facility. Ms. Potter stated that the Navy will remove all
radioactive waste. Member Matarrese questioned why, if it were safe, does it have to be moved
and buried. Ms. Potter explained that it was her understanding that they are moving it in order to
excavate along the shoreline to address seismic issues. Dale Smith, RAB member, added that the
materials being moved were hazardous, but not radioactive. Chair Johnson stated that she
generally doesn't like the idea of moving the waste to another site, even if it's not contaminated.
Mr. Humphreys added that a key point is that there was no sampling of the soil inside that cell
area, which would determine if there were any non-radioactive materials (i.e., PCBs, heavy
metals, etc.).
The Board requested that Peter Russell, Alameda Point's environmental consultant, provide a
technical analysis of the materials from the RAB regarding Site 1, a written report of highlights
after every RAB meeting, and his analysis on Navy documents he's reviewed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,5,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
There was one speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Vice Chair Tam informed the other Members that Michael Park from the Alameda Theater
would like to schedule a re-shoot of the Council Members for his film that previews movies,
because of construction noise in the background.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Aluma Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-A
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:16 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 3, 2004.
2-B.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 18, 2004.
2-C. Resolution Supporting a Joint Local / State Effort to Speed Up Redevelopment of
California's Closed Military Bases.
Chair Johnson motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1 by Member Matarrese.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud gave monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance
process. At the January Meeting with the Navy we developed a Master Timeline with the Navy
and got an update on the status of some of the selective restoration sites. We discussed the first
phase footprint and key IR sites that are contained within the footprint and the ARRA made a
presentation at that meeting of our revised infrastructure costs for Alameda Point. We gave the
Navy an update of the status of the Trust exchange with the State Lands Commission. We let
them know that the legislation as been approved for the Trust exchange and that we had drafted a
draft exchange agreement that we had shared with State Lands Commission staff. Our legal
counsel had submitted it to their legal counsel and that we were currently awaiting comments.
Elizabeth Johnson, one of our planners at AP made a presentation to the historic advisory board
on Jan 7th where we gave them some background information on the historic district and the
actions that were underway relative to the historic district.
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,2,"On
Saturday,
Jan
22nd we had a tour with the Alameda Architectural Preservation. The group
came out and we toured around the base, specifically focusing on historic preservation issues. We
had an excellent turn out with well over 15 members attending, along with Page and Turnbull.
Two upcoming community workshops: the first one is March 3rd with the planning board; at that
one we will focus largely on land use options, a continuing dialogue of what's happening at our
first two community workshops. The next would be on Mar 23rd with the transportation
commission where we would focus more on transportation related issues obviously and
specifically on some of the discussions that we had at our last workshop for estuary crossings.
Our goal is take all of those transit options and try and funnel them down to a couple that we can
really study in depth as we move forward thru the process. So this is the continuing dialogue on
that issue with the transportation commission, again hosted with the APAC as well.
Member DeHaan asked how we are planning to get feedback from the Historic Preservation
Society on the tour and if they be part of the community workshop. Stephen Proud replied that
they were invited to participate in those meetings as an opportunity to make sure their comments
came through the workshop format and they were also invited to solicit and give us comments
independent of those workshops.
Member Matarrese requested minutes of that meeting to give us at least some indication of what
they might have said.
Stephen Proud began discussions on the ARRA led predevelopment budget: The ARRA has $3.5
million that is available to lead the predevelopment planning period. There was a slight increase on
Navy conveyance and on the land use planning side. At this point through the process we've spent
@ 45% of what we had budgeted and we' re about 12 mo. into an 18 mo. process.
Councilmember DeHaan asked if we were anticipating any contract amendments. Stephen Proud
replied that at this point, we don't expect there would be any contract amendments. We do have a
couple of contracts that have expirations date that were set for Mar 31st but we don't see
anything on the horizon that looks like it would result in one of our consultant contracts going up
in any extraordinary way in the near future.
Member DeHaan asked what the completion date is on the project. Stephen replied that this
budget was programmed to take us thru June 30th of 2005 -- an 18 month ARRA led pre
development period, from the beginning of 04 to the middle of 05.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC
There were no representatives from APAC. Chair Johnson stated there were no representatives
from APAC. Chair Johnson stated there was an APAC sub-committee meeting this evening
therefore there were no members available for an oral report.
2
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,3,"5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
RAB met on January 6, 2005. Key topics were the Seaplane Lagoon; site 17. The draft feasibility
study was presented. A timeline for implementing remediation for that site in 2006 was discussed.
This would be the actual remediation of contaminants in the Seaplane Lagoon. An update of
action on the Miller School and Woodstock Child Care Center, site 30 and the remediation
activities that went on there. New RAB member, Joan Conrad, voted in. Next meeting is February
3, 2005 at 6:30 pm.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Mataresse thanked staff for all the work done, particularly with getting community
workshops together and stated that he's very interested in the Transportation workshop on March
23rd, acknowledging that having a transportation infrastructure in place before a development
increases the value of the land because it's there and not an encumbrance. A meeting on February
18, 2005 is schedule to reactivate our liaison committee with AC Transit Propose to discuss
transportation with a BART liaison committee.
Chair Johnson suggests our liaison committee should schedule a meeting with BART, which may
need council approval. States BART is a big issue for Alameda.
Stephen Proud stated that the logistics had not been worked out yet, but mentioned that it would
be hosted as a joint workshop with either one of the boards or commissions and the APAC but
that the 4th workshop would be a more general public forum. There was nothing formal discussed
for a 5th workshop. Member DeHaan would like to see the Economic Development Commission
host the 5th meeting. Chair Johnson stated that discussions regarding EDC hosting had already
been done. Chair Johnson asked if there was a public outreach planned. Prior ones very well
attended. Great benefit that these workshops are broadcasted live.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 7:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
3
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRAminutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 7, 2007.
Member Gilmore clarified that the following correction should be made in the minutes
regarding Item 3-C. Alameda Point Advisory Task Force: that the Board and Commission
representatives would not only convey their Board or Commission's position to SunCal at
the public meetings, but also, they could speak for themselves if they made it clear that they
were speaking for themselves and not on behalf of their Board or Commission. Member
Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar with the clarification made by
Member Gilmore, seconded by member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation by the Veterans Affairs on the VA Project Development Plans at
Alameda Point.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, introduced Claude
Hutchison, Director of Asset Enterprise Management, and Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset Manager,
of the VA who made a powerpoint presentation.
Mr. Hutchison gave a summary profile of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. The VA is the second
largest agency within the Federal system, second only to the Department of Defense (DOD).
They are essentially the alumni association for the DOD and serve the needs and requirements of
24 million living Americans who served our country. They have an annual budget projected to
be $84 billion. There are three major areas of responsibilities and activities: 1) Veterans Health
Administration - to serve the medical needs and requirements of those enrolled in the VA
system. Currently 8 million enrollees, with 155 acute care hospitals around the country and 900
outpatient clinics, 2) Veterans Benefit Administration - financial services ranging from real
estate loans to insurance and educational requirements, and 3) National Cemetery Administration
- runs 125 national shrines as final internment for Veterans.
Their hope is to place a combination of all three at Alameda Point - a significant, multi-purpose
outpatient clinic, offices for the Veterans Benefit Administration, and an above-ground
columbarium.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,2,"The entire land mass that the VA hopes to have transferred to them by the Navy is approximately
597 acres. They envision developing about 113 acres concentrated in the north east area of the
property. Mr. Hutchison further explained that the VA is still in negotiations with the USF&W
because of the Lease Tern and California Brown Pelican whose habitat is within the area they
hope to control.
Mr. Jaynes concluded the presentation with an overview of the property area, stating that
Alameda Point is strategically located to serve the Veterans of the greater Bay Area, and in
addition, it is ideally and centrally located to serve the Veterans of northern Alameda County.
He indicated on the map which area was the federal-to-federal parcel at the far west end of
Alameda Point. It primarily consists of what was the airfield and landfill for NAS. The parcel
does not include the Northwest Territories, which is still going to the City of Alameda. It also
does not include any submerged lands. The 579-acre parcel runs from the west side of hangar
row all the way down to the bay, and follows the perimeter shoreline all the way around the tip.
When it gets to the Northwest Territories, it comes back down to hangar row.
Mr. Jaynes presented the VA's site development plan which they have been working on for 18
months. They plan to only develop 113 acres, and the remaining 466 acres will be left
undeveloped. The VA's planned development is a circumference of about 1900 feet from the
Lease Tern colony, based on the closest structure on hangar row, to assure the protection of the
Lease Tern and the Brown Pelican and so the VA and these endangered species can co-exist on
the site.
Their plans include an outpatient clinic on the far east end which would replace the two facilities
currently in Oakland. The clinic will be approximately 80-90,000 sq. ft. and be a full-service
ambulatory care clinic which will not have any beds. The VA would like to develop an above-
ground cemetery on the 50+ acres on the far west end of the parcel. There are approximately
390,000 Veterans in the greater Bay Area that would use the cemetery services, and for the
clinic, they envision that it would serve approximately 7,000 of the 40,000 northern Alameda
County Veterans. Also included in the clinic would be a small clinic that is run by the Air Force
(David Grant Medical Center) that would treat active duty and active duty dependents in the Bay
Area. The third development plan includes land reserved for ""enhanced use"", a public-private
partnership where a developer comes in and builds a facility on under-utilized VA land. The VA
was envisioning as their enhanced use partner a civilian in-patient hospital, which they believe is
a compatible need with their outpatient clinic.
Chair Johnson asked how many in-patient hospital beds the VA would anticipate be used by
Veterans. Mr. Jaynes replied that approximately 10 - 20 would be used for Veterans. Member
Matarrese mentioned that there is already a hospital here in Alameda that can be partnered with
the VA. Mr. Jaynes explained that the plans for the civilian hospital are still conceptual. The
enhanced use plans also include two structures for medical office buildings, which would house
civilian doctors and administration. Also included is a small nature center which the VA would
build to house fish and wildlife services and employees on the site to work with the Lease Terns,
as well as EBRPD rangers if an agreement can be worked out with them. The VA would also
build a bay trail on the property, limited to the far west side of the parcel in order to protect the
endangered species.
Mr. Jaynes presented the VA's timeline for development. They have been in consultation with
USF&W for almost two years, and are currently in negotiations with the Navy to develop an
MOU which will lay out the transfer terms. It is the VA and Navy's plan that the final transfer,
including the transfer documents, will be complete by Fall of 2008. In addition, the VA is
currently conducting a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessment
for transfer, and a biological assessment. They have plans to do a NEPA environmental impact
study which is funded and ready to go.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,3,"Mr. Jaynes explained the VA's two major construction projects, one for the clinic, one for the
cemetery. Both projects are congressionally authorized and appropriated, if approved for the
budget, design will begin on the clinic in 2010, with construction completed by spring/summer
2012. The columbarium is on the same timeline, but could be phased and opened sooner. The
enhanced use lease is in the concept application process and will go to the Secretary of the VA in
the spring, and if approved, the enhanced use process will begin in late spring and work toward
having a partner and open in 2012.
Member Tam thanked Mr. Jaynes and Mr. Hutchison for the presentation and had some
questions: 1) on the discussions the VA has had with the Navy regarding environmental clean-up
costs, 2) has there been progress in the VA's coordination with SunCal, and 3) the VA's role and
relationship with the Alameda Healthcare District.
Mr. Hutchison explained that the VA has had ongoing dialogue with the Alameda District
hospital and will be meeting with the new CEO tomorrow morning (Dec. 6) to continue that
dialogue and they are very interested in maintaining that relationship with the Alameda
Healthcare District. He further explained that the VA has issued an RFP for outpatient services,
and that the Alameda Healthcare District has responded. A final determination has not yet been
made.
As a response to Member Tam's first question about the clean-up costs, Mr. Hutchison discussed
that the Navy is responsible for clean-up. The VA's MOU with the Navy will set forth the terms
and conditions that outline the requirements of the Navy to bring it up to appropriate commercial
standards. The VA does not want to take on liability for contamination over which they had no
control. The inter-agency transfer will set forth clearly the Navy's requirements with no dispute
between the VA and the Navy as to those requirements. He emphasized that the VA has a
significant due diligence process.
Member Tam mentioned that since the VA is the alumni association to the Navy, that they may
have a stronger tie to them than the ARRA does. Mr. Hutchison explained that the Navy is well
aware of their obligation and is prepared to live up to it.
Mr. Jaynes discussed the coordination efforts with SunCal, stating that most of their
communication with SunCal since their last meeting with them has been through Debbie Potter.
He said that he has been playing phone-tag with the project manager for SunCal, Pat Keliher, but
will continue to strive to communicate with them to make sure their plans are in coordination
with the ARRA's. Mr. Hutchison thanked Member Tam for being the catalyst to bringing
SunCal and the VA together in a joint cooperation going forward.
Chair Johnson wanted to clarify whether residential units were still part of the VA's development
plan. Mr. Hutchison confirmed that residential units were never part of their plan. Member
deHaan discussed his concerns about the budget appropriations and the VA's cost for their
development plans. Mr. Hutchison stated that the budget approval cycle was FY '10 and the
dollar amount for the hospital is in the $50M range, and considerably less for the columbarium.
They are confident that their proposal will be well received by congress and the Dept. of
Veteran's Affairs. Member deHaan also asked about the status of their coordination efforts with
SunCal. Mr. Hutchison reaffirmed what Mr. Jaynes had said about their intent to maintain
dialogue with SunCal.
Chair Johnson called the speakers, first Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the
Lease Terns and transportation issues. The next speaker, Mark Chandler, Commissioner of the
Alameda County Veterans Affairs Commission, spoke in support of the VA's plan to develop the
outpatient clinic at Alameda Point. He discussed the status quo of Veterans having to travel to
Martinez, Travis AFB, and Mare Island for healthcare.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,4,"Another speaker, Leora Feeney, Boardmember of the Golden Gate Audubon Society and Friends
of the Alameda Wildlife (FAWR), stated her appreciation for the cordiality given by the VA
regarding their proposal. She stated that all of them support Veterans in a huge way, and also
support wildlife and open space and opportunities for our children to experience nature. Ms.
Feeney discussed her concerns on specific issues of the VA presentation, mainly the ""circle""
concept (1900 feet distance from the nearest hangar). She's concerned that any development that
places a barrier between the Lease Tern colony and the water would present a problem, as the
Lease Terns do not fly over buildings. They would not be able to get to the water to forage. Ms.
Feeney's other strong objection is the VA's unwillingness to accept the water around the refuge,
together with the land, including the island breakwater where the brown pelicans roost. If the VA
accepts the land and develops that northern portion of it, it seems reasonable, but there is a need
to protect the foraging waters of the Lease Terns and the island breakwater for those endangered
species. She emphasized the need for accountability to protect these things, and stated that if the
USF&W does not have it, nor the VA, she's concerned about who will accept the responsibility.
Chair Johnson asked the VA what their intention is with regard to Ms. Feeney's concerns about
the water. Mr. Hutchison stated that it is envisioned that the water area would go to the master
developer, SunCal, and that the VA has never coveted that water. Deputy Executive Director,
David Brandt, corrected Mr. Hutchison's statement by explaining that the area is Tidelands
property, so it would be the ARRA or the City that would hold title to the property, and not
SunCal.
The next speaker was Eli Saddler, Conservation Director for the Golden Gate Audubon Society.
He discussed further the concerns of Ms. Feeney, and agreed that they support the VA. He
would like them to go forward with their development plans, but just not at the Alameda Point
site. One of their primary concerns is that the VA's plan contradicts the existing biological
opinion that was developed when USF&W originally requested the property as a refuge. There
was a minimum acreage required for the California Lease Tern which was the entire area
sectioned off, not including the northern-most portion, which was going to the City and was to be
developed as a buffer zone. The VA's plans would be inside the buffer zone of the area that has
already been designated as the critical habitat for the species. They do not think that it is
biologically defensible to draw a circle of 1900 feet around the colony, it is unrealistic to think
that the birds will obey and stay in that circle. They use the whole area, including areas where
the VA has already planned to put their hospital. Mr. Saddler also further discussed his concern
about the water area, which was also included in the original biological opinion, which stated
that the area to the south was needed for foraging for both species. He emphasized their concern
about whether the VA's plan was biologically feasible without very serious mitigation that
would have to be done ahead of any construction, mitigation meaning having an alternative site
for the Lease Terns to go to, and there was no discussion of this mitigation. It is their
understanding that the USF&W would have some kind of requirement that would include
mitigation. The problem is, however, that there really is no other location for the Lease Terns to
go. The VA plans could potentially jeopardize Alameda's very significant Lease Tern colony.
Mr. Saddler also discussed his concerns about the VA's NEPA process and whether it is legally
defensible. The transfer of the parcel is for a purpose, and if there is a new biological opinion
that contradicts a pre-existing one, this places the VA's development plans on shaky ground,
legally.
Chair Johnson thanked all the speakers and Mr. Hutchison for coming in from Washington, DC
to make the VA's presentation. Member deHaan asked whether the VA looked at other
opportunities at Alameda Point. Mr. Hutchison clarified that their discussions have been with
the Navy, and that the Navy came to them, unable to agree to terms with the USF&W and was
going to dispose of the property, and asked whether the VA had an interest in taking it over.
Their relationship to the parcel is a direct result of the Navy soliciting their interest. Mr. Jaynes
added that the VA had looked at the older Coast Guard Housing property, but felt that it wasn't
large enough to satisfy the VA's needs for a medical clinic as well as a columbarium.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,5,"Member Matarrese expressed his appreciation for the presentation as it quelled various rumors
about the VA's interest in the property. It's good for the ARRA and for the public to hear a
presentation live from officials of the VA. Member Matarrese asked if they would take back
with them a couple considerations: 1) that he does not share their optimism regarding the Navy's
commitment to do clean-up. He asked that they have the same demands as the ARRA does
regarding clean-up, and to accept the land clean, especially if it would be the final resting place
for our Veterans, and 2) explore to the maximum the opportunity to work with the Alameda
Healthcare District. A competing private hospital would be to the detriment of the hospital that
Alameda taxpayers support.
Member deHaan requested that the Alameda Healthcare District make a presentation to the
ARRA regarding their interest in the VA project. Chair Johnson stated that they will invite the
Alameda Healthcare District to make a presentation to the ARRA when they are ready to do so.
3-B. Update on the Former Coast Guard Housing Property.
Debbie Potter gave an update on the North Housing parcel, specifically on the temporary license
agreement/lease for estuary park, the exploration of a possible short-term leasing program, and
the screening process underway for the homeless accommodation and public benefit conveyance.
Staff has been working with the Navy on the short-term lease for estuary park, some sticking
points involve environmental remediation, but a short term lease agreement is planned to be
brought back to the ARRA in January '08. Staff determined that it was not feasible to have a
short-term leasing program for the surplus units. Regarding the screening process, on Nov. 5,
the Navy published their notice of surplus property in the Federal register, which triggered the
ARRA's obligation to notify the public that the property is available for screening and we are
currently in the middle of the process. There is a public information workshop scheduled for
tomorrow (Dec. 6) to brief interested parties on the screening process, and to take them on a tour
of the property. Notices of Interest (NOI) for both the homeless accommodation and the public
benefit conveyance will be due to the City on February 29, 2008. Those notices will be
evaluated working with HUD and the Navy, and ultimately we will go through a public process
of amending the Community Reuse Plan to reflect the accommodations and public benefit
conveyances that may result from this process.
3-C. Alameda Point Project Update - Oral Report.
Debbie Potter gave an update on the Alameda Point project. A meeting with the Navy originally
scheduled to take place in November was rescheduled to December 12th The next SunCal
community meeting is scheduled on December 13th at the O'Club at 6:30 p.m, with another
public meeting scheduled on January 30, 2008.
There was one speaker, Bill Smith.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese will attend the meeting tomorrow (12/6) and will have a report in January.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,6,"6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
none.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, January 4, 2012
The meeting convened at 7:10 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(12-001) Cara Kuhlman, Alameda, discussed starting dialogue with the ARRA to open a
community sailing center program at Alameda Point.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*12-002) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of December 7, 2011.
(*12-003) Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with
Russell Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term
for 12 Months and Adding $165,000 to the Budget.
(*12-004) Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson for Civil Engineering and Surveying Consulting Services for Alameda
Point Extending the Term for 24 Months and Adding $74,400 to the Budget.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member deHaan seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(12-005) Award Contract in the Amount of $225,000 to Keyser Marston Associates to Prepare an
Economic Development Strategy for Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed the Office of Economic Adjustment
$225,000 award to the ARRA to conduct economic development strategy.
Member Johnson expressed concern that any economic strategy or plan may be irrelevant
because of the elimination of the redevelopment agencies. The Chief Operating Officer -
Alameda Point explained that it is even more important to have a strategy in place and be
prepared to attract industrial and commercial users that can help bring in the infrastructure.
Member Tam inquired if there will be an increased dependency on private funds because of the
loss of tax increment funding. Tim Kelly, Keyser Marston, stated that there are lots of opportunity
for growth and enhancement with existing tenants. He discussed other financing tools available,
including Infrastructure Financing Districts and Community Facilities Districts. Mr. Kelly explained
that these financing tools have to be packaged in phases so it can be managed and delivered.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,2,"Member deHaan expressed concern about how to address the community process. The Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point explained that there was feedback from the community that
there is a bit of fatigue on community meetings. The focus now is to engage the tenants. The
Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point agreed with Member deHaan that the Economic
Development Commission and other formal bodies should be engaged.
Vice Chair Bonta moved for approval of the staff recommendation. Member Johnson
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-006) Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the United States Navy for the Economic Development
Conveyance of Portions of the Former Naval Air Station Alameda.
Chair Gilmore stated that although the No-Cost Economic Development Conveyance is
overshadowed by the redevelopment news, it is still amazing and exciting news. The Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point agreed and provided a summary of events. The ARRA
approved a term sheet with the Navy on October 5, 2011. The term sheet contemplated a no-cost
conveyance of Alameda Point from the Navy to the ARRA consistent with the 1996 Reuse Plan.
The Term Sheet became the final amendment to the existing 2000 Memorandum of Agreement
with the Navy. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed the changes, including the
conveyance schedule, the enforcement mechanism, use of proceeds, and the addition of
submerged lands. The conveyance schedule contemplates a vast majority of the property coming
to the ARRA by the end of 2012.
Chair Gilmore thanked staff for working tirelessly and effortlessly over the years to make the No-
Cost Economic Development Conveyance happen.
Proponent: Helen Sause, Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES).
Member Tam moved for approval of the staff recommendation. Member Johnson
seconded the motion. Chair Gilmore requested a roll-call vote be conducted: Vice Chair
Bonta - aye, Member deHaan - aye, Member Johnson - aye, Member Tam - aye, Chair
Gilmore - aye. Ayes - 5, Abstentions - 0, Noes - 0.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(12-007) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -
Highlights of December 1, 2011 RAB Meetings.
Member deHaan stated that he provided the 12/1 update at the December ARRA meeting and
that the RAB will not meet again until March. It is still being evaluated and discussed if RAB
meetings will be held on a quarterly basis.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,3,"7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
The Executive Director re-emphasized the news of the ARRA receiving portions of Alameda Point
at a No-Cost Conveyance.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,4,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:
(12-015) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators: Human
Resources Director and Masa Shiohira; Employee Organizations: Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA), Alameda City Employees Association
(ACEA), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and Police Officers
Non-Sworn (PANS).
Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that the labor negotiators provided the status of negotiations with four
bargaining units: IBEW, ACEA, PANs, and MCEA.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,5,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012- -7:02 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:51 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners
Allen,
Bonta,
deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 6.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(12-017 CC) Resolution No. 14634, ""(1) Determining It Will Serve as a Successor
Agency to the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (""CIC""); (2)
Electing Not to Retain the Housing Assets and Functions Previously Performed by the
CIC; (3) Authorizing Assumption by the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
(""Housing Authority"") of the Rights, Powers, Assets, Liabilities, Duties, and Obligations
Associated with the Housing Activities of the CIC; and (4) Authorizing the City Manager
to Enter Into an Agreement with the Housing Authority to Fund Costs Associated with
the Transferred Housing Activities."" Adopted; and
(12-001 A HABOC) Resolution No. 836, ""(1) Agreeing to Assume the Rights, Powers,
Assets, Liabilities, Duties, and Obligations Associated with the Housing Activities of the
Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda; and (2) Authorizing the
Executive Director to Enter Into an Agreement with the City of Alameda to Fund Costs
Associated with the Transferred Housing Activities."" Adopted.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated redevelopment agencies would cease to exist on February
1st, but agreements for 400 redevelopment agencies would not suddenly come into
existence on February 2nd
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated agreements would exist
because of each agency's enforceable obligation schedule.
In response to Mayor/Chair Gilmore's inquiry, the Housing Development and Programs
Manager stated the County Auditor-Controller would need to audit each agency's
enforceable obligation schedule by July 1st.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired whether a trust fund would be
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
1
January 1, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,6,"automatically established by ABX1 26, to which the Housing Development and
Programs Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated on February 1st, responsible agencies would start
expending funds in the normal course of business; hopefully, reimbursement would be
set in place on July 1st.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated an administrative budget
needs to be presented for each successor agency by February; the legislation has
some inconsistencies; last year, an obligation schedule was done which predicted
payment obligations pursuant to enforceable obligations; the next one would be due
March 1st, which would cover January 1st to June 30th; schedules would need to be
approved by the Oversight Board that would review work of the successor agency; the
Oversight Board would not come into existence until May 1st; suggested amending
Section 7 to read: ""This resolution shall take effect and be enforced as of the deadline
for adoption of this resolution established pursuant to State law as may be amended
from time to time"".
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam's inquired whether the City could recover money, to
which the City Manager/Executive Director responded the money has not been
submitted yet.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated the State was not hitting budget targets before the ruling; it
appeared that automatic cuts would go into effect; the State will not receive $1.7 billion
due to legislation being declared unconstitutional.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated that the State has centralized what the
payments would be but has created chaos throughout the system.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta stated things are moving very quickly; that he wants to
ensure that the City does not do something it will regret later; inquired what precautions
would be taken if another legislative remedy caused the City's successor agency role to
not be advantageous, to which the City Manager/Executive Director responded the
resolutions could always be amended.
In response to Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta's inquiry, Rafael Mandelman, Burke,
Williams, and Sorensen, stated January 13th is the drop-dead date for cities to opt out of
becoming a successor agency.
Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson stated a significant amount of affordable
housing has been created by redevelopment agencies; inquired whether affordable
housing would also cease.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager responded hopefully, housing
advocates would do something about having a permanent income stream fund for
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
2
January 1, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,7,"affordable housing; stated the need would not go away.
Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson stated the City receives allocations from the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); without said money, houses cannot be
built regardless of the allocations.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated redevelopment has been the primary
economic development program in California; without economic development, there is
no money for schools or work force housing; that he predicts the State would replace
some functions but would do so in a centralized, clunky way rather than in a flexible,
nimble, and local manner.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired how other municipalities are handling
the issue, to which the Housing Development and Programs Manager responded
Alameda would be the first to act on the matter.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated that redevelopment pays for police officers,
half of the Mayor, Council, and Auditor's salary, which otherwise would need to come
from the General Fund; everything would have to made up from the General Fund; the
City has never honeycombed redevelopment.
Mr. Mandelman stated the landscape is rapidly changing and the law is drafted poorly;
there will be many messy situations over the next months; the City would be taking on
responsibility to manage some of the chaos by becoming the successor agency;
management would be done by an unfriendly Oversight Board.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta inquired whether another path or second best
approach might be adequate but would not be as good as the one recommended
tonight.
Mr. Mandelman responded tonight's recommendation is the only way to go if the City
wants to be a successor agency; stated otherwise, the Governor would appoint County
residents.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated Council has tried for a number of years to get Alameda
Point from the Navy so that the City could have local control and have a say in how
things move forward.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated the City would want local
control over the Alameda Landing Disposition and Development Agreement; exercising
local control over the project would be important.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the City would have local control but would
lose its ability to generate local revenue through redevelopment; the City would be more
dependant upon private developer funding for infrastructure and meeting affordable
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
3
January 1, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,8,"housing marketing objectives; the City would have to find some way to be more
marketable and needs to fight fiercely.
The Acting City Attorney/Legal Council stated a lot of new ideas would be forthcoming.
Mr. Mandelman stated the California Redevelopment Association and League of
California Cities are actively focusing on State goals but would include goals important
to Alameda such as Base reuse and housing.
In favor of resolutions: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, and Jon
Spangler, Alameda.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore expressed appreciation to staff for acting so quickly on the matter;
stated the recommendation is viable.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta inquired whether tonight's recommendation would be
the only way to exercise local control, to which Mr. Mandelman responded that he thinks
so.
In response to Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Mandelman stated
the deadline for dissolution is February 1st; up to that time, the legislature would have an
opportunity to come up with something that would work for communities that have
bases that need to be redeveloped; the deadline for deciding whether to be a successor
agency is January 13th
The Chief Operating Officer stated that she has a conference call scheduled for 8:30
a.m. tomorrow with base reuse communities.
Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson moved adoption of the resolutions with noted
amendment to Section 7.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 6.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:37
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
4
January 1, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,9,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012--7:01 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:49 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Boaro Members Bonta, deHaan,
Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmembers/Board Member Johnson moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Board Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(12-016 CC) Resolution No. 14642, ""Appropriating $379,000 in Federal HOME Funds
and Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute the Necessary Documents
to
Complete the Loan to the Alameda Point Collaborative for Acquisition of 240 Corpus
Christi, 230 Corpus Christi, 2471 Orion, 2451 Orion, 201 Stardust, 251 Stardust, and
271 Stardust (""Property"").' Adopted; and
(12-008 ARRA) Recommendation to Approve Financing on the Property in the Amount
of $2,279,000. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEM
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:50
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-26,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, September 26, 2006- 6:01 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator regarding APCP's withdrawal
from Alameda Point and from negotiations with the Navy.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:35
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
September 26, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-26.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-05-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday- May 3, 2006--6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair
Johnson - 4.
Absent:
Member Daysog.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:25
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itura Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 3, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-05-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
5-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 5, 2005.
2-B.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 20, 2005.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -4; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
Stephen Proud gave a monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance
process. He stated that on February 16th, a proposal was made to the Navy for the acquisition of
Alameda Point. Discussions with the Navy included a presentation about conveyance strategy
and approach for moving Alameda Point forward. The proposal to the Navy was very well
received and they expressed appreciation for the proposal. A series of follow-up meetings have
been scheduled to discuss environmental and economic issues, and parcel identification suitable
for transfer and phasing.
Next land planning workshop is scheduled for March 3rd This workshop has been broken up into
two pieces: the March 3rd meeting is co-hosted by the planning board and APAC and will focus
on land use alternatives that have been developed over the first series of public workshops. The
second part of this workshop will be a separate meeting on the March 23rd with the
Transportation Commission, which will focus on transportation alternatives. The goal is to come
back to the ARRA in April with a full briefing on the 2 workshops. A good solid attendance is
expected as was experienced in the past. Andrew Thomas from the planning department
continued to discuss benefits of having the workshops broken into two separate meetings. He
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,2,"stated the community expressed a desire to receive information in smaller quantities rather than
two much, too fast.
Mr. Thomas discussed estuary crossing and long term planning, not only for Alameda Point but
for the entire City of Alameda and that we will be presenting to the public the various
transportation possibilities: light rail connections to the Fruitvale BART along the regional
outline alignment to the aerial tram from the west end to the west Oakland BART and a number
of different options.
Chair Johnson mentioned the interagency liaison committee with AC Transit and talked about
transportation solutions. She would like to look at a system that uses the same tracks that are
currently in place in Alameda. She stated that this would dramatically cut down the costs of that
kind of transportation solution.
Andrew Thomas agreed and explained the difference between heavy gauge and light gauge rail.
The new street car systems are typically on light gauge, yet the old belt line was a heavy gauge
system. The issues with the solution of using the existing rails are on the Oakland side and the
ability to cross the Union Pacific lines at grade. The PUC rarely grants those kinds of approvals.
Chair Johnson pointed out that no matter what gauge rail system was used, that issue would have
to be dealt with. She believed the rail system alternative that should be looked at should be
focused on using the existing infrastructure in place and we should not spend a lot of money and
time looking at rail systems that don't fit our current infrastructure. Chair Johnson asked if there
were any costs estimates using the current rail and gauge.
Andrew Thomas stated that not all costs estimates were available but did have good costs
estimates for what it would take to put in a new system. Chair Johnson would like a cost estimate
using existing rails and Andrew Thomas explained the issues relating to costs savings for
existing rail system and creating cars that are designed for light gauge rail.
Chair Johnson mentioned that the San Francisco Muni system is using old cars and they work
very well. She also suggested that a transportation solution be in place even before base
development starts, and would like to find a solution for transportation throughout Alameda over
to Fruitvale BART.
Andrew Thomas agreed. He stated that they were meeting with the City of Oakland and the Port
of Oakland to get an idea on how these agencies feel about this, as well as with AC Transit and
BART. He mentioned that if an at-grade crossing of the Union Pacific Lines was obtainable,
then that option would look very good. If not, then we'd be looking at building an elevated
system or diving under. Member Matarrese suggested comparing what Caltrans has done
between San Francisco and San Jose. Chair Johnson suggested some sort of shuttle system get
started now.
Member Matarrese mentioned two items that were brought up at the AC Transit meeting. One
was electric buses which would make our fuel be AP&T instead of some oil company, similar to
golf carts.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,3,"Chair Johnson stated that the information given at the workshops should include the fact that
some solutions are never going to happen because they are so expensive, or at least not in the
foreseeable future. There are some solutions that are feasible long term, but we're looking at
short term feasible solutions that can get started even before base development starts.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A.
Recommendation to approve a 10-year lease agreement with Nelson's Marine for
Building 167.
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager introduced David Jaber, regional vice-
president of PM Realty Group. Mr. Jaber presented a short analysis regarding the Nelson's
Marine issue. Mr. Jaber recommends the lease and supports the market rent for Nelson's
Marine. He also analyzed the $34M difference that was presented by the boat yard attorney at
the last ARRA board meeting.
Mr. Jaber gave a brief background and discussed how the fair market value of the Nelson's
Marine rent was determined: Nelson's Marine was one of the first groups out to Alameda Point,
with a 5 year lease which contained a clause that allowed for renewal at 90% of fair market
value. This survey was performed by Dunn Associates and that helped determine the fair market
value. The fair market value component provided by Dunn & Associates was on the base rent.
When the rent survey was done, the focus was on four things: 1) review of the lease and the
leases, 2) site coverage ratio, 3) the gross rent and net rent conversion, 4) the review of the rent
per square foot.
Mr. Jaber gave a review of the leases, comparing the costs between two boat yard leases for
taxes, insurance, and maintenance. He analyzed the numbers -- using a 20 yr. term to help
explain the differential -- which showed that the $34M loss, proposed by the opposing four
boatyards, was not supported. His analysis further justified that the net lease proposed comes
out with the appropriate rate. Mr. Jaber concluded that the fair market value -- the 31.5 % based
upon the 90% of fair market value -- is appropriate for the lease. He included percentage rent,
the ability to prosper as the tenant prospers, sublease recapture, which doesn't allow the tenant to
profit by bringing in subtenants, rental increases, 2% every year, justified considering there is the
ability to reduce the land space by 75,000 sq feet, and lastly a 10 yr term is very appropriate.
Mr. Jaber recommended the Nelson lease for approval.
Mayor Johnson called a few speakers. Richard Lyons of Wendell, Rosen, Black and Dean spoke
on behalf of Nelson's Marine and addressed the legal aspects of the lease, explaining Mr.
Nelson's rights to extend the lease, right of first negotiation and the price for that right, and the
contractual obligation on the part of the City and Mr. Nelson to abide by determination of the
appraiser regarding the lease term. He requested that the two leases be approved.
Carl Nelson, president of Nelson's Marine thanked Mr. Jaber and Mr. Lyons and looks forward
to having his business here for at least another 10 years.
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,4,"Peter Lindh, representing the four boat yards came up to discuss the validity of the $34 million
shortfall that his clients projected if the Nelson's Marine lease is approved. He stated that the
$34M was based on the principles involved and that the actual lease terms themselves make the
shortfall about $36M.
Mr. Lindh explained that there were two specific flaws to the PM Realty (Mr. Jaber's )
argument. The first was that the two boatyards used in Mr. Jaber's analysis are not comparable
(triple net versus gross analysis); it's not fair market value. The second flaw is the .45 cents that
Nelson's is paying per square foot per month on maintenance. He stated the amount as
inaccurate and reiterated that the Nelson rate is not fair market value.
He discussed the cost of having a fixed rate - is $190,000 to the City of Alameda and stated that
the only adjustment that PM has suggested in their counter proposal is reducing the lease term
from 20 yr to 10 yrs. Mr. Lindh concluded and urged the Board, as a fiscal responsibility, to
require PM Realty to reevaluate and come up with a proposal that is more consistent with
economic reality and fair market value.
Chair Johnson asked if the City is going to lose money on this lease. Nanette Banks, Finance
and Administration Division Manager, Development Services, explained that the Nelson's lease
renewal was brought to the ARRA governing body for approval and the four boat yard attorney
raised questions about a $34M loss if we went forward with this lease. The ARRA Board
directed PM Realty and Development Services to research this issue. Ms. Banks further
explained that there hasn't been a counter offer, nor would there be, because according to the
Nelson's lease, they have the first right to negotiate at 90% fair market value and the appraisal
was to establish the fair market value.
Chair Johnson and Boardmembers discussed the issue of the Nelson's lease creating some unfair
advantage to other boat yards, and the original concern of the $34M loss. There were no counter
proposals to the Nelson's lease.
The Board approved the staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-0;
Abstentions-0
4-B.
Recommendation to approve a 5-year lease, with a possible (5-year) options with
Nelson's Marine for 400 linear feet of Pier 1.
No speaker slips. Recommendation approved and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4;
Noes-0; Abstentions -0.
4",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,5,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
Lee Perez, APAC Chair, spoke about the transition from the APAC to the various Boards and
Commissions which will be presented next month. Also, members of APAC have been working
very hard with staff in terms of planning the various public meetings, specifically the workshops
of March 3rd and 23rd. He expects a successful meeting.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
February 3rd was the last meeting. The next meeting has been rescheduled to March 14th from
March 3rd to accommodate the workshop. Three main items were discussed: 1) Remediation on
OU5, Coast Guard North housing. The final plan was due on February 18th, heading for a record
of determination and then implementation later this year. 2) Sites 6,7,8,9 by Encinal High School
- preliminary scope of work is out and final comments are due this month. Hope to proceed with
that in May 2005. 3) Discussion about location of some nuclear propulsion work and general
radiological materials and disposal out at the site in the Northwest Territory. A survey called the
Historical Radiological Survey Assessment is being formulated so that they know exactly what
happened in that location. A lot of material is put out at these meetings and the coordination of
these activities is something the public should be very interested in.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
One speaker, Bill Smith came up and spoke on various topics.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
5",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-03-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday - March 1, 2006-6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA, US Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:20
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
March 1, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-03-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-12-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, December 7, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:21 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-081) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of November 2, 2011.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-082) Presentation on Status of Disposition and Development Strategy for Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a power point presentation summarizing the
next steps for moving forward with the no cost reconveyance and development strategy for
Alameda Point. Staff is providing the update to the Board before moving into the next phase of
making recommendations. The summary focused on entitlement, transportation infrastructure,
solicitation and transaction.
Speakers: Carol Gottstein discussed maximizing the land value of Alameda Point, specifically
Building 94, Chapel.
Chair Gilmore stated accountability issues are a downside to Phased Development. The Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point explained the key is to have really good design up front, and
guiding documents that dictate how larger engineering and structure will work globally, so that the
design is solid. There is concern about different developers doing backbone infrastructure for small
pieces. Having a uniform developer for larger, 100- acre parcels, would narrow accountability
issues with fewer people.
Member Tam discussed concerns about funding of predevelopment costs, backbone
infrastructure, and that the days of tax increment bond funding may not be available because of
the elimination of redevelopment. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point remains positive
that redevelopment will continue, and tax increment bonds will definitely be part of the plan. Staff
will have more information on potential funding sources to present to the Board at a future meeting.
Member deHaan inquired where funding for predevelopment can be derived. The Chief Operating
Officer - Alameda Point discussed the two sides to the equation - cost side and revenue side.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-12-07,2,"With reasonable costs, a developer can provide ideas to test assumptions. ARRA has a fund
balance, with a certain amount spent on planning. Options will be explored to find ways to
leverage for upfront costs. Staff is exploring other sources of low cost capital with contingencies
built into the costs, with the same analysis used for other options.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired about the developer role as an advisor to ARRA. The Chief Operating
Officer - Alameda Point explained that ARRA would be the property owner and maintain control
over entitlement process. With the understanding that ARRA is not a developer, put out an RFQ
for a development advisor, with a recommendation that the advisor actually be a developer with
experience working on large-scale projects, not just a consultant. In this advisor role, the
developer would actually work for the ARRA, are paid a monthly fee, but their contract can be
terminated by the ARRA. The advantage from a transaction standpoint is that it would be a simple
contract; the advisor has no actual rights to development or land. The concept is that the ARRA
maintain control, work in a partnership, but ARRA would be the leader. Vice Chair Bonta inquired
if there are any examples of that type of partnership. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point stated that Hamilton AFB is a similar example. Hamilton hired a team of advisors, which
included attorneys and economic consultants who planned and entitled all of Hamilton. They did
an RFQ with developers and negotiated purchase and sale, but had entitlements all upfront.
Member Johnson expressed concern about handling the most difficult parcels or areas that will
take longer to clean up. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed starting up efforts
and creating value will make the property more valuable. Less money is taken out of the project by
a master developer, which leaves more money in the project for development itself.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point informed the Board that staff would be coming back
to the ARRA with an update in February.
(11-083) Presentation on the Status of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Second Campus
Process.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point provided an oral update on the LBNL Second
Campus process. LBNL announced that they postponed their selection decision to early 2012.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated that it is staff's supposition that LBNL has
made a selection, but they are making sure the DOE and UC Regents are on the same page and
policy makers are on board.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
None.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-12-07,3,"9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan gave a brief report on the December 1 RAB meeting. The main issue was the
RAB's plan for ongoing years, specifically the schedule and frequency of meetings. The Navy
proposed to meet on a quarterly basis to cut back on operations costs. Various options are still
being explored, including teleconferencing capabilities. The RAB elected Dale Smith as Co-chair
and Carol Gottstein as Vice Co-chair.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-10-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:12 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 September 2, 2009.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 15, 2009.
2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Three-Year Sublease Renewal for Piedmont
Youth Soccer Club at Alameda Point.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners in
Building 29 at Alameda Point Without a Waiver in Rent and a Right of First Offer for
Building 29 Only.
2-E. Amend the Contract and Project Budget for the Fire at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center by
Adding $500,000.
2-F. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sales Agreement, and Approve Disposing of
Personal Property at Alameda Point - Proposed Sale of Ship Waste Off-Loading Barge.
Item 2-D was pulled by staff and continued to the November meeting. Vice Chair deHaan
pulled Items 2-C and 2-E for discussion. The balance of the Consent Calendar (Items 2-
A, 2-B and 2-F) was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
Discussion on Item 2-C:
Leslie Little, Economic Development Director, summarized the staff report. There were several
speakers. The speakers who were against the item were concerned about the soccer field and
Alameda resources being ceded to another city. They questioned what their fees pay for and
the availability of the fields to Alameda's soccer teams.
Chair Johnson explained that the Jack London Youth Soccer League created and manages the
pool of fields to which all the different soccer clubs can schedule games. The fields are not
exclusive and are open to all the communities at all times. The annual maintenance of the field
at Alameda Point is $40,000. Piedmont soccer does the maintenance, upkeep, take on that
responsibility, and Alameda clubs still have use of all the soccer fields.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-10-07,2,"Member deHaan was concerned that there would be a shortage of fields or available game-play
on the field for Alameda clubs. Dale Lillard, Park and Rec Director, explained that there has not
been a shortage of fields, and any shortage experienced was only due to the water rationing
mandated by EBMUD to help with the drought, not by any scheduling conflicts.
Member Matarrese clarified that this particular field at Alameda Point is not a City-owned field -
it still belongs to the Navy and it is not being ceded to another city, it is being leased. He further
explained that it is not any different than when the buildings are leased at Alameda point -
leasing is not restricted to Alameda only - and if that land was not leased to the Piedmont
soccer club, and because Alameda's Parks and Rec department didn't have the funds to
maintain the field, it would be a weed field.
There was further discussion from the representatives of the Jack London Youth Soccer Sports
League, Alameda Soccer Club, and the Piedmont Soccer Club. They answered questions
posed by the speakers and the Board, and further expressed their continued support and
maintenance of the Alameda Point field for the benefit of all the youth soccer clubs.
Item 2-C was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member Tam
and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
Discussion on Item 2-E:
Leslie Little discussed staff's request to augment the existing budget for removal of fire debris of
Building 6 by $500,000. She summarized that in late March, Building 6 caught fire. The initial
debris removal was done, but asbestos and other contaminated building materials were found,
and the remaining concrete tower structures were unstable. We are eligible for a $200,000
grant from DTSC to offset the $500,000.
Vice Chair deHaan asked what the overall cost would be when complete; and if we were going
to hold Catellus responsible to pay back the cost. Ms. Little stated the amount to be
approximately $2 million by completion. She further explained that under their existing DDA,
Catellus is responsible for the demolition. There has been discussion between Catellus and the
City regarding what their actual obligation for cost is beyond just the regular demolition, which
will not be resolved until there is another amendment to their DDA.
Ms. Little also stated that the City Attorney's office has looked into whether we could put a lien
on the property so that it couldn't transfer without this obligation. There is no way around it,
however, as the language of the DDA specifies that we have to deliver the property to them
clear of liens or encumbrances.
Member Matarrese asked how quickly, after the $500,000 is allocated, will the demolition be
completed. Ms. Little stated that it would be done immediately, and that the daily cost of
security will cease also. Member Matarrese stated that the Catellus DA clearly says that
Catellus is responsible for demolishing this building. Since we demolished it for them, we need
to assign this cost to them. Whatever the vehicle is we need to present it to Catellus.
Member Gilmore asked what the modification to the ARRA budget is and if there are things we
are not going to be able to do because of this $500,000 modification. Ms. Little explained that
there is no line item where these funds could be taken from, so staff proposed this would come
back to the ARRA in a budget adjustment. The funds would come out of the ARRA's cash
balance, rather than what is usually referred to as a fund balance.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-10-07,3,"Member Matarrese motioned to approve the allocation of the $500,000 to complete the
demolition, and added that the entire cost of the demolition be assigned to Catellus.
Member Gilmore seconded the motion and it was passed by the following voice votes:
Ayes: 5, Noes: o, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of September 3rd Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese said that the highlight of the meeting was an update and discussion on Site
1, the far northwest end of the wildlife refuge and lower part of Northwest Territories. The Navy
presentation refreshed the RAB on boundaries and milestones, the Navy's containment
preference to use an engineered four-foot soil cover, and their path forward which included a
timeline to Record of Decision (ROD) and remedial action to begin in December of 2010. The
RAB's discussion mostly challenged the assessment of that contamination - the fact that the
sample site data was old and inadequate. Member Matarrese stated that discussions at the
meetings have been heated and required a facilitator. There are people knowledgeable enough
to ask very technical questions and the bottom line is that no one is satisfied with the Navy's
proposal to cap it with four feet of soil. Member Matarrese was not able to attend the October 1
RAB meeting. The next meeting is Nov. 5.
Member Tam asked what the Navy plans to do with the feedback and their plans to go forward
with capping, even to our objection. Member Matarrese explained that the Navy was supposed
to have a final ROD by September 17th, but does not know if it has been published. The Navy is
also supposed to go through the pre-design work this December of whatever solution there
might be. ARRA's letter to the Navy stating the objection to the soil capping was also copied to
the Congressional delegation, which may garner a little more attention to slow this process
down and get a different resolution. Member Matarrese also complimented the ARRA's
environmental consultant, Dr. Peter Russell, for the informative summaries of the RAB meetings
which he provides to the ARRA.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-06-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. June 7, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:08 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -
0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Certification of Golf Course EIR and Authorization to Proceed with Negotiations
with Port of Oakland and Army Corps of Engineers.
Elizabeth Johnson, Base Reuse Planner, presented an overview and requested certification of the
final EIR for the Alameda Point Golf Course and Hotel Project. The draft EIR was circulated in
2004, with revisions prepared in 2005 to accommodate additional information regarding
wetlands on the site. The response to comments is also complete. Janie Alsep and Mark
Windsor of EDAW, and Jack Fink from Moffat Nichol Engineers, the consultants who assisted
in the preparation of the final EIR, were present to answer questions from the Board.
Chair Johnson asked if there was a time limit to start the project once it is certified. Elizabeth
Johnson explained that the EIR is programmatic which allows us to go forward with negotiating
with the Port or the Army Corp to get materials for the site. Chair Johnson wanted to clarify to
the public that, at this point we haven't seen that the project is economically feasible; that we're
not moving forward with this project, and this is just a very preliminary action. Elizabeth
Johnson concurred and further explained that the point of negotiating to get the dredge material
would be to determine the economic feasibility.
Member Gilmore clarified that if/when the project is determined to be economically feasible, we
would still need a separate EIR for the Hotel/Conference Center. Member deHaan and Elizabeth
Johnson discussed the current dredging at the Port of Oakland and that Alameda Point is the
secondary site to receive this dredge material, the primary site being Hamilton Field Wetland",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-06-07,2,"Page 2
Recreation. In response to member deHaan's question regarding the value of the dredge
materials, should the golf course project NOT go forward, Elizabeth Johnson explained that we
would be paid a Tipping Fee for the dredge materials.
Member Daysog questioned the delay in having an economic analysis. In response, Chair
Johnson reminded the Board that there was a several-year process where this consideration was
going on - we had a Hotel expert and even had an RFP on hotel complexes. At that time,
however, the downturn in the economy left the only people willing to propose a project was that
we owned a five-star hotel and paid them to manage it, and that was something the ARRA
wasn't willing to do. Elizabeth Johnson further discussed that the ARRA, in 2004, directed staff
to go ahead with preparation of the EIR in anticipation of the Hotel market coming back. Debbie
Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, concurred with this discussion,
adding that the hospitality industry has taken a while to bounce back since 9/11. She further
explained that once the EIR is certified, and we negotiate a Tipping Fee with the Army Corp and
the Port of Oakland that makes sense, then we can restudy the issue of the economic viability of
the project.
There was one speaker on this item, David Kerwin, who asked when and how often soil testing
will be done, expressing concern about loosened toxic materials if the property is not used for
a
golf course. Elizabeth Johnson responded that there will be a site-testing protocol in place.
Approval to certify the final EIR was motioned by Chair Johnson and seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 1 (Member
Daysog); Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese stated that he was unable to attend the last meeting and has no report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-04-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:47 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-032) Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 2, 2011, Minutes of the
Special Joint City Council/ARRA/Community Improvement Meetings held on March 15, 2011.
(*11-033) Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council and BSA Sea Scouts -
Ancient Mariner Regatta.
(*11-034) Approve the Proposed Sale of Two Grove Cranes to NRC Environmental Services.
(*11-035) Authorize the ARRA Port Manager, NRC Environmental Services, to Replace the Pier
2 Fendering System in an Amount Not to Exceed $260,000.
(*11-036) Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with Scott Electric for Pier 3
Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a Contract Not to Exceed $238,266 Using Remaining
ARRA Bond Funds.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Johnson seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
Chair Gilmore moved Item 7-A to be the first item discussed under the Regular Agenda
Items.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-037) Alameda Point Commercial Market Assessment.
The Deputy City Manager gave a presentation focusing on Alameda and East Bay market
conditions and the implications for Alameda Point and its redevelopment, strictly to provide a
market overview and not a development strategy, to determine the state of the market as it
exists today.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-04-06,2,"John McManus, senior director of Cushman & Wakefield was available to answer questions.
Chair Gilmore expressed concern that implementing a long term lease strategy that is niche-
focused will take as long as implementing a development plan.
Mr. McManus replied that a reuse strategy is different than a build-to-suit strategy, stating that it
is important that it is clearly defined what is available. Advised a strategy to show potential
office buildings with a potential floor plan and be able to explain to potential tenants that all risks
have been removed and understand what can be delivered.
Chair Gilmore clarified that in order to effectively market Alameda Point, money needs to be
spent upfront to determine concept buildings or concept plans apart from what the master plan
ends up being. Mr. McManus agreed with Chair Gilmore, stating that there needs to be a clear
definition, and if it is left to the potential tenants to figure out, in an environment where there is
so much vacancy, chances are that Alameda Point will not get their attention unless it's a very
unique use with a big footprint.
Member Tam inquired about the element of competition in the marketplace, asking what kind of
recommended capital outlay is needed for Alameda Point to have a competitive edge. Mr.
McManus stated that the good competitive news is that redevelopment and enterprise zones
are not going to be competitors for Alameda Point.
Joe Ernst, SRM associates, added that there is so much obsolescence of space - there is no
longer a need for more plain office space -- and it is a function of understanding the market for
spaces and uses that cannot be developed elsewhere, and aligning with the right team to
develop it. Vice Chair Bonta inquired if there are market segments performing differently than
the market trends. Mr. Ernst replied that those segments with superior performance include life
sciences, such as the LBNL opportunity, light industrial, and R&D flex space.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the next step will involve doing
more research and return to the Board with ideas or strategies.
Chair Gilmore thanked the Deputy City Manager- Development Services and staff for the
overview.
(11-038) Review and Comment on Summary Report for the Community Planning Process for
Alameda Point.
The Planning Services Supervisor and the Deputy City Manager- - Development Services gave a
presentation on the Community Planning Process.
Speakers: Elizabeth Krase Greene, Adam Gillitt, Nancy Gordon, Gretchen Lipow, Helen Sause,
Carol Gottstein, Susan Galleymore, Nancy Hird.
Chair Gilmore commented that she is looking forward to be able to discuss the financial
feasibility of the Alameda Point project with the public so the community can understand how
much it will cost to develop Alameda Point. In the past, since the developer was running a pro
forma, a lot of costs were not able to be shared with the public. Chair Gilmore stated that
certain costs are inescapable, no matter what is developed: infrastructure costs between $600M
- $800M.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-04-06,3,"Member Tam concurred with Chair Gilmore and added that economic underpinnings are critical
at Alameda Point. Member Tam and Chair Gilmore expressed their appreciation to staff and the
community for all their time and effort in the Community Planning Process.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-039) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative
- Highlights of March 3, 2011 RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan reported that the RAB discussed the San Francisco Estuary Regional
Monitoring program, a program that monitors 22 water sites in bay, and 47 sediment sites. The
RAB would like the program to take on one area of Alameda Point to monitor. The OU2A site,
adjacent to Encinal High School, was also discussed. Surface remediation was done, and final
remediation will be completed. Tomorrow's meeting (3/4) will include an update on the
Seaplane Lagoon.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11-040) Update on Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Second Campus Request for
Qualifications.
The Deputy City Manager-Development Services gave a presentation on the LBNL Campus
opportunity.
Representatives from the development teams introduced themselves to the Council: Joe Ernst,
SRM; Mary Pampuch, Lankford & Associates, Inc.
Speakers: Robert Todd
Member Tam inquired whether any of the 21 applicants that had responded have the same type
of potential development partner in RFQ process, in particular inquired if Alameda's partners are
unique to Alameda.
The Deputy City Manager-Development Services responded that to her knowledge, the other
sites are already owned by developers or have already teamed with private property owners;
the other applicants did not go through an RFQ process for a developer like Alameda, and none
of the other teams are teamed with the other sites.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired when the announcement of the short list will be made and how short
is the short list. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services replied that the call can come
through at any time now and that three on the short list is reasonable. Member Tam inquired if
there was any value to engaging legislators. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services
stated that letters have been sent to Stark and Swanson, but recommends waiting until the short
list comes out before Alameda starts lobbying.
Chair Gilmore thanked staff for the update and thanked the representatives from the
development teams for attending and introducing themselves to the Board.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-04-06,4,"8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-04-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, April 4, 2007- - 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and Chair Johnson
- 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Alameda Point Tenants (ANAM; USS Hornet; Puget
Sound International)
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Staff presented reports to the ARRA regarding the status of the leases with ANAM, USS Hornet,
and Puget Sound International. Staff solicited and received guidance and direction as to each of
the leases.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Alameda Point Tenants (Edge Innovations)
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Staff presented a report to the Board and the Board provided direction to Staff.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Initiation of Litigation (Gov. Code section 54956.9(c))
Number of cases: 1
Staff presented recommendation to the Board. Direction given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Strugg
Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 4, 2007",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-04-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-05-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Absent: Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 5, 2008.
2-B. Approve Sublease for Delphi Productions at Alameda Point.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions:
o
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of Quarterly Update of Project Master
Scheduled Prepared by SCC Alameda Point LLC.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an update as
required in the ENA project master schedule. In March, ARRA voted to provide a six month
extension to the mandatory milestones in the ENA, and added additional requirements of a
consultant costs account. She informed that Suncal has deposited the required funds pursuant to
the amended ENA and are moving forward to achieve the first milestone, the Development
Concept, in September. The second activity concluded Monday evening, the May 5th
Community Meeting on Transit Oriented Alternatives, an MTC-funded stationery master plan.
The meeting included discussions on principles and land use policies that would encourage
transit-supportive development at Alameda Point and ways the master developer could evaluate
those principles.
Member deHaan directed questions to Mr. Pat Keliher, SunCal's project manager for Alameda
Point. Member deHaan asked whether staff and SunCal have a mechanism to recognize and
track SunCal's progress, because the project is a monumental task. Mr. Keliher explained that
the build-up is to September of the Development Concept. SunCal meets weekly with staff and
provide monthly updates at the ARRA meetings, and there's an upcoming community meeting
planned. Debbie Potter further explained that staff and SunCal recognize that when ARRA
approved the six month extension, there was a requirement, in addition to the quarterly deposit,
to spend $117,000/month for consultant services. Staff is able to monitor what activities SunCal
is doing with their consultants to move the planning effort forward. David Brandt, Deputy
Executive Director, stated that given the compressed schedule, staff is not anticipating any
interim products other than meeting materials, no sub plans, etc. Member deHaan discussed his",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-05-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-05-07,2,"understanding of using monetary expenditure as a baseline, but was concerned that spending
money doesn't necessarily mean progress. He would like a break-down in more incremental,
more defined product. Mr. Keliher acknowledged Member deHaan's concerns, and offered to
choose core topics that ARRA would like to have reports on, and speak about substantive issues
at the meetings. Chair Johnson discussed that the milestones are already in place and it's not
necessary to add extra ""interim' milestones. Member deHaan explained that all he's requesting
is for SunCal to stick with timeline, report on current activities, and provide a progress report on
key issues and accomplishments. Member Gilmore requested a brief description, and to provide
context for what's going on, rather than just the dry milestones that are shown on the chart.
Member Matarrese agreed and said it is worthwhile to list whether we're behind, or on, schedule;
and to show progress on something that is significant as a milestone so that the public can
anticipate what's going to happen. It is also useful to check things off. Member deHaan
expressed that he just doesn't want to see SunCal in the same position they were when they had
to request an extension, as September is approaching quickly. Member Gilmore requested no
powerpoints, explaining that time spent making the presentation should not take away from time
spent working on the project. Mr. Keliher agreed.
There was one public speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke on various topics, including public transit.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese was unable to attend the meeting and did not have a report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan provided feedback and expressed his concerns about the May 5th community
meeting regarding Transit Oriented Alternatives. He was concerned that the poor turnout was
due to lack of publicity about the meeting, that notice of the meeting was not posted on the main
bulletin board at City Hall, and there was no newspaper release, except for a 1/8 page
advertisement. He discussed that last year's meeting on the same topic, held at Mastick Senior
Center, had strong community input, lots of interest, lots of dialogue and the community was
engaged. It was well-publicized and got the community talking about the issue. Debbie Potter
explained that the meeting was noticed on the Alameda Point website, and an email blast to all
previous interested-party lists was sent, as well as an email blast to SunCal's list. There was also
a 1/4 page advertisement which ran three times in the newspaper. She acknowledged that the
notice was not posted on the bulletin board; but that the methods of publicity for this meeting
were actually the same, if not more, than what has been done in the past, with the addition of
SunCal's email list, and has been an effective way of notifying people who have interest.
Member deHaan expressed the importance of public relations and requested he receive the
handouts prior to the meetings.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-05-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-05-07,3,"Respectfully submitted,
Aira Ridden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-05-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-02-03,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The meeting convened at 12:10 a.m. (on 2/4/09) with Chair Johnson
2-B
presiding.
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 Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting, and the Special
CIC Meeting held on January 6, 2009. (City Clerk) [CIC].
2-B. Recommendation to authorize the use of $350,000 of Tax Exempt Bond Funds from the
Merged Area Bond (Funds 201.11 and 201.15) and appropriate the funds for use for the
Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Emergency Water Repairs and Electrical Upgrades
at Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue; and authorize FISC Lease Revenue for additional
annual support of the Façade Grant Program. (Development Services) [CIC and ARRA]
Item 2-B was pulled for discussion. Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member
Matarrese and seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes:
Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.
Discussion of Item 2-B: Leslie Liittle, Development Services Director, summarized the project
and asked the Board for consideration so that the project can get underway for construction in
the October timeframe. The request is essentially an appropriation of $800,000 that staff
expects there will be a trade of some funds between the FISC and the CIC. The tax exempt
bonds will go into the FISC water project as a Public Works project and the FISC lease
revenues will come back to the CIC to be used outside of redevelopment project areas and
does not have the same restrictions as redevelopment funds.
Rob Ratto, PSBA Executive Director, discussed the current improvement program on Park
Street and urged the CIC/Board to approve the money for the undergrounding, the façade grant,
and the FISC property.
Approval of Item 2-B was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Vice-Chair
deHaan, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Recommendation to consider an amendment to the Lease Agreement of 2315
Central Avenue between the CIC of the City of Alameda, Lessor, and Alameda Wine
Company, LLC, Tenant. (Development Services) [CIC]",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-02-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-02-03,2,"Ms. Little gave a brief overview of Alameda Wine Company's request to amend their lease to
change their hours of operation. Staff is recommending no change to their lease at this time.
The tenant addressed the CIC explaining her request is due to financial reasons, stating that the
hours of 11:00 a.m.- - 4:00 p.m. are the least profitable for her business.
Member Matarrese motioned to follow staff's recommendation to keep the status quo and
defer any change to the Alameda Wine Company lease until such time that there is the
eventuality and risk of the business closing. Only at that time should this item be
brought back to the CIC. Member Gilmore seconded the motion and it was passed by the
following voice votes: Ayes: 3 Noes: 1 (Vice-Chair deHaan) Abstentions: 1. (Member
Tam)
3-B. Recommendation to approve a Five Year Lease and Repayment Plan/Write-off with
AC Hornet Foundation. (Development Services) [ARRA]
Ms. Little and Nanette Mocanu, Finance & Administration Division Manager, summarized the
Hornet's' repayment plan to alleviate their debt.
The Board gave direction to staff to bring this item back after revisions to the repayment plan to
include that the Hornet provide: a new business plan, credible financial reports, evidence of
creditors, and address the issue of the benefit to the ARRA of moving the Hornet for profitable
use of Pier 3. The Board also requested that a representative from the Hornet attend the
meeting when this item is brought back before the ARRA.
3-C. Recommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Contract with Harris &
Associates for On-Call Services for Review of Land Development Entitlement
Applications for Redevelopment of Alameda Point. (Development Services) [ARRA]
This item was continued to the next Regular ARRA meeting on March 4, 2009.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of January 8th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese requested the Board review the handouts regarding OU-5 and OU-2B
technical details. The next RAB meeting is on Thursday, 2/5.
7.
ADJOURNMENT - ARRA, CIC
Meeting was adjourned at 1:22 a.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-02-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-03-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING of the
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC)
Wednesday March 4, 2009
The meeting convened at 10:30 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Torrey and Chair Johnson
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Accept Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the
Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Held Tuesday, January 6, 2009.
2-B. Accept Housing Authority Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008. The
Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of
Commissioners accept the audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008.
2-C. Authorize Submission of Application for Replacement Vouchers for Esperanza
Residents.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Commissioner Matarrese and
seconded by Commissioner Torrey and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 6
Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Hold a Public Hearing to Approve an Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and Fleet
Industrial Supply Center; Approving an Amendment to the 1996 Naval Air
Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan for the Main Street Neighborhoods
Subarea; and Approving a Legally Binding Agreement for a Homeless
Accommodation at the North Housing Parcel (LBA); and Approve a Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners Resolution Approving a LBA and Related
Memorandum of Understanding.
Elizabeth Cook, Housing Development Manager, gave a presentation which was an
overview of the North Housing Parcel project.
Liz Varela, Executive Director, Building Futures for Women and Children (BFWC),
stated that they are excited about the project, as it's a great opportunity for their clients
to make change in a safe, stable housing, with support. Doug Biggs, Executive
Director, Alameda Point Collaborative, commented on a few points, stating that the
process has resulted in a really strong plan, and that all partners came together to
create a solid program which draws on the strengths of each provider, the Housing",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-03-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-03-04,2,"Authority (HA) and BWFC. He's excited that this plan will permanently end
homelessness. He reminded the board that the Homeless Needs Assessment was
done a year ago, March 2008, and today, the needs for the homeless is even greater.
He addressed a couple of issues discussed in the presentation, including the site plan.
He commented that the drawing is only a small portion of entire site, and that the
general plan principles are met: housing is closer to the Tinker Ave. transit corridor,
which makes for easy access to transportation and schools.
Regarding the
environmental clean up, Mr. Biggs stated that they are constrained by the ROD (Record
of Decision), which limits the Navy's culpability. He discussed that in the worse case to
comply with ROD, the HA came up with a plan built into the funding mix, as well as a
plan which is part of the service plan to set aside money for insurance. He assured the
Board that the project was made to be as risk-averse as much as possible
Member Matarrese stated a few modifications to the recommendation, including making
sure the eight acres stay contiguous, and that the Miracle League is specified within the
eight acres; that language is worked into the LBA that addresses if the remediation
insurance is cross prohibitive, we don't have to take title. Chair Johnson added the
provision that outside counsel, or counsel, should make any changes necessary to
ensure additional safeguards. Donna Mooney, ARRA General Counsel, summarized
that this is an ARRA motion approving the resolution (the addendum to final EIR),
amending the Community Reuse Plan, and approving the LBA as modified. The
motion was made by Chair Johnson, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed
by the following voice votes: Ayes - 6, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
As the HABOC, the recommendation was to approve the resolution approving the MOU
between the Housing Authority, Alameda Point Collaborative, and Building Futures for
Women and Children; and approving the LBA as modified. The motion was made by
Commissioner Torrey, seconded by Commissioner Matarrese, and passed by the
following voice votes: Ayes - 6, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which
the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
None.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
6.
ADJOURNMENT - ARRA, HABOC
Meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
AlumaElidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-03-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-12-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The meeting convened at 11:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Petris Air Work Industries, Inc. dba
Alameda Aerospace at Alameda Point.
This item was pulled from the agenda and not addressed. It was continued to the January
7, 2009 regular ARRA meeting. (This item was subsequently submitted as an off-agenda).
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Approve the Community Reuse Plan Amendment and Legally Binding Agreement for the
Homeless Accommodation at the North Housing Parcel
This item was continued to a Special Joint Meeting of the ARRA and Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners on February 4, 2009.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of November 6 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese did not attend the 11/6 RAB meeting and did not have a report. He was
attending a Council meeting on 11/6.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-12-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-12-02,2,"7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:19 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-12-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-11-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:03 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 October 7, , 2009.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Vice
Chair deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of October 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese did not attend the Oct. 1 meeting, but received a comprehensive listing
(Alameda Point Site/Area Description) of Alameda Point IR Sites by name, by number, historic
use, current contamination status and future reuse. He asked that this list be distributed to
other boardmembers. The next RAB meeting is tomorrow, 11/5.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-11-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-01-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday. January 2, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 6, 2006.
2-B. Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
2-C. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a 3rd Amendment to the
Standards of Reasonableness to Modify the Allowed Uses for Building 613.
Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese
and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Tam
was not present at the 12-6-06 ARRA meeting).
Approval of Items 2-B and 2-C was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report as Member Matarrese was unable to attend the last RAB meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed opportunities of the cruise ship industry, citing that the docking of
cruise ships in San Francisco earned $10 million per year. Member deHaan requested that staff",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-01-02,2,"Page 2
investigate this opportunity further, particularly the deep water docks included in the MARAD
lease. Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said the item will be agendized and be brought back to
the ARRA.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-10-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:10 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
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 September 1, 2010.
2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Jim Bustos Plumbing, Inc., Building
612, at Alameda Point.
2-C. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with Russell
Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term
for 12 Months and Adding $140,000 to the Budget.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for NRC Environmental Services, Inc.
Building 616 and Yard D-13, at Alameda Point.
Vice Chair deHaan moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of September 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese was not able to attend the Sept. 2 meeting but received materials regarding
remediation activity in progress with a new technology, and a brief report on the University of
Florida study of the remediation technique.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
6-A. Presentation on ""Going Forward"" Community Forums for Alameda Point",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-10-06,2,"The Planning Services Manager gave an oral presentation on the schedule of the Alameda
Point Community Forums, an initial eight month public outreach effort of the first phase of
planning, which would end in June 2011 and restart the environmental review process. The
Planning Services Manager explained that while the City of Alameda is doing a CEQA
document EIR, the Navy will be doing a NEPA document. The Navy process won't start until
there is a project description or general description of the City's plan. The goal is eight months.
The eight-month schedule starts with a series of community outreach efforts, including
community workshops and internet outreach. The tentative schedule of the first three meetings
is: November 9 at the Grand Pavilion, November 18 at Mastick, and December 8 in west
Alameda. These workshops and key components of each meeting will be consistent from
meeting to meeting.
The Planning Services Manager summarized the six key areas as noted in the staff report: 1)
Community Facilities, 2) Land Use Mix, 3) Streets, Parks, and Open Space, 4) Transportation
Access, 5) Architectural Character and Building Types, and 6) Historic Character and Adaptive
Reuse.
There are plans for a Tenant Forum in the spring focused on economic development strategy, a
Developer and Business Forum, and discussions with each of the Boards and Commissions. A
summary will be presented to the ARRA Board in March 2011, and a project description in June
2011.
Member Gilmore requested an overview of where Alameda and the Bay Area stand in the
commercial and industrial real estate market. The Interim City Manager discussed the
application of a citywide real estate management policy which will include the information
Member Gilmore requested about comparable leases.
Member Tam requested an evaluation of internal competition, i.e., Marina Village VS. Alameda
Point.
Member Matarrese discussed the commercialization and industrialization approach to
development at Alameda Point, stating that the markets already out there are not the typical
suburban business park, not the type of businesses that would go into Marina Village, i.e., NRC
and supporting industries, Spirits Alley, the maritime industry. Member Matarrese also
discussed the jobs housing, and that job creation should drive it, stating that Alameda Point will
never be the rest of Alameda and probably shouldn't be, because it is industrial. Alameda Point
should reflect what it was and people will look at it in a different way.
Vice Chair deHaan concurred with Member Matarrese, stating that Alameda Point has a
different architectural design and that the development should maximize the unique venue out
there, and that folks should not get caught up in that it has to look like the rest of Alameda.
Member Gilmore recommended evaluating and targeting the types of businesses and industries
that would value the asset of Alameda's own electric utility.
Member Tam inquired a status report on communications with the Navy and if they were aware
of the ""Going Forward"" plan, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services
responded in the affirmative, stating that staff met with the Navy last week. The Navy produced
conveyance objectives and stated that they want to help facilitate conveyance and interim
economic development. The Interim City Manager stated that she will meet with the Navy's top
management every 90 days for a status update.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-10-06,3,"Member Tam inquired if there was opportunity for Alameda to get funding for the EIR process.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative, stating that
staff has discussed funding possibilities with the Navy. There are some technical issues as the
Navy has a contract for their NEPA process, and the City has a CEQA contract, but it may be
possible to combine the processes so that it is cost efficient.
Member Tam inquired if there are synergies between the sister federal agencies (Lawrence
Berkeley Lab is with the Dept. of Energy, and the Veterans Administration has close ties with
Navy). The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that, regarding the VA, the
Navy understands that there has to be coordination to the extent that City staff can work with
the VA to leverage their infrastructure and develop that relationship, not just in terms of
regulatory process, but also with actual physical improvements and infrastructure. With regards
to the Lawrence Berkeley Lab's requests for proposals for land to host their second campus, the
City is prepared to submit a proposal in coordination with the Navy.
The Interim City Manager added that the City is prepared to respond to the Lawrence Berkeley
Lab RFP process with a very competitive proposal. There are opportunities to have strategic
alliances as a result of the DOE and the Navy that makes Alameda Point uniquely competitive.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff will be providing the Board
with updates at the monthly ARRA meetings.
Vice Chair deHaan inquired if the Navy is willing to do phased conveyance. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that the Navy is exploring the boundaries, the pros
and cons of phased conveyance, and that the Navy is open and listening to ideas.
There was discussion from the Board about the management of the utilities at Alameda Point
and whether there was a formal decision made about it. The Assistant General Counsel -
ARRA stated that there has never been a plan that the City would operate any of the utilities at
Alameda Point other than the electric utility.
Member Matarrese requested that the facts of this matter be brought back to the Board.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese attended the liaison committee meeting between AC Transit and the City
and discussed the series of cuts, including reduction of services for Lines O, Line 51A, and Line
21, and the discontinuation of Line 851. He was most concerned about Line 31 (the only bus
service to the Alameda Point Collaborative and to west of Main St) which will be discontinued on
weekends. Member Matarrese requested that the City insist that Line 31 be continued on
weekends.
There was discussion by the Board of SunCal's involvement in the political arena.
Boardmembers expressed their dissatisfaction and displeasure, denouncing SunCal's efforts,
stating that the personal attacks on staff members and elected officials to influence any political
debate or election should not be tolerated.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-10-06,4,"9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-011) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011.
(*11-012) Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-013) Endorse ""Going Forward"" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services/project manager, summarized the Going
Forward process. The interdepartmental team includes the Planning Services Manager and Public
Works Director. The Going Forward process is a two-tier process: Tier 1 is developing a vision and
project description for Alameda Point through July 2011 to use as a basis to start the City's
environmental review process (CEQA); and the Navy for their NEPA process in terms of
conveyance. Tier 2 is the Entitlement process from July 2011- - July 2013, which has four major
entitlements: Specific Plan, Master Infrastructure Plan, a Conveyance Agreement, and State Lands
Exchange Agreement. A community-planning workbook was developed and provided online. The
workbook was used to facilitate several community workshops that were held. Staff will prepare a
summary report that will be presented at the March 2 ARRA meeting. A tenant forum is scheduled
next week. The next six months of the Going Forward process will focus on several efforts. The
first and biggest is the Master Planning effort, which will include the project management team and
a team of consultants: land use planning, economics, civil engineering, transportation,
environmental, sustainable infrastructure. There is also a plan to work with ARRA staff and PM
Realty on a long-term leasing strategy to leverage additional funding and create momentum for
longer term leases on buildings that will be remaining, as well as work with the Navy and State
Lands on joint proposed conveyance objectives and principles regarding land conveyance. There
will be a pro forma, and discussion of land value and structuring how the land is transferred from
the Navy.
Member Johnson inquired whether there is an ARRA agreement with PM Realty and the status of
an RFP for a property manager. The Acting City Attorney responded that there is a property
management agreement with PM Realty from 2004. Regarding the status of the RFP for a property
manager, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that an RFP has not been done
yet, but staff will make it a priority as time permits.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,2,"Chair Gilmore reminded staff that she has asked for a real estate leasing primer from staff, and
would like this primer before a property manager RFP, because it will inform the RFP. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services replied that the leasing primer has been put in a draft scope
for an economics firm to help staff put together a presentation. The primer will be done as soon as
there is an economist on board.
The project management team is working with the Federal Government, Veteran's Administration,
on their project as a potential institutional user; as well as with the Alameda Point Collaborative
(APC) and Building Futures for Women and Children, consolidating their facilities to meet their
longer term needs, but on a smaller piece of land. The Public Works department will be
implementing a federal transportation administration grant for transportation improvement and
routes at Alameda Point.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services prepared a budget of the project, which will be
discussed further on 2/15 at the mid year adjustment.
The Planning Services Manager discussed the adopted general plan for Alameda Point.
Member Tam discussed the importance of engaging the school district, East Bay Regional Park
District (EBRPD), Peralta Community College District, as they were not included in the outreach.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that staff will be meeting with the
EBRPD tomorrow, and will include these agencies in the outreach.
Vice Chair Bonta supports moving forward with the Going Forward process, as the plan provides
specificity and focus, with flexibility - an important balance. Member Johnson and Chair Gilmore
also support moving forward. Chair Gilmore emphasized the importance of flexibility. She stated
that the process and plan couldn't be so rigid that opportunities are missed.
Speakers: Doug Biggs, Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Helen Sause, Carol Gottstein, Nancy Hird,
Gretchen Lipow, Karen Bey.
Member deHaan moved to approve endorsing the Alameda Point ""Going Forward"" Process.
Member Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(11-014) Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve
Issuance of Request for Qualifications for Developers.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave an overview on the Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab (LBNL) RFQ for a second campus. The interdepartmental team lead by the Deputy
City Manager - Development Services, includes the Public Works Director (Matt Naclerio), Planning
Services Manager (Andrew Thomas), Alameda Municipal Power General Manager (Girish
Balachandran), and Economic Development Manager (Eric Fonstein). The team has prepared the
first draft of the response, identified key aspects and would like policy direction on four key points to
finalize a competitive response: 1) Site Location, 2) Planning Guidelines 3) Financial Incentives 4)
Developer RFQ.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed the Next Steps and timeline for the
decision-making process and selection of development team.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,3,"Chair Gilmore inquired where the developer's economic incentive would come from. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services discussed initial ideas, including fee development and
private development to land adjacent, and that it was structured in the RFQ to ask each of
developers to put forth recommendations.
Member Johnson commented that the zero cost idea is worth it to have LBNL at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson stated that the project should have a defined, tight design and review process.
The Planning Services Manager discussed various ways to structure a design and review process
that would give the community assurance of high quality design buildings that would fit within the
design expectations of the city and minimize the time and energy LBNL would have to spend in a
normal design and review process.
Member Tam discussed LBNL's expectation that the ARRA will engage an entity with appropriate
development experience. Member Tam inquired whether LBNL could be part of the developer
evaluation process so that there is an even playing field with everyone else. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that LBNL clearly stated that a developer team was
not required in the initial process but that the project team would check to see if LBNL would like to
weigh in on the evaluation so that the ARRA doesn't end up with a partner that could be of a
disadvantage.
Speakers: Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Seth Hamalian, Phil Owen, Karen Bey, Nancy Hird.
Vice Chair Bonta asked for clarification on the $14M in benefits to the city, inquired about the time
period and the assumptions. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the
$14M is based on an economic impact study done for the second campus, and contemplates 800
jobs in the first phase. The economic development manager stated that the study is based on
facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville, and how much revenue and impacts there were on those
host communities. Since that study was done, the LBNL's conception of the second base initial
phase has grown much larger, as it would be consolidating not just those two facilities, but also the
Oakland & Berkeley facilities. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the ARRA would be proposing a no-
cost long-term lease and an option to buy at no cost. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services confirmed that when the City receives the land from the Navy, it would then be transferred
to LBNL. The Acting General Counsel explained that the ARRA has a Lease in Furtherance of
Conveyance (LIFOC) so will be providing a sublease, and when title to the property is received, it
will be title going to LBNL.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired whether there is a site that staff determined to be second best, and what
were the drawbacks as compared to the preferred site. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services explained that there are some outstanding leaseholds the project team felt would create
some uncertainty, so the preferred site had the least number of issues. The Planning Services
Manager stated that both sites are great and the ARRA is open to discussing variations of the sites.
Vice Chair Bonta suggested the ARRA be more bold to attract LBNL by offering to provide a menu
of other options and be aggressive in financial incentives and no-cost incentives, AMP discount,
reduced planning fees, and tax rebates. Member Johnson agrees and supports making that part of
the initial proposal so that it is more attractive and highly competitive.
Member Tam inquired if LBNL's existing facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville were able to
generate the $14M tertiary economic benefit from those communities. The Economic Development
manager explained that the analysis by CBRE looked at direct and indirect spending and the
tertiary, multiplier effect of payrolls, of employee spending; including spending in restaurants,
shopping, and sales tax.
The Board discussed the existing amenities on Alameda Point, Webster Street, and Marina Village.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,4,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not
propose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on
potential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to
the table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the
financial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon
because there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of
other incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented
that owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has
discussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns
about load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage.
Staff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is
short listed.
Member Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the
user goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of
Alameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power,
which was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL
scenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity.
Chair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The
Acting City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2.
Member Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer
for the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-015) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of January 6, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan reported that the RAB discussed Building 5 and 5A (Site OU-2C), a 1.5M square
feet complex, to make a determination to bring the site to remediation level. The site was the
center and hub of industrial operation, there was lots of activity causing a major impact to the
environment, including radiation concerns. The Navy has four proposals: 1) take no action, 2)
cement the pipes, 3) tear the building down, and 4) dig and haul. Member deHaan commented that
he is impressed with the dedication of the RAB members and the community, they have depth of
knowledge which they lend as community support and have come up with good recommendations.
The RAB also discussed the conveyance status and the redevelopment planning status. Member
deHaan stated that the Deputy City Manager - Development Services presented the Going
Forward process to the RAB and it was well received. Member deHaan stated that he will not be
able to attend the February 3 RAB meeting due to a scheduling conflict.
Member Johnson also reminded staff and the public not to forget the commitment of the Navy
during the remediation process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff
would ask the Board for policy direction on the OU-2C site in coming months.
Speaker: Gretchen Lipow
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,5,"None.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-17,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 - - -6:30 P.M.
(08-406 - ) A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to
attend the Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda meeting.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 17, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-05-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- MAY 16, 2019- -6:30 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Vice Mayor Knox White led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(19-295) Budget Workshop for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21 to Provide Direction
on Funding Requests.
Discussed the School Board's request for mental health funding and what the District is
doing to address the issue: Jennifer Williams, School Board.
Discussed the School District's mental health crisis, which is a community issue; urged
Council to provide support: Kirsten Zazo, Alameda Unified School District.
Urged Council to fund what is proposed in the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan,
which includes 18 projects in the first two years; listed projects; noted up to eight staff
are required to fully implement the Plan: Lauren Eisele, Community Action for a
Sustainable Alameda (CASA).
Discussed leadership being needed to address climate; stated responding to climate
change is a core service for Alameda; suggested an Assistant City Manager position be
added and dedicated to address climate: Ruth Abbe, CASA.
Urged Council not to cut the tree budget, which would mean no more street tree
planting; stated street trees already do not get enough maintenance: Christopher
Buckley, Alameda.
Discussed funding and staffing to implement the Climate Action Plan: Herb Behrstock,
CASA.
Submitted information; discussed the increase in emissions, importance of leadership
and mental health in schools: Sylvia Gibson, CASA.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-05-16,2,"Expressed concern over cutting the tree maintenance budget; discussed advantages of
having trees: Corrine Lambden, Alameda.
The Council discussed procedural matters.
In response to public comment, the City Manager made brief comments on the tree
budget.
The City Engineer reviewed the Power Point slides presented at end of the previous
night and responded to Council questions.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded to questions.
The Public Information Officer continued to track Council follow up requests and
throughout the workshop.
****
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 7:36 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:51
p.m.
***
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director continued the Power Point
presentation and responded to Council questions.
The City Manager responded to Council questions.
The Council discussed the School District funding request.
Ms. Williams and Ms. Zazo responded to questions regarding the request.
Councilmember Daysog made comments.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:44 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:58
p.m.
Each of the Councilmembers and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made additional comments
regarding the funding requests.
The City Manager provided a summary of the recommendations he would bring back.
Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie and Daysog made additional comments.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-05-16,3,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:48
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
3
May 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-- -JULY 20, 2021--4:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 4:01 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmember
Vella arrived at 5:13 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by
an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21-469) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell,
Community Development Director, and Lois Butler, Development Services Division
Manager, as Real Property Negotiators for the Marina Village Inn located at 1151
Pacific Marina, Alameda, CA. Accepted.
Public Comment on Closed Session Items Read Into the Record:
Discussed increased crime near Marina Village; stated people with boats docked in the
area are not happy about the City purchasing the Marina Village Inn: Marilyn Amorino,
Alameda.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-470) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9); Case Name: Le V. City of Alameda; Court: Superior Court of
California County of Alameda; Case Numbers: RG20082184
(21-471) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Marina Village Inn, 1151 Pacific Marina, Alameda, CA; City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director,
and Lois Butler, Economic Development Division Manager and Community Services
Manager; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Shailendra (Sam) Devdhara, Sole
Member/Manager of Core Hotels, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
(21-472) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Alameda Theatre, Located at 2317 Central Avenue,
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,2,"Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community
Development Director, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development
Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Entertainment Associates,
L.P.; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
(21-473) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957); Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Eric Levitt
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding the Existing Litigation, the accident which forms the basis of
this litigation took place on May 2, 2020, at approximately 4:37 PM on the 1800 block of
Poggi Street; plaintiff Nikita Le rode his bicycle over a defective drainage grate; the front
bike tire went into the grate slats, causing the bike to pitch plaintiff forward over the
handlebars where plaintiff landed on his face, sustaining significant injuries, especially
to his face and teeth; in order to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation, the City
Council authorized the City Attorney to settle this matter in an amount not to exceed
$255,000 by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera
Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4;
Absent: 1; regarding Alameda Theatre, staff provided information and Council provided
direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer:
Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4; Absent:
1; regarding Marina Village Inn, staff provided information and Council provided
direction with no vote taken; regarding Performance Evaluation, Council conducted the
evaluation and conducted a vote by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Absent; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3; Noes: 1; Absent: 1.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:10
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,3,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 20, 2021-6:58 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
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 ITEM
(21-474) Resolution No. 15796, ""Reappointing Lynn Jones as a Member of the
Historical Advisory Board."" Adopted;
(21-474 A) Resolution No. 15797, ""Reappointing Norman Sanchez as a Member of the
Historical Advisory Board."" Adopted;
(21-474 B) Resolution No. 15798, ""Reappointing Xiomara Cisneros Lynn Jones as a
Member of the Planning Board."" Adopted;
(21-474 C) Resolution No. 15799, ""Reappointing Alan Teague as a Member of the
Planning Board.' Adopted; and
(21-474D) - Resolution No. 15800, ""Appointing Christina McKenna as a Member of the
Public Utilities Board."" Adopted.
Stated the Open Government Commission's (OGC) discussed an equity and diversity
survey to review City Boards and Commissions diversity; urged new candidates be
appointed every four years to ensure maximum representation and inclusivity: Carmen
Reid, Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Vella 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.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Sanchez, Ms. Cisneros, Mr.
Teague and Ms. McKenna, who each made brief comments.
(21-475) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners and Public Art Commission (PAC).
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Robert Ferguson, Jennifer Hoffecker and Peter
Platzgummer for appointment to the PAC.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
1",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,23,"$28 million is likely not the correct amount to allocate; the analysis of the sale will drive
the funding amounts; $20 million is too high for the project; dedicating so much of the
ARPA funds toward one project is not going to fly; ; the project's proximity to amenities
makes the Marina Village Inn an asset; Council should not miss the opportunity;
expressed concern about groundwater; stated groundwater is something that cuts
across the City; expressed support for taking advantage of the storm water system.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for spending ARPA funding as needed based off
assessments for the Marina Village Inn; stated the project is a good use of funds; equity
is about helping those who need the most; there will be times when significant amounts
of resources will be used in order to have an impact on those who need help; Council
can do something positive with the project; Council has addressed issues related to
budget shortages; further cuts should not be made to services; expressed support for
ensuring the budget is being taken care of; expressed concern about additional budget
cuts; stated that she would like to find a way to maximize the use of ARPA funds for
housing needs; questioned other ways to maximize and assist with housing needs;
stated matters are being discussed at the State level, including UBI; there will be
multiple layers of assistance coming to families and those in need; Council can make
the greatest impact using ARPA funds for housing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should think big; ARPA funds have been described
as a once in a lifetime opportunity; outlined the staff report; stated that she agrees with
using ARPA funds to purchase the Marina Village Inn; however, not using $20 million;
different funding sourcs will be incorporated; in addition to federal funding, there will be
money coming in from the State and County which can be used towards operating
costs; outlined a meeting with Alameda Justice Alliance, Transform Alameda and
Alameda Renters Coalition; expressed support for a Alameda Hospital program similar
to the White Bird Clinic, which provides mental health and substance abuse programs
and acts as a respite day center for those needing to get off the street; participants do
not need to be admitted or stay overnight; the City Manager is working with similarly
sized neighboring cities to find funding mechanisms; there is exciting potential for the
City to provide the program and alternative services; the program will help Alameda
Hospital, residents and business centers; there is a pot of money for pilot programs,
such as UBI; funding will be directed towards youth exiting the foster care system;
outlined the foster care exit process; stated UBI can provide assistance; funding can
also be used for pregnant mothers within specific income categories; she supports
investments being made for youths; outlined a Mayor's Conference discussion of a
Stockton's UBI pilot program; stated that she is intrigued by the idea of a community
land trust; the City of Oakland has provided a community land trust along with other
cities; the opportunity arises when distressed or foreclosed property is able to be
purchased by the City and used for affordable housing; she is interested in a community
resiliency hub and would like to receive further information; inquired whether staff has
enough direction from Council.
The City Manager stated sufficient direction has been provided; however, a specific
motion would be helpful.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
16",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,24,"The Assistant City Manager stated that he has heard from four Councilmembers to
focus on housing and the Marina Village Inn project; staff needs to work on the
schedule and analysis of true costs; public health came up in a number of different
contexts; staff can provide additional options related to public health and the investment
in a mental health clinic or other local support for public health; business assistance did
not come up more than once; it would be great to hear Council direction related to the
General Fund and revenue loss; ARPA funding would come back and become part of a
broader ability to fund different priorities; the funding is flexible in some ways; staff can
continue to refine the process; the deadline to fully program the funds is the end of
2024; the funding can be looked at in future budget cycles.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the approach of a broader spending ability;
stated ARPA is wonderful; however, the City is limited to the regulations put forth by the
federal government; if the money goes into the General Fund, the City has much more
flexibility for other projects.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is supportive of the funding being placed in
the General Fund; he would like to ensure the City has some kind of spending
guidelines; expressed concern about a grab bag approach; the flexibility in spending
should go towards meeting goals; Council is still honing versus selecting projects; the
Assistant City Manager has outlined the matter well; the goals should be: housing,
mental health and public health related programs which cannot be reimbursable under
the program.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council can outline the revenue loss portion; expressed
concern about impacts to services relative to priorities and revenue loss; businesses are
also included in impacts to loss of services; Council has done a number of things for the
business districts, including outreach and services; Council has provided many grants
with City funds; the City can leverage funds to provide over-arching services that meet a
number of different needs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not heard additional support for
the Smart City Master Plan and hotspots; inquired whether there are other planned
funding options.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the Smart City Master Plan and hotspots;
requested clarification about the categories.
The Assistant City Manager stated the focus in the staff report focused on four
categories based on input from Council in May; staff attempted to focus where Council
desires to place funding; there is a possibility of adding to the program as it progresses;
the current planning stage of the Smart City Master Plan has funding; however, funding
for build-out has not yet been identified; if other funding sources become available for
housing and Marina Village Inn, staff can reallocate excess funding on a rolling basis;
staff would prefer to have ample time to properly address projects.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
17",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,25,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been multiple proposals and
categories; noted one of the proposals listed wireless hotspots at $50,000; inquired
whether the matter is a stand-alone item.
The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the project is one of the
lower hanging fruit; however, it will be impactful.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the hotspots are important; requested
clarification about $18,700 for the service wireless lending hotspot.
The Assistant City Manager stated the program would be delivered by the Library; the
City would have 30 hotspot devices; a household can be powered by one hotspot
device at no cost; the process is similar to checking out a book; the program will fund
the service.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the locations of the
wireless hotspots.
The Assistant City Manager stated the projects are part of the Library program; the
broadband system would allow the City to create a network across the City and create a
hard-wired internet system allowing an increase to internet speeds across the
community; wireless hotspots can be adapted to the broadband system; there is a
lending program through the Library, both hardwired and wireless infrastructure comes
with the overall broadband program; all items are tied to the Smart City project whether
through a lending system or physical improvements and infrastructure; the project is
part of a broader effort to improve connectivity across the community.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the broadband item is listed under
the $6 million Master Plan.
The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the broadband Smart
City program includes a fiber network across the City and WiFi within the business
districts; the system will be both in and above ground to improve connectivity across the
community.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the $50,000 and the $18,700 could
be used without the broadband Smart City program, to which the Assistant City
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for consideration of the $68,700 to
help people with internet access; stated that her preference is for the $6 million Smart
City Master Plan.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Councilmember Herrera Spencer's
recommendation; noted there are two tranches in order to help prioritize immediate
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
18",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,26,"needs.
(21-504) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items;
suggested hearing the Police Policies [paragraph no. 21-505], Public Art Ordinance
[paragraph no. 21-508 and Sunshine Ordinance Amendments [paragraph no. 21-509
with ending by 12:00 a.m.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Mayor's suggestion.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
The City Manager recommended staff bring back a program which contains a
combination of Options 1 and 2; stated Council's focus is on housing; Option 1 has a
focus on matters such as broadband and infrastructure; the revenue loss can be used
towards the housing portion; staff can narrow the broadband portion to include some of
the elements discussed by Council.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is supportive of the wireless hotspots;
expressed concern about the broadband project being placed ahead of the Smart City
Master Plan; stated that he would like to know more about the project as opposed to
putting in broadband with the hopes of connecting street traffic lights; the broadband
option is not what he has in mind for a big and impactful project.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is possible to obtain more
information from staff related to the percentage of the population that does not have
internet access; stated that she feels the matter is important and the need is great.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would prefer Council pursue the matter in the
manner recommended by the City Manager; she is mindful of Councilmember Knox
White's concerns about getting too far from the Smart City Master Plan; there are other
ways to fund the project, including a possible upcoming infrastructure bill.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he has been part of weekly meetings over the
summer with AUSD; the numbers are not huge; the matter is not going to be solved by
infrastructure-specific projects; there are needs for one household connections from
people as opposed to giant backbones of infrastructure; the matter has not moved
forward due to AUSD handing out hotspots to families in need; the hotspot proposal
builds on the AUSD program; as the City moves through the Smart City Master Plan,
the City can plug in what is learned.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated seniors are also in need; noted many are not
participating in the virtual meetings; questioned whether Mastick Senior Center can help
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
19",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,27,"Council figure out how to help seniors connect with the community.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of supporting the City Manager's
recommendation to have staff return with a combination of Options 1 and 2 containing a
housing focus, some revenue loss for flexibility and wireless hotspots with the potential
for broadband support as discussed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the public and mental health are folded in, to
which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog 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.
(21-505) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update the Existing
Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Existing Best Practices
and Statutory Requirements.
The Police Chief gave a presentation.
(21-506) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of giving the Police Chief an
additional three minutes.
Councilmember Daysog seconded 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.
The Police Chief completed the presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting the Police Chief's
recommendation to update the policies.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the changes all make sense; the
matter can return to Council on the Consent Calendar in the future.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she can add the comments made by
Councilmember Knox White as a friendly amendment to her motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to let staff decide when matters can
be placed on the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the matter returning on the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
20",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,28,"Consent Calendar.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Alameda Police Department having a table at the
Alameda Job Fair; noted that she was pleased to hear both the City Manager and
Police Chief were present.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined a ""Coffee with a Cop"" event at Starbucks
Coffee.
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.
(21-507) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second
Amendment to the Lease with Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability
Company to Extend the Term for Five Years for Building 29, Located at 1701 Monarch
Street, at Alameda Point. Not heard.
(21-508) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Public Art Requirements, as Recommended
by the Planning Board. Introduced.
The Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Development Manager stated
deaccession is the removal of public art from the City's public art collection.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City has performed deaccession.
The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated deaccession is generally
performed in a variety of ways; the process is lengthy and governed by State and
federal law.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is prepared to support staff's
recommendation; he supports being able to move forward without Council approval
under the City Manager's approved spending limit; however, he would like to propose
requiring Council notification in the event a Call for Review is needed; Council receives
calls related to negative community impacts; it is a bad look for Council to respond to
calls by indicating unawareness; Calls for Review add balance.
The City Attorney stated the proposed recommendation from Councilmember Knox
White can be implemented in two ways: 1) Council direction to staff or 2) amending the
ordinance; inquired whether Councilmember Knox White has a preference on how to
proceed.
Councilmember Knox White responded that he would like to move forward with a first
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
21",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,29,"reading of the ordinance, including the minor adjustment; stated including the direction
is clearer than hoping the direction is remembered.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed change will still constitute a first
reading.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the language should be captured
properly; recommended modified language be included under Subsection f. of 30-98.10;
the section discusses City Manager expenditures; staff can add language to reflect the
Council be notified of any City Manager expenditure approvals.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the expenditure is made as soon as it is
approved by the City Manager; noted that his interest is future Councilmembers have
the ability to Call for Review any potentially offensive installations prior to expenditure
and installation; inquired whether there is a section prior to City Manager approval
where the language can be placed or whether a waiting period of five to 10 days post-
approval can be added.
The City Manager responded that he has included a similar structure for matters other
than public art; stated that he can inform Council 10 days prior to approving the
purchase; the notice will state the City Manager intends to approve a purchase; if
Council wishes to appeal the approval, an appeal can be provided within the 10 day
time period; if an appeal be received within the ten day period, the expenditure will not
be approved and the matter will be brought to Council.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the City Manager recommendation.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether Council would like to be
informed of any minor changes or expenditures.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Councilmember Knox White's
proposal; inquired whether the goal is to have Council be informed of art installations
and be apprised of any concerns raised by neighbors.
Councilmember Knox White responded the matter might become too complicated to
compile a list of things to review; stated Council should be alerted of approved artwork;
the proposal is rooted in the artwork; he does not need to see minor changes.
The City Manager stated that he understands the concern in relation to the impact of the
artwork itself.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for language to limit change orders.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned the Council process if a member of the community
indicates displeasure with an art approval.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
22",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,30,"Councilmember Knox White stated the art will not be installed; the proposed process
occurs prior to payment; outlined the process for Public Art Commission (PAC) and
Council approvals; stated Council would not see the proposals that fall within the City
Manager authorization threshold; he is proposing Council be allowed to see the artwork
and have a review period; expressed support for a Call for Review process; stated the
process will likely not be used often; however, it might be helpful if installation of a
problematic piece is proposed.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about the proposal appearing to be a new
process; stated that he is not opposed to the proposal, but the matter causes concern;
inquired whether Council can gain a sense of the amount of projects that cost under
$75,000.
The Development Manager responded the public art fund has expended one $100,000
grant and the remainder fell below the $75,000 threshold; the remainder includes two to
three public art grants and roughly 16 smaller grants.
Councilmember Daysog noted many of the funding approvals fall below the approval
threshold; stated that he dislikes giving up Council prerogative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft question whether or not public art funds are always spent on a
physical art installation; noted performance art can be funded; questioned whether non-
physical art approvals will be presented to Council.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the proposal to include expenditures
for newly approved pieces of art; stated that he does not want to review nominal funding
increase requests; all art projects, including non-physical art pieces, would be included;
he does not expect the process to be used often; the proposal allows Council an
opportunity to raise a hand and indicate a potential problem; the form of the art does not
change the proposed review.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether any harm has occurred in the process;
questioned the source for the proposal.
The Economic Development Manager responded staff has returned to Council for
change orders and small grant projects; stated certain project funding cannot progress
without Council approval; outlined a $1,500 change order causing delay; stated Council
review can take roughly six weeks; changes orders and small grants tend to cause the
most delays.
Councilmember Daysog stated the need for change orders is understood; new art
should remain a Council prerogative.
The City Manager recommended Council change the ordinance to include City Manager
approval of purchased under $75,000 or 10% for change orders; original art and small
grants must be considered by Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
23",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,31,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about Council not having an ability
to review proposed projects; noted the recommendation provided by the City Manager
addresses the concerns.
Councilmember Daysog stated staff may return in one or two years if issues with
change orders and small grants persists; expressed support for the recommendation
provided by the City Manager.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not bring change orders to Council; the City
has a competent PAC; she has faith in staff; expressed concern about being in the
weeds and causing project delays; stated art can be subjective; questioned the
standards to be held and applied by Council; expressed support for staff's
recommendation; stated the City Manager's proposed recommendation is reasonable.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for the City Manager's recommended modification;
expressed concern about the number of matters run by Council; stated there are many
items for Council to deal with; she understands the concern posed by Councilmember
Knox White related to outlier scenarios; the proposed change relates to an issue that
has not necessarily arisen and that would be a rarity; expressed concern about the
process being misused.
Councilmember Knox White stated everything currently comes to Council; noted staff
has proposed to have nothing come to Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is comfortable with the staff recommendation.
The Economic Development Manager stated all public art matters can be appealed
through the City Council; a 10 day period after approval can occur for appeals sent to
City Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he feels like Santa Claus when art projects are
approved; he is helping bequeath an item which will be an artistic benefit; expressed
concern about giving up Council approval; expressed concern for appeal processes.
The City Attorney stated the proposed language to include in the ordinance will read:
""The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from the Alameda public art
fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the City Manager shall be
authorized to approve change orders within the City Manager spending authority. All
requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with approval authorizations
in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The City Manager shall notify the Council of
any expenditure approved by the City Manager on any change order. Any two
Councilmembers may call the City Manager's decision for review within 10 days of the
City Manager's notification. If no Call for Review is timely perfected, the City Manager's
decision shall become final and effective.'
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
24",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,32,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the language.
Councilmember Daysog stated the proposed language includes change orders; inquired
whether Council still has authority over everything else, to which the City Attorney
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with the amended
language.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated that she understood the proposal was to
include a Call for Review; inquired whether the Call for Review is for one provision.
The City Manager responded his recommended change remains consistent with the
terms provided by the City Attorney.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the ordinance is being amended to add the
proposed language.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the language will be added in
Subsection f. of Section 30-98.10.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that the motion is to remove change orders
from Council approval.
The City Attorney stated the motion changes the original paragraph completely; noted
the language shall read: ""The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from
the Alameda public art fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the
City Manager shall be authorized to approve change orders within the City Manager
spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with
approval authorizations in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The City Manager
shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager on any
change order. Any two Councilmembers may call the City Manager's decision for review
within 10 days of the City Manager's notification. If no Call for Review is timely
perfected, the City Manager's decision shall become final and effective.""
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is unsure whether to support the proposed
language; the proposed language is the opposite of what he would like; expressed
support for Council being notified of art projects, but not change orders; inquired
whether the City Attorney can provide alternate language; stated the notification from
the City Manager is for any art approvals under the City Manager's spending authority;
change orders are not to be included in the language; noted change orders do not need
to come to Council.
The City Attorney stated the language does not allow the City Manager to approve any
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
25",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,33,"shall authorize expenditures from the public art fund consistent with the purpose of this
article, except that the City Manager shall be authorized to approve expenditures within
the City Manager spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized
consistent with approval authorizations in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The
City Manager shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager,
for any new artwork or project. Any two Councilmembers may call the City Manager's
decision for review within ten days of the City Manager's notification. If no Call for
Review is timely perfected, the City Manager's decision shall become final and
effective.'
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the timing is 10
days after the City Manager's notification.
Councilmember Knox White made a substitute motion approving introduction of the
ordinance with the proposed amended language.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the substitute motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he dislikes giving up Council prerogative in
approving public art.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(21-509) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code, Including
Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) to Clarify Enforcement
Provisions and Provide for Other Updates and Enhancements to the Sunshine
Ordinance.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the matter to September 7,
2021 at 6:59 p.m.
Vice Mayor Vella 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.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
26",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,34,"Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21-510) Consider Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero
Emission Vehicle Sales in California by 2030. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft) Not heard.
(21-511) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief
regarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-512) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-513) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational
Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-514) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate
Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property
Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:57
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
July 20, 2021
27",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,4,"(21-476) Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California
Cities Annual Conference.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of selecting Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft as the
delegate and Vice Mayor Vella as the alternate.
Councilmember Daysog 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.
(21-477) Councilmember Daysog announced the names of eight Troop 73 Eagle
Scouts: Henry Banchieri, Brendan Cook, Johanthan Hildreth, Andrew and Eric Jarecki,
Zachary Quayle, Tibor Thompson, and Vander von Stroheim.
(21-478) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced the upcoming Relay for Life at
Leydecker Park; stated there is an Airport Noise forum cellular phone application to
report loud noise from airplanes: flyquietoak.com; discussed a community piano outside
Nob Hill.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:47
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 20, 2021
2",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,5,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,6,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,7,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,8,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,9,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,10,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,11,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,12,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,13,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,14,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,15,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,16,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,17,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,18,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,19,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,20,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,21,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-20,22,"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",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,1,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,2,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,3,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,4,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,5,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,6,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,7,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,8,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,9,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,10,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,11,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,12,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,13,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,14,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,15,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,16,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,17,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,18,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-15,19,"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",CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - DECEMBER 6, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-552) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to
appropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05-556]
was withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-553) Library Project Update.
The Project Manager gave a brief update.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there were any cherry cabinets in
the internal staff areas, to which the Project Manager responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated that cherry cabinets should be placed in areas
that are visible to the public; utilizing formica countertops in
other areas was a good way to save costs; inquired whether the
costs for the minor redesign items need to be negotiated or whether
the costs are in the contract.
The Project Manager responded the Architect is responsible for
construction administration; any changes are covered under
construction administration; the percentage of change orders
attributed to the designer would be reviewed with the City Attorney
at the end of the project.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether changes discussed tonight were
construction administration changes and whether the changes have
already been paid for, to which the Project Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether pushing off the masonry work
would result in any impact to the schedule, to which the Project
Manager responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Architect offered to pay
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,2,"for oversights.
The Project Manager responded that the Architect does not
voluntarily offer to pay recourse would be a claim on the
insurance policy.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the first claim could be for
the firewall, to which the Project Manager responded the firewall
and staircase could be potential claims.
Mayor Johnson stated that the project is moving along well; the
public is very impressed with the process.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar with
the caveat of withdrawing the recommendation to appropriate
$142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05-556] ; noted major
inroads have been made on the ferry service.
Councilmember 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 ]
( * 05-554) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on November 15, 2005. Approved.
(*05-555) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,504,278.52
(05-556) Recommendation to appropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff
Funds to repair public storm drainage facilities within the
Bridgeside Shopping Center and reimburse Regency Centers for
expenditures incurred. Withdrawn.
(*05-557) Recommendation to adopt the Ferry Short Range Transit
Plan. Accepted.
(*05-558) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Five Police Communications Center
Workstations. Accepted.
(*05-559) Recommendation to accept the Affordable Housing Ordinance
Annual Review. Accepted.
(*05-560) - Recommendation to accept the Public Art Ordinance Annual
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,3,"Review. Accepted.
(*05-561) Recommendation to accept Impact Fee Report for Police and
Fire services. Accepted.
(*05-562) Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for
the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year. Accepted.
(*05-563) Recommendation to award Restaurant Concessionaire
Contract to Tom Genanekos, Owner of Jim's Coffee Shop, for
exclusive right to sell food and beverage service at the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex. Accepted.
(*05-564) Resolution No. 13910, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
from Sungard Pentamation, Bio-Key International and Omega Group
Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter in the Amount
of $307,804 for Pentamation Finance Plus and Community Plus
Software, Bio-Key Fire Records Management Software and Fireview
Software. "" Adopted.
( *05-564A) Resolution No. 13911, ""Authorizing the Purchase of
Storage Area Network System Using the State of California
Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive
Bid Award. "" Adopted.
(*05-564B) Resolution No. 13912, ""Authorizing the Execution and
Delivery of a Master Equipment Lease-Purchase Agreement, an Escrow
Agreement and Separate Equipment Schedules with Respect to the
Acquisition, Purchase, Financing and Leasing of Certain Equipment
for the Public Benefit; Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of
Documents Required in Connection therewith; and Authorizing the
Taking of all Other Actions Necessary to the Consummation of the
Transactions Contemplated by this Resolution. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-565) Resolution No. 13913, ""Appointing Morris H. Trevithick as
a Member of the Economic Development Commission (Real Estate/Land
Development Seat) "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.
Trevithick with a certificate of appointment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,4,"Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Special Joint City
Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting at 8:03 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Meeting at 9:10 p.m.
***
(05-566) Update on City's infrastructure investment and review of
options to increase funding for preventative maintenance of
infrastructure.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson requested that a comprehensive report be brought back
to the Council at mid-year.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the real property transfer
tax was adjusted every year for inflation, to which the Finance
Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog stated $5.40 per thousand would be $5.69 per
thousand if adjusted for inflation; the increase would equal
approximately $180,000.
Mayor Johnson stated that she received several calls on the matter
the Board of Realtors supports an increase in the tax but would
like to be involved in deciding the amount; the increase in home
prices pus an increased transfer tax above inflation rates.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $27 million was needed for
deferred maintenance, to which the Public Works Director responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated nothing in the presentation reduces the
shortfall in a good orderly manner making up the shortfall through
the transfer tax and lighting district assessments would be hard;
inquired whether the shortfall would continue to escalate and
deteriorate over time.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
recommendation tonight was to get direction on crafting a long-term
strategy which would be folded into the ten-year model.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not see any cure-all, only
band-aids.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,5,"Mayor Johnson stated the shortfall needs to be handled in a more
strategic manner and needs to be in context with the ten-year
budget projection; the goal is to have a system in place where a
certain amount of infrastructure is taken care of each year tax
increases should not be considered except for the transfer tax; the
public has been very generous in supporting tax increases for the
library, schools and hospital; cuts [in infrastructure funding]
that have been made over the past five to seven years should not
happen again.
Councilmember Matarrese stated spending $27 million all at once
would not be possible even if the money was available; the idea of
increasing taxes is a long way off; the increase could be
approached through a public process; sidewalks are the most
critical assets that represent the biggest risk to health and
safety; the value of repairing sidewalks versus the value and
necessity of having the 25% reserve should be reviewed; 25% reserve
is an arbitrary figure; drawing down on the 25% reserve should be
considered; the budget should be reviewed; some items are under
budget because of department head vacancies; there should be an
analysis for using unspent budgeted money to fix critical items.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $2.8 million of repair
projects have been scheduled.
The Public Works Director responded the projects are not currently
scheduled because the money has not been appropriated; resurfacing
could be scheduled for the beginning of the next fiscal year
sidewalks could be scheduled the current fiscal year.
Councilmember Matarrese requested an analysis between
the
criticality of resurfacing a street versus fixing sidewalks.
Mayor Johnson stated that knowing how street and sidewalk
priorities are set based on finances is important ; a lot of
sidewalks need to be repaired throughout the City; inquired whether
there should be a focus on sidewalk repair and crack sealing [ for
streets] because of potential injuries and costs.
The Public Works Director responded that the total payment of
settlement claims and judgments ranged from a high of $37,000 to a
low of $10,000 during the last four years.
Mayor Johnson stated that attorney fees exceed the payouts.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether any claims were made
because the streets were in bad condition, to which the Public
Works Director responded that he was not aware of any.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,6,"Mayor Johnson stated that the new, flexible sidewalk material seems
to be working well; inquired what type of feedback has been
received.
The Public Works Director responded the feedback has been positive;
Redwood City has tried a new rubberized concrete product; he was
waiting for a report back from staff on the product.
Mayor Johnson stated replacing the sidewalks with the new product
saves money because less on-going maintenance and repair is needed
consideration should be given to drawing down on some of the
reserve to catch up on sidewalk repairs.
The City Manager stated that staff could project and identify
whether there would be an additional percentage above the 25%.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested going below 25% of the reserve,
using part of the $2.8 million [identified in the staff report] for
streets, and using the amount identified in the staff report for
streets from the reserve for sidewalks instead.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether different species of trees are
reviewed.
The Public Works Director responded a Tree Master Plan was
developed to address trees planted years ago which were not the
most desirable for long term.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that trees fall down through natural
attrition.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a plan that
identifies a tree's life expectancy, to which the Public Works
Director responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a list was available which
identifies trees with non-invasive roots.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative stated
standards for expanded planting strips and deep watering are being
reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Gibbons Drive would always have
Liquid Amber trees; sidewalk maintenance was greater in Alameda
than in other cities because of the value of large trees.
Councilmember deHaan stated that parameters need to be set for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,7,"drawing down on the reserves; inquired whether deferred maintenance
has grown experientially over the last four years.
The Public Works Director responded that unfunded estimates keep
growing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the deferred maintenance growth
could be lessened by utilizing available dollars and General Fund
reserves.
Councilmember Daysog stated that first turning first to the
reserves was critical. the reserves have been built up by not
funding capital infrastructure maintenance; the build up was done
for a good reason because of the Base conversion; drawing down on
the reserves needs to be done prudently; half of the 25% reserve is
already designated, leaving the actual amount of the reserve at 8%
to 12%; suggested revisiting the Henry Gardner Plan; stated lease
revenue bonds were issued at Alameda Point in 1999 and were shifted
over to pay for infrastructure; there should be a way to issue
redevelopment bonds and shift budgetary dollars so that the capital
dollars could pay for improvements.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether shifting of the budgetary dollars
could be done.
Councilmember Daysog responded that the matter could be explored
with caution; he is not sure about raising taxes; he is willing to
explore adjusting the property transfer tax for inflation; stated a
report on sources and uses of funds has been presented; requested a
detailed plan outlining the problems and timetables for paths,
sidewalks and streets; stated he would continue to push for broader
community involvement in the process; moving forward was important.
Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated sidewalks are needed on the
beltline side of Ralph Appezzato Parkway.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Board of Realtors would like to
discuss the transfer tax with staff.
The City Manager stated that an election would need to be held
because taxes are involved; stated that she would be happy to meet
with the Board of Realtors.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there is a broad range in the
amount of transfer tax in other cities; the City of Dublin's
transfer tax is $1.10 per thousand and the City of Oakland's
transfer tax is $16.10 per thousand.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,8,"The Public Works Director stated that the average transfer tax for
Charter cities is $9.47.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the last two or three years could
be unique; anticipated numbers might not be realized.
Councilmember Matarrese stated reviewing the current budget is
important; money found should be spent on [infrastructure] projects
that would provide benefit.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the current budget could be reviewed to
make adjustments.
The City Manager responded that the Council could approve the staff
recommendation regarding current funds so that streets and
sidewalks can be identified and the bid award process could be
initiated; staff would review the impacts of drawing down on the
reserves, continue to review the budget to identify any unallocated
funds or savings, and identify per year costs for ten and twenty
year scenarios in conjunction with the ten-year financial
projection.
Mayor Johnson stated that departments should not be concerned that
budget cuts would be made; contingency funds would be reviewed.
The City Manager stated that acknowledging and appropriating
additional revenues should also be reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that a six-month run may not be
reflective and was not a linear spending rate; the risk of taking
the money needs to be balanced against the risk of allowing further
deterioration.
Mayor Johnson stated that the money could always be reallocated if
necessary.
Councilmember deHaan stated the matter would come back at the mid-
year review and decisions would be made then; there should be an
on-going viable program to ensure that maintenance would not be
deferred in hard times; a certain percentage of funds could be
established as a standing rate in the budget processi determining
how projects will be completed with existing funds and what will be
done if other funds become available is an important segment.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with direction to 1) receive an analysis on the scenarios of
drawing down below the 25% level of reserves, 2) review the current
budget with regard to under budgeted areas that could be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,9,"redirected, 3) review possible new sources of revenue, and 4)
provide a report on the process of exploring an adjustment to the
transfer tax.
Mayor Johnson stated there has been a lot of discussion on streets,
sidewalks, trees, and sewers; there is significant deferred
maintenance in the parks the parks and recreation facilities are
very valuable parts of the community; the parks are being addressed
in the staff recommendation
Councilmember deHaan requested that the motion be amended to
include reviewing the other assessment districts and the
establishment of landscaping and lighting districts.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like the motion to
include an analysis of the Henry Gardner Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want to go into more debt
unless it was necessary.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Henry Gardner Plan was a
separate issue.
Mayor Johnson stated that staff should not spend a lot of time
exploring the matter; suggested discussing whether debt was
something the Council would like to review as a solution to the
deferred maintenance when the item was brought back.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether reviewing the matter in an
Off-Agenda Report would be satisfactory to Councilmember Daysog.
Councilmember Daysog responded an Off-Agenda Report seems to be the
same as his request for analysis.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated
that determining how much time would be spent on the matter should
be determined; that he does not understand the Plan completely and
would not be able to vote on the matter tonight.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was requesting an analysis of
the Plan.
Mayor Johnson requested a brief Off-Agenda Report describing the
Henry Gardner Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would mend the motion to include
an Off-Agenda - Report on the Plan piling debt on top of a deficit
of deferred maintenance was not a priority for him.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,10,"Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want staff to spend a lot of
time on the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that staff should spend as much time as
necessary to do a thorough job.
Mayor Johnson stated that the starting threshold could be
identifying the Henry Gardner Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the City Clerk repeat the
motion.
The City Clerk stated that Councilmember Matarrese moved approval
of the staff recommendation with direction to: 1) receive an
analysis on the scenarios of drawing down below the 25% level of
reserves, 2) review the current budget with regard to under
budgeted areas that could be redirected, 3) review possible new
sources of revenue, 4) provide a report on the process of exploring
an adjustment to the transfer tax, and 5) provide an Off-Agenda
Report on the Henry Gardner Plan.
Councilmember deHaan requested the motion be amended to include
reviewing other assessment districts and the establishment of
landscaping and lighting districts as other sources of revenue.
Councilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-567) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated a plan is before the
Planning Board to expand South Shore; acknowledged the help and
responsiveness of Doug Garrison, Dorene Soto and Bruce Knopf ;
stated everyone involved was very concerned about receiving a
comprehensive, complete report; urged the Council to support the
efforts to make informed decisions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates receiving the
feedback: the Planning Department and Development Services
Department staff is top notch.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-568 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated streaming video is available
on- - line; other cities have placed City Council meetings on the web
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,11,"for delayed viewing i requested investigating how the process is
done.
(05-569) Councilmember deHaan stated concerns over parking spaces
arose recently; at a Planning Board meeting, Development Services
indicated an in depth parking analysis would be completed for the
Park Street and Webster Street business areas; that he would like
the study to address buyout of parking space requirements; $6500 is
the current price; costs are closer to $20,000 per parking space;
potential owners should not be discouraged from establishing retail
and being able to buy out, however the study should review costs,
including ways to handle costs and defer costs; $6500 is not a good
price anymore; once a lot has been established, the area should not
be used for infill at a later time; recently a parking area was
bought out in order to allow construction; the policy should be
reviewed in the parking study.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is suggesting
the in lieu fee be raised.
Councilmember deHaan responded the fee may need to be higher and
might need to be able to be deferred as well; further stated if an
established parking lot has been used to meet requirements, the
owners should not be able to buy themselves out to establish retail
at the site and put the burden back on the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired where said case occurred, to which
Councilmember deHaan responded the Knowles property.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be reviewed in the larger
context of parking structures for the downtown areas having half
of every lot dedicated to parking is not the best downtown
planning; parking in the downtown areas should be reviewed more
strategically. money going towards parking structures could be
emphasized, rather than requiring parking on every lot.
(05-570) Mayor Johnson stated that the weather was great for the
tree lighting.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Dancing Trees were great.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the ice skating rink was well
received.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the lower lights are lit; suggested
that the lights go on at dark.
(05-571) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Master Plan was one
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,12,"of the key issues at the Joint City Council and Recreation and Park
Commission meeting he was glad to see some of the major elements
tackled.
(05-572) Councilmember Daysog stated that a resident asked him
about the price of fire inspections for homes and the amount of
revenue that has been generated over the last five years; requested
background data on the matter.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 10:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - DECEMBER 6 , 2005 - - - 6:01 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-053) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property
Fleet Industrial Supply Center Negotiating party: Community
Improvement Commission and ProLogis, Inc. i Under negotiation Price
and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission directed staff to
prepare a timeline sheet and a summary of off-agenda issues.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 6, 2005 - -6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-548) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney
(05-549) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : Mohlen & Skrinde V. City of Alameda.
(05-550) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiator:
Karen Willis; Employee Organization: Executive Management
Employees.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding City Attorney, the
Council discussed the matter; regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, the Council obtained a briefing from Legal Counsel
;
regarding Executive Management Employees, the Council obtained a
briefing and gave direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -DECEMBER 6 , 2006- - -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:43 p.m.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present :
Councilmembers/ Commissioners/ Authority
Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Transmittal of City of
Alameda Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [paragraph no. 05-
551CC/056CIC] was moved to the Regular Agenda.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Matarrese moved
approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
(*05-054CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement
Commission Meeting of November 15, 2005 Approved.
(*05-055CIC) Recommendation to approve the Amended Contract with
Komorous-Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount
by $68,200 to provide additional architectural and construction
administration services for the Civic Center parking garage.
Accepted.
***
Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular City
Council Meeting at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint
Meeting at 8:03 p.m.
***
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
1
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,16,"AGENDA ITEM
(05-551CC/05-056CIC) Transmittal of City of Alameda Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2005,
Auditor's report on agreed upon procedures on compliance with
Vehicle Code section 40200.3 Parking Citation Processing, agreed
upon Procedures Report on compliance with the Proposition 111 2004-
05 Appropriations Limit Increment, Police and Fire Retirement
System Pension Plans 1079 and 1082 Audit Report for Fiscal Year
ended June 30, 2005, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant
Programs Financial Statements for year ending June 30, 2005,
Community Improvement Commission basic component unit financial
statements for the year ended June 30, 2005, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority basic component unit financial statements
for the year ended June 30, 2005.
The City Auditor introduced the City's External Auditor, Maria
Giannell, Maze & Associates.
The External Auditor gave a presentation summarizing the financial
statements and management recommendations
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested an explanation of the Finds, Forfeits
and Miscellaneous Revenues.
The External Auditor stated that the items were the aggregation of
ten years of data on the statement of revenues, expenditures and
changes in the fund balance.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that there was a small, steady increase
from 1996 through 2004 and a large increase in 2005.
The External Auditor stated other revenue was received in the Fleet
Industrial Supply Center (FISC) fund that was not Finds and
Forfeitures.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the Community Services and Capital
Outlay have declined since 1996.
ouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired why
general expenditures dropped for Development and Public Works since
2003, to which the External Auditor responded the drop occurred
because of budget cuts.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that Public Safety expenditures
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
2
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,17,"increased from over $23 million in 1996 to over $40 million in
2005.
 ouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether
the External Auditor observed similar trends in other cities, to
which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Public Safety expenditures
included pension costs.
The External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated total
expenditures in 1996 were $78 million versus $118 million in 2005;
the growth was not substantial.
louncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired why
there was a major increase in the General Government and Payments
to Other Agencies expenditure.
The External Auditor responded budget reorganization occurred
several years back within the general government which resulted in
expenditures almost doubling from 1996 to 1999.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Daysog inquired whether
a statistical section adjusting for inflation could be prepared.
The External Auditor responded that a separate report could be
provided.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether more Sewer Fund revenue was
collected than spent and where the total amount of the Sewer Fund
was noted.
The External Auditor responded the Sewer Fund is considered an
Enterprise Fund and was accounted for on a full-accrual basis. the
Cash Flow Statements address revenues collected and expended.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether $16 million was the total
amount in the Sewer Fund, to which the External Auditor responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired why sewer maintenance has been
deferred when spending has been less than revenues collected.
The External Auditor responded that sewer maintenance might have
been deferred because of limited staff and not because of cash.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
3
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,18,"Mayor/Chair stated that the City's population is lower now than in
1996.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether
the 2005 debt service was lower than in 1996, to which the External
Auditor responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authorit Member Gilmore stated there have
been discussions on how much bonds cost the City; everything that
has been accomplished has been done without increasing the total
debt service.
The External Auditor stated management has been good; the last ten
years have not been easy; more is being done with less.
Mayor/Chair Johnson questioned the figures for the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority original staff salaries versus actual
salaries.
The External Auditor stated Government Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) requires the original, adopted budgeted amount be presented
for major funds.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the staff fringe benefits were
included in the salaries, to which the External Auditor responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chain Johnson inquired why there was a large difference
between the amount budgeted and the amount spent for office
expenditures; stated the original budget for professional and
administrative services was reduced significantly expenditures
were almost double the original budgeted amount; more accuracy is
needed.
The External Auditor responded the increase in professional and
administrative services was due to an unexpected EDA grant; stated
budget controls and accuracy are far better in the 2004-05 year.
louncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether
there were other improvements or further decay from the previous
audit.
The External Auditor stated there has not been further decay;
capital assets are very difficult to control and have improved.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
4
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,19,"Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether
the improvement could be attributed to the Finance Director, to
which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Interim City Manager also
contributed to the improvement.
The External Auditor stated staff tried very hard not to have
adjustments.
Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember deHaan stated that the
External Auditor's findings confirm the Council's beliefs.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired why there was such a fluctuation in
administrative expenses in the Police and Fire Pension Plans;
stated the benefits and refunds remain about the same.
The External Auditor responded the 1999-2000 increase was the cost
of the GASB 25 and 27 implementation; the 2004-2005 increase was
the cost of actuarial studies and implementing new accounting
standards.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated money cannot be transferred from fund to
fund without Council approval but can be transferred within funds ;
inquired whether one department charging another department was
considered an inter-fund transfer.
The External Auditor responded in the negative; stated one
department charging another department is not considered moving
budgeted resources.
Mayor Johnson requested money budgeted for one department and
allocated to another department be highlighted in the next budget.
Vice  ayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether
the ten-year financial plan figures would be scarier for the Police
and Fire unfunded pension benefit obligation.
The External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated the
obligation outpaces the funding.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore stated the
challenge would be funding the Plan without hitting other City
services too much.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
5
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,20,"Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Matarrese stated there
was a similar finding last year; inquired what was being done to
prevent the problem from reoccurring.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City Manager could review and
report back to the Council/Commissioners/Authority Members on the
matter.
The External Auditor stated the other recommendation was regarding
the employees reporting directing to the City Council which are
outside the normal reporting realm; suggested that the City's
elected Auditor provide oversight to the City Clerk, City Attorney
and City Manager departments to ensure checks and balances.
Mayor Johnson stated spending issues were raised last year;
significant changes were made under the direction of the Interim
City Manager in the last six months of the fiscal year; stated that
she has confidence in the new City Manager; the new Finance
Director worked very closely with the City Manager on addressing
previous issues; the City Manager and Finance Director should work
with the City Auditor on an oversight proposal; stated having a
system in place was a good idea.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan stated the
louncil/Commissioners/Authority Members have a responsibility to
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
6
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,21,"ensure that internal finances are controlled.
Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Matarrese stated having
the City Auditor involved would be beneficial; inquired whether
there was a way to increase the City Auditor's role.
Mayor/Chair Johnson noted the External Auditor does not need to be
involved.
The City Auditor stated that the City was in reasonably good shape
and improvement was being made in controlling costs; the ten-year
study would enlighten the Council on tough issues; the Finance
Director was in the unenviable position of being at the same level
as other department heads; suggested that he meet with the Finance
Director periodically to address issues.
The City Manager stated that she would be happy to work with the
City Auditor; she believes that the Finance Director was
comfortable with identifying issues with other departments;
discussions with the City Auditor could be more routine.
The City Auditor stated that there was no need for a formal policy.
Mayor Johnson stated that the discussion was not out of concern;
there have been considerable changes since the City Manager joined
the City; thanked everyone who worked on the audits; stated that
she looks forward to the ten-year projection.
Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember deHaan moved approval
of accepting the submitted reports.
Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Daysog seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
7
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,22,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
8
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:19 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07-021) - Proclamation expressing appreciation to Rich Teske for
his twenty-six years of service on the Rent Review Advisory
Committee.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Rich Teske.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the proclamation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which passed by
consensus.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Joining the Statewide
Community Infrastructure Program [paragraph no. 07-030] was removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the
December 5, 2006 minutes. ]
Councilmember deHaan thanked Alameda Power & Telecom and Fire
Department for the review and recommendation on the sale of
emergency generators [paragraph no. *07-028].
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *07-022) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,2,"Meeting held on December 5, 2006, and the Special and Regular City
Council Meetings held on January 2, 2007. Approved.
[Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the December 5, 2006
minutes. ]
(*07-023) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,619,985.25.
(*07-024) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment
Policy. Accepted.
(*07-025) Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk for
the Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 26, No. P. W.
03-06-08. Accepted.
(*07-026) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Crosswalk In-Pavement Lights at Various
Locations in the City of Alameda, No. P. W. 07-04-07, Federal ID:
STPLH-5014 (025) . Accepted.
(*07-027) Recommendation to appropriate $157,000 in Sewer
Enterprise Funds and award a Contract in the amount of $562,000,
including contingencies, to Pacific Liners Pipeline Rehabilitation
for the Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video Inspection, No.
P.W. 10-06-21. Accepted.
( *07-028) - Resolution No. 14057, ""Authorizing and Approving Sale of
Emergency Generators and Associated Electrical Equipment to Cummins
West, Inc. for $832,000. Adopted.
( *07-029) Resolution No. 14058, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
from Tiburon, Inc. Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City
Charter for a Mobile Data System Upgrade in the Amount of
$66,545.00."" Adopted.
(07-030) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14059, ""Joining
the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program and Authorizing the
California Statewide Communities Development Authority to Accept
Applications from Property Owners, Conduct Special Assessment
Proceedings and Levy Assessments Within the Territory of the City
of Alameda and Authorizing Related Actions. Adopted.
The Business Development Division Manager gave a brief
presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Program would apply to
small-scale - development.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,3,"The Business Development Division Manager responded anyone could
participate; stated usually, a $250,000 to $300,000 threshold is
needed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City ever carried bonds
before.
The Business Development Division Manager responded the City has
never carried bonds for private development.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether other communities have a high
participation level.
The Business Development Division Manager responded the Program is
new; stated there is no cost; a lot of cities have joined because
the Program provides an economic tool for future development.
Mayor Johnson stated the Program is a financial tool that would
benefit the community.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*07-031) Public hearing to consider approval of Tentative Map
Tract 7846 (TM06-0006) for the purpose of establishing eight
residential lots within four buildings located at 626 Buena Vista
Avenue within the R-4-PD Neighborhood Residential Planned
Development Zoning District. and
(*07-031A) Resolution No. 14060, ""Approving Tentative Map Tract
7846, TM06-0006, for the Purpose of Establishing Eight Residential
Lots within Four Buildings Located at 626 Buena Vista Avenue. ""
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07-032) Public Hearing to consider a proposal by Warmington
Homes, California for a General Plan Amendment (GP05-002), Rezoning
(R05-004), Master Plan (MP05-001), Tentative Map (TM05-002), and
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS05-0003) for
development of forty new, detached single-family residences, and
related utilities, streets, open space and visitor parking; and an
appeal of certain Conditions of Approval on Development Plan and
Design Review permits (PD05-02) The project site is located at the
northwest corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way at 2051-2099
Grand Street;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,4,"(07-032A) Resolution No. 14061, ""Adopting the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the
Grand Marina Village Development Located at the Northwest Corner of
Grand Street and Fortmann Way (State Clearinghouse #2006-04-2145).
""
Adopted;
(07-032B) Resolution No. 14062, ""Approving General Plan Amendment
(GPA-05-02) for Grand Marina Village to Amend the General Plan Land
Use Diagram to Change the Designation of Approximately 8.3 Acres to
Specified Mixed Use and Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6 and
Associated Tables of the Land Use Element to Reflect the Specified
Mixed Use Designation. Adopted;
(07-032C) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning
Property Located Adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and Grand Street
from M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to MX, Mixed
Use Planned Development District (MX) . Introduced:
(07-032D) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan MP05-01
for a Mixed Use Development Including Single-Family Residential,
Recreational Marina, Maritime Commercial, and Open Space Uses,
Located Within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 8.36 Acres
of Land and Water at the Intersection of Grand Street and the
Oakland Estuary. Introduced
(07-032E) Resolution No. 14063, ""Approving Tentative Map, TM05-
0002, for Property Located Between Grand Street, Fortmann Way, and
the Oakland Estuary. Adopted; and
(07-032F) Resolution No. 14064, ""Upholding Planning Board Approval
of Planned Development PD05-02 and Design Review DR05-0126 for
Grand Marina Village. Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief Power Point presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff recommends an asphalt
path.
The Supervising Planner responded staff recommends keeping the
asphalt as long as adequate width and good transitions exist
between the asphalt and other materials.
Mayor Johnson inquired who would be responsible for the
maintenance, to which the Supervising Planner responded the Grand
Marina.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether defined maintenance levels would be
required; stated the Planning Board might have thought that asphalt
would not last as long as concrete.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,5,"The Supervising Planner responded the existing asphalt path is on
the Grand Marina property; stated the Applicant would do all the
landscaping and improvements.
Mayor Johnson inquired who owns the Grand Marina, to which the
Supervising Planner responded the Grand Marina is under lease to
Peter Wang.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has the ability to require
Mr. Wang to maintain the area at a certain level, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the ability is real, to which the
Supervising Planner responded he was not sure.
Mayor Johnson stated she could see where the Planning Board would
prefer concrete if the City does not have the ability to ensure
proper maintenance.
The Supervising Planner stated the property is subject to a Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who paid for the Kaufman and Broad
trail, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the Municipal
Services District.
The Public Works Director stated the trail is maintained by the
Recreation and Park Department; funding is through the Municipal
Services District.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board wanted to
replicate the Kaufman and Broad development pathway.
The Public Works Director responded maintenance is part of the
Grand Marina lease requirement stated the Leasee would be required
to maintain the area at a level that is acceptable to the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wang is in compliance with every
lease condition, to which the Public Works Director responded that
he did not know.
The Supervising Planner stated concrete would be easier to
maintain; the Master Plan covers the entire area; Council could
make maintenance recommendations and implement the recommendation
in the Grand Marina lease.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Bridgeside gravel is starting to
erode; material and maintenance policies should be reviewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,6,"The Supervising Planner stated Council could impose a Master Plan
condition that would require that the Grand Marina residential
project be responsible for maintenance of the public triangular
parks; the condition could be expanded to include that the
Homeowners Association be responsible for the portions outside of
the parks.
Mayor Johnson stated the path is a public access and could become a
safety issue if the Grand Marina was not responsible for
maintenance; the path would become a problem for the City; inquired
whether agreements exist between Grand Marina and the Applicant.
The Supervising Planner responded agreements are between the City
and Mr. Wang, Warmington Homes and Mr. Wang, and Master Plan
entitlements.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant would have the ability
to pass on maintenance costs to the Grand Marina, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
The Supervising Planner continued with the presentation.
The Architect provided a video presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents: (In favor of project appeal) : David Day, Applicant; Dan
Lachman, Alameda Development Corporation.
Opponent (Not in favor of project appeal) : Richard W. Rutter,
Alameda.
Neutral Christopher Buckley, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Following the Applicant's comments, Mayor Johnson stated the
Bayport duplexes are very good; inquired why duplexes were not
considered for the proposed project.
The Applicant responded an attached product costs more to build
because of insurance; stated the proposed project has great
architectural quality; height diversity is good.
Mayor Johnson stated that she likes the garages in the back.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,7,"Councilmember deHaan stated he has heard complaints that the
Bayport sidewalks are not wide enough; inquired whether the
proposed sidewalks would be wide enough.
The Supervising Planner responded public sidewalks have a five-foot
minimum width.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Bayport's sidewalks have a
five-foot minimum width, to which the Supervising Planner responded
some Bayport sidewalks are less than five feet wide.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the basic selling price for
the Bayport homes.
Mr. Lachman responded each phase has been different because of
income; the first sixteen homes sold for $273,000 based on 110% of
area medium income; the other sixteen homes sold for $236,000 based
on 100% of area medium income; the new phase would be $212,00 based
on 90% of area medium income.
The Supervising Planner stated that the Homeowners Association
would cover all maintenance, including the path.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she dislikes the third story pop-
upsi she appreciates Mr. Rutter's and Mr. Buckley's research; she
prefers the Murano project roofline; the Planning Board does not
like slider windows in developments; windows that have dividers
between two slabs of glass do not provide the detail and definition
for the project's caliber; she would like to add a condition that
would require windows to have dividers raised outside of the glass.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore;
stated that he does not see the need for the east/west paseo that
cuts from the alleyway through Hibbard Street to the parkway; every
house could be considered waterfront property; the market rate and
affordable houses are dispersed; the development is better than
previous developments; staff could work with the Applicant on the
third floor design; the existing asphalt path does not touch the
Marina Cove development because of the wooden dock; the paseo
condition is not needed as long as the asphalt is maintained and
matches the proposed treatments in the round areas at the foot of
Hibbard Street.
Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;
stated she wants to ensure that there is consistent width; the path
narrows at certain points; she is concerned with pedestrian safety.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the 430 square-foot third story has
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,8,"any functionality beyond architectural diversity.
The Supervising Planner responded the third story provides two
additional rooms.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Mr. Buckley proposed incorporating the third
story into the roofline.
The Supervising Planner stated staff could work with the Applicant
on roof design.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Council needs to help modify the
third-story condition to be more explicit in terms of what staff is
directed to do.
Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Gilmore suggested using Mr.
Buckley's examples.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether direction needs to be explicit in
the condition.
Mayor Johnson responded the condition should be revised to make the
changes explicit; stated the design changes are significant
inquired whether the design changes should go back to the Planning
Board for review.
The Supervising Planner responded staff could work with the
Applicant stated residential guidelines do not address new three-
story buildings, only additions.
Mayor Johnson stated the changes are not small.
The Applicant stated Mr. Buckley referenced a Centax project where
the third floors go from side to side; one side has a three-story
wall and the other side has a two-story wall in the current design;
the third-floor pop-up would be closer to the street.
Mayor Johnson stated she likes the Murano project design better.
The Applicant stated a jewel box design was used.
Councilmember deHaan stated more space could be gained with the
Murano project design.
The Applicant stated he would prefer to work with staff and not go
back to the Planning Board.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has concerns with the material
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,9,"used at Bridgeside; staff needs to review material consistency;
inquired whether common areas are part of 2,000 square-foot lots,
to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the project is contrary to
Measure A.
The Supervising Planner responded the project is consistent with
Measure A, the City Charter, and the General Plan; stated every
parcel is at least 2,000 square feet; all forty parcels have some
form of public access easement; the overall project is well within
Measure A density requirements.
Councilmember deHaan stated the project is breaking new ground.
The Supervising Planner stated the project design is intended to
maximize public open space; the tradeoff is smaller lots.
Councilmember deHaan stated the paseos work because of lot
configurations but is not something he would highly recommend.
The Supervising Planner stated the project provides an opportunity
to try a small lot subdivision; the project was completely
redesigned after the Planning Board study sessions.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why palm trees are planned for
Hibbard Street instead of full trees.
The Supervising Planner responded palm trees need to be removed;
stated the plan is to reuse the trees and align Hibbard Street to
eventually come through the Pennzoil site and connect with the
Marina Cove development.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the plan for the rest of the
street.
The Supervising Planner stated the trees can be extended down
Hibbard Street; a decision would need to be made about whether or
not to continue the palm trees to the Pennzoil site.
Councilmember deHaan stated past Planning Board discussions have
addressed palm trees not providing enough shade; he would prefer
not to have palm trees.
Councilmember Gilmore stated she would like to have staff review
how the houses front Grand Street; staff and the Applicant should
ensure the design is detailed, not bland.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,10,"The Supervising Planner stated Council could modify the condition
to include the Grand Street elevations.
Mayor Johnson inquired what type of landscaping would be provided
on Grand Street.
The Supervising Planner responded the Homeowners Association would
provide new sidewalks and landscaping; big trees are not proposed
because of utilities.
Mr. Day stated Warmington Homes has agreed to design the third
story as close to the Murano project as possible.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not see a distinction
between the market rate and affordable home designs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he sees the potential for forty
new Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) customers; inquired whether an
AP&T marketing plan and hookup installation could be added to the
conditions, to which the City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions and
introduced ordinances with the following exceptions : 1)
the
Planning Director is to work with the Applicant to redesign the
third floor pop-ups to look like the examples of the Murano project
in Cupertino, 2) directed staff to work with the Applicant and
Christopher Buckley on the Grand Street elevations, 3) eliminate
slider windows, and 4) AP&T be installed and marketed similar to
the Alameda Landing project.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07-033) Consideration of an appeal of the Public Works Director's
decision to deny a request to remove eight street trees along 2101
Shoreline Drive in accordance with City's Master Tree Plan.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the
eight trees, to which the Public Works Director responded
approximately ten to twenty units.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired when the trees were last pruned.
The Public Works Director responded approximately seven years ago;
stated the Tree Pruning Program funding was reduced.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,11,"Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents ( In favor of appeal) : Robert Matz, The Directly Affected
Homeowners, Don Patterson, Alameda. Betty Snider, Alameda and
Charles Moneder, Alameda (time yielded to Mr. Matz)
.
Opponent (Not in favor of appeal) : Karen Stern, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the
eight trees, to which Mr. Matz responded twenty.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the units are two-story.
Mr. Matz responded in the affirmative; stated the entrance is on
the second story the bedrooms are downstairs.
Councilmember deHaan stated Shoreline Drive has a variety of trees;
some Grand Street trees have been replaced by the homeowners;
inquired whether the replanted trees are proper.
The Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated he has
been working with the City Attorney's office on drafting a letter
to the homeowners.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what type of trees would be planted.
The Public Works Director responded the Tree Master Plan allows for
three different types; stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is the
preferred tree.
Councilmember deHaan stated the trees vary in height and fullness;
inquired whether the Tree Trimming Program is in force.
The Public Works Director responded the Tree Trimming Program
allows for tree pruning every five years when funding is available;
stated recently Council restored the funding; catch-up needs to be
done; residents are required to get tree trimming permits; not all
residents obtained permits; enforcement is difficult.
Councilmember deHaan stated some of the Shoreline Drive trees have
been pruned severely.
The Public Works Director stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is
very hardy and comes back rapidly.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,12,"Councilmember deHaan stated unauthorized tree pruning is concerning
because trees are important to the City.
The Public Works Director stated that he does not have the staff to
police tree pruning; residents deny knowledge of tree trimming.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether tree infill plans are
underway, to which the Public Works Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the rest of Alameda would be impacted
by how trees are infilled.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Ms. Guthrie invited her to view the trees and
visit Mr. Matz's unit; some residents have chopped the trees
inquired whether the trees could be moved.
The Public Works Director responded he was not sure whether the
trees would remain healthy; stated the move would be very
expensive.
Councilmember Gilmore stated trees grow; questioned whether the
same issue would come up in twenty years if the trees are replaced;
she does not want to get into a cycle of replacing healthy trees
periodically; the City has higher uses for money than replacing
trees cyclically.
The Public Works Director stated Mr. Matz's Master Tree Plan
reference is not the section that addresses when trees should be
removed; the section addresses how trees are selected.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a trimming and pruning option has
been suggested to increase the view line and preserve mature trees;
the Tree Master Plan needs some updating; carbon sequesters are of
greater importance; view restoration can be accomplished now is
the time to take a second look at the Tree Master Plan.
Councilmember deHaan stated sometimes mistakes are made when trees
are planted; the intent is to add more trees down Shoreline Drive
and help the eco system; street trees should be uniform; tree
infilling opportunities exist throughout the City; he is not sure
whether views would improve if the trees are replaced.
Mayor Johnson stated many trees have died and have not been
replaced; inquired whether trees are planted in existing planting
areas
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,13,"The Public Works Director responded sometimes planting cannot be
done at the same location because of the root ball; stated the Tree
Master plan has restrictions regarding planting locations.
Mayor Johnson stated the goal is to plant as many trees as
possible; Westline Drive and Harbor Bay waterfront areas have
existing trees; Council needs to be very careful in setting a
precedent regarding removing trees in areas with a view; concurred
with Councilmember Matarrese regarding reviewing and updating the
Master Tree Plan; inquired whether the City would do the pruning
every year at the expense of the Homeowners Association.
The Public Works Director responded the City would prune the first
and fifth year; the City would prune in the intervening years at
the homeowner's expense.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the five-year pruning policy would
be re-instituted starting this year; the City would prune the trees
down to the 25% crown with an arborist's consultation and City
funds; the City and arborist would be involved if the homeowners
wants the trees pruned within the five year interim; the cost would
be born by the homeowners.
Councilmember deHaan requested than an arborist review topping the
trees to bring the trees back into proportion.
Mayor Johnson stated the 25% crown pruning is quite substantial.
Councilmember Gilmore stated she would never vote to remove a tree
unless other options were considered; the trees are behind in the
normal pruning schedule; concurred that the Master Tree Plan needs
updating; stated coastal areas need attention; suggested reviewing
avenues for having coastal trees pruned more frequently and
involving the Homeowners Association with the pruning in the
intervening years.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of upholding the Public Works
Director's decision with direction for staff to work with a
certified arborist to prune the trees and reduce the height and
fullness without jeopardizing the trees and to work on updating the
Master Tree Plan.
Vice Mayor Tam stated she has lived in the area for a long time
her front tree grew to two and a half inches in diameter in thirty
years; the City needs to be more conscious in maintaining and
pruning trees.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with additional
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,14,"direction that the Master Tree Plan be reviewed by the Climate
Protection Campaign Task Force.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the Harbor Bay Trail
and Marina Village waterfront homes have no trees; clustered trees
are in park areas; he is concerned with the infill proposed for
Shoreline Drive.
Mayor Johnson stated trees are scattered throughout the Bay Trail
area on Harbor Bay; questioned whether the Tree Master Plan review
and update would occur before or after the proposed infill.
The Public Works Director stated carbon sequester trees would be
reviewed as part of tree placement.
Mayor Johnson stated Council should review whether fines should be
imposed if a homeowner removes a tree.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(07-034) ) Recommendation to approve funding request for Alameda Big
-
Box Study Support not to exceed $50,000 from General Fund Reserves.
The Business Development Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of staff recommendation) : David Howard,
Alameda: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Denise Brady, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports spending reserve
funds for infrastructure improvements he has a hard time spending
reserve money on a study inquired whether the study could be
funded with money budgeted elsewhere; stated that he would not
support taking the money from the General Fund Reserves.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Business
Development Manager responded all outside consultant fees have been
encumbered.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether money could be used from
funds that are not encumbered yet, to which the Business
Development Manager responded in the negative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,15,"The City Manager stated the Development Services Director is in the
process of re-evaluating the budget opportunities do not exist to
fund the study in the current fiscal year.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Towne Center, Alameda
Landing or Alameda Point funds are available; stated said areas are
relevant to the big box study.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether money could be taken from the
Planning Department impact fees.
The City Manager responded money was not budgeted for the study.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the question is not whether money
was budgeted; the question is whether $50,000 can be taken from
another source.
The Business Development Manager responded the issue would need to
be reviewed; stated the proposed study would not be just for
Alameda Point, but the whole Island; a portion might be
appropriate, but not one hundred percent.
Councilmember Matarrese stated funds must have been budgeted to
support the projects.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the City
has full cost recovery for the Alameda Landing project; all staff
salaries are paid by the developer ; the developer funded a retail
impact analysis as part of the entitlement process for
approximately $35,000; the study led to the retail mix
recommendations
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is required
for proposals, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is different
from a big box study; stated she is surprised by the cost.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded some
goals and objections may be captured; stated the measurement would
address whether the proposed project competes with or is compatible
with existing retail.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail study would include other
impacts, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,16,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the first question is whether there
should be big box at all; a retail impact fee would help answer the
question; he does not approve of using General Fund Reserves for a
study.
Councilmember deHaan stated alternate funding sources should be
reviewed; the June 2006 study replicates retail for the Towne
Center ; leakage needs to be understood and impacts analyzed; it is
unknown how the proposed Borders would impact Books, Inc.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval to direct staff to identify
alternate funds and bargain the price down at the same time.
Councilmember Gilmore agreed that General Fund Reserves should not
be used for the study stated the study should not duplicate
previous studies; all studies should be pulled together for a
complete picture.
Mayor Johnson stated the City has a City-wide Retail Strategic
Plan.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Economic Development Commission
was requested to update said plan.
Mayor Johnson questioned whether any additional information would
come out of the study.
Councilmember Gilmore questioned whether the study would provide
any new information; stated that she only wants to do a new study
if it is needed.
Vice Mayor Tam stated she had an opportunity to review the 2004
Citywide Retail policy; the County's examination of the Community
Impact analysis adds value with respect to impacts on workers,
health benefits, City services, and nearby merchants; it is hard
for a financially struggling City to justify spending reserve funds
for the study; stated she supports Councilmember Matarrese'
motion.
Councilmember Matarrese amended the motion to direct staff to
convene the Task Force and use existing studies to formulate
conclusions and recommendations that may include an additional
study if needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City's retail leakage requirements
need to be in proportion to big boxes; the public should be
involved in discussions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,17,"Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07-035) Ordinance No. 2960, ""Approving Development Agreement DA-
06-0003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition
Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development
Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000 Square Feet
of Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; and 300,000
Square Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space
and 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space. "" Finally
passed.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a brief
presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the amendment is good and fair and
is easily understood he appreciates the time and thought that
staff put into the amendment; proper recognition has been given to
funding the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether TDM measurements have been
determined.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
success criteria would be developed and submitted as part of the
TDM Program that would go back to the Transportation Commission and
Planning Board; stated the Transportation Commission is scheduled
to begin discussions on January 31.
Councilmember deHaan stated different traffic patterns are set with
entitlement changes most mitigations are not just for people in
Alameda but for visitors; inquired whether the TDM would address
the issue.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
minimum TDM Phase One components were all developed as part of the
new, mixed-use project.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether certain mitigations could be
resolved before developments are in place.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
developer has stated that the minimum Phase One components would
cost more than what would be collected stated Condition 11 lays
out the Phase One TDM components and has not changed since the
project was approved on December 5.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has not heard any discussion
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,18,"regarding taking care of visitors coming into Alameda or Alameda
Point.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam echoed Councilmember Matarrese':
commending staff.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(07-036) - David Howard, Alameda, discussed transportation and
submitted a handout on a parking institute policy brief.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07-037) Vice Mayor Tam announced that she attended the League of
California Cities conference and orientation for new
Councilmembers; stated approximately 440 people attended. the
sessions provided a good overview of best practices in City
governance, the Brown Act, updates on emerging legislation, and
land use policies; the Governor's newly released budget seems to be
favorable for local governments ; AB 2511 compliance is an issue;
encouraged Council to participate in the July conference.
Mayor Johnson stated she has encouraged Councilmembers to attend
the July conference every year; requested that the City Clerk try
to schedule Councilmembers to attend.
The City Manager stated the conference is scheduled for July 25
through 28.
(07-038) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the
League of California Cities East Bay Division representative.
Continued to February 6, 2007.
Vice Mayor Tam volunteered to serve as the League's representative.
Councilmember deHaan stated he would like the opportunity to serve
also.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she was interested in serving on the
Environmental Quality Policy Committee, which deals with emerging
regulations such as global warming.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,19,"Mayor Johnson stated former Vice Mayor Daysog also served on the
Airport Operating Committee; requested that Councilmembers let her
know their areas of interest before the next Council meeting.
(07 -039 - ) Councilmember Matarrese stated an Alameda Power and
Telcom (AP&T) consultant report was published in the newspaper
requested that Council receive a briefing on decisions and
recommendations after the public workshops.
The City Manager stated the process would begin this week; the
public is invited to attend two public forums scheduled for
Thursday and Saturday a voice over Internet protocol is one of the
consultant's recommendations; updates will be provided to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese requested the update be provided in the
first quarter.
(07-040) Councilmember Matarrese stated he has heard concerns that
Alameda does not have a Cultural Arts Center; he would like to have
the matter reviewed by the Public Arts Commission.
(07-041) Councilmember deHaan stated webcasting is available but
is only utilized in the Chambers; suggested that the AP&T workshop
meetings be available to the public through webcasting.
(07-042) - Councilmember deHaan requested that Closed Session
information be released on Alameda Point negotiations.
(07-043) Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is a
mechanism for requiring shopping carts to have boots; stated the
boots would be helpful in limiting stray shopping cart problems at
Alameda Landing, Bridgeside, and Alameda Towne Center.
Mayor Johnson stated the Police Department has been requested to
review the issue in the past suggested that a phone number be
placed on the shopping carts for stores to pick up carts within a
certain number of hours.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,20,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,21,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - - -7:29 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(07-001) Minutes of the Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community Improvement
Commission (CIC) Meeting held on December 5, 2006. Approved.
Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Commissioner Tam -
1.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
(07-002) Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking
Structure Project Construction update.
The Development Manager gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired when the parking garage foundation
would be poured.
The Development Manager responded the foundation would be poured in
phases, starting with the back corner of Long's and working
forward; stated the first pour would be in three to four weeks.
Commissioner Matarrese stated some value engineered items overlap
with the list presented in July; inquired whether the parking
garage exterior appearance would be altered by any of the value
engineered items not presented in July.
The Development Manager responded all value engineered items were
on the July list with the exception of the stairs stated the top
slab was eliminated and does not affect the façade.
Commissioner Matarrese stated he did not see the deletion of the
precast spandrel panels in the July report.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,22,"The Development Manager stated said item was in the bid form as a
deduct alternative; the cast in place walls are $80,000 less.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the concrete appearance
would be the same, to which the Development Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether $150,000 of the reserves would be
used, leaving approximately $300,000.
The Development Manager responded approximately $140,000 of the
reserves would be used when small cost savings are taken into
consideration stated approximately $275,000 would remain.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether items could be added back in if more
contingency was not used, to which the Development Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan stated the Cineplex went through value
engineering; inquired whether architectural items were taken away.
The Development Manager responded value engineering was considered
when the bid was received from Overaa Construction because the
original price was higher; stated very little value-engineered
changes are anticipated for the Cineplex.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the removed items have an
impact on the Cineplex.
The Development Manager responded the design changes are minor ;
stated the Planning and Building Director would determine whether
the changes constitute substantial changes to design review.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Planning and Building
Director would review the changes, to which the Development Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the project is on schedule
since Cineplex funding is not in place.
The Development Manager responded milestones and schedules are
noted on Attachment 2; stated the theater and garage are on
schedule; the developer hopes to be finished with the Cineplex by
the end of the year; the final Cineplex schedule would be presented
to Council once the General Contractor is on board and construction
starts.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,23,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the historic theater completion
timeline is March or April 2008.
The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated November
2007 is the anticipated completion date.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the layout area would be a
problem once the Cineplex construction starts.
The Development Manager responded staff is meeting with Overaa and
the developer to coordinate a number of issues; stated the site is
tight ; Overaa is prepared to deal with the issues the trailers
should be removed from the Cineplex site by the end of the month;
Overaa could utilize some unfinished space in the historic theater
mezzanine area; staff would continue to coordinate with Overaa on
an on-going basis.
Commissioner Matarrese requested that any Cineplex design changes
come back to Council; stated discretionary decisions should not be
made.
Commissioner deHaan stated priorities have not been set.
Chair Johnson called the public speakers.
Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, outlined concerns with the value-
engineered changes itemized in Attachment 3.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda, outlined some parking garage ""at
risk"" details.
Chair Johnson inquired when decisions need to be made on the items
outlined by Mr. Buckley.
The Development Manager responded the canopy and blade sign prices
are secured for six months in addition to some items that may be
added later.
Chair Johnson inquired whether fund raising opportunities are
possible.
The Development Manager responded absolutely; stated private
funding could be used for the mural underneath the mezzanine wall.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether prices are secured for six
months from now.
The Development Manager responded prices are secured for six months
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
3
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,24,"from the day the price was received from the Contractor, which was
last week.
Commissioner deHaan stated the steel galvanizing issue needs to be
addressed now.
The Development Manager stated the City's Architect does not feel
that the project's integrity would be compromised by deleting the
steel galvanizing.
Chair Johnson stated the Commission would be able to make decisions
when items are brought back.
Commissioner deHaan requested that the Development Manager provide
a list of items [value engineering add back ] to be considered along
with a timeline.
Commissioner Matarrese requested: 1) an Off Agenda Report on the
value engineered items, 2) any Cineplex and parking garage exterior
design changes be approved by the Commission, and 3) a timeline
outlining when decisions need to be made for adding back value
engineered items; stated a decision would need to be made prior to
pouring concrete on whether to use galvanized steel versus painted
steel.
The Development Manager clarified that all the column bases have
granite tile.
ADJOURNMEN'T
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
4
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,25,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - -6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(07-018) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases One.
(07-019) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54956.9 ; Name of case: Attari V. City of Alameda.
(07-020) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association and Police Association Non-
Sworn. Not discussed.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation,
Council received a briefing from the City Attorney and no action
was taken; regarding Existing Litigation, Council received a
briefing and gave direction to the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-JUNE 17,2014- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Councilmember Tam led the Pledge
of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(14-249) Mayor Gilmore announced that the resolution establishing integrated waste
rates [paragraph no. 14-263 was continued to July 1, 2014.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(14-250) Proclamation Declaring June 21 and 22, 2014 as Relay for Life Alameda Days.
Councilmember Chen left the dais at 7:14 p.m. and returned at 7:16 p.m.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Lisa Leverton, Event Chair.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(14-251) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, announced the USS Hornet Annual Field Day
event would be on June 28th and 29th.
(14-252) Rion Cassidy, Alameda, stated that he is concerned about the impacts of the
Del Monte warehouse proposal, specifically noticing and permit parking.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*14-253) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 20,
2014. Approved.
(*14-254) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,118,813.90.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,2,"(*14-255) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ended March
31, 2014. Accepted.
(*14-256) Recommendation to Award Contract for Legal Advertising for Fiscal Year
2014-15. Accepted.
(*14-257) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,885.144.50 and
Allocate $471,286.13 in Contingencies to MCK Services, Inc. for Repair and
Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 33, No. P.W. 02-14-04. Accepted.
(*14-258) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,299,000 and
Allocate $195,000 in Contingencies to Dixon Marine Services, Inc., for Alameda South
Shore Lagoon Dredging, No. P. W. 11-13-26. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(14-259) Resolution No. 14932, ""Reappointing Marguerite Malloy as a Member of the
Civil Service Board.' Adopted;
(14-259 A) Resolution No. 14933, ""Appointing Elizabeth Kenny as a Member of the
Commission on Disability Issues."" Adopted;
(14-259 B) Resolution No. 14934, ""Reappointing Timothy Scates as a Member of the
Golf Commission."" Adopted;
(14-259 C) Resolution No. 14935, ""Appointing Chee Chan as a Member of the Historical
Advisory Board."" Adopted;
(14-259 D) Resolution No. 14936, ""Appointing John Piziali as a Member of the Historical
Advisory Board.' Adopted;
(14-259 E) Resolution No. 14937, ""Reappointing Catherine Atkin as a Member of the
Library Board."" Adopted;
(14-259 F) Resolution No. 14938, ""Reappointing David Burton as a Member of the
Planning Board.' Adopted;
(14-259 G) Resolution No. 14939, ""Reappointing Kristoffer Köster as a Member of the
Planning Board.' Adopted;
(14-259 H) Resolution No. 14940, ""Reappointing William Delaney as a Member of the
Recreation and Park Commission."" Adopted;
(14-259 !) Resolution No. 14941, ""Appointing Mario Mariani as a Member of the
Recreation and Park Commission."" Adopted;
(14-259 J) Resolution No. 14942, ""Appointing Ruben Tilos as a Member of the
Recreation and Park Commission."" Adopted.
(14-259 K) Resolution No. 14943, ""Appointing Audrey Hyman as a Member of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,3,"Social Service Human Relations Board.' Adopted; and
(14-259 L) Resolution No. 14944, ""Reappointing Jennifer Williams as a Member of the
Social Service Human Relations Board."" Adopted.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor 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. Kenny, Mr. Scates, Mr. Piziali, Mr. Burton, Mr. Köster, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Tilos and
Ms. Hyman.
(14-260) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with
Pacific Automated, LLC for Five Years with an Additional Five Year Option in a Portion
of Building 25 Located at 1951 Monarch Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(14-261) Recommendation to Authorize the Establishment of a Basic Life Support (BLS)
Ambulance Transport Program as a Regular Service of the Alameda Fire Department's
(AFD) Emergency Medical Services Division.
The Fire Chief provided a handout and gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether revenue payments lag up to a year, to which the Fire
Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the one year payment lag is typical for Advanced
Life Support (ALS) ambulance service.
The Fire Chief responded ALS takes a third less time to collect than BLS; stated BLS
deals with MediCal and MediCaid, which are more careful to prevent fraud.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff time to collect payments is programmed
into the expenditure, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
The Fire Chief continued presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,4,"Councilmember Tam inquired how cost recovery translates to revenue generation,
specifically market share and potential.
The Fire Chief responded revenues were over estimated at first; stated the goal is
seven transports per day; adding a second ambulance captures more transports per
day; transports are run five days per week, 10 hours per day; there is potential to add
evenings and weekends in the future; based on market share, Alameda has definitely
hit goals and will establish new goals including obtaining contracts for skilled nursing
facilities services; the revenue and cost sharing will be caught up this year; there is
always a billing lag.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether 45% of the outstanding collection would be
reimbursed, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated if $100,000 is
billed, $45,000 payment is expected.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Fire Department is recovering cost, to which the
Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated fiscal year 2012-13 was a wash; the
current year will be a net positive, which will grow in the future; the department has
good partners and good support.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether prevailing wage applies to private companies.
The City Attorney responded that she does not know the prevailing wage situation.
The City Manager stated the City is not contracting with other providers, the providers
are contracting with the City.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether prevailing wage would change the outcome, to
which the City Manager responded that he did not think it would; stated there is an
exchange; prevailing wage applies when people are hired to do work.
The City Attorney stated she will look into the issue and provide an answer later.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether prevailing wage is viewed as a competitive advantage
or disadvantage.
Councilmember Tam responded prevailing wage levels the playing field.
The Fire Chief stated there is no law in Alameda County for exclusivity; Alameda
County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) can choose to give exclusive operating
areas for BLS transport; EMS chooses not to; Alameda's past ALS contract included
exclusivity for Alameda; however, exclusivity was negotiated out of the current contract.
Councilmember Tam stated no exclusivity makes the prevailing wage issue moot;
inquired whether there would be a change in the reimbursement, or increase in usage,
as a result of being a participant in the community paramedics program.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,5,"The Fire Chief responded Alameda is one of 11 pilot cities selected for the program; the
scope issues will be reviewed; there will be more training for paramedics to provide
relief for patients with chronic illnesses; patients will not be readmitted because
paramedics will provide intervention before going to the Emergency Room.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated service calls are
received 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Councilmember Chen inquired if additional certifications are provided to the EMTs, to
which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the Fire Department wants
EMTs to be successful, graduate, and become full time Fire or Police Officers.
Councilmember Chen inquired how Alameda decides which independent contractor to
use.
The Fire Chief responded the process needs to be evaluated; stated Alameda Hospital
receives priority; service can be scheduled in advance; as calls come in, independent
contractors are used.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the Alameda BLS program would be a
collaborative partner or competitor with the County.
The Fire Chief responded the County is reviewing contracts for efficiency and
effectiveness, both of which the City can offer; stated Alameda does not want to over
tax the current situation and neglect the needs of the community; Alameda needs to
evaluate the County's expectations; with a clearer understanding of the County's needs,
there is opportunity to increase business and assist the County.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the City would be self-sustaining without a
contract if it becomes a competitor to the County.
The Fire Chief responded hopefully; stated the answer will be known moving forward.
Councilmember Daysog stated the community values the service; inquired whether
there is enough data to decide to make the pilot program permanent.
The Fire Chief responded the pilot program is expiring at the end of the month; stated
Fire would like to make the program a regular part of its services; if the program does
not make sense for the City, another decision could be made.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the program is worthwhile; California is ahead of other
states with the Affordable Care Act; Alameda has an aging population and the service is
geared towards them; inquired whether most of the transports are on the Island.
The Fire Chief responded most transports originate on the Island.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,6,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the transports tax the two ambulances now,
to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the program is still in early
stages and will need monitoring to determine issues.
Provided background information and outlined the benefits of the service: Debi
Stebbins, Alameda Hospital.
Commented on the excellence of the service and all it does to get patients to the Wound
Center: Beth Brizee and Sophia Telmo, Alameda Hospital Wound Care.
Outlined his experience as a former employee of the program: Myles McMillian, former
BLS employee.
Councilmember Chen moved approval of staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he wished there were more data
points for Council to evaluate the program as a business entity and the effect and
lasting impact of the additional ambulance; he knows the Fire Chief will be vigilant in
monitoring and ensuring the success of the program; he supports the program.
Mayor Gilmore suggested that the matter be brought back to Council in one year to
evaluate the progress and impacts of the program.
Councilmember Chen and Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft agreed to amend the motion to
include a report back to the Council in one year.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(14-262) Recommendation to Approve Parking Improvements for Park Street and
Webster Street Shopping Districts.
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 8:25 p.m. and returned at 8:28 p.m.
Councilmembers Chen and Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.
The Public Works Coordinator and Assistant Engineer gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Gilmore stated it appears the parking goal for Webster Street has already been
met; Webster Street does not have the same side-street business pattern as Park
Street; that she suspects the red indicates inadequate parking for residents rather than
for business; she is interested in seeing more data; inquired whether the electronic sign
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,7,"that counts spaces has the capability to say ""Full"", to which the Public Works
Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Gilmore stated the parking sign has a lot of information for drivers to process.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Gilmore; stated there is too much
information on the parking sign; that she would like to see Lot C across from Theatre
reconfigured to be more accommodating and efficient; she likes the electronic sign for
the parking garage; inquired why kiosks were not chosen.
The Public Works Coordinator responded residents did not express a dislike for kiosks,
but rather a preference for the smart meter; kiosks are more expensive; Park Street
Business Association (PSBA) and Webster Street Business Association (WABA) prefer
the smart meter; smart meters did not exist five years ago and have become more
popular.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a need for more bike parking, but bike lockers
take up lots of space; more bike parking encourages people to use bikes instead of
cars.
Councilmember Tam stated the garage is underutilized; suggested moving the 13
spaces from the Oak Street and Alameda Avenue gravel lot into the garage, and
repurposing the lot; a best and highest use for the lot should be found.
The Public Works Coordinator stated that he would definitely look into the suggestion.
Mayor Gilmore complimented staff for an excellent report which provides a lot of
information; inquired whether there was any feedback regarding why the bike rack in
front of Lot C is unpopular.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquired what day of the week and time the photo of the
bike rack in Lot C was taken, to which the Assistant Engineer responded he does not
recall.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the Assistant Engineer stated staff had the
same thoughts about the unpopularity of the bike rack in Lot C; stated staff will collect
data on bike rack parking.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there were any suggestions about how to
deter jay walking, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded there were no great
ideas about deterring jay walkers.
Stated PSBA unanimously supports the staff recommendation; signage at Lot C should
direct people to the parking garage: Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of staff recommendation with the direction to look
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,8,"at repurposing some of the lots to achieve parking goals.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]
Mayor Gilmore requested an off agenda report on additional Webster Street data.
(14-263) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing Integrated
Waste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc.
for Rate Period 13 (July 2014 to June 2015). Continued to July 1, 2014.
(14-264) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14945, ""Approving the Engineer's
Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments,
Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, All Zones."" Adopted.
Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.
The Public Works Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
[Absent: Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Gilmore - 2.]
(14-265) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14946, ""Approving the Engineer's
Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments,
Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove).' "" Adopted.
The Public Works Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the allocation from reserves needed to
cover expenses is expected to be reduced after there are more homes at Marina Cove.
The Public Works Management Analyst responded in the affirmative; stated the
formation of the Community Facilities District will be presented on July 15th
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(14-266) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14947, ""Confirming the Webster
Street Business Improvement Area (BIA) Report for Fiscal Year 2014-15 and Levying
an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street BIA."" Adopted.
Councilmembers Chen and Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,9,"Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,10,"contribute a fair share; it is a moot point for Mr. Wyszkonski's business because it is
already included.
The City Attorney stated staff determined Mr. Wyszkonski represents less than half a
percent of the assessments in the district and does not meet the 50% to challenge.
Mayor Gilmore stated Mr. Wyszkonski is correct, as stated in the notice, he can protest
the boundary or assessment at tonight's meeting; in order for protest to have effect, the
protestors have to be over 50% of the assessed value; Mr. Wyszkonski does not meet
that threshold.
Councilmember Tam inquired why Council needs to vote if there is not sufficient
protests.
The City Attorney stated the law requires Council take action to levy the assessment.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the notice quotes a provision of law; it is important to
remember staff is writing to a lay person audience; correspondence should be easy to
understand.
Councilmember Tam stated the issue is substantive; on April 15th, the matter was heard
a second time because outreach was not clear; this is another situation where the
protestor is included, read the same letter, but got a different impression; there is a
pattern about the ability to communicate.
The City Manager stated the letter is clear; the speaker came to protest boundaries on
the inclusion of other business; it happened twice, the letter is merely a function and
attempt by staff to have as much clarity and transparency as possible.
Mayor Gilmore stated the system worked; that she was confused because no business
owner has shown up at the meeting when the levy is assessed to protest boundaries;
she thought it was not the proper meeting; the City Attorney made it clear tonight's
meeting is to have the protest.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
[Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]
(14-267) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Administrative Citation
Fees, Vacant Building Monitoring Fees, Administrative Penalties and Abatement Costs
Via the Property Tax Bills for the Subject Properties.
The Building Official gave a Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,11,"In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Building Official stated the amount of
$9,750 indicated on the presentation slide is correct for 812 Island Drive.
The Building Official continued the presentation.
Mayor Gilmore inquired why 1617 Concordia Street and 1504 Webster Street are not
included in the presentation, to which the Building Official responded both properties
paid their fees prior to the meeting.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the property owner of 812 Island Drive attempted
to pay the prior administrative citations.
The Building Official responded the current amount is accrual of new fines and
assessments.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the $9,750 is the new owner's accrual for last
two years, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated the amount
is primarily for vacant building monitoring fees.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether notices are sent out in the property owner's
language, to which the Building Official responded in the negative; stated the City offers
translation if needed.
Councilmember Chen inquired when the new owner of 812 Island Drive took
possession, to which the Building Official responded January 2013.
Councilmember Chen inquired how much was owed prior to the new owner taking
possession, to which the Building Official responded that he does not have the specific
breakdown.
Councilmember Chen inquired if the new owner has paid any of the new assessment, to
which the Building Official responded in the negative; stated the new owner may have
paid for prior penalties through escrow.
Mayor Gilmore clarified any prior penalties or fees owed to the City were wiped clean
when the property changed hands and the $9,750 is a new assessment for the new
owner.
Councilmember Chen stated that he spoke with the new owner who informed him he
paid $28,000 through escrow already; that the new owner did not understand the issue
of non-compliance and missed appeals because he needs a translator.
The City Manager inquired when the owner met with a translator in the City, to which
the Building Official responded several times.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,12,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted one meeting with the translator took place in April
2013.
The City Manager stated it has been 14 months since said meeting.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the owner occupies the premises, to which
the Building Official responded in the negative; stated the property is vacant.
Mayor Gilmore stated something was communicated to the new owner during the
translator meeting of April 2013.
The Building Official stated Planning staff has had several conversations with the new
owner about fixing and improving the property.
Nancy Nguyen, translator for property owner, stated there is a big problem with
communication and the owner needs more time to improve the property.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether part of the property is City land.
Councilmember Chen responded the property was 9,000 square feet at the time of
purchase; County records indicate he only owns 7,500 square feet and the City owns
the remaining 1500 square feet; the Building Official and City staff are currently looking
into the validity of this claim.
The City Manager stated the information should have come up during the title transfer.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the property owner knows he can make an
appointment with Planning and Building staff and request a translator, to which Ms.
Nguyen responded he did not know; stated the owner has been to Planning and there
was a translator five times.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the owner understands he needs to pay the fees
before permits can be issued, to which Ms. Nguyen responded in the affirmative; stated
he is told at every visit.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the issue is with the house itself, not the land
discrepancy.
Ms. Nguyen stated every time the City informs the owner of issues, he puts in the effort
to fix the problems but he is not clear about what he needs to do.
The City Manager inquired whether the owner was told in April that house had to be
fixed.
Ms. Nguyen responded in the affirmative; stated the owner took action right away and
put boards on the windows and doors.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,13,"Councilmember Chen stated every time there is an issue, the owner is compliant and
makes repairs; all that needs to be done is to not leave the house vacant; the owner did
not understand he was accruing a vacant lot assessment; there is sticker shock with a
$9,750 vacant property monitoring fee.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Councilmember Chen could ask the property
owner directly what his understanding of the current situation is and what he wants
done.
Councilmember Chen asked the owner in Mandarin what his understanding of the
situation is and what he would like to do.
Ms. Nguyen responded the owner does not understand why he has the fines and he
would like to finish his remodeling plan; he has verification and permission from the City
to start construction.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City is waiting for the owner to pay the fines
before processing his permit application of his remodeling plan.
The Building Official responded in the negative; stated the owner can go through the
permit process.
Councilmember Tam inquired the status of the owner's permit process and whether he
has submitted plans.
The Building Official responded a plan submitted last year was not approved because of
the project size; the owner has a new plan; in the interim, enforcement has been done;
the City is asking the owner to repair, tear down, or maintain the property to existing
standards.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the owner's new plans include tearing down the
building, to which Ms. Nguyen responded in the affirmative; stated the owner would like
to build a new house on the property.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City should give the owner a demolition permit so he can
continue to move through the process.
Ms. Nguyen stated the owner is worried the City will not give him permission to build a
new house after he tears down the existing one.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she understands the owner's concerns; his options are to
tear down the structure with no guarantee, or keep the structure and the fines will
continue to accrue.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,14,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Mayor; stated tearing down the building
will stop fines, crimes, and vermin; there is no guarantee to build a new structure, but
the City does not want vacant homes; the Planning Department will work with the owner
through the process and come up with an acceptable plan.
Ms. Nguyen inquired whether the City would accept a new plan if the owner tears down
the house.
Councilmember Tam responded the issue still needs to be considered.
Ms. Nguyen stated the owner does not understand the $9,750 amount; in April the fee
was only $2,000.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Building Official stated the fees are
a combination of four citations for vacant building monitoring and vacant building
administrative penalty fees; stated the owner agreed to a Notice in Order to demolish
the building by August 30, 2014.
The City Manager stated the owner plans to come to the Planning Board at the end of
July.
Councilmember Tam stated part of the dilemma with interpretation is some interpreters
speak a different dialect; knowing that the owner plans to tear down the building solves
the problems of levying the $9,750 fine; she understands the need for cost recovery but
she suggests allowing the owner to use the money to demolish the building.
***
(14-268) Councilmember Chen moved approval of considering the delinquent business
license and waste bills [paragraph no. 14-269 after 10:30 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Tam - 1.
***
The City Manager stated the issue is not about cost recovery, it is about behavior; there
were ample opportunities to address the problems; if the City takes individualized
circumstances, it will set a precedent; there is no reason for other tax payers to
subsidize this venture.
Councilmember Tam stated it is important to protect the financial interest and integrity of
the City; Alameda does not have what Oakland has in dealing with similar issues on an
ad hoc basis.
The City Manager stated the owner indicated that he knew what the problems were.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,15,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the City Manager; stated the property has
been owned since late 2012; that she does not know how much translation is needed.
Mayor Gilmore inquired how long it takes to issue a demolition permit, to which the
Building Official responded it is a two day process.
Mayor Gilmore inquired how long demolition of the building would take, to which the
Building Official responded the building would not be difficult to tear down.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the demolition can be accomplished in a timely fashion
after the Planning Board meeting.
The Building Official responded the issue is not whether the owner can build something;
the owner has a right to build a structure; the issue is whether what he wants, such as a
3-unit building or a single family home, can be built; a variance is needed.
Councilmember Chen stated that he understands not wanting to set a precedent;
however in the owner's defense, it was not his fault original plans were drawn up for
9,000 square feet versus 7,500 square feet; suggested not issuing additional citations
until the end of August; stated once the City issues a citation, there is still possibility of
miscommunication; staff cannot be expected to be legal translators.
Mayor Gilmore requested Ms. Nguyen to communicate to the property owner two main
actions: 1) the property needs to be demolished by August 30, 2014, otherwise fines will
continue to accrue; 2) the owner submitted plans to the Planning Department, the
hearing will be July 28, 2014; he will be able to build at least the same size that is on the
property now.
Ms. Nguyen inquired whether the owner would have time to submit plans if he cannot
demolish, to which Mayor Gilmore responded in the negative.
Councilmember Chen stated communicating the issues are lost in translation.
The City Manager stated the owner needs to be responsible for securing a translator; it
is not the City's responsibility; suggested Council places a lien on the property.
Councilmember Chen concurred with the City Manager; communicated to the owner in
Mandarin that the assessment cannot be taken back, and that the owner either has to
pay it or a lien will be placed.
The owner indicated he understood his options.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,16,"Noes: Councilmember Tam - 1.
(14-269) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Taxes
and Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts Via the Property Tax Bills.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation; noted staff received a request for an
extension from two people and staff is willing to work with the requestors.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether requests for extension would run until June 30th,
to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated flexibility is given to
accommodate and resolve the matter; there are no protests regarding business license
items.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Finance Director stated that he
would follow up on obtaining current information for William Godfrey listed on a
business license lien.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation with the
amendment.
***
Councilmember Chen left the dais at 10:48 p.m. and returned at 10:55 p.m.
***
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 4. [Absent: Councilmember Chen - 1.]
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(14-270) The City Manager announced that the Mayor and Darrel Doan from Economic
Development attended the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)
Conference regarding leasing efforts at Alameda Landing.
***
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 10:53 p.m. and returned at 10:56 p.m.
***
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(14-271) Irma Garcia, Alameda, expressed concern over customs issues.
(14-272) Robb Ratto, PSBA, commended the Building Official and his staff for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,17,"addressing health and safety issues in the closed Wienerschnitzel building and parking
lot.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(14-273) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Transportation
Commission. Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:01 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
17
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-17,18,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-JUNE 17,2014--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Tam arrived at 6:10 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(14-248) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code §
54957; Positions Evaluated: City Attorney - Janet Kern
Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore 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
June 17, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-10-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBER - 2, 2012--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Councilmember Johnson led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(12-471) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Public Hearing regarding final passage of
the ordinance [paragraph no. 12-487 was continued to October 16, 2012.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(12-472) Mayor Gilmore announced that she and the City Manager having been working
to address the extensive noise at the Coliseum in Oakland the past Saturday night.
(12-473) Proclamation Declaring October 7 through 13, 2012 as Public Power Week.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Greg Hamm, Public Utilities
Board, and Girish Balachandran, Alameda Municipal Power Executive Director.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(12-474) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, announced that the Alameda Democratic Club
would be showing the Presidential debates.
(12-475) Bill Garvine, Alameda, gave background information about Matt Hussain.
(12-476) Matt Hussain, Alameda, made an announcement regarding an Aga Khan
Development Network event in Fremont and submitted information.
(12-477) Ken Peterson, Alameda, discussed pension costs and employee salaries.
(12-478) Jon Spangler, Alameda, urged signage be posted regarding the Smoking
Ordinance.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that the recommendation to authorize the City Manager or
His Designee to enter into Purchase Agreements for the Replacement of Ten Police
Department Vehicles [paragraph no. 12-481 was removed from the Consent Calendar
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
October 2, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-10-02,2,"for discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*12-479) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on September
4, 2012. Approved.
(*12-480) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,118,682.23.
(12-481) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or His Designee to Enter into
Purchase Agreements Not to Exceed $302,000 for the Replacement of Ten Police
Department Vehicles and not to Exceed $174,000 for One Special Response/Rescue
Vehicle.
Councilmember Tam requested staff to explain the thought process in financing an
outright purchase as opposed to leasing.
The Police Lieutenant gave a brief presentation.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry about the armed response specialty
vehicle, the Acting Police Chief stated having the vehicle specifically assigned to
Alameda would be better because of response times; Hayward, Fremont, Union City,
and Oakland have armed specialty vehicles; sharing with San Leandro would make the
most sense geographically; however, the San Leandro Police Department wants its own
vehicle; Alameda has had an armored vehicle since 1998; the engine froze last year
and could not be repaired due to costs; armored vehicles are used on high risk search
warrants and Critical Incident Response Team calls, allow officers to go into dangerous
environments and set up command in an area under fire or can be used to rescue a
downed officer or a citizen when other rescue options are not available.
Councilmember deHaan inquired if the purchase would put the City on the regular
replacement schedule; stated the City's vehicle replacement schedule is five to six
vehicles per year.
The Acting Police Chief responded the average replacement of patrol vehicles alone
has been about three and a half vehicles per year; stated staff cars and detective cars
are usually in the fleet longer; the Department replaces patrol cars first and falls behind
on replacement of the other vehicles which are equally necessary; the Department is
trying to rectify the situation now.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many vehicles the City anticipates replacing next
year, to which the Acting Police Chief responded the budget calls for replacement of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 2, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-10-02,3,"seven vehicles.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was surprised the armored vehicle was not
noted as a requirement as part of Measure C.
The Acting Police Chief stated the armored vehicle was on the priority list for Measure
C, however, the fleet needed to be replaced first.
The City Manager noted the Measure C list was the subject of a tremendous amount of
staff debate.
Suggested all items that involve spending money should include finance department
projections that the City will be broke in three years: Ken Peterson, Alameda.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City always balances the budget every year; the City has a
24% balance in the General Fund.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City would go forward with depreciation.
The City Manager responded in the negative; stated that he did not want to debate
Measure C tonight; stated, in response to Mr. Peterson, the expense is not additional;
the money is already budgeted; further stated hopefully the City will be in a position to
start doing depreciation in three years.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City put money into the reserves to
procure and replace vehicles during the last budget cycle.
The City Manager responded money was placed in the General Fund reserve, not the
vehicle replacement fund; the Council's policy is a 20% reserve; the City is at 24%;
discussions about a two-year budget will occur in the next two months to produce the
sound budgetary planning.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about the City substantially eroding
the $3.1 million.
The City Manager stated the next budget would include an item to replenish the vehicle
fund and the proposed depreciation process.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation; reiterated Measure
C was supported by the City Auditor and the City Treasurer precisely because it
provided means to provide funding for depreciation; the vehicle replacements have
been budgeted, approved, and the 24% reserve is still retained.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*12-482) Recommendation to Accept $375,000 from the US Department of Homeland
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
October 2, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-10-02,4,"Security's Port Security Grant Program to Purchase a Fire Boat, and Authorize the City
Manager or His Designee to Enter into Purchase Agreements for an Amount not to
Exceed $500,000 for a Fully-Equipped Fire Boat. Accepted.
(*12-483) Recommendation to Appropriate $160,000 in Gas Tax Funds and Award a
Contract in the Amount of $860,000 Including Contingencies, to West Coast Arborist for
Urban Forest Maintenance Services (Citywide), No. P.W. 06-11-16. Accepted.
(*12-484) Resolution No. 14732, ""Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Grant Deed to the
State of California, Department of Transportation, for Conveyance of the Right-of-Way
Along Webster Street and Stargell Avenue, and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an
Accommodation Recording Agreement with First American Title Company."" Adopted.
(*12-485) Ordinance No. 3055, ""Approving A Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement The Terms Of The Lease with Faction
Brewing Company LLC for Five Years with Two Five-Year Options in a Portion of
Building 22 at Alameda Point, 2501 Monarch Street."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(12-486) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14733, ""Approving Tentative Map
PLN11-0223 to Develop an 11-Lot Subdivision on a 1.29-Acre Property Located at 2001
Versailles Avenue Between Fernside Boulevard and Tilden Way."" Adopted.
The Acting City Planner gave a brief presentation and provided a handout.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how parcels 9 and 10 would be accessed, to which
the Acting City Planner responded Parcel 9, 10 and 11 are accessed through a central
common driveway.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the road comes back to Versailles and is a
cul-de-sac, to which the Acting City Planner responded in the affirmative.
Urged the removal of Condition 9 of the Tentative Map requiring opening a path: Bill
Garvine, Alameda; Robert Bathiany, Alameda (submitted information); Colleen Arnerich,
Alameda; Rich Bennett, Alameda (submitted original petition); Lester Cabral, Alameda;
Kim Hammond, Alameda; Gregg Dillenbeck, Alameda; Nelton Joe, Alameda; Jamie
Shauvin, Alameda; Tracie Klein, Alameda; and Nick Cote, Alameda.
Urged the subdivision be rezoned from R2 to R1: Lester Cabral, Alameda
Urged the removal of Condition 9 of the Tentative Map requiring opening a path and
revision to Condition 7 regarding affordable housing: Evan Schwimmer, Alameda.
Expressed concern about noticing: Ken Peterson, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
October 2, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-10-02,5,"Urged keeping the easement for a path as a future option: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she was concerned about the process complying
with the Brown Act; stated significant change after the close of public comment should
be noticed.
The City Attorney stated the Brown Act was not violated; the Brown Act only requires
adequate notice of the topic of the item being discussed, not the individual pieces.
Mayor Gilmore stated often times matters come up in the course of discussion that
could not have been noticed in advance.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she agrees with Mayor Gilmore but disagrees
about the significance of the change.
Councilmember Tam questioned how the public is being deprived of access to
information.
Councilmember Johnson stated the Planning Board should have re-noticed the matter
to include opening the gate.
The City Manager noted that noticing every possible outcome curbs open deliberations.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired if the Police Department could provide a history and analysis
about the public safety components of the potential access point.
The City Manager responded the analysis would not be meaningful because the gate
was opened 20 years ago.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City does not have money to do Americans with Disabilities
Act access; questioned whether the access would be desired 20 years from now; stated
the issue is preserving possibilities.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she would like to separate the motion and address
the subdivision map application, then Condition 9.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Councilmember Johnson is proposing approval
of the tentative map without the condition, to which Councilmember Johnson responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the fencing adjacent to Tilden Way would be
six feet and whether the adequacy of the height was ever discussed.
The Acting City Planner responded that the height of the fencing was not discussed;
condition of approval requires submittal of a plan as to how that edge is treated so the
entrance is attractive.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 2, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-10-02,6,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the fencing could be raised, to which the
Acting City Planner replied in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding affordable housing, the
Acting City Planner stated affordable housing requirements were discussed in the staff
report and Planning Board meeting; an 11-14 unit project needs to provide two
affordable homes; the property owner also owns two adjacent units that are already
built; the property owner has two options: dedicate the two lots from the subdivision for
affordable housing or dedicate the two existing homes for affordable housing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the zoning was discussed.
The Acting City Planner responded the site has been zoned R-2-PD for a long time; the
Planning Board did not take action on the zoning.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Council could approve the subdivision map and
take Condition 9 separately.
The City Attorney recommended that the Council address Condition 9 first and then
take action on the tentative map.
Councilmember Johnson moved approval of taking Condition 9 out of the tentative
subdivision map.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Councilmember Tam stated that she would abstain from voting on the motion because
of the need to preserve future land use possibilities consistent with the General Plan
requirement to provide pedestrian and bicycle access; she has no understanding
whether future flexibility is being eliminated; there should be a fuller community
discussion about the security issues; she does not have enough information to support
or oppose the motion.
Mayor Gilmore stated if the Council removes Condition 9, a future Council could want
the easement to put in a path; the only real difference is that the easement would
probably cost money whereas now it is free.
The Acting City Planner stated the land would have to be purchased from the property
owner in the future, but right now the land would be included in the project.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated leaving Condition 9 is not voting for a public right-of-way,
rather the option is left open for the future and would require a public hearing before any
decision is made to actually have the public right of way; questioned what the costs
might be to purchase the land later.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 2, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-10-02,7,"Mayor Gilmore stated the underlying concern is if the Council removes the condition,
sometime in the future Council will be talking about putting in the path and opening the
gate; Condition 9 could be retained and another condition could be added that 80% of
the lots have to be occupied before the access is considered, which would relieve the
anxiety of the gate being opened immediately and give future property owners an
opportunity to weigh in on the matter.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated details should be flushed out; filling in blind spots would benefit
the discussion.
The City Manager stated data points are not going to be predictive of what the crime
would be; urged the Council to make a decision.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the access point would be for pedestrians and
bicyclists to get to the Fruitvale BART station, to which the Acting City Planner
responded in the affirmative, stated hopefully, there would be more points of interest in
the future.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether staff is aware of Oakland's development plans.
The Acting City Planner stated there are plans for new residential development across
the Park Street Bridge, including improvements for bicycle and pedestrian access;
noted the Planning Board knew the residents did not like the idea of opening the gate,
which is why additional language was added to the condition about the opportunity just
being preserved for the future.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not think there would be a future need for
access; the Tilden Way walkway could be made wider and more accessible.
Mayor Gilmore stated the Council should be fiscally responsible and proactive in
planning the future; what development will occur across the estuary is not known, which
is why Condition 9 should remain, however, she also understands homeowners wanting
to feel secure; hopefully the decision is not regretted in the future; she would vote to
pass it.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice votes:
Councilmembers deHaan, Johnson and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Abstentions: Vice Mayor
Bonta and Councilmember Tam - 2.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board focused on bicycles and
why attention was not given to the sidewalk on Tilden Way.
The Acting City Planner responded Public Works looked at Tilden Way before the
matter went to the Planning Board; the City is looking into funding to rebuild Fruitvale
Bridge as the lifeline bridge; widening Tilden Way and getting better access for
pedestrians and bicyclists is definitely a priority in the General Plan; taking land away
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
October 2, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-10-02,8,"from plots 8, 9 and 10 for widening would require backyards of existing homes be
purchased.
Councilmember Johnson moved adoption of the resolution approving the tentative map.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.
Councilmember deHaan stated Condition 7 and 10 should be discussed.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's request for clarification, the Acting City Planner stated
the property owner is okay with providing the two affordable units in the existing
structures.
Mayor Gilmore stated the condition gives the property owner an option, but the Council
does not want to give the property owner an option and instead would make the two
affordable units technically off-site.
Councilmember deHaan stated language should be added to Condition 10 regarding
noise impacts and the fence.
The City Attorney stated Condition 10 would read: ""improvement plan for the subdivision
shall include a plan for the construction of an attractive fence or other feature along the
Tilden frontage of lots 8, 9 and 10 to minimize noise and security impacts on the
neighborhood.'
Councilmember deHaan stated the condition could say the height of the fence would be
increased.
Mayor Gilmore stated the fence design would go through design review so that it is
attractive and considers security and noise.
The Acting City Planner stated the new language would state the fencing would be
attractive, address neighborhood security concerns, and come back for a future
Planning Board public hearing.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's concern, the Acting City Planner stated the
property owner would have to come back for design review.
Councilmember Johnson stated the language should read: ""may consider;"" walls might
echo and be louder.
The Acting City Planner stated the condition would be structured so it is clear there will
be discussion at the community level about the edge of the fencing.
Mayor Gilmore inquired what would happen to the rest of the fencing as lots are
developed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 2, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-10-02,9,"The Acting City Planner responded a development plan for the entire property is
required; the City would review project issues up front.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous vote with modifications to
Conditions 7 and 10. Councilmember Johnson and Vice Mayor Bonta agreed to amend
the motion.
(12-487) Public Hearing to Consider Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Section 30-
4.9A of the Alameda Municipal Code Related to the C-C, Community Commercial Zone.
Continued to October 16, 2012.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(12-488) The City Manager announced there is a special meeting of the City Council on
October 30 to receive the report from the pension reform task force and receive input
from the public regarding the City's future labor negotiations with Public Safety
bargaining groups.
Mayor Gilmore requested a press release be issued.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Task Force report addresses implications of
the State pension legislation, to which the city Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired if there would be a unanimously supported recommendation
or multiple voices with different options.
The City Manager responded a menu of options would be presented; the group reached
consensus on the scope and depth of the financial gap.
Councilmember Johnson stated having a summary of the new pension reform impacts
would be helpful.
The City Manager stated said information would be included in the report.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(12-489) Councilmember Johnson discussed a pension system she heard about
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
October 2, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-10-02,10,"recently.
(12-490) Councilmember deHaan announced Walk and Roll would be tomorrow.
(12-491) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Golf Commission,
the Public Art Commission, the Social Service Human Relations Board and the Youth
Advisory Commission.
Mayor Gilmore nominated Ray Gaul, Bill Schmitz, Timothy Scates, Jane Sullwold, and
Jefferey Wood for appointment to the Golf Commission; Sherman Lewis for
appointment to the Public Art Commission; Jennifer Williams and Jennifer Watkinson for
appointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board; and Kimberly N. Walter for
appointment to the Youth Advisory Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:33 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
10
October 2, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-10-02,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBER: 2, 2012--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor
Gilmore - 5.
Note: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:05 p.m. and Vice Mayor Bonta
arrived at 6:17 p.m.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:
(12-468) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) Name of Case:
Kapler V. City of Alameda, et al.; Superior Court Case No. HG11570933; Court of
Appeal, 1st Appellate District Case No. A133001
(12-469) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) Name
of
Case: Gallant V. City of Alameda, et al.; Superior Court Case No. RG11590505; Court
of Appeal, 1st Appellate District Case No. A133777
(12-470) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) Name
of
Case: Doherty V. City of Alameda, et al.; United States District Court Case No. C-09-
04961 EDL
Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Kapler V. City of Alameda, direction was given to staff;
regarding Gallant V. City of Alameda, direction was given to staff; and regarding Doherty
V. City of Alameda, direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:00 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
October 2, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - DECEMBER 4, 2018- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,
Vella, and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(18-651) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to consolidate the
McKay Hearing [paragraph no. 18-662 and the certificate of sufficiency [paragraph no.
18-662B].
Mayor Spencer stated that should would like to move the referral update [paragraph no.
18-661] above the McKay Hearing; stated that she does not want to consolidate the two
items; the is the first time the matters are being heard; the issues are different; if the
items are combined she would like speakers to have three minutes.
Councilmember Oddie inquired the number of speakers.
The City Clerk responded there are approximately 9 speakers on each and some
people submitted slips for both.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of moving the certificate of sufficiency to
the regular meeting and consolidating it with the McKay Hearing, and hearing the
combined matter after the referral update.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion with an amendment to give the speakers three
minutes.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft accepted the amendment to the
motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer
- 1.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(18-652) Proclamation Declaring December 4, 2018 as Sea Fox Crew Appreciation
Day.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,2,"Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Sea Scouts Cole Harris,
Mason Ensley, Ken Kirwin, and Skipper Ken Shupe.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced the Annual Review of the Affordable Housing Ordinance
[paragraph no. 18-655 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*18-653) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on November
7,2018. Approved.
(*18-654) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,285,182.03.
(18-655) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Review of the Affordable Housing
Ordinance and the City's Affordable Housing Unit Fee Consistent with Section 27-1 of
the Alameda Municipal Code and California Government Code Section 66001, and
Accept the Annual Affordable Housing Unit Fee Fund Activity Report.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated the she and the Housing
Authority Management Analyst are available to respond to any questions.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Base Reuse and Community Development
Director to explain the fee.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated every year, the City is
required to file an annual report with the City Council on the amount of money received,
the amount of money expended, and the purpose of the expenditure; the fee is charged
to certain commercial development projects to mitigate impacts on affordable housing.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has no problem levying the fee and
collecting it; expressed concern over the ending fund balance of $144,609; stated that
she would prefer not to see a six figure balance left.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director stated the fund can fluctuate,
and is used for special studies, projects and administrative costs; staff cannot rely on
the same amount of money remaining in the fund every year.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,3,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff to discuss other pressing needs that the
funds might be applied towards in the future.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(*18-656) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Second
Amendment for One Year with NCE, in the Amount of $95,375 with the Option for Two
One-Year Extensions at the same Terms and Cost, for a Total Five Year Expenditure
Under the Agreement, as Awarded, of $359,890 for Municipal Regional Stormwater
Permit Compliance Support. Accepted.
(*18-657) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Three
Year Contract, in an Amount Not to Exceed $30,000 Annually for a Total Three-Year
Expenditure Amount Not to Exceed $90,000, with Physio-Control Inc. for Warranty and
Maintenance of Fire Department Advanced Life Support (ALS) Medical Monitors and
Equipment. Accepted.
(*18-658) Resolution No. 15459, ""Setting the 2019 Regular City Council Meeting Dates.""
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(18-659) Presentation Providing an Update on the Veterans Affairs Project at Alameda
Point by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Administration.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director made brief comments.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired if the presentation is a response to the letter sent
following a referral, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Director
responded the presentation is a bonus in addition to the letter.
Larry Janes and Bill Ulibarri, Department of Veterans Affairs, gave a Power Point
presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the Secretary of the VA can do to accelerate
the project.
Mr. Ulibarri stated he will relay the inquiry from Councilmember Matarrese to the
Secretary.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if there is a way to quantify what part of the project
delay is due to the Army Corps of Engineers as opposed to anything the VA may or may
not have done.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,4,"Mr. Ulibarri responded that he would rather not say; stated there have been some
challenges; the Army Corps, being newly involved, are going to want to take the project
from zero and go over the whole project design again.
Mr. Janes stated the process has been lengthy with transitions; the entire design of the
project had to be reviewed with comments provided, and was finally accepted in 2017;
the VA is working with utility companies through the permitting process; during the non-
breeding season, the VA has provided licenses to law enforcement agencies to conduct
annual Urban Shield exercises, as well as licenses to the Air Museum for the Doolittle
Historic Walk; a contractor with U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service is working to install
cameras around the least tern colony.
Stated the project is fantastic; expressed concern over taking care of veterans and
using the area for urban shield exercises: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Stated the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit with the VA
has expired; suggested the VA return to BCDC to renew the permit: Irene Dieter,
Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed disappointment with the opening date being
pushed to 2026; stated construction delays will not coincide with surrounding
development, leaving equipment present longer than desired; expressed concern for
veterans and their families; stated that she wants to see the project proceed with as
much speed as possible.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like Council to give direction to the City
Manager to stay on top of the project; other projects have tight timelines that must be
adhered to; if delays occur, a report back to the Council is needed; a promise was made
by the VA to have a clinic and columbarium cemetery to serve veterans in Alameda;
requested assistance from lobbyists to help expedite the project in any possible way.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired if a letter should be sent to the Army Corps due to its
substantial involvement in the project; stated if the site needs substantial changes, the
Army Corps can provide more insight; that she would like direction given to also reach
out to the Army Corps via a letter from the City's Mayor and City Manager; there is a
level of concern from the public related to Urban Shield, about the agreement being out
of compliance and the exercises being shocking; transparency is needed when
exercises occur; expressed concern about the infrastructure timing being disruptive to
other projects occurring in the area.
Tim Graham, VA, stated that he agrees the VA can do a better job of being transparent;
committed to promptly notifying the City of any upcoming Urban Shield activities; stated
the exercises are permitted within the VA's legal interpretation of the environmental
document during the off season for least tern breeding; Urban Shield exercises will not
occur once the VA clinic is built.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,5,"Councilmember Oddie stated reaching out to the Army Corps is important; expressed
disappointment in the clinic timeline being extended; requested City staff to return with
information related to Urban Shield not performing exercises on Alameda.
In response to the Interim City Manager's inquiry regarding the Urban Shield license,
Mr. Graham stated the license is with Alameda County Sherriff's Office, but he would
have to review the license.
The City Manager inquired whether the license is renewed annually, to which Mr.
Graham responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Janes inquired if Alameda Police Department participates in Urban Shield activities,
to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired if a summary of Council comments will be captured
and compiled in a report, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated having Urban Shield events once the facility opens would not be
appropriate.
(18-660) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 15460, ""Amending Master Fee
Resolution No. 12191 to Add New and Revise Existing Recreation and Park Fees.""
Adopted.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry why golf information is not included, the
Recreation and Parks Director stated there is an operation and maintenance lease with
Greenway; under the lease, the City only has purview over is the resident, youth and
senior rates; concluded the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if there is an estimate of additional revenue the City will
receive from all fees combined, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded
she has not looked at the total revenue of all fees, which can vary from year to year due
to the economy and marketing efforts.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director
stated that she will have specific numbers at the time the City budget is presented.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she learned to swim at an Alameda Recreation and Parks
Department (ARPD) swim center; it is important to give an opportunity for everybody to
have access for water safety and swim lessons; expressed support for keeping swim
lessons at a lower cost.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,6,"The Recreation and Parks Director stated there are scholarship programs available for
all ARPD programs, including swim programs.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed gratitude for ARPD staff; stated that she is
prepared to support the item.
Mayor Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(18-661) Recommendation to Accept an Update on the April 2, 2018 and May 1, 2018
Referrals from Councilmember Matarrese to Consider Banning Motorized Vehicles,
Including Robotic Commercial Vehicles, from Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft
Used for Deliveries; and Electric Scooters.
The City Engineer and Senior Transportation Coordinator gave a Power Point
presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired who is providing delivery via autonomous vehicles, to
which the City Engineer responded Starship Technologies.
The City Engineer continued the presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the pilot programs in Walnut Creek are
ongoing, and if so, for how long, to which the City Engineer responded one year.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the pilot programs in Redwood City or Walnut
Creek did a report at the end of the program, to which the City Engineer responded staff
did not research said level of detail.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired why the secondary staff recommendation only bans the use
of sidewalks for autonomous vehicles, to which the City Engineer responded the intent
is to limit potential sidewalk congestion.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there have been incidents where autonomous vehicles have
been sighted without requesting approval from cities; San Francisco implemented a ban
addressing sidewalk and roadway use, yet has many startup companies which utilize
both sidewalks and roadways.
The City Engineer stated the San Francisco ban specifically addressed the sidewalk
component; the staff recommendation is based on language from the San Francisco
ban.
Vice Mayor Vella stated San Francisco has dealt with non-autonomous vehicles on
roadways; inquired if there is a way for cities to regulate the use of streets relative to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,7,"something that is not a car but still using a road, to which the Acting City Attorney
responded the regulation of public thoroughfare is a Statewide concern; stated that he
would be happy to report back to Council with findings at a later date.
The City Engineer continued the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how restrictive the City can be, to which the City
Engineer responded staff could not definitively answer at the moment.
The Senior Transportation Planner continued the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what would happen if the scooter companies refused to
not deploy within the City, to which the Senior Transportation Planner responded both
companies, Bird and Lime, are present and have been cooperative in not deploying
scooters within the City.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what happens if a company decides to leave and the
City is left with the remaining scooters, to which the Senior Transportation Planner
responded companies who see interest from cities want to work cooperatively and not
be bad players so as to be allowed in at a later time.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what scooter companies can do about the
enforcement of underage scooter use.
The Senior Transportation Planner responded all companies require a scan of the
users' valid driver license or learner's permit in order to access the scooter via the
application based program.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired the reason for staff's recommendation of a pilot program as
opposed to working on an end result.
The Senior Transportation Planner responded the pilot program would be the slower
option; stated staff could also bring a program to Council; other cities have also started
pilot programs.
Stated LimeBike looks forward to continuing to work with the City: Tarik Fleming,
LimeBike.
Submitted signatures for the record; stated that Bird would prefer waiting four months
instead of one year: Martin Fatool, Bird.
Expressed support for the Transportation Commission recommendation, and
implementing e-bikes and scooters to replace car trips: Brian McGuire, Bike Walk
Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of a ban, using language within the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,8,"jurisdiction, of delivery by drones and robotic delivery vehicles.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support the
motion; quoted passages from the December issue of Western City Magazine; stated
there is a need to keep up with emerging technology, but it must be managed.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there are a number of safety concerns that have not been
addressed yet; expressed concern over the kinds of items being transported and when
items are delivered; stated part of having a ban is not to say the City will never allow the
use to happen, but rather to require companies to ask for permission before operating in
the City and to have an enforcement mechanism; the intent is to prevent asking for
forgiveness instead of permission and to allow for public dialogue and conversation;
expressed support of the ban; stated the language could be bifurcated to have the
language on the ban regarding robotic delivery; inquired what options the City has when
items operate on the streets and impede traffic; stated staff could work on limitations
within the purview of what is permissible regarding the drone language restrictions on
time, place and manner
Councilmember Matarrese amended his motion to include Vice Mayor Vella's
recommendation; stated the intent is to grant permission, rather than react.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not want to run afoul of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regulations, but would like to implement whatever restrictions staff
thinks necessary; expressed concern over loss of jobs and support for the motion;
stated staff should come back with a regulation for drones that will pass the FAA's test,
but also recognizes the Council's desire.
Councilmember Matarrese accepted the friendly amendment to bifurcate the drone
portion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmember Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4.
Noes:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.
The Acting City Attorney requested clarification that the direction from Council is to have
staff come back with formal legislation banning the landing of drones and regulating the
autonomous vehicles.
The Assistant City Manager inquired the agenda language allow adoption tonight, to
which the Acting City Attorney responded the preference is to have a first reading to
make specific findings supporting the enactment of the legislation.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not in support of the one year pilot program;
scooters have been deployed and are currently being used; a better use of time would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,9,"be to decide the way in which Council would like scooters to be deployed; expressed
concern over regulating the number of scooters being deployed and where scooters are
parked; stated that she would like to see a report back regarding the number of
complaints filed and the number of violations as a condition of approval; expressed
concern over citation of helmet laws.
Councilmember Matarrese expressed concern over the speed of scooters on sidewalks.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of coming back with a mechanism or
ordinance that precludes profit making companies from coming into the City and asking
for forgiveness and making the scooter companies liable for citations of helmet
infractions.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not want to impede the scooter vendors;
scooters are effective for the ""last mile"" issue; the goals of the Transportation Choices
Plan are being met utilizing scooters; opening Alameda up to scooters is a good thing.
Mayor Spencer stated it is critical that these items come to Council; that she is happy to
work with providers; expressed concern over safety; stated priority on the sidewalks is
people walking; stated the issue should be reviewed by the Commission on Disability.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of a substitute motion approving the alternative
language with direction from Council to look for a permitting process which the Council
can weigh in on; adding an enforcement mechanism within the process, and ensuring
compliance with different laws; stated it is clearly unlawful for a motorized scooter to be
used on a sidewalk or public right of way.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the substitute motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to add a stipulation on
where to park scooters.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council can also direct staff to look into the different limitations
on parking or regulations around that ensure compliance.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if riding a motorized scooter on the sidewalk is
already prohibited by State law, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff to confirm there is technology that allows
a fine to be placed on the user if bike share bikes are left in public right of way.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the desire of Council is to encapsulate the State law relative to
riding on sidewalks.
Councilmember Matarrese stated profit-making companies need to be held accountable
for educating customers, not the City.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,10,"Mayor Spencer stated companies can keep track of riders and users with multiple
violations can be banned from use.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the items should come back to Council in a fairly timely
manner.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:21 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:26 p.m.
***
(18-662) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 15461, ""Adopting a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Land
Use Diagram and Text Amendment for the Property on the West Side of McKay Avenue
(APN 74-1305-26-2) (PLN18-0198) to Allow for Private Use of the Property for a
Wellness Center.' Adopted;
(18-662A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Zoning Map for the Property
on the West Side of McKay Avenue (APN 74-1305-26-2) to Remove the G Government
Combining District Designation to Allow for Private Use of the Property for a Wellness
Center. Introduced;
(18-662B) 2-A. Recommendation to Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency for a Proposed
Initiative Measure to Change the Land Use Designation for a 3.671 Acre Site on McKay
Avenue, by Amending the General Plan Designation from Federal Facilities to Open
Space, and by Amending the Zoning Ordinance from Administrative-Professional
District, with Special Government Combining District Overlay, to Open Space District;
and
(18-662C) Select One of the Following Options: 1) Adopt the Ordinance; 2) Adopt a
Resolution Submitting the Ordinance to the Voters; Decide Interest in Drafting
Arguments and Direct City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis; or 3) Order a Report
on the Effect of the Proposed Initiative Measure.
Note: The Public Hearing was combined with the certificate of sufficiency matter on the
7:01 p.m. special meeting agenda.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft returned at 9:29 p.m.]
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC), made brief comments; submitted
photographs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,11,"Urged Council to follow the rules, vote to remove the G overlay and have a report on the
initiative return in January: John Knox White, Alameda.
Stated that he gathered signatures; expressed support for the initiative; suggested the
center should be located next to homeless housing; urged Council to approve zoning
the parcel open space: Robert Frank, Alameda.
Urged immediate adoption of the initiative, or if not, order a report; suggested the report
not be completed by City staff and removal of the G overlay wait until the initiative is
addressed: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Discussed Council adoption of the 2014 initiative measure and the parcels being split in
2016; urged Council to adopt the open space zoning: Liza Gabato Morse, Alameda.
Expressed support for APC and the wellness center; urged approval of removing the G
overlay and ordering a report on the initiative: Duke Austin, Alameda.
Expressed concern over safety issues with the location, such as access points and
room for emergency vehicles: Don Scroggins, Alameda.
Expressed support for further study; stated the location is not the right location for a
medical center: Linda Robertson, Alameda.
Discussed compassion for homeless people and expressed support for the center: Jeff
Locke, Island City Faith Coalition.
Urged the Council to order the report on the initiative and everyone to have compassion
and respect: Tova Fry, Alameda.
Stated both Renewed Hope and Alameda Justice Alliance support removal of the
G
overlay: Doyle Saylor, Renewed Hope and Alameda Justice Alliance.
Expressed concern over many children in the area; stated the project would be
welcome in another location, such as near the proposed Veterans Affairs project;
discussed traffic on Central Avenue and Webster Street: Elizabeth Phipps, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the appropriateness of the location; suggested other locations:
Diane Broch, Alameda.
Expressed concern over seniors not supporting the location; discussed human rights;
expressed support for the location; urged Council to remove the G overlay and order a
report on the initiative: Catherine Pauling, Alameda.
Discussed the project; stated issues with neighbors can be worked through; expressed
support for removing the G overlay and doing a study on the initiative: Keith McCoy,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,12,"APC.
Discussed her experience advocating for patients; stated the project is the right thing to
do: Joy Malloy, Renewed Hope.
Discussed recovering from surgery, which he was able to do on his couch, not the
streets; urged Council to accept the project, remove to G overlay and do a report on the
initiative: Eric Strimling, Alameda.
Stated there are only 20 respite beds in Alameda County; expressed concern over
homeless having to recover on the streets; stated mentally ill people should not be
criminalized; discussed other measures being taken in the County; urged a study be
done; stated that she opposes the open space initiative: Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope
and Alameda County Health Care for Homeless Coalition.
Discussed Measure WW and petition gatherers misrepresentation; suggested the
measure be scheduled for November 2020: Brian McGuire, Alameda.
Urged Council to choose carefully; expressed support for the open space initiative;
discussed services for homeless people: Fey Adelstein, Alameda.
Stated the project is an opportunity to move forward toward the Alameda she knows as
one that came forward to help the people who need help: Kate Pryor, Alameda.
Outlined her experience gathering signatures; urged Council to order a report: Kris
Moore, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what is the risk to Measure A1 funding if the G overlay
is not removed
Mr. Biggs responded that Mercy Housing has submitted a proposal for $13 million of
Measure A1 funding on behalf of APC; stated proof must be shown that zoning is
suitable for the project; if Council does not approve removing the G overlay, there is a
risk of disqualification from moving forward in the current round of applications.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for removing the G overlay and staff's
recommendation that a report come back to Council in 30 days; stated every community
must do something to combat homelessness; she spoke with a representative from East
Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) who assured her that EBRPD is not interested in
the property and would welcome a facility that helps address homelessness; expressed
gratitude to the Base Reuse and Community Development Director for using mediation
between APC and Friends of Crab Cove.
Councilmember Oddie stated housing is a basic human right; read a call to action from
the Committee to House the Bay Area (CASA); expressed support for removing the G
overlay, the approval of the negative mitigation declaration, and the 30 day report back
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,13,"to Council with the addition of: the economic risks of changing the zoning including
litigation and financial exposure, requesting EBRPD to confirm or deny any intention of
the property, what happens if EBRPD denies any interest in the property, the remedy for
complaints related to paid signature gatherers, and if Measure WW required open
space.
Councilmember Matarrese requested confirmation that the property is surplus from a
federal agency under the McKinney Act, which requires it be offered to other federal
agencies; if other federal agencies do not take it, it has to be offered for homeless
services; inquired if the City is entitled to the property if it goes through a federal
process.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the public needs to know the process; stated
homelessness is urgent and important.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution adopting a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and introduction of the ordinance removing the G overlay.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated homelessness is a growing problem; the City
is bound by a specific process the preempts the City from a federal level; where the City
is in the process as well as the process and timeline in its entirety, needs to be outlined;
the Council has fiduciary obligations to a functioning budget ensuring spending of City
funds is in accordance with priorities laid out by Council, but also with what is necessary
to ensure the City runs properly; there is a desire to locate services as close as possible
to the people in need; outlined transit barriers; questioned where services should be
located to ensure there are no transit barriers; stated concerns related to feasibility,
overall safety and planning and design are not currently before the Council; requested a
degree of civility from everybody; stated everything planned for the site are needed
services.
Mayor Spencer stated that she believes the noticing has been insufficient since it did
not include the words ""unhoused"" or ""homeless;"" it is important City notice be very clear
about projects; some who lives within 300 feet of the proposed project informed her they
did not receive notice; she collected signatures for the prior initiative; read findings
related to Measure WW; outlined details of a liaison meeting with EBRPD; stated legal
issues are being glossed over; expressed concern over removing the G overlay causing
more damage to the City as a result of the initiative process; stated there are issues
with the suitability of the building for any use, especially a medical facility due to
contaminants; requested the federal government clean the site; expressed concern over
emergency accessibility to the facility; stated it is critical for the area to be analyzed and
vetted before the G overlay is removed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,14,"On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer
- 1.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of ordering a report that incorporates comments
of the Council.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella inquired if the motion includes both the items stated
from Councilmember Oddie and herself, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer requested the motion be repeated.
Councilmember Oddie stated the motion is to order a report on the effect of the
proposed initiative measure and incorporate the comments of the Council about
additional information that should be in the report.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the motion includes considering a companion
measure; stated that she would like the motion to include staff looking into also bringing
a companion measure and the City taking an opposition position to the measure.
Councilmember Oddie stated it is included in the motion based off it being a comment
from Council.
Mayor Spencer requested clarification that the action does not specify the election date,
which will be a separate motion, to which the Acting City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,15,"None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:18 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
15
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -DECEMBER 4, 2018- -6:30 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:34 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
(18-650) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code section 54957.6); CITY
Negotiators: David L. Rudat, Interim City Manager, Elizabeth D. Warmerdam, Assistant
City Manager and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee
Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW),
Electric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees
Association (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and
Alameda Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA); Under
Negotiation: Salaries and Terms of Employment
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:59 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
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-04,17,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 4, 2018- -7:01 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM
(18-662B) 2-A. Recommendation to Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency for a Proposed
Initiative Measure to Change the Land Use Designation for a 3.671 Acre Site on McKay
Avenue, by Amending the General Plan Designation from Federal Facilities to Open
Space, and by Amending the Zoning Ordinance from Administrative-Professional
District, with Special Government Combining District Overlay, to Open Space District;
and
(18-662C) Select One of the Following Options: 1) Adopt the Ordinance; 2) Adopt a
Resolution Submitting the Ordinance to the Voters; Decide Interest in Drafting
Arguments and Direct City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis; or 3) Order a Report
on the Effect of the Proposed Initiative Measure. [630-20]
The item was moved to the regular meeting and combined with the McKay Avenue
Public Hearing [paragraph no. 18-662].
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 24, 2018- -4:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 4:03 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
Public Comment
Briefly outlined what Nautilus Data Technologies does: Jim Connaughton, Nautilus Data
Technologies.
Gave a Power Point presentation outlining what SpinLaunch does: Ryan Hampton,
SpinLaunch.
Continued the Power Point presentation outlining what SpinLaunch does: Jonathan
Yaney, SpinLaunch.
Urge Council to indemnify Councilmembers against spurious changes: Eric Strimling,
Alameda Renters Coalition.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(18-415) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation (1)
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of
cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action)
(18-416) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring Pursuant to Government Code § 54957;
Title/description of positions to be filled: Acting City Manager and City Manager
(18-417) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section
54956.8); Property: 120 W. Oriskany, Building 530, Alameda, CA 94501; City
Negotiator: Nanette Mocanu; Potential Tenant: Nautilus Data Technologies, Inc. or
SpinLaunch Inc.; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms
of Payment
(18-418) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation (2)
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of
cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action)
(18-419) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Pursuant to subdivision
(a) of Government Code § 54956.9; Case Name: Daysog, Tony, et al. V. City of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,2,"Alameda; Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case
Number: RG18907888
(18-420) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code §
54957; Position Evaluated: City Attorney - Janet Kern
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Initiation of litigation (1), the City Council unanimously voted
twice to give direction to staff; regarding Appointment/Hiring, Council gave direction to
staff; regarding Real Property, Council voted unanimously to give direction to staff;
regarding Initiation of litigation (2) , Council voted against giving direction to staff by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2; Noes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3; and regarding
Existing Litigation, a status update was provided.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 7:01 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:25 a.m.
***
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Performance Evaluation, the Council gave direction to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:45 a.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
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,3,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY- -JULY 24, 2018--6:59 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft,
Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -
5.
Absent:
None.
CONSENT ITEM
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the item be removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
(18-421) Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing David Rudat as Interim
City Manager for a Term of No More Than 960 Hours at a Salary of $123.75 Hourly; and
Authorize Acting City Manager Pay for Elizabeth D. Warmerdam at an Amount of
$123.75 Hourly for the Period of July 16 Through August 5, 2018.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Assistant City Manager has provided
capable leadership; the City has been through a lot of turmoil and she does not feel it is
the right time to add more uncertainty by bringing a new City Manager from Southern
California through the end of the year; time and energy would be best spent focusing on
finding the best City Manager to lead the City; she cannot support the appointment.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he thinks it is in the best interest of the City to
have the current team and leadership continue the work plan, rather than hiring an
interim who has to come up to speed.
Mayor Spencer stated the City is short one high level staff member; the City has a
strong City Manager form of government, which makes hiring an interim important; the
City is moving forward with hiring a long-term City Manager; that she is looking forward
to working with David Rudat.
Vice Mayor Vella stated part of the concern is that CalPERS restrictions could trigger
penalties if employees work outside of their class; the City Manager recruitment will take
several months; the City should not incur fiscal penalties while recruiting.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he wants the hiring of a permanent City Manager to
attract the best possible candidates, which can be achieved by hiring an interim for the
limited 960 hours allowed.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of the matter.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,4,"Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy
Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:13 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
2
July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,25,"that he would consult with staff and report back.
Councilmember Oddie noted Community Commercial (C-C) abuts neighborhoods as
well.
The Economic Development Manager noted any zoning change would go to the
Planning Board prior to coming to Council; inquired whether the dispersion requirement
should be modified for dispensaries.
Mayor Spencer responded that she thinks the dispersion requirement needs to be
modified.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would be okay with modifying the requirement
once there is a dispensary on both ends of town.
Mayor Spencer stated Councilmember Oddie does not want a modification at this time.
Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmembers Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support
for not making any modifications at this time.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether adult use should be allowed.
Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like staff to bring back a proposal for
discussion.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is a tentative yes, to which
Councilmember Oddie responded that he thinks it needs to be done sooner rather than
later, so that is a yes.
Councilmembers Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for not allowing adult
use at this time.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether the cap on the number of
dispensaries should be increased.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the current cap is two, to which the Economic
Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the cap of two is a deterrent; stated that she would support
allowing four dispensaries
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would support four dispensaries with the
dispersion to require one on both ends of town.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,26,"Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmembers Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support
for not changing the cap at this time.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff is going to ask about deliveries.
The Economic Development responded that she could do so; stated a delivery only
dispensary, without a retail location, could be one of the two dispensaries.
Vice Mayor Vella suggested that two delivery only licenses be allowed in addition to the
two dispensaries, separate from the existing dispensary cap.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the dispersion requirement would not apply to delivery
only, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated said suggestion is responsive to residents in need
of medicinal marijuana who cannot get to dispensaries.
Vice Mayor Vella stated allowing the use would attempt to get people to have a legal
delivery service.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft is agreeable to have
two delivery only businesses, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese is agreeable, to which
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the negative.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would be agreeable; he would also like the City to
require a license for delivery services.
Mayor Spencer stated four Councilmembers support two delivery only businesses;
inquired whether delivery businesses outside the City should be required to get a
license.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether Council is okay not having a
dispersion requirement for the delivery only businesses, to which Mayor Spencer, Vice
Mayor Vella, Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested staff review having delivery only businesses
located in a business park.
Mayor Spencer stated the matter would be addressed when it returns to Council.
The Economic Development Manager stated regarding delivery licenses, staff is looking
into allowing anyone with a legitimate business to get a business license in Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,27,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether businesses in different cities would have to obtain an
Alameda license, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated staff has not put the requirement in place, but is currently working on
doing so.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council is agreeable, to which Council responded in
the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic Development
Manager stated if a business with a State license and a brick and mortar location in
another city delivers to Alameda, an Alameda business license would be required to do
deliveries; expressed concern over enforcement.
The Economic Development Manager stated staff would go out for a new RFP following
the changes requested; inquired whether the same evaluation process should be used.
Councilmember Oddie responded a business that has already submitted and failed due
to the boundaries should not be required to do another RFP; stated the RFP could be
for new businesses; making someone re-do the RFP is costly if just the boundary has
changed and the same evaluation would be used.
The Acting City Manager inquired what if the business wants to submit a new RFP, to
which Councilmember Oddie responded if a business wants to submit a new one, it can.
Mayor Spencer stated someone rejected could reapply.
Vice Mayor Vella noted the business might want to apply to have adult use.
The Acting City Attorney expressed concern over treating groups differently and the fee.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the fee, the Economic Development
Manager stated the fee is $1,000.
Vice Mayor Vella stated perhaps a discount can be offered if the application is for the
same location since the work is done.
The Economic Development Manager stated staff would return with a recommendation.
Mayor Spencer stated it sounds like everyone is fine with said suggestion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the tax should be addressed in the staff
report when the matter returns, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the
matter could be addressed in the staff report; stated staff also has cleanup amendments
to the ordinance; the intention is to bring back both together, but the amount of changes
might require the actions be separate.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,28,"Councilmember Oddie stated the cleanup should be kept separate; cleanup to the rent
ordinance was lost.
In response to the Assistant City Manager's inquiry regarding timing, the Economic
Development Manager stated staff was planning to come back on September 4th, but
she would prefer to make it the first meeting in October due to the amount of work.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the second meeting in September,
the Economic Development Manager stated staff is working on arts and minimum wage
items for said date.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the ordinance would require two readings, to which the
Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the cleanup can be presented at the first meeting in
September, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; noted
zoning changes would have to go to the Planning Board.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like the matter expedited; the cleanup is not as
critical; her preference would be to do the substantive work.
Vice Mayor Vella stated some of the substantive work, such as adult use, would not go
to the Planning Board; only the zoning has to go to the Planning Board.
The Acting City Manager stated everything needs to be approved to go out with RFP.
The Economic Development Manager stated staff would shoot for the October meeting
to allow time to go to the Planning Board.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(18-449) The Acting City Manager announced information would be posted on the
website regarding signature gatherers misrepresenting the McKay property initiative.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(18-450) Consider Drafting a Letter to Federal Representatives Supporting
Congressional Bill S. 3036, the ""Keep Families Together Act."" (Councilmember Oddie)
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments regarding the referral.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval [of drafting a letter].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,29,"Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(18-451) Michael Moon, CCA East Bay, discussed diversity and suggested there be
greater diversity on Boards and Commissions.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(18-452) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Historical
Advisory Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Social Service Human Relations
Board and Transportation Commission.
Mayor Spencer nominated Jennifer Wit for appointment to the HAB and Marsha
Broquedis and Asheshh Saheba for appointment to the Planning Board.
(18-453) Councilmember Oddie expressed concern over some of the reprehensible
rhetoric being heard, which Councilmembers have a duty to denounce; no one asks him
where he was born and how long he has lived here, which they ask Vice Mayor Vella;
discussed micro-aggression, which is a sign of racism.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is the first Hispanic Mayor of the City; googling her name
comes up with derogatory comments; she supports the reduction of derogatory
comments against all Councilmembers.
(18-454) Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council has discussed other means of
helping people stay housed; Kamala Harris has introduced a Rent Relief Act for
Californians; hopefully, the City will follow up and provide support; someone paying
more than 30% of their taxable income on rent, including utilities, would be eligible.
Mayor Spencer stated the City might have already supported the Act.
Councilmember Oddie stated if the matter does not fall under the legislative agenda, it
should be brought back.
ADJOURNMENT
(18-455) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at
12:24 a.m. in memory of Nia Wilson.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,30,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,5,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 24, 2018- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,
Vella, and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(18-422) Councilmember Oddie requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of
BART victim Nia Wilson.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(18-423) Councilmember Oddie made an announcement that he finished his last
radiation treatment for skin cancer; urged everyone to have lumps or spots checked.
Mayor Spencer made brief comments.
(18-424) Proclamation Declaring June through August as Play Ball Summer 2018.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Recreation and Parks
Department coaching staff.
(18-425) Presentation of Certificates to Economic Development Strategic Plan Task
Force Members.
The Development Manager made brief comments.
Mayor Spencer presented the certificates to the Task Force members.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(18-426) Toni Grimm, Alameda, discussed a potential recall effort against Vice Mayor
Vella; stated Vice Mayor Vella was cleared by the investigation; noted a recall signer
has also targeted Assemblymember Bonta; expressed concern over ethnicity being the
crux of the issue.
(18-427) Mark Hersman, Alameda, discussed the Jill Keimach investigation; urged
Councilmembers Vella and Oddie be indemnified against the unfounded charges and
their legal expenses be reimbursed.
(18-428) Steve Slauson, Alameda, stated that he wrote a letter to the City on behalf of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,6,"concerned citizens who are furious about the settlement agreement reached with the
former City Manager, requesting money be taken from the Fire Department budget, two
Fire Stations be closed, and half of the Fire Department be laid off.
(18-429) Denyse Trepanier, Alameda, stated the Council received a letter signed by
many Alameda residents asking the Council not to indemnify Vice Mayor Vella for her
expenses incurred defending herself against the charges levied by the former City
Manager; Vice Mayor Vella was cleared of any wrong doing; not indemnifying the
wrongly accused would have a very chilling effect on potential candidates.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk clarified the All City Management Services agreement [paragraph no. 18-
432] amount is corrected to $305,820 for a total of $829,371 and announced there are
speakers on the Park Engineering contract [paragraph no. 18-433]; the grant funding
resolution [paragraph no. 18-437]; the resolution regarding the federal bills for the
Chinese American World War Il Veterans Congressional Gold Medal Act [paragraph no.
18-439]; and final passage of the ordinance [paragraph no. 18-440].
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember 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.]
(*18-430) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings and Joint City
Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting
Held on June 19, 2018; and the Special City Council Meeting Held on July 5, 2018.
Approved.
(*18-431) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,890,560.02.
(*18-432) Recommendation to Authorize the Acting City Manager to Enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Alameda Unified School District
(AUSD) to Accept $86,970 for Crossing Guard Services; and Approve a Second
Amendment to All City Management Services Incorporated Extending the Term 12
Months and Adding the Amount of $284,000 for a Total Contract Amount of $807,501
for Crossing Guard Services. Accepted.
[Note: The amount was corrected to $305,820 for a total contract of $829,371]
(18-433) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract in the Amount Not to Exceed
$261,544, including Contingency, to Park Engineering for Construction Management
Services during the Construction Phase for the Cross Alameda Trail Project (Main
Street to Constitution Way), No. P.W. 03-18-11; and Receive an Update on the Status
of Completion of the Cross Alameda Trail (Main Street to Constitution Way).
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,7,"Stated the component is critical to the Cross Alameda Trail; Bike Walk Alameda
supports the project: Densye Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(*18-434) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract, with the Option for Three
One-Year Extensions, for an Amount Not to Exceed $71,971, Including a 20%
Contingency, for a Total Four-Year Expenditure not to Exceed $296,640 to Blue Flame
Crew West for the Operation and Maintenance of Doolittle Landfill. Accepted.
(*18-435) Recommendation to Award a One-Year Contract, with the Option for Four
One-Year Extensions, for an Amount Not to Exceed $363,354, for a Total Five-Year
Expenditure Not to Exceed $1,890,911, to Imperial Maintenance for Janitorial Services
for Various City Facilities. Accepted.
(*18-436) Resolution No. 15414, ""Granting Three Water Line Easements to East Bay
Municipal Utility District Across City-Owned Property Within Alameda Point; and
Recommendation to Authorize the Acting City Manager to Execute Any and All Ancillary
Documents and Directing the Recording of the Grant of Easements for Installation of
New Water Main Service."" Adopted.
(18-437) Resolution No. 15415, ""Authorizing the Acting City Manager to Execute
Documents Necessary to Accept Grant Funding from the Alameda County
Transportation Commission (ACTC) for the Clement Avenue East Extension and Tilden
Way Project; and Increasing the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Capital Projects Fund Budget for
Clement Avenue and Tilden Way Complete Streets Project (91820) by $445,000
Funded by the Gas Tax Fund and Construction Improvement Tax Fund."" Adopted.
The public speaker decided not to comment.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*18-438) Resolution No. 15416, ""Authorizing the Acting City Manager, or Her
Designee, to Negotiate and Execute Purchase Agreements Not to Exceed $268,000 for
the Replacement of Six Police Department Vehicles and One Police Motorcycle.""
Adopted.
(18-439) Resolution No. 15417, ""Supporting House of Representatives Bill 2358 and
Senate Bill 1050 the Chinese American World War Il Veterans Congressional Gold
Medal Act."" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,8,"Urged Council to support the bill to remember and honor the Chinese Americans who
served in World War II; provided background information: Roger Dong, American
Legion Post 384.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer urged people to reach out to elected representatives
to urge support.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(18-440) Ordinance No. 3221, ""Approving the Alameda Marina Master Plan and Density
Bonus Application for the Redevelopment of the Alameda Marina Properties Located at
1815 Clement Avenue (APN 071-0288-003 and 071-0257-004). Finally passed.
Expressed concern over the Alameda Marina dry boat storage going from 300 to 60;
stated numbers do not reflect the demand; providing 120 versa docks would be at the
expense of wet slips in the Marina; dry storage is not in the Encinal Terminals Master
Plan and should be added: Nancy Hird, Save Alamedas Working Waterfront.
Councilmember Oddie moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated there have been years of community input;
everyone wants a strong marina; the community, developer, Planning Board and
Council did the best possible work to figure out the balance of housing; the developer
did not seek the maximum housing number allowed under State law; the developer
made great accommodations; urged the community to continue to be involved; stated
housing for sale and for rent will be available at different price points.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(18-441) Resolution No. 15418, ""Appointing Jeffrey Gould as a Member of the Public
Utilities Board.' Adopted;
(18-441A) Resolution No. 15419, ""Appointing Michael Hans as a Member of the
Transportation Commission."" Adopted;
(18-441B) Resolution No. 15420, ""Appointing David Johnson as a Member of the
Transportation Commission."" Adopted;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,9,"(18-441C) Resolution No. 15421, ""Appointing Alysha Nachtigall as a Member of the
Transportation Commission."" Adopted; and
(18-441D) Resolution No. 15422; ""Appointing Sharon Nearn as a Member of the
Transportation Commission."" Adopted.
Stated that he would like to serve to support Alameda Municipal Power's climate
change efforts: Jeffrey Gould, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates of
appointment to Mr. Gould, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Nachtigall and Ms. Nearn.
(18-442) Presentation on Role of TetraTech EC in the Environmental Clean-Up of
Alameda Point by the United States Navy.
The Acting Assistant City Manager made brief comments.
***
Mayor Spencer left the dais at 7:42 p.m. and returned at 7:43 p.m. and left at 7:51 p.m.
and returned at 7:52 p.m.
Anthony Megliola, Navy Base Closure Manager, gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why finding the anomaly took two years and
whether Alameda could expect something similar.
Mr. Megliola responded the Navy learned a lot from the experience at Hunters Point;
stated fraud was not expected initially; a considerable amount of time was spent
working with the contractor in good faith, getting new samples and re-doing field work,
which took a significant amount of time.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether getting information today would take
less than two years, to which Mr. Megliola responded the Navy is confident something
similar will not occur today at Alameda Point or other Navy installations; stated the Navy
has created protections to ensure it will not happen again, which include having an
independent third party contractor to oversee radiological work.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the third party contractor is doing
repeat soil testing, not just reviewing data.
Matt Slack, Navy Radiological Affairs Support Office, responded on an as needed basis,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,10,"the third party contactor performs confirmation sampling; stated the Navy also works
with the regulator agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California
Department of Public Health (CDPH), who also collect confirmation sampling.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether confirmation sampling has been done
at Alameda Point following the TetraTech Hunters Point story, to which Mr. Slack
responded that he cannot say sampling has been done since the story broke; stated the
State of California has done confirmation sampling.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the confirmation sampling was at
Alameda Point, to which Mr. Slack responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a scanner van was used at Alameda
Point, to which Mr. Slack responded in the negative; stated in 2002 or 2003, the EPA
had a van with a very sensitive gamma detector, which could give general area
radiation levels; the van was used to analyze the residential part of Hunters Point; the
piece of equipment has not been used in Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the two sentenced TetraTech employees, Stephen
Rolfe and Justin Hubbard, ever worked at Alameda Point.
Mr. Megliola responded the Navy did a detailed analysis and determined one of the
employees worked at Alameda Point in the 2007 to 2008 timeframe; stated the work
being done was a non-supervisory Radiological Control Technician (RCT) with a
different team than the team working at Hunters Point.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the third party contractor goes on site and takes
samples, to which Mr. Megliola responded the CDPH does its own, independent
sampling on certain projects.
Mr. Slack stated data is not being collected today; going forward, on an as needed
basis, the contract will have independent third party samples.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what would be considered as needed, to which Mr. Slack
responded that he is not in a position to respond; stated the sampling is to address
concerns and ensure independent data is collected.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether soil has been moved by TetraTech and, if so, has it
been tested.
Mr. Megliola responded soil has been moved off of Alameda from different construction
projects; stated the majority has been reused at various landfill sites for soil cover; the
soil that was moved was scanned on site before leaving; the soil was taken to Idaho
and Utah.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the job duties of a RCT and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,11,"whether the work been reviewed, Mr. Slack stated a RCT would be responsible for
collecting electronic data in the field or doing field sampling; the activities at Hunters
Point were a group, team effort covering each other; operations were not independent;
the employee would not have had an impact [in Alameda]; data was being gathered to
characterize, not clear sites; the areas have several feet of clean soil on top of the site;
even if the employee collected data, the site was never cleared and still has institutional
controls.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether someone checked the work back then, to which
Mr. Slack responded a deep analysis was done to determine where the employee did
the work; the conclusion was drawn that the work done did not have an impact on
anything that was cleared.
Stated the presentation is disturbing; read from a July 2001 Bay Guardian article;
expressed concern over the Fleet Industrial Supply Center annex having a drum of
depleted uranium ballast overflowing, everything TetraTech did before 2002 being
unreliable, and Shinsei Gardens: Anonymous Speaker, Alameda.
Expressed concern about a new nuclear research and development company on the
former Base; stated the Navy should admit it cannot clean the site: Robert Todd,
Alameda.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Shinsei Gardens, the Acting Assistant
City Manager stated environmental work was done in the area, which has protections
and engineering controls; the land has been through the regulatory process and is safe
for residents.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether or not regulations allow digging, to which the Acting
Assistant City Manager responded that she does now know.
The Acting City Manager stated staff would review the matter.
Mr. Megliola stated that he would be happy to provide details; his recollection is indoor
air testing was done and a sub-slab depressurization system was installed to ensure
safety.
Mayor Spencer requested the information be shared with the public; stated the City is
not leasing to the nuclear power company, Kairos Power; requested staff to provide
information.
The Acting Assistant City Manager stated Kairos Power is a perspective tenant of a
master lessor in Building 9; the City has restrictions which prohibit nuclear material from
being on the site; the zoning and regulatory process do not allow nuclear material.
Mayor Spencer requested information be shared with the public; stated the building is
not owned by the City; the owner has leased space to a tenant that has to meet the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,12,"City's zoning requirements, which is why the City added conditions.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the public is concerned that any accessible land has been
checked; her concern is that the individual was working on soil that has been moved;
expressed support for additional confirmation sampling; stated remediation firms have
learned from what occurred; there is a value in having an independent third party take
samples and do testing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated work of the individual convicted of falsifying data has
to be reviewed.
Councilmember Oddie concurred that the individual's work should be validated.
Mayor Spencer briefly discussed the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB).
Stated that she has served on RAB since 2010; expressed concern over the Council not
reporting on RAB activity: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:34 p.m.
***
(18-443) Recommendation to Adopt the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP).
The Development Manager made brief comments.
Sujata Srivastava, Strategic Economics, gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Spencer stated the 2001 Plan was revised in 2008; inquired whether the 2008
document was reviewed or if the new EDSP was drafted from scratch.
The Development Manager responded a lot of the 2008 goals have been accomplished;
stated conditions have changed, so a lot of the background research and information
was a new effort.
Task Force members John Knox White, Karen Bey and Debi Ryan made brief
comments.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the locations of zoning
inadequacies, the Development Manager stated along the waterfront there are industrial
uses, such as Stone Boat Yard and Bay, Ship and Yacht; the areas should be reviewed
to ensure the right regulations are in place.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Committee suggested review of any of the
Mixed Use (MX) zoning sites; stated the Council direction was clear not to do so.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,13,"The Development Manager responded in the negative.
Urged Council to approve the EDSP; expressed support for Vice Mayor Vella serving
out her term: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Stated the document will be useful going forward; expressed support for data collection:
Catherine Pauling, Alameda Renters Coalition.
Stated assumptions were made at the first meeting, which did not allow opportunity for
other ideas; discussed diversity: Ken Peterson, Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the EDSP as presented.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated the report is well done; housing and
workforce development are important; expressed support for data collection on rents;
discussed the housing crisis and workforce development.
Vice Mayor Vella noted that the process changed based on community feedback, which
created a better, more comprehensive Plan; stated adaptive reuse is going on in
Alameda and the region to find better, more efficient use of spaces and resources;
businesses coming to Alameda need to work with the City and community on
transportation and housing; pressure is put on developers, but the conversation needs
to continue with businesses; the Plan should be revisited and adapted as needed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the need for transportation solutions; stated
the timeframe to address transportation should be reduced from 15 years; a timeline
outlining steps should be provided; everyone needs to support housing solutions.
Mayor Spencer expressed concern over the Plan not addressing that Alameda is an
Island and peninsula and referencing only Park Street, not Webster Street; stated the
report discusses that the City has lost and needs to replenish jobs; the City's population
is closer to 80,000, not 75,000 stated in the report; tourism is improving; discussed
School District and Hospital partnerships, job fairs, airport noise, Port of Oakland and
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) partnerships, the internet, shuttles and last mile
access; stated Site A affordable housing is short around $40 million; expressed concern
over the use of the word ""young"" to describe workers walking and riding to work; stated
the historic districts are important assets which should be called out; expressed support
for experiential retail.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Plan should not be put on a shelf; the first Plan
was done in 2000 and was measured until the Economic Development Commission
was disbanded in 2012; the City took its hands off the steering wheel; tracking the Plan
is important.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,14,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether her comments would be incorporated in the motion, to
which Councilmember Matarrese responded the comments are considerations going
forward.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether changes would not be made in response to the
comments, to which Councilmember Oddie responded the comments could be
incorporated in the background and the Plan could be adopted as written.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has no problem with the comments, especially
being used a measurement tool; the Plan is written and has been vetted; the
background report would be informative as the Plan is tracked.
Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support the Plan; she does not think it is
appropriate that the Council does not get to provide input.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer
- 1.
(18-444) Recommendation to Receive a Progress Report on the Public Access
Pathways on Fernside Boulevard and East Shore Drive.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Council input, the Recreation and
Parks Director stated the matter would come to Council after the Recreation and Parks
Commission.
Mayor Spencer suggested the matter be on the Council agenda twice; the first time for
feedback, followed by a decision; stated that she would like the City to consider doing
business in such manner to allow Council to modify documents.
The Recreation and Parks Director completed her presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what is being done about safety, to which the
Recreation and Parks Director responded the Police Department has increased patrol;
stated a person was apprehended after a recent incident; neighbors should call the
Police as often as needed.
Councilmember Oddie stated the neighbors are being subject to problems the longer
the matter drags out.
The Recreation and Parks Director noted the report includes some safety
recommendations, which can be implemented prior to the full construction.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to see action sooner.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,15,"Discussed a man entering her dock from the water tonight; stated a similar incident
occurred two weeks ago; security is an issue; she would like a locking gate: Dona
Fisher, Alameda.
Stated that he has never observed any crime; the waterfront access points are a
wonderful community asset; urged crime data be gathered and the space be kept
public: Jeff Wasserman, Alameda.
Stated that he questions whether the areas were intended for public access and were
actually for disasters; the areas lend themselves to problems; urged a solution be found
to address the neighborhood problem: Kevin Peterson, Waterfront Homeowners
Association.
Mayor Spencer inquired when the Police Department information she requested would
be provided, to which the Acting City Manager responded that she is not familiar with
the request; stated she would be happy to follow up with the Police Chief.
Mayor Spencer stated the information should be made public; that she has heard some
of the access point have no crime and others have significant crime; the data will show
the activity; if an area is not safe, the Police and Councilmembers need to ensure the
safety of the community; the locations are different and might not have a one size fits all
solution; data needs to be part of the discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated different people experience different things; that
she looks forward to the community meetings, but wants the issue to move along as
expeditiously as possible; having many governing agencies weigh in stretches out the
timeline; the Recreation and Parks Commission should do its work, then the matter
should come to the City Council once; anything more would be outside procedure,
usurps the role of the Commission and would take longer.
Mayor Spencer inquired when the Police data would be provided; stated that she does
not want to wait two or four months.
The Acting City Manager inquired whether Mayor Spencer is requesting the data come
back to Council, to which Mayor Spencer responded the information needs to be shared
with the public; stated staff needs to figure out a way to address the issue; the matter
does not have to come back to Council, but something needs to be done.
The Acting City Manager stated gating off the areas would be the way to stop problems,
which is not necessarily the best solution.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not know if said statement is true; she does not
know when issues are occurring; if problems are occurring later, the area could be
closed, similar to Crab Cove; she does not know until data is received; staff should be
reviewing the issue and looking at closures.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,16,"Vice Mayor Vella stated many parks in Alameda are against private property; a gate
would stop pedestrian access, but does not stop water access; people launch vessels
on both sides of the Estuary, which the City cannot control; getting information out is
important; inquired whether signs are on the water side as well as the land, and whether
signs are in multiple languages, similar to Alameda Point; stated that she is not of the
mindset that everybody be considered a criminal because of being in the wrong place at
the wrong time; individuals doing something they should not be doing should be
separated from someone who misunderstands; people should not be asked to
jeopardize their safety because the City does something that creates a nuisance;
discussed gates; stated data is needed; property lines need to be clear; the space
needs to be safe and accessible for everyone; working with homeowners should be
done on a parallel track.
Councilmember Oddie stated neighborhood security is not mutually exclusive with
moving forward to figure out the best use, including keeping the areas open as parks;
that he would like to see options other than just a gate; instances are occurring; people
can be kept safe, while providing access.
Mayor Spencer noted that she has walked her dog in public parks at all hours and has
never run into the behaviors occurring.
(18-445) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease with Small Size Big Mind, Inc. for
Two Years with a One-Year Option for Building 35, a 2,764-Square-Foot Building
Located at 2450 Pan Am Way in the Main Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point.
Introduced.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a presentation.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the item [introduction of the ordinance].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated there are 20 speakers.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the speakers would probably be
willing to pass on commenting.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether anyone has concerns or if everyone is in support, to
which the audience indicated support.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the school has the wherewithal to deal with
any lead paint or asbestos, to which the Assistant Community Development Director
responded the school has done its due diligence; stated there are no asbestos tiles; the
City has provided reports; lead based paint will be covered.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,17,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff would consider an extension if development does
not occur, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded staff is
always flexible with tenants; stated if the development does not move forward, staff
would entertain an extension; the school is encouraged to find a long-term home.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant Community Development Director
stated staff is working with brokers and trying to be as creative as possible with the
City's dwindling stock.
Vice Mayor Vella stated having early childhood education is essential.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the current location seems like such a happy
place; stated the school is needed on the West End.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
(18-446) Recommendation to: 1) Receive a Semi-Annual Report on Cannabis, including
an Update on the Request for Proposals (RFP) Process (Outcomes and Lessons
Learned); 2) Provide Direction Regarding Potential Amendments to Local Law
Concerning Cannabis, including (a) Maintain Cap on Testing Laboratories, (b) Allow
Processing of Applications for Nursery Cultivation and Manufacturing on a First-Come,
First-Served Basis, (c) Amendments Affecting Dispensaries and Nursery Cultivation
Businesses, including Modify Buffer Zones, Dispersion Requirement, Zoning, and Adult
Use, and (d) Confirmation of Use of RFP Process to Administer Cap; and 3) Receive
Update Concerning Other Areas Relating to Cannabis, Including Regulation of
Cannabis Delivery, and Cannabis Tax.
The Economic Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired why the cannabis retail area on Park Street
disappeared.
The Economic Development Manager responded a new business, Mathanasium, went
in and the address for Ruby's Tumbling was corrected.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether either business qualifies as sensitive under the State
regulations, to which the Economic Development Manager responded Ruby's Tumbling
qualifies; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff has reached out to the districts regarding
changes, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the negative;
continued the presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,18,"Councilmember Oddie stated at the State level, people can withdraw initiative petitions
and negotiate legislation; inquired whether doing so is not available at the City level, to
which the City Clerk responded the ordinance either has to be adopted as is or sent to
the voters.
Councilmember Oddie noted a bill is proposed, which would give municipalities the
same right.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council could amend the ordinance to allow adult use,
to which the Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the initiative would not need to proceed if Council makes the
change.
The Economic Development Manager completed the presentation.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Economic Development Manager stated
that she informed potential businesses a tax is not on the November ballot.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the business would be happier if the City had a tax, to
which the Economic Development Manager responded maybe; stated having a tax
would allow businesses to project costs.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding certainty, the Economic
Development Manager stated other jurisdictions planned on creating a tax then ended
up with a lower amount.
The City Attorney stated the Council could not provide certainty; the tax could always be
changed by going to the voters.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's further inquiry, the City Attorney stated the
Council could withdraw the measure until it goes on the ballot.
Vice Mayor Vella stated a current Council action to place the matter on the ballot could
be withdrawn by a future Council.
Suggested the following ordinance amendments: expand the two zones beyond Park
and Webster Streets; maintain the 1,000 buffer zone for schools and City recreation
areas: Nick Portolese, Portman Enterprises.
***
(18-447) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of allowing speakers to have three
minutes.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,19,"vote - 5.
***
Continued his comments; suggested maintaining the one mile dispersion requirement
and allowing a third retail dispensary and adult use: Nick Portolese, Portman
Enterprises.
Discussed destigmatizing the use of cannabis; urged Council to create a working
ordinance: Andrew Huntoon, Alameda.
Stated marijuana is safer than alcohol: Phillip Redd, Alameda.
Submitted information; stated Coastal Dispensary learned about Ruby's Tumbling being
750 feet away after responding to the RFP; suggested the buffer zone be reduced to
600 feet and the number of licenses be increased; stated the State made a change to
allow deliveries in any jurisdiction: Elisa Stewart, Coastal Dispensary.
Stated that he is the author of the initiative; he is glad the City has learned from the
process; 9 businesses were interested in setting up manufacturing in Alameda; outlined
his concerns with the RFP process; urged allowing adult use and minimizing the one
mile dispersion: Rich Moskowitz, Alameda.
(18-448) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items [the
referral and closed session].
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of considering the remaining items.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
***
Expressed concern over the potential hazard to young people and revising the
ordinance provisions; stated the provisions were set up to protect youth; questioned
what data has changed in six months: Serena Chen, Alameda.
Urged the Council to modify the RFP to allow adult use retail sales, raise the cap to
three dispensaries and remove the one mile dispersion: Ryan Agabao, Alameda Safe
Cannabis Access.
Stated that he applied for a retail cannabis operation permit on the East side of town
along the Park Street corridor; expressed support for the proposed amendments and
specifically lowering the buffer zones for sensitive uses to 600 feet: Tyler Champlin, CN
Holdings.
Mayor Spencer stated everyone supports reducing tobacco use, which does not have
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,20,"would like to allow the use in the Commercial-Manufacturing (CM) zoning district; adult
use should be brought back to Council; discussed the initiative; suggested a tax be
addressed; stated the manufacturing RFP should be rolling; the cap on the labs should
be lifted; there could be four or five smaller labs, rather than one or two large labs; the
application on cultivation could also be rolling; business licenses should be required for
delivery services, which may be the way of the future.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is okay with reducing the 1,000 foot
buffer zone to 650 feet in certain circumstances, such as Ruby's Tumbling and
Mathanasium, because children would not be unattended; the buffer zone should
remain for all schools, recreation centers at parks and the Boys and Girls Club; she
would consider amending the CM zoning to allow dispensaries, manufacturing and labs;
outreach should be done to business parks; Alameda Point should not be included; she
would not support expanding into C-1 at this time; the one mile dispersion should
remain; she would not add recreational use without robust public input; expressed
support for delivery services; inquired how staff would know and regulate businesses
outside Alameda doing deliveries.
The Economic Development Manager responded the honor system would be used;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,21,"stated the City could get information from the State after there are more regulations;
tracking would be hard; Google searches come up with delivery businesses, many of
which are not legal.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic Development
Manager stated delivery service has to be associated with a brick and mortar location.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a delivery only service could be
allowed, to which the Economic Development Manager responded Council could
choose to allow a delivery only service.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the idea should be considered; State regulations
are making it cheaper for people to use dealers; the initiative should be addressed when
the signatures are gathered; she would lift the cap on the number of labs; however, the
City did not receive applications from any labs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council is just directing staff tonight; the matter would
come back for a public hearing; a good distinction has been made between tumbling for
toddlers and a school where children come and leave on their own; changes being
proposed do not address the lack of interest and unwillingness to rent spaces; federal
government enforcement is unclear, which goes for operators and the City's liability;
one applicant is in the process of opening an business; he is curious to see how the
business runs; exploring and bringing back the issues for public debate does not hurt;
he would like to hear the public debate before he supports or opposes changes; he
does not see a reason to change his previous view at this time.
Mayor Spencer stated the City created so many barriers, which made it unfriendly; other
cities do not have caps; barriers should be reduced; expressed support for and
discussed adult use; suggested going through staff's list; stated that she does not think
initiative signatures should continue to be gathered if the Council is serious about
having cannabis in the community.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether the cap on testing labs should
remain.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for a higher cap or no cap.
Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Spencer expressed support for no cap.
Councilmember Matarrese expressed support for a higher cap.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for going from two to at least four.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would change to no cap.
Mayor Spencer stated three Councilmembers support having no cap on labs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,22,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is fine with allowing the permits as long
as the number of businesses remains the same.
Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Vella, Mayor Spencer and Councilmember
Matarrese expressed support for allowing the permits on a first come first serve basis.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would be interested in increasing the cap on both;
inquired whether there is interest in changing the caps, to which Councilmembers
responded in the negative.
Mayor Spencer stated the caps remain at 1 and 4.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether the buffer zone should remain
for the nursery and dispensary.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for keeping 1,000 feet for public and private
schools and 600 feet for others, pursuant to the School Board resolution.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie wants to include Alameda
Recreation and Parks Department (ARPD) sites, to which Councilmember Oddie
responded the School Board resolution did not address ARPD sites.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is fine with the two tiers.
Mayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella.
Councilmember Matarrese opposed the recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would propose a different two tiers: 1,000
feet from schools and parks with recreation centers, including the Boys and Girls Club
and 600 feet from after school programs, Ruby's tumbling and maybe even pre-schools;
she would want to see outreach.
Mayor Spencer stated a majority supports the two tiers.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,23,"Councilmember Oddie stated the Boys and Girls Club is on the map; having it either
way does not cause anything to change since there is not a Commercial (C) zone.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Acting City Manager stated the charter
schools next to the Boys and Girls club causes an automatic 1,000 foot buffer.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether off-campus after-school
programs and tutorial/learning centers should not be considered schools.
Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the buffer should be 600 feet and the uses should not be
considered a school.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the uses are not a school; she is fine with a 600 foot buffer.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated businesses can change; places where
unaccompanied children go should have a 1,000 foot buffer; areas where children are
supervised could have 600 feet or no buffer.
The Economic Development Manager stated said issue would be addressed next.
Mayor Spencer stated some Councilmembers are out of time; answers should be kept
as short as possible.
The Economic Development Director inquired whether learning centers should be
considered a sensitive use; stated there would be no buffer zone if learning centers are
not considered a sensitive use.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how after-school program is defined, to which the Economic
Development Director responded the matter is complicated; stated there is not a State
registry.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for not having a buffer zone.
Vice Mayor Vella stated an after-school program differs from tutorial/learning centers;
she does not want to create more gray areas.
Mayor Spencer inquired how far dispensaries have to be from libraries, grocery stores
and fast food restaurants, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded currently,
there is no buffer.
Mayor Spencer stated children walk to libraries, grocery stores and fast food restaurants
by themselves all the time; encouraged parents to educate their children.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated there should be no
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,24,"buffer zone for after school programs and 600 feet for learning centers; expressed
concern over shifting the areas for every RFP.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the sensitive use should be reviewed when the RFP
is published to allow people submitting proposals to research the sensitive uses.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry whether sensitive uses could be from the last
RFP, the Assistant City Attorney stated the uses should be identified the next time an
RFP is issued since the last RFP has already passed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees tutorial/learning centers could be
600 feet and others could not have a buffer; inquired whether or not Ruby's would be
included.
The Economic Development Manager responded that she would look into the matter
and provide a response.
Mayor Spencer stated a definition of tutorial/learning center should be provided when
the matter returns.
Vice Mayor Vella concurred.
Mayor Spencer noted there are not three votes to eliminate the buffer zone.
Vice Mayor Vella stated after the definition of tutorial center is clarified, she might be
willing to eliminate the buffer zone.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether the current zoning districts
should be maintained or expanded.
Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Spencer expressed support for
allowing the use in C-1 and C-M, not Alameda Point (AP).
Councilmember Matarrese expressed support for maintaining the current zoning
districts.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for adding the C-M zoning district, but
not C-1 or AP.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft would consider C-1 if
the use had to be cleared with the neighborhood, to which Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft responded that she would consider a process that includes a neighborhood
meeting; noted parking is a consideration.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry about the type of process legally allowed for C-
1, the Assistant City Attorney stated typically noticing happens at the Use Permit level;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-05-11,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-MAY 11, 2021-6:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
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 ITEMS
(21-324) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG)/HOME Partnership Investment Program (HOME) Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Action
Plan and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents,
Agreements, and Modifications at Funding Levels Approved by Congress.
The Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Stated that she noticed the statement of work reports appears incomplete; suggested more
follow through to capture accurate data regarding services rendered and how funds are
expended: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Expressed thanks for providing funding for mental health services in the schools last year;
stated that she hopes the support will continue this year: Katherine Schwartz, Alameda
Family Services.
Expressed appreciation for Council's support; stated domestic violence and sexual assault
has increased during the pandemic and City support is more important: Erin Scott, Family
Violence Law Center.
Expressed thanks to Council and staff for supporting capital improvements and services for
the Midway Shelter; stated Building Futures is working hard to update the trailers and
decks; announced a virtual event on Saturday: Liz Varela, Building Futures.
Stated funding is critically important; that she hopes Council adopts the funds and puts
them to good use: Grover Wehman, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concerned about how much data the City has
and how it is being used.
The Community Development Director responded data is collected on use of funds; stated
that she would share the information if Councilmember Herrera Spencer would like to see
more; the Community Development Program Manager observes a good tracking system,
which is dictated by Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) strict protocols.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 11, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-05-11,2,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer had something
specific that she wanted to highlight in terms of how funds are being used.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded a previous presentation indicated parking
spaces at Alameda Point are being half used; stated there are various entities to help
support the spaces; she wants to make sure the City is getting the word out about the
services that are available to maximize the usage; according to Exhibit 3, the numbers
being served in the non-housing public service category are going down; inquired whether it
is based on 45 people being served and if that amount of people is less than last year.
The Community Development Director responded it is the reality of having less funding;
stated the amount is based on the numbers; the number changed so appropriate allocations
were made.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to know the number served in
the prior years; it says 45 for school based health counseling services; she does not know
how much the School District receives, but she expects there will be more students
requiring mental health services as they return to school; she would like to keep track
because the decrease from $50,000 to $40,000; any monies that are being reduced under
the non-housing public services and the emergency food for low income residents is
significant funding; if there is not another option from this funding source, she would like to
keep in mind other funding sources as she fully expects greater demand; if the City is
anticipating fewer people needing services, she would like to see the numbers from last
year to see the difference; she would like staff to come back with a plan about how the City
can actually try to help fund all of the needs.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested an explanation of the $5,000
increase under administration.
The Community Development Program Manager responded it was a balancing issue; stated
the City had allocated funds to all of the projects requesting funds; public services are
capped at 15% of the entitlement and 15% of the program income, the remaining $5,000
could not be allocated to said categories; she allocated the funds to administration knowing
if a different project runs over, the funds can always be moved from administration.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired why the $5,000 could not go into any other
categories, to which the Community Development Program Manager responded funds
could not go into public services; stated staff could evaluate other categories, including
public improvements; stated each of the line items received what was requested; additional
funds were allocated for residential rehabilitation; economic development could be
increased by $5,000.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development
Program Manager stated Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) is the community based
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 11, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-05-11,3,"development organization that works with homeless individuals and does job training and
placement services; last year, Alameda received a lot of program income and increased all
of the public services and economic development accordingly; this year, the funding was
decreased.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the motion be amended to include moving the
$5,000 to the economic development category instead of administration.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is inclined to stay with the staff recommendation
because it provides maximum flexibility; if one of the other areas needs extra funding, part
or all of the $5,000 could be redirected; if it is put into the one category, it remains there not
knowing whether the need is there; she would argue for maximum flexibility.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated her understanding is that APC requested more
money and received a reduction.
The Community Development Program Manager clarified this year is the last year of the
public service provider agreements, including APC; last year, APC requested $100,000;
when the City received the increase in program income, additional funds were allocated to
APC as well as the public service providers.
Councilmember Daysog stated $5,000 to economic development is quite reasonable; most
of the economic development done through the CDBG program is micro enterprise; it is not
much, but it would go pretty far for those using the funds; he supports the suggestion.
Councilmember Knox White stated his understanding of the staff proposal is that as needs
are identified down the road, including economic development, the $5,000 would have the
flexibility to be moved into that or other areas; moving it today off the cuff would just be
making a decision to move it somewhere that has not necessarily been requested; if the
staff recommendation is followed, the City would have the opportunity to moved funds down
the road or also move funds into another place that has a greater need for the $5,000.
The Community Development Program Manager stated the City actually off a $50,000 loan
last week; although behind the amount from last year, the City is gradually inching closer; to
put the $5,000 into economic development would be fine because more funds have been
received since the staff report was written.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is willing to amend the motion to move the
$5,000 to economic development if the seconder of the motion is willing to support it.
Vice Mayor Vella agreed with the amendment.
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.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 11, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-05-11,4,"(21-325) Budget Workshop for Fiscal Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 to Provide Direction that
will be Incorporated into Budget Adoption Hearing Materials for City Council Consideration
in June 2021.
The Senior Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.
The Senior Management Analyst, City Manager and Public Works Director responded to
City Council questions.
Stated that he was proud of Council on May 8th and hopes the budget reflects the actions of
May 8th: Erin Fraser, Alameda.
Stated that she is disappointed Council did not get the message that the community wants
to fund community care, not cops; urged Council to defund the Police by 50%: Debra
Mendoza, Alameda.
Proposed that the City explore contracting with Alameda's trained Firefighters and
Paramedics, who may be more suitably equipped to handle emergency health situations, in
light of the incidents regarding policing and mental health calls: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Stated that she hopes the Council approves funding for the Shuumi land tax; she is
concerned about funding the Police Department at a higher level: Grover Wehman,
Alameda.
Expressed concerns about the Crime Analyst position in the Police Department; stated the
people on the Subcommittees made it clear an Analyst should not be hired by or report to
the Police Department: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Stated that she is concerned about the lack of mental health services available and that
Alameda cannot find $125,000 for additional mental health support students are going to
need; urged Council to give Alameda Family Services the funds they are requesting: Beth
Kenny, Alameda.
Stated that she supports prioritization of the sustainability and resiliency measures;
reminded Council that they need to be resilient, not only to the threats and vulnerabilities
related to the pandemic, racial injustice, institutional violence and the housing crisis, but
also to immediate threats of climate change: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a
Sustainable Alameda (CASA).
Stated the purchase of the Pacific Union land would fulfill a promise to the people of
Alameda; urged Council to approve funding for the 2.8 acres of park land: Jim Sweeney,
Alameda.
Stated that he supports climate mitigation and sustainability efforts, which include improving
the City's tree protection ordinance; urged Council to resume work on the ordinance:
Christopher Buckley, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 11, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-05-11,5,"Stated she does not agree with $4 million in additional funding for the Police Department;
the funds should be diverted to some other community health response: Marilyn Rothman,
Alameda.
Stated that she is happy the Council will be addressing the highest road safety priorities,
including the Active Transportation Plan and the Vision Zero Plan; urged Council to
consider Bike Alameda's budget comments: Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda.
Expressed excitement to see $1 million to fund the mental health pilot; stated that is
encouraged by funding for the Shuumi land tax; expressed concerns about the Crime
Analyst position: Laura Cutrona, Alameda.
The City Manager and Senior Management Analyst responded to City Council questions.
Councilmember Knox White outlined items he supports, including: Shuumi Land Tax,
Alameda Family Services mental health support, increased translation funds for multi-
lingual outreach and re-allocating parking enforcement positions to Departments other than
the Police.
The City Manager and Senior Management Analyst responded to City Council questions.
Councilmember Daysog expressed disappointment about not making an effort to plug in a
number for the Pension Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) reserve payments;
expressed support for resuming work on the tree protection ordinance; discussed the
assigned portion of reserves.
The City Attorney and Senior Management Analyst responded to questions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined items she supports; requested written information
on changes to the City Attorney budget; discussed processing record requests more
efficiently; expressed support for funding Alameda Family Services, the Sustainability
Fellow and the business façade grant; she would like staff to prioritize the community's
needs and spend reserves, including free WiFi; expressed support for the tree ordinance.
The Senior Management Analyst responded to questions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined support for considering the funding request for the School
District mental health, but wants staff to reach out to the District to find out what other funds
they may be receiving so as not to duplicate efforts; urged caution spending the American
Recue Plan Act (ARPA) funds due to the uncertainty about the impact of COVID on the
budget.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for the Crime Analyst position; outlined other items she
supports, including: the Fellow position, two school based mental health positions at
Alameda Family Health Services and getting a sense needs for an additional Alameda Point
Fire Station.
The Shuumi Land Tax was discussed.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 11, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-05-11,6,"***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:36 p.m.
***
(21-326) Budget Workshop for Fiscal Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 to Provide Direction on
Capital Improvement Program Budget.
The Public Works Director and Supervising Senior Engineer gave a Power Point
presentation.
The Public Works Director, City Manager and Supervising Senior Engineer responded to
City Council questions.
Urged Council to do a traffic calming project between Park Street and High Street on Otis
Drive: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Stated the Urban Forest Plan is so important for the City and needs to be fully funded: Ruth
Abbe, CASA.
Stated improvements are needed to the Shoreline Park path on Parcel 4 since it is badly
degraded; urged Council to commit to funding: Patricia Lamborn, Alameda.
Stated that he concurs with Ruth Abbe regarding the Urban Forest Plan; discussed ongoing
tree maintenance: Christopher Buckley, Alameda.
Expressed support for the Urban Forest Plan and tree maintenance improvements;
expressed concern about the expense of painting of the Great Whites: Carmen Reid,
Alameda.
The City Manager and Public Works Director responded to City Council questions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of directing staff to come back with
funding for particular needs including Pickle Ball and any paving for smooth surfaces to
allow skating and bicycle riding.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Following discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy to modify
her motion to make it broader; she would like to look at allocating more funds to improve the
recreational facilities.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion.
The proposed funding was discussed.
The City Manager stated the general Council direction is to bring back the items on May
20th
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 11, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-05-11,7,"The matter was further discussed.
(21-327) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Allocation of an
Anticipated $28.95 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. Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-328) Erin Fraser, Alameda, stated more time was spent on pickle ball than on public
safety and policing.
(21-329) Zac Bowling, Alameda, echoed the previous comments; stated that he would like
less pickle ball and more bike lanes.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:56 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
7
May 11, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY - -MAY 12, 2005- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Matarrese arrived at 6:30 p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
Agenda Items
(05-223)
Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services on City
Attorney contract negotiations.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the cost and projected hours
would be for the consultation services.
Mayor Johnson responded the cost and projected hours would depend
upon what the Council requests.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the hourly rate, to which
the Assistant City Attorney responded $250.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $250 per hour was the norm,
to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the rate was not
outside the norm and was within the realm of legal services costs
today.
Mayor Johnson stated that she expected the rate to be higher.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought the rate would be in the
$300 to $350 per hour range.
Mayor Johnson stated that the rate is reasonable; that there are no
fixed duties.
The Acting City Manager stated that the Council could provide the
outside attorney with a scope of work and inquire how many hours
would be anticipated.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a charge for
today's meeting with the outside attorney, to which the Mayor
responded in the affirmative.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,2,"Councilmember Daysog inquired what the outside attorney could do
that the Council could not do.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council does not provide attorney
services the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest in
advising the Council on her contract.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval the recommendation predicated
on further discussion of the scope of work in closed session.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that a discreet
number of issues are of concern; that he was not clear on the
conflict.
Mayor Johnson stated there would be a conflict if there are legal
issues; requested further explanation from the Assistant City
Attorney.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if Council asks a legal question
regarding interpretation of any provision of the City Attorney' S
contract or requests the contract be approved as to form, there
would be a conflict; the City Attorney would not be able to provide
information [legal advice] another attorney's services would be
necessary.
Mayor Johnson noted that Council has to hire an attorney to sign
[approve the form of ] the City Attorney's contract.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the City of Oakland requested the
City of San Francisco to comment on whether the Oakland City
Attorney position should be an elected position.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council needs to understand and
clean up the mechanisms of the contract, and ensure the contract
language is legal.
Mayor Johnson stated when the contract has been changed on a
routine basis, outside attorneys have signed [approved the form of ]
the contract without communicating with the Council, which is not a
very good procedure.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council is requesting more
detailed information.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council is trying to determine
the history of the current situation and review salary scales; an
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,3,"outside attorney would need to sign off on [approve as to form] the
contract if Council wanted to give the City Attorney a raise.
Mayor Johnson stated the entire contract should be reviewed; the
Council needs to know whether a new contract or an addendum to the
existing contract would be needed if the Council wanted to give the
City Attorney a raise.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not have a problem with
proceeding.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to protect the
Council's bargaining prerogative; there could be some matters of
interpretation in the course of bargaining; inquired whether the
outside attorney would be a go-between for the Council.
Mayor Johnson responded the Council would define the outside
attorney's role.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney directly
represents the Council; the proposed Agreement [with Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services] would be
executed by the City Attorney's office.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had a
copy of the Agreement.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated
only the City Attorney can hire outside attorneys under the City
Charter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the meeting tonight is the result
of a review of the City Attorney's budget; that he wants to process
to maintain the Council's prerogative.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council maintains all prerogatives
and would not give up anything.
Councilmember Daysog noted an outside attorney involved could have
a possible conflict; stated that he does not want an outside
attorney to encroach on budget issues.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she did not realize that an
Agreement was already drafted; that she does not want to agree to
something that she has not reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to review the scope of
work in the Agreement inquired who drafted the Agreement.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,4,"The Assistant City Attorney responded Mr. Hartinger drafted the
Agreement.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought that the Council was
meeting to agree to hire an outside attorney and that the scope of
work would be determined later; that she does not want her second
to the motion to be considered as an approval of the Agreement.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council should not sign an Agreement
without reviewing the scope of work; inquired whether the Council
could make a motion to authorize the City Attorney to sign the
Agreement hiring the outside attorney to work with the Council and
finalize the Agreement when the scope of work is determined.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the motion could be made in
open or closed session, to which the Assistant City Attorney
responded the motion must be made in open session.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the scope of work would still need
to come back to the Council.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Council's agenda is to
consider hiring an outside attorney to help with labor negotiations
regarding the City Attorney's contract; the outside attorney would
be the labor negotiator in closed session; the City Attorney would
have a direct conflict in advising the Council on interpretations
regarding her contract.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the scope is in paragraph 1 of Mr.
Hartinger's letter [proposed Agreement].
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope of service is
very narrow.
Mayor Johnson stated that the scope can always be changed and looks
fine; the Council could have the outside attorney do as little or
as much as requested.
The Assistant City Attorney stated retainers are not normally paid
to outside counsel.
Mayor Johnson suggested the retainer and the late payment
provisions be removed; stated the Agreement should be left as is to
allow the Council flexibility; outside counsel would not perform
any services the Council does not want.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like Mr. Hartinger to
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,5,"review all documents [City Attorney contract and amendments)
provide a history of the current situation, and advise the Council
regarding moving forward with yearly amendments or bundling all the
previous amendments into one contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that her first intention is to get legal
advice.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to begin
negotiations with the City Attorney first.
Mayor Johnson stated that negotiations cannot be initiated because
the Council needs legal advice.
Councilmember Daysog stated outside counsel might not be necessary ;
if
issues were not resolved during negotiations, then
interpretation would be needed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is not comfortable with initiating
negotiations until there is a better understanding of the contract. ;
inquired whether the retainer and late payment provisions could be
removed from the Agreement.
Mr. Hartinger responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated negotiating directly with the City
Attorney should be the Council's prerogative; inquired whether Mr.
Hartinger had any comment on the Council requesting his assistance
on interpreting aspects of the negotiations.
Mr. Hartinger stated the matter should be discussed at the right
time; direction should be given in closed session.
Councilmember deHaan moved to approval of the Agreement, with the
modifications to remove the retainer and late payment provisions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is giving up any
prerogative by entering into the Agreement, to which Mr. Hartinger
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what happens when there is a conflict
of interpretations.
Mr. Hartinger responded Council should trust the [outside]
attorneys it hires or seek another opinion and discharge the
attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated the ultimate way to settle legal disputes is
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,6,"to go through the courts; that she hopes that the Council would not
get into said situation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the vote might take the Council to
unintended destinations.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Daysog but stated
the matter could be discussed in closed session.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has complete control.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the language should be
clarified to: ""advising and/or representing the City Council.
""
Mayor Johnson suggested the language in the scope remain as is,
except for the addition of ""as directed by the Council"" at the
end.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what would fall within ""additional
matters"" in the scope of engagement.
Mr. Hartinger responded ""additional matters"" is a catchall phrase
if the Council requested him to do something else.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Agreement would not have to be
reopened to have Mr. Hartinger do something else.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the modified motion [to approve the
Agreement, with modifications to remove the retainer and late
payment provisions], which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan and Gilmore, and Mayor Johnson - 3.
Noes : Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Absent Councilmember Matarrese -
1. ]
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney hires all
attorneys under the City Charter the City Attorney is hiring the
outside attorney to advise the Council regarding interpretation of
her contract.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is authorizing the City
Attorney to sign the Agreement as discussed and whether the outside
attorney would work for the Council.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that the outside attorney
would not work for the Council; the City Attorney controls all
legal counsel under the City Charter; the City Attorney is on the
hook for the legal advice given.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,7,"Mayor Johnson stated that she is not sure the Council needs legal
advice on hiring an attorney; that she does not agree that the City
Attorney has control over what the outside attorney would do.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney would
hire the outside attorney to interpret the City Attorney' S
contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has directed the City
Attorney to sign the Agreement with changes; inquired whether there
would be a problem.
The Assistant City Attorney stated any additional matters for which
the Council requests [outside counsel's services would have to go
through the City Attorney.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had any
problem with the modified Agreement that the Council directed the
City Attorney to sign.
Councilmember Daysog stated Mr. Hartinger's letter [Agreement ] is
addressed to the City Attorney; the word ""you"" refers to the City
Attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated that the second ""you"" in paragraph 1 refers to
the City Council; the Council needs to determine Mr. Hartinger's
intention; the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest if
the outside attorney working for the Council had to go to the City
Attorney for advice.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope is very narrow;
the Council would need to stay within the scope.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether ""you"" in the sentence ""provide legal
services for additional matters that you request... refers to the
Council or City Attorney.
Mr. Hartinger stated the Agreement is addressed to the City
Attorney; the City Attorney is the conduit through which retention
would occur.
*
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 5:47 p.m. and reconvened the
Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
(05-224) - Adjournment to Closed Session to consider : Conference
with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators Arthur Hartinger of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,8,"Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson; Employee : City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City
Attorney contract and gave direction to the Negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-JUNE 18, 2013--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:03 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(13-295) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title and name: City Clerk
Lara Weisiger
Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that there was nothing to report.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:08 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
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,2,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-JUNE - 18, 2013- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Councilmember Tam led the Pledge
of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(13-296) Proclamation Declaring June 22 and 23 as Relay for Life of Alameda Days.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Lisa Leverton.
Thanked the City for the Proclamation: Michael John Torrey, Alameda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(13-297) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, announced upcoming events.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore noted that she would recuse herself from voting on the amendment to
the agreement with Waterworks Engineers [paragraph no. *13-302].
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*13-298) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 21,
2013. Approved.
(*13-299) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,554,376.11.
(*13-300) Recommendation to Approve Contract with Alameda Journal for Legal
Advertising. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,3,"(*13-301) Recommendation to Approve a First Amendment to the Landscape
Maintenance Management Agreement in the Amount of $301,701 to Marina Village
Commercial Association to Maintain the Landscape and Lighting District, Zone 6,
Marina Village. Accepted.
(*13-302) Recommendation to Approve a First Amendment to Agreement in the Amount
of $57,000 to Waterworks Engineers for the Preparation of Engineering Documents for
the Relocation of the Lagoon Seawall and the Clinton Avenue Extension, No. P.W. 01- -
12-03. Accepted.
[Note: Mayor Gilmore recused herself from voting on the matter.]
(*13-303) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $122,055 to SAK
Construction to Perform a Cured-in-Place Pipe Sewer Pipe Lining, Allocate $27,945 in
Contingencies, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents.
Accepted.
(*13-304) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $224,422 and
Allocate $44,885 in Contingencies to National Plant Services, Inc. for Citywide Sewer
Mains Video Inspection and Cleaning, Phase 6, No. P.W. 01-13-01. Accepted.
(*13-305) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Suarez & Munoz, Inc. for the Park
Street Streetscape Project, No. P.W. 10-09-30. Accepted.
(*13-306) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Columbia Electric for Streetlight
Installation and Planting of Trees within the Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood
Improvement Project Area. Accepted.
(*13-307) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to
an Agreement with Russell Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for
Alameda Point Extending the Term for 12 Months and Adding $144,500 to the Project
Budget. Accepted.
(*13-308) Resolution No. 14819, ""Amending the Memorandum of Understanding
Between the City of Alameda and the Alameda Fire Chiefs Association, June 30, 2013 -
June 24, 2017, and Approve First Amended Appendix A, Salary Schedule."" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(13-309) Resolution No. 14820, ""Appointing Zara Santos as a Member of the Civil
Service Board"" Adopted;
(13-309 A) Resolution No. 14821, ""Appointing Nielsen Tam as a Member of the
Commission on Disability Issues"". Adopted;
(13-309 B) Resolution No. 14822, ""Appointing Ethel Warren as a Member of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,4,"Commission on Disability Issues"". Adopted;
(13-309 C) Resolution No. 14823, ""Appointing Wendy Wilkinson as a Member of the
Commission on Disability Issues"". Adopted;
(13-309 D) Resolution No. 14824, ""Appointing Donna Rauk as a Member of the
Historical Advisory Board"". Adopted;
(13-309 E) Resolution No. 14825, ""Appointing Nancy Lewis as a Member of the Library
Board.' Adopted;
(13-309 E) Resolution No. 14826, ""Appointing Suzanne Whyte as a Member of the
Library Board"". Adopted;
(13-309 G) Resolution No. 14827, ""Reappointing John Knox White as a Member of the
Planning Board"". Adopted;
(13-309 H) Resolution No. 14828, ""Reappointing Lorre Zuppan as a Member of the
Planning Board"". Adopted;
(13-309 !) Resolution No. 14829, ""Appointing Ann McCormick as a Member of the
Public Utilities Board"". Adopted;
(13-309 J) Resolution No. 14830, ""Appointing Nicole Blake as a Member of the Social
Service Human Relations Board"". Adopted;
(13-309 K) Resolution No. 14831, ""Appointing Sonia Xu as a Member of the Youth
Advisory Commission"". Adopted.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Certificates of
Appointment to Zara Santos, Nielsen Tam, Nancy Lewis, Suzanne Whyte, John Knox
White and Nicole Blake.
(13-310) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 5-7.1 - Penalty
for Nonpayment of Annual, Quarterly or Semi-Annual Business License. Introduced.
The Controller gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(13-311) Resolution No. 14832, ""Approving the Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram
and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and
Lighting District 84-2, All Zones"". Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,5,"The Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether power washing would remove gum, to which
the Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative; noted power washing is
costly.
Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left dais.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Chen stated that he would abstain from voting on the
matter since his wife has a business in the District.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Abstentions:
Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.
(13-312) Resolution No. 14833, ""Approving the Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram
and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment
District 01-01 (Marina Cove)"". Adopted.
The Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(13-313) Resolution No. 14834, ""Tentative Subdivision Map Applications Located
Adjacent to 2700 Fifth Street. Applicant: BKF Engineering on Behalf of TriPointe
Homes and Catellus. A Proposed Tentative Map Application to Develop Two
Subdivisions: a 108-Lot, 199-Unit Subdivision on a 19.1-Acre Property; and a 9-Lot, 56-
Unit Subdivision on a 4.2-Acre Property"". Adopted.
The City Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated seeing the project move along is exciting.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the project is subject to affordable housing, to
which the City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated 15% affordable housing
would be spread throughout the project.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,6,"Councilmember Daysog stated the project started in 1997; thanked staff for meeting
with him to address questions; stated there should be some kind of commemoration of
Don Parker for his contributions.
Councilmember Tam thanked staff; stated the community is interested in tempering the
amount of asphalt; two Planning Board members are addressing street width with the
Fire Department; work will be done to enhance walkability.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Mayor Gilmore thanked staff and the public; stated the project would not be where it is
today without the amount and quality of public input; the City will be proud of the project;
that she is pleased walkability is being addressed at the beginning of the process.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
(13-314) Public Hearing to Consider the Collection of Delinquent Administrative Citation
Fees, Vacant Building Monitoring Fees, Administrative Penalties and Abatement Costs
Via the Property Tax Bills for the Subject Properties.
The Building Official gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Chen inquired how long it takes staff to investigate from the time a
complaint is filed.
The Chief Building Official responded the amount of time depends on the severity of the
complaint; stated life safety issues are addressed within days; other issues might take
longer.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether there is a backlog, to which the Chief Building
Official responded there are approximately 1,000 cases.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Chief Building Official stated five
cases are before Council; noted some cases have been ongoing for a number of years
and compliance has not been gained.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding staffing, the Chief Building
Official stated hundreds of cases are resolved every year; noted Code Enforcement is
time intensive.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether other cities have similar backlogs, to which the
Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated Alameda does not seek out
cases; all cases are driven by complaints.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,7,"Councilmember Chen inquired how many years it would take to resolve all cases, to
which the Chief Building Official responded some cases would take years even with
additional staff.
Councilmember Chen stated that he is concerned about having safety issues addressed
promptly.
The Chief Building Official stated life safety cases are addressed first, along with work
without permits.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where the money goes from placing a lien on the
property, to which the Chief Building Official responded the money goes to Code
Enforcement.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when staff expects the Roosevelt Drive case to be
resolved.
The Chief Building Official responded the Roosevelt Drive case is unique; stated the
property owner is not allowed in the building; the building is vacated and boarded; the
City could do a receivership and take over the property, which is very time consuming
and has only been done twice before.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there have been more cases due to the
downturn in the economy, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the negative.
Mayor Gilmore noted cases seem to be constantly cycling through Code Enforcement;
thanked staff for the detailed information on each case.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding continuing to cite the violation,
the Chief Building Official stated the process continues; staff has continued to issue
violations for one property after presenting the staff report; the matter is presented to
Council in June in order to forward the assessment to the County by July.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted health and safety issues put occupants and neighbors
in danger.
Provided handouts and discussed 1523 Pacific Avenue: Randolph Villapando,
Representing Property Owner.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Villapando is disagreeing with the violations or the
fines.
Mr. Villapando responded the only violation which did not have a permit is the rear deck
expansion; disagreed with the framing and two water heaters claims.
Mayor Gilmore noted there are pictures documenting the violations.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,8,"Mr. Villapando stated the framing openings are not for windows and doors; the wood is
new because rotted out wood was replaced; the framing has been there for years.
Mayor Gilmore stated the openings appear to be for windows.
Mr. Villapando stated windows located on the property were for another project.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Villapando is claiming the framing has been in
place since the 1980s, to which Mr. Villapando responded in the affirmative; stated
wood was only replaced.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined other violations, including theft of power; inquired
whether Mr. Villapando is contesting each violation, to which Mr. Villapando responded
in the affirmative; stated that he has a rebuttal for each violation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council gave 90 days to resolve the matter at the
Hearing last year and staff attempts to work with the property owner have been
unsuccessful; inquired whether Mr. Villapando could address said matter.
Mr. Villapando responded permits exist for everything.
Mayor Gilmore stated Mr. Villapando is claiming no work has been done; inquired about
converting the garage and basement to habitable space.
Mr. Villapando responded there are permits and plans for said construction.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Villapando admits said work has been done.
Mr. Villapando responded the remodeling was done in 1976 with permits.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the construction was completed, to which Mr.
Villapando responded that he does not have the final approval; stated staff is alleging
the work has been done without permits, but there are permits; that he would get
permits and work with the City if he could work with a different inspector.
Councilmember Tam stated on September 26, 2012, the attorney indicated that he was
no longer representing the property owner; inquired whether there was any
communication with City staff regarding the permits.
Mr. Villapando responded a complaint was filed against the attorney; stated that he
wants to work with the City.
Mayor Gilmore noted nine months have gone by with no contact.
Mr. Villapando stated that he has been compiling information.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,9,"The Chief Building Official stated the action before Council tonight is whether or not to
lien the property; the owner has been issued 25 citations and each citation was
appealable.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would have a copy of any permit
issued to a property owner, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Building Department would not have
issues citations if building permits had been issued, to which the Chief Building Official
responded staff would not have done so.
***
Councilmember Daysog left the dais at 8:08 p.m. and returned at 8:09 p.m.
*
Mayor Gilmore stated permits are available electronically and automatically pop up for
any address searched; inquired about permits which pre-date the computer system.
The Chief Building Official responded permits prior to 1980 are not in the computer, but
are available on microfilm.
Mayor Gilmore stated there is new construction at the property; therefore looking back
further would not be necessary.
The Chief Building Official stated permits exist for work done on the house in 1976;
however, the framing is brand new.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding permit expiring, the Chief Building
Official stated building permits expired within 180 days in 1976 and now expire after
three years.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether permits would have expired, to which the Chief
Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated a County Assessor's report
indicates work done in the late 1960s early 1970s was abandoned.
Requested a reduction in penalty for the property at 389 Driftwood Lane: Mogeeb
Weiss, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the violations.
Mr. Weiss stated everything already existed and was simply replaced.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Mr. Weiss has applied for a permit, to which
Mr. Weiss responded in the negative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,10,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated an inspection revealed the stop work order was
removed and another later inspection showed additional work had been done; inquired
whether said statements are true.
Mr. Weiss responded the statements are correct; nothing new was built; everything was
replaced.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether two years has gone by, to which Mr. Weiss
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Gilmore stated Mr. Weiss is requesting fees be reduced; however, the only
action before Council tonight is whether or not to place an assessment on the property;
a permit was pulled on December 20, 2011 and the property owner committed to return
with payment in two days, which did not occur; no response was received to a series of
citations; on July 2, 2012 the City Council granted some leniency and Mr. Weiss still did
not pull a permit or contact the Building Department; Mr. Weiss does not seem like he is
interested in working with the City; the fees are so high because citations continue to be
ignored; requesting a fee reduction is bold.
Mr. Weiss stated imposing a fee is beyond a 1 to 10 ratio, which the Supreme Court has
said is not allowed; stated that he will file a declaratory relief if the City tries to collect
the hefty penalty.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Mr. Weiss received the 16 notices of
violations.
Mr. Weiss stated the issue is the hefty penalty, not whether he was informed; imposing
$12,000 for something which would have cost several hundred dollars will have to be
justified in Court.
Provided background information for the property at 1523 Pacific Avenue: Anita
Longoria, property owner's granddaughter.
In response to Ms. Longoria's comments, Mayor Gilmore explained the permit process;
stated the family disagreeing how to handle the matter is not the City's responsibility;
the only thing before Council tonight is whether or not to lien the property.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft urged working with the Building Department to get the house
in compliance.
Ms. Longoria stated the amount of the fines and the rate at which the fines were
assessed were never explained by City staff; that she does not understand why such a
large amount was assessed in such a short period of time.
Councilmember Tam stated the question is valid and should be addressed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,11,"Ms. Longoria expressed concern about the matter being complicated.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the total amount due as of June 18th is $27,750.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding the proposed lien and back
property taxes, the Chief Building Official stated back property taxes were not related to
the City; last year, staff presented the lien to Council, which was delayed to allow 90
days to work with the property owner; no contact was made during the 90 days; a
citation was sent after the 90 days; there is $27,000 in outstanding liens on the property;
citations are issued on a fairly regular basis when life safety issues exist.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the assessment amount was one year ago.
The Chief Building Official responded that he does not have said amount; stated the
amount has probably increased by $7,000 or $8,000.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council directed staff to work with the property owner last year;
notices were sent to the property owner and there was no response.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the penalty has to be cleared before permits
can be issued, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Chen's further inquiry, the Chief Building Official stated if
the City Council liens the property, the penalty amount is cleared and permits can be
pulled.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the City informs property owners that the
amount will increase, to which the Chief Build Official responded every citation issued
includes an explanation of the violation, the amount, and provides a time period to
comply prior to the amount being enforced; stated in the Pacific Avenue case, the
amount is $1,000 and 30 days were given to comply; as soon as a property owner
comes in and starts to work with the City, Code Enforcement stops the citation process.
Councilmember Chen stated people are aware of the amount; inquired whether the
$1,000 amount is similar to other cities, to which the Chief Building Official responded
that he believes so; stated the first citation is $250, the second is $500 and the third and
subsequent citations are $1,000.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's prior question, the Acting City Manager
stated the assessment amount last year was $16,750.
Councilmember Tam stated the amount increased by $11,000.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the citations show the total amount due, to
which the Chief Building Official responded past due amounts are not included on
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,12,"citations.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether permits cannot be pulled unless a $27,000 lien is
placed on the property if the owners cannot pay.
The Chief Building Official stated permits can be pulled after a lien is placed on the
property; property owners have requested the lien be placed on the property in order to
start the permit process.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a property owner could pull permits if a payment plan is
set up, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated citations
are issued when the City cannot gain compliance.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the Pacific Avenue case, the Chief
Building Official stated the City would have issued permits to address the significant life
safety issues immediately; additional work would have had to wait until the fines were
paid.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council direction last year was to work out a
payment plan.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Attorney stated a lien was not
placed last year; the property owner did not work with staff, so citations were issued to
try to gain compliance; direction could be given to not assess the lien again this year.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the lien is assessed, to which the City Attorney
responded there are two options: the Council could choose to levy an assessment,
which would be collected with the property taxes; the other option is to impose a lien
against the title, which is collected when the property is sold or foreclosed upon; staff is
recommending levying an assessment; the City receives payment from the County for
assessments.
Councilmember Tam stated the City's objective is to get properties safe; making it
difficult for people to get a permit does not achieve said objective; requiring payment of
the fines prior to issuing a permit creates a burden; that she is not inclined to penalize
someone for losing their attorney; inquired whether the property owner could get the
property to meet safety codes if the lien is reduced or modified.
Ms. Longoria stated $7,500 was due in past property taxes not related to the City; the
family has paid said amount and is willing to work something out with the City; that she
thought there had been communication with the City.
Councilmember Tam inquired who would work with the Building Department to get the
permits, to which Ms. Longoria responded that she would do so.
Councilmember Tam inquired why no one started to work with the Building Department
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,13,"after the Attorney quit last September, to which Ms. Longoria responded that she
thought Mr. Villapando was working with the City; stated she thought the City was
preparing an explanation of the fines as well.
The Assistant City Manager stated the matter had been on-going prior to being
presented to Council last year; the fact that there are six cases indicates the system is
working well; the same process should be followed for everyone; a lien can be removed;
the City received no response in the last 12 months; the family can begin to work with
the Building Department tomorrow.
Councilmember Tam inquired the process for removing a lien, to which the City Attorney
responded a lien is like a mortgage on the property; stated the amount would not be due
with property taxes; the lien would have to be paid off when the property is sold; the City
could rescind the lien at any time.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City Council would have to take action to
remove the lien, to which the City Attorney responded a Council action would not be
required; stated the lien could be removed if staff works with the property owner through
the normal process.
Councilmember Chen noted the slate would have been wiped clean if the lien had been
assessed last year; a permit can be pulled and a payment plan can be started if Council
places the lien.
Ms. Longoria stated there could be issues with getting the permits and the family would
have to pay for the permits.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the amount is a lot less.
Councilmember Chen stated the permit fees are a standard, set amount.
The City Attorney stated the property has to be brought into compliance; the family has
to pull the permits and get the work done.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Building Department would not receive
payment if a lien is placed on the property, to which the City Attorney responded in the
affirmative; noted the Building Department operates on cost recovery.
The Assistant City Manager stated that he suggests Council give staff the authority to
proceed; the family could come in and work out a payment plan.
The City Attorney stated the City would not rescind the lien after payments are made
over time.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council took the same action last year, to
which Mayor Gilmore responded in the negative; stated Council chose not to file a lien
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,14,"or assessment last year.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated what can be done to ensure the case does not end up
in the same place next year.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she is troubled that there was no response to the notices;
inquired whether Ms. Longoria lives at the property.
Ms. Longoria responded that she does not live at the property; stated that she did not
see any notices; she thought everything was moving forward; she was not aware new
amounts were being assessed.
Mayor Gilmore inquired about Mr. Villapando's role, to which Ms. Longoria responded
Mr. Villapando has been representing her grandmother since he understands
construction.
Mr. Villapando stated that he likes the plan to place a lien on the property and get
permits immediately.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Villapando saw the notices from the Building
Department since last September, to which Mr. Villapando responded in the affirmative;
stated that he saw some of the notices.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she does not want the matter to come back in a year with
claims that there have been communication issues.
Mr. Villapando stated that the family did not have money to pay the fines.
Mayor Gilmore stated there has been no communication with the property owner for
nine months; that she does not want to be in the same situation next year.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would want to set a certain amount of time,
not more than 90 days, to allow the permits to be pulled and work started before a lien
is placed.
***
Councilmembers Chen and Tam left the dais at 9:05 p.m. and returned at 9:08 p.m.
Mayor Gilmore stated the lien has to be levied by July 1st.
The Acting City Manager stated the July 1st deadline is to have an assessment placed
on the tax rolls, but a lien could be levied at any time.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not know who the City is working with; that
he has questions about Mr. Villapando.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,15,"Mr. Villapando stated that he was in constant communications with an Inspector.
Mayor Gilmore stated that Mr. Villapando indicated that he was in constant
communications with an Inspector, and then there was no communication for nine
months.
Mr. Villapando explained that he had medical issues; stated that he would like to be
able to get permits right away; the family does not have the money to pay the fine right
away.
Councilmember Chen stated giving an exception to one family is not fair to others; that
he is comfortable moving forward with a lien.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the lien is upon sale or transfer.
The City Attorney responded the City could opt to collect at any time after placing a lien
on the property; stated any transfer or sale would reveal there is a lien, which would
have to be accepted or paid off.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a cloud was placed on the property in 2011.
The Chief Building Official stated a Notice of Violation was filed with the County, which
would come up if someone did a title search.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether action is required by the property owner, to
which the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated the City would not
remove the notice until the violations are corrected.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she concurs with Councilmember Chen; she is
having a hard time understanding throwing away $1,000 per month by choosing to
ignore the situation; the City has to be aware of the message being sent; that she wants
to get the work done.
Mayor Gilmore inquired what tools the City has to ensure the work is done after a lien is
placed on the property.
The Chief Building Official responded the citation process would start again if the
property owner does not comply within a certain timeframe.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City could assess the property next year if the work
is not done; further inquired if the lien would have to be removed.
The Chief Building Official responded the City could do a combination of a lien and an
assessment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,16,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a difference between this case and
the Driftwood Lane property, to which the Chief Building Official responded the
granddaughter seems to want to work with the City unlike the Driftwood Lane property
owner.
Mayor Gilmore stated the fine amount is not being changed.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a payment plan is being discussed; inquired whether
the Driftwood Lane property was before Council last year.
The Chief Building Official responded the assessment was placed against the Driftwood
Lane property last year.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the Council to consider allowing the
property owner a specific amount of time to come up with a payment plan.
The Assistant City Manager stated all six property owners have the same opportunity to
come in and work with the City.
Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation, with the exception of the
Pacific Avenue property, which would have a lien rather than an assessment; and
direction be given to staff to obtain multiple points of contact, with specific names and
addresses, where notice will be sent.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that the contact should have some
authority and he is not certain Mr. Villapando or Ms. Longoria have authority.
Ms. Longoria stated that she would consult her grandmother.
Councilmember Chen inquired why the City should not issue liens since liens are more
beneficial for property owners.
The Chief Building Official responded the City does not receive payment for liens.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding the Driftwood Lane property, the
Chief Building Official stated an assessment was placed on the property last year and
another assessment would be placed on the property again this year.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would advocate for placing a lien on the
Driftwood Lane property since the property owner made the effort to come to the
meeting; inquired whether the property would be assessed if a payment plan is not
established.
The Chief Building Official inquired whether the Council is establishing a timeframe for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,17,"the Pacific Avenue property.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Council could provide direction; stated the
timeframe is not included in the current motion.
The Chief Building Official stated having Council establish a timeframe would be helpful.
The City Attorney stated placing a lien on the property wipes the slate clean; an
assessment would have to be approved when staff comes back next year.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, Mayor Gilmore stated Council is
considering giving a certain amount of time to obtain permits and fix the property.
The Chief Building Official suggested a 90 day period be offered to gain compliance
before violations begin to be issued again.
The Council concurred with said suggestion.
Mayor Gilmore restated the motion: approval of the staff recommendation to assess
properties, with exception of the Pacific Avenue property; and the Pacific Avenue
property representatives have 90 days to work with the Planning and Building
Department, pull permits and start corrective work on health and safety violations.
The Acting City Manager inquired whether the motion includes placing a lien on the
Pacific Avenue property, to which Mayor Gilmore responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion could be amended to include the
Driftwood Lane property, to which Mayor Gilmore responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he still seconds the motion, due to the Pacific
Avenue owner's granddaughter and the Driftwood Lane owner not remaining at the
meeting.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy
Ashcraft and Tam - 2.
(13-315) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Taxes
and Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts Via the Property Tax Bills.
The Controller gave a brief presentation and provided a handout.
Councilmember Chen inquired how many payments have to be missed before placing
a
lien, to which the Controller responded ample time is provided; stated one case has
continued for several years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,18,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff does an good job tracking down businesses that
are operating without licenses.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a business license is required for renting out
a room, to which the Controller responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the 3334 Fir Avenue business, the
Assistant City Manager stated staff is recommending offering a payment plan.
Mayor Gilmore stated the U.S. Government is listed as being behind in garbage bill
payment; inquired whether the City could lien the U.S. Government, to which the
Controller responded in the negative.
The Public Works Program Specialist stated the U.S. Government leases property and
the bills have been submitted to City staff overseeing the lease for payment.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(13-316) The Acting City Manager announced the Library Food for Fines program will
continue through July 8th; the Mif Golf Course is under construction through September
and the newly renovated driving range is open; summer recreation programs are
underway and it is the 60th Anniversary of Alameda Day Camp.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(13-317) Councilmember Chen announced that he would miss the conveyance
ceremony because he would be attending an Asian Pacific American training for elected
officials.
(13-318) Councilmember Tam announced that she and Councilmember Daysog
attended the League of California Cities (LCC) Policy Committee meeting; outlined
issues addressed.
(13-319) Councilmember Daysog outlined the sessions he attended at the LCC Policy
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-18,19,"Committee meeting.
(13-320) Mayor Gilmore invited the community to attend the Conveyance Ceremony.
(13-321) Mayor Gilmore announced that a hold was placed on Assembly Bill 935 related
to the Water Emergency Transit Authority governance.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:47 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
June 18, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -APRIL 4, 2017--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,
Vella and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(17-213) Proclamation Declaring the Month of April 2017 as National Autism Awareness
Month.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Jody Moore, Alameda Autism
Community Network.
Ms. Moore provided a handout and made brief comments.
(17-214) Proclamation Declaring April 4, 2017 as Ron Cowan Day.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Ron's wife, Shahla Cowan,
and son, Kirk Cowan.
Mayor Spencer, Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft made brief comments.
(17-215) Mayor Spencer did a reading on celebration for the Season for Nonviolence.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(17-216) Arnold Brillinger, Alameda, discussed the Alameda shuttle.
(17-217) Irene Dieter, Alameda, expressed concern over Council referral titles.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced that the Alameda West Lagoon agreement [paragraph no.
17-222 was removed from the consent calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,2,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*17-218) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on March 7, 2017.
Approved.
(*17-219) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,784,021.66.
(*17-220) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to
an Agreement with Urban Planning Partners (UPP) to Add the Amount of $11,500 for a
Total Contract Amount of $267,792 for Consulting Services Related to the Preparation
of the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan. Accepted.
(*17-221) Recommendation to Appropriate $11,000 from the Measure B Fund and
$11,000 from the Measure BB Fund to Amend the Contract with Ray's Electric to
Increase the Contract Amount by $22,000, Including Contingency, for the Park Street
Pedestrian Safety Project for a Total of $458,441. Accepted.
(17-222) Recommendation to Approve the Amended and Restated Maintenance and
Cost Sharing Agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda West Lagoon
Homeowners Association.
The Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Thanked the City and City staff for working to update the agreement; stated the public-
private partnership is working: Karen Boutilier, Alameda West Lagoon Homeowners
Association.
Councilmember Oddie announced that the Homeowners Association is looking for
volunteers for two open spots.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote 5
(*17-223) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $165,495.00,
including Contingency, to Hydromax USA for Asset Mapping and Cross Connection
Identification for Alameda Point's Water Infrastructure. Accepted.
(*17-224) Ordinance No. 3177, ""Adopting the Alameda Point Main Street Neighborhood
Specific Plan."" Finally passed.
(*17-225) Ordinance No. 3178, ""Levying Special Taxes within the City of Alameda
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,3,"Community Facilities District No. 17-1 (Alameda Point Public Services District). Finally
passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(17-226) Recommendation to Approve an Implementation Term Sheet with Mid-Pen
Housing, Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures with Women and Children, and
Operation Dignity for the Relocation and Construction of New Supportive Housing
Facilities on a 10.4-Acre Parcel in the Main Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point.
The Redevelopment Project Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Stated it is important to move forward quickly: Marguerite Bachand, Operation Dignity.
Stated the project is one of a kind; a campus will be created; urged approval: Liz Varela,
Building Futures.
Stated this is the next step to make the vision into a reality; the additional housing for
the homeless is needed: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.
Thanked everyone partnering on the project for having a cohesive and clear vision for
the community that will be created; stated the housing will have vital services for its
residents: Abby Goldware, Mid-Pen Housing.
Stated the idea is great and a good use of space; adding density is a reasonable idea:
Victoria Fierce, East Bay Forward.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she cannot wait to see shovels in the ground;
the Alameda Point Collaborative has done so much with so little for so long; that she
would be interested in setting up a trust similar to the Silicon Valley Housing Trust.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there is an option to use the City's project stabilization
agreement or create a new one; suggested meetings be held with the trades, especially
with some of the apprenticeship programs, and local hiring goals be reviewed,
particularly disadvantaged resident workers.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated the 267 units include an additional 67 units;
inquired whether the City is recommending the additional 67 units, to which the
Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer expressed her support for the additional units; inquired whether the
project is what Mr. Biggs wants; stated he has been the heart and soul driving the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,4,"Vice Mayor Vella - 1.
Councilmember Matarrese noted three Councilmembers are interested in having a bird
safe ordinance, which is already a majority.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the priority setting item should be heard before
referrals; inquired whether priority setting would return on the next regular agenda, to
which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,5,"(17-229) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00
p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Mayor Spencer suggested the speakers be allowed to speak for three minutes.
Stated the RRAC did not recommend binding mediator decisions for cases under 5%,
rather the Committee would like its decision on said cases to be binding; he does not
recall the RRAC discussing increasing its membership from 5 to 7; expressed support
for the program fee, which could fund professional mediation: Branden Sullivan-Siriana,
RRAC.
Stated any amendment to just cause evictions should go to the voters: Jose Cerda-
Zein, Alameda.
Stated the Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC) has six suggestions; he would outline two
of the suggestions; relocation fees should be based on the Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) fair market value, rather than based on rent; the RRAC does not
have clear guidelines and standards; suggested disbanding the RRAC and having an
administrative judge hold private hearings: Erik Strimling, ARC.
Expressed concern over exempting fixed term leases, which causes landlords to
abandon evergreen leases; stated rent stabilization will die out from only fixed term
leases being offered; suggested removing the sunset provision and going to a formula
based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI); discussed no fault evictions; urged tenants
and landlord to work together: Paul Foreman, Alameda.
Stated the RRAC made three recommendations; one was having RRAC decisions for
tenant based cases be binding; there was no discussion of increasing the membership
from 5 to 7; outlined information in the Housing Authority database, which is available to
the public; discussed RRAC cases: Robert Schrader, Alameda.
Suggested the ordinance be given more time to work; stated landlords and tenants
need to work together; tenants should pay the fee since they benefit from the ordinance
or the program costs should be paid by the City: Penelope Schrader, Alameda.
Discussed the need for short term housing, which is why fixed term leases are needed;
expressed concern over the costs of a registration program: Frances Mok.
Stated the ordinance does not take into account people on a fixed income, such as
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,6,"social security: Toni Grimm, ARC.
Submitted information; expressed concern over people being priced out of Alameda,
including teachers: Mari Perez-Ruiz, ARC.
Outlined her case of receiving an owner move in notice via text and non-compliance
with offering a one year lease at the time of a rent increase; stated the ordinance is not
working: Maria Dominguez, Alameda.
Stated two-thirds of the City voted for rent stabilization; the ordinance is not a perfect
solution; changes should be made to strengthen the ordinance; a rent database is
needed; urged Council to consider just cause evictions: Angela Hockabout, ARC.
Expressed support for ARC's six suggestions: Doyle Saylor, Renewed Hope.
Stated the Council came up with the right solution; the proposed amendment to Section
6-58.140(c)1 is not needed because it is covered by other law: Cross Creason.
Stated his contracting business, which is used by small landlords and property owners,
has decreased because landlords feel there is uncertainty; urged the Council to keep
the ordinance to create stability: Eric Grunseth, Alameda.
Stated the ordinance is working very well; urged Council to retain the status quo: John
Sullivan, Alameda.
Stated stability is needed; she will be pushed out within 5 years; landlords are not doing
repairs and tenants are not making requests; fear will not go away until there is just
cause eviction: Catherine Pauling, Alameda.
Stated education is needed to understand how the ordinance works; discussed her
experience as a landlord: Nancy Gordon, Alameda.
Stated the City Council struck a balance and got it right; the voters supported what the
Council adopted; urged the Council to allow the ordinance to continue: Greg McConnell,
Alameda Housing Providers (AHP).
Stated people are still learning about the ordinance; suggested leaving the ordinance as
is: Ron Bain, AHP.
Expressed support for just cause eviction and concern over short term leases: Victoria
Fierce, East Bay Forward.
Urged the Council to enact the strongest possible protections for renters; outlined racist
practices: Dan Husman, Alamedans for Black Lives.
Discussed rent increase cases and costs of maintaining properties: Malcolm Lee.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,7,"Outlined housing provider's expenses; stated the RRAC works; discussed the case of
the one tenant he evicted in the last 15 years: Tony Charvet.
Urged the Council to leave the ordinance alone; stated the RRAC is working very well;
expressed concern over collecting half of the program fee from tenants: Daniel Lee. Bay
Area Housing Network.
Discussed his landlord trying to wrongfully terminate his lease, harassing him and
increasing his rent: Rasheed Shavez, Alameda.
Stated substantial changes to the ordinance should not be made without going back to
the voters; suggested a trust fund be explored: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Stated the ordinance is working; discussed program costs: Lester Cabral, Alameda.
Discussed the election: Lisa Hall, ARC.
Stated the ordinance is working; temporary leases can be used as a work around to
avoid relocation fees; discussed her rent increases: C. Landry.
Mayor Spencer suggested going through each subject.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested the staff summary be used as a guide.
Fixed Term Leases
The Community Development Director gave an overview of the staff proposal and the
Assistant City Attorney reviewed the definitions being added.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the fixed term lease would be signed by the
renter and landlord, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative;
noted relocation benefits would not be paid at the end of the lease.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether temporary leases would be used to rent
short term to traveling nurses, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the
affirmative; noted a one year lease would have to be offered at the end of the term if the
tenant were to stay.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's further inquiry, the Community
Development Director stated a new, short term tenant would not have to be offered a
one year lease; only an existing tenant would have to be offered a one year lease.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether homeowners using a fixed term lease would not pay
relocation benefits, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded relocation benefits
would not have to be paid after the fixed term lease expires.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,8,"The Community Development Director noted homeowners would have to move back in
for six months before offering the unit for rent again.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether only the primary residence of a homeowner is being
discussed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether temporary tenancy could be any rental property, not
a primary residence, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative;
stated a temporary tenancy is limited to a primary residence.
The Community Development Director stated two different fixes are being proposed to
address the fixed term loophole.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated
in addition to a primary residence being used for a temporary tenancy, staff is
recommending buildings with multi-family units be allowed to offer onetime, short term
leases.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like Council to separate the two scenarios and
address single family homes first.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director
stated a temporary tenancy would not be subject to the ordinance; therefore, it would
not be monitored or enforced.
Councilmember Oddie suggested the City require language in the lease regarding the
property owner moving back in after the short term lease.
The Community Development Director stated the ordinance could continue to remain
silent on the issue.
Mayor Spencer stated that she wants the ordinance to address the matter.
Councilmember Oddie stated the leases should be restricted to single family units with
owners living in the property.
Mayor Spencer suggested the length of the lease be limited; concurred the leases
should be restricted to property owners living in the home.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there should be accountability; upon returning to
the unit, the property owner should be required to file something with the Program
Administrator.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there has actually been a problem.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,9,"The Assistant City Attorney responded property owners have been asking if they can
enter into the arrangement without paying relocation benefits; the ordinance is
ambiguous and staff is attempting to address the ambiguity.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the ordinance needs to be clarified to indicate
whether or not relocation benefits should be paid; he knows someone who had a two
year assignment out of the area, but then returned to their house; perhaps the property
owner should have to return to the residence for half the amount of time of the lease.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would not want to include someone currently on a
month-to-month lease, unless the tenant requests the lease; there is a low level of
enforcement if only a utility bill is required to show residency; the temporary lease
should not be extended.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry about the maximum length of the lease, Vice
Mayor Vella stated five years is too long; the limit should be two to three years.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with two years; current tenants should not
be offered a temporary lease, only new tenants; he is okay with tenants being offered
another lease at the end of the temporary lease; if the tenant wants to stay, it would
become a normal lease.
The Community Development Director stated the temporary lease would be onetime.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would support a three year cap; stated
someone in the military might own a home and have an assignment elsewhere.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether staff would take the input and bring back
an ordinance, to which the Community Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like temporary leases tracked to see if there
is a problem.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether temporary leases would have to pay
the program fee.
Councilmember Matarrese noted postings can be five years.
Councilmember Oddie stated the cap should be three years, with the exception of active
military, which would be capped at five years.
Mayor Spencer and Councilmember Matarrese expressed support for Councilmember
Oddie's suggestion.
The Community Development Director stated staff has sufficient feedback.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,10,"Mayor Spencer stated Council needs to address the non-primary residence scenario.
Councilmember Oddie stated the issue was raised by Paul Foreman.
The Community Development Director stated Mr. Foreman's point is relocation benefits
should be paid regardless of the length of a fixed term lease.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the intent of the ordinance is to have relocation fees
at the end of tenancy; fixed term leases provide a work around.
The Community Development Director stated a tenant on a fixed term lease should
understand the lease ends and moving out is not no cause or no fault; landlords offering
a bunch of short term fixed term leases is a lot of work to avoid paying relocation
benefits.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether said leases are occurring, to which the
Community Development Director responded the Program Administrator has been
informed of instances.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the tenant could ask for a three month lease, to which
the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the lease could be no more than one year, to which
the Assistant City Attorney responded both parties have to agree on the amount of time.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would not want short fixed term leases to go beyond one
year; after one year, the lease should become a regular lease.
Councilmember Oddie stated the loophole needs to be closed; staff's proposal creates
another loophole.
The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is proposing
relocation benefits be paid at the end of fixed term leases.
Councilmember Oddie responded fixed term leases can be abused; questioned whether
tenants know to ask for an evergreen lease and whether tenants would be able to get
evergreen leases in large apartment buildings; stated the issue is the definition of fixed
term lease.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if Council decides to require relocation benefits for 12
month fixed term leases, then everyone would start doing 11 month fixed term leases.
Councilmember Oddie stated perhaps the requirement could be that every renewal offer
be for one year, which the tenant could reject.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,11,"Vice Mayor Vella stated is it almost midnight; suggested a work session be held to
continue reviewing the proposals.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to continue a little longer.
Mayor Spencer questioned whether direction can be given at a work session; suggested
the meeting be continued.
The Community Development Director noted if the Council continues the meeting to a
specific date and time, additional public comment would not be required.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to keep the current discussion going tonight.
Councilmember Oddie suggested fixed term leases be allowed, but the landlord could
be required to go to the RRAC to prove the fixed term lease was mutually agreed upon.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated said suggestion sounds cumbersome.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Oddie stated
there is unequal bargaining power, which is recognized by law.
Vice Mayor Vella stated anything outside of a onetime fixed term lease should not be
exempt from paying relocation benefits.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated fixed term leases
should be under one year; if the parties agree to continue the lease after one year, it
would fall under the ordinance protections.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would propose not allowing fixed term leases on
multifamily properties.
In response to the Community Development Director's inquiry about the loophole, Vice
Mayor Vella stated her concern is landlords could continuously offer fixed term leases to
the same tenant to avoid paying relocation benefits.
The Community Development Director stated what is being proposed is offering one
fixed term lease under one year; however, if the tenant remains in the unit, the landlord
would have to offer a one year lease.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Housing Authority (HA) Executive Director
to provide input.
The HA Executive Director stated there have been approximately five inquiries about
whether or not repeated fixed term leases are allowed to be continuously offered.
Councilmember Oddie stated landlords are asking because they want to avoid paying
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,12,"relocation benefits.
Mayor Spencer stated the Vice Mayor's proposal is up to one year with the same
tenant, then the lease becomes a regular lease.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the same military exception could
apply.
Mayor Spencer stated landlords could switch tenants each year, but they probably
would not because landlords want to keep good tenants; the matter could be revisited
the next time the ordinance is reviewed.
The HAHCD Director stated landlords have given a series of fixed term leases.
The Community Development Director stated the direction is to allow one fixed term
lease under one year; another fixed term lease cannot be offered to the same tenant;
and a military carve out would be included; the last item is a landlord could not change
from a month-to-month lease to a fixed term lease unless requested by the tenant.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would rather prohibit doing so.
Vice Mayor Vella suggested striking the language ""unless requested by the tenant.""
Councilmember Oddie suggested adding ""existing' tenant.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the requirement is needed, to which Mayor
Spencer responded the issue has come up; clarification is needed; tenants should not
give up relocation benefits.
In response to the Assistant City Attorney's inquiry, Mayor Spencer stated the landlord
has to offer a one year lease at the time of the first rent increase, however, it is just a
regular lease, not a fixed term lease.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's concern, the HA Executive Director stated the
ordinance should be clear the 12 month offer is an evergreen lease.
Mayor Spencer stated if any tenants ended up losing relocation benefits by going from a
month-to-month lease to a fixed term lease, the issue needs to be cured.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the ordinance should prohibit the landlord from
offering a fixed term lease.
Mayor Spencer stated said regulation will be in place going forward; she is addressing if
the scenario has already occurred.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the change should indicate it is to clarify existing law.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,13,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the language should indicate what a landlord
needs to do, not what the landlord cannot do; direction can be given to staff in the event
switching to fixed term leases has occurred.
Councilmember Oddie stated the past Council direction on the matter was clear and
needs to be followed.
Tenancy Terminations for No Cause
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is time to eliminate no cause evictions; read
Section 4 of the measure that went to the voters, which gives Council authority to
amend the ordinance; discussed no cause eviction cases, taking cases to court and
ethics.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft would like to eliminate
no cause evictions for single family homes, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft
responded Costa Hawkins only applies to rent control; stated provisions regarding
evictions would still apply to single family homes.
Mayor Spencer stated the suggestion is to only allow just cause evictions.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft is proposing a requirement for
just cause evictions, which is currently the biggest loophole in the ordinance; examples
given by housing providers tonight all would have met just cause eviction requirements;
relocation should apply for owner move ins other than the temporary tenancies already
discussed.
The Community Development Director noted owner move in and removal from the
rental market are the two instances which are preempted by State law.
Mayor Spencer stated the voters rejected no cause evictions; the change is significant
and should go to the voters; she would support staff's recommendation to change the
formula; she prefers a cautious approach.
Councilmember Oddie stated just cause is the greatest disagreement between
landlords and tenants; he supports the staff recommendation; expressed concern over
addressing the issue at the current hour without notice.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated that he
supports the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is included in the staff report and was discussed by
speakers.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated perhaps the matter should be discussed at a later
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,14,"time.
Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's
suggestion no matter the hour.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not see the crisis; having just cause evictions
would only have prevented 24 evictions last year.
Mayor Spencer stated the majority of Council has expressed support for the staff
recommendation.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Oddie stated he is willing to
have a discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not sure data was collected for every
tenant who moved out; she would like information on the age range of evicted tenants.
Mayor Spencer stated three Councilmembers support the staff recommendation; the
matter would not come back for discussion and would only come back as part of the
amended ordinance.
Councilmembers Matarrese and Oddie concurred.
Notices to Vacate Due to a Governmental Order
Councilmember Matarrese stated the provision seems broad.
Vice Mayor Vella stated when a unit is uninhabitable, there is a process for
improvements; she does not want tenants to lose the right to return to the unit.
The Community Development Director suggested a 5% increase when returning to a
unit.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired why the issue was raised.
The Assistant City Attorney stated there was an instance of a governmental order to
vacate; other cities have regulations to address tenants having to move out at no fault of
the landlord.
Mayor Spencer and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the staff
recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there has only been one case; the provision is not
needed.
Mayor Spencer stated there has not been a disaster.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,15,"Councilmember Oddie stated that he concurs with Councilmember Matarrese.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is incredibly complex and the City should not get into
it, without indicating who makes the determination and outlining the process; she is not
comfortable adding language; more clarity is needed for willful acts.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the cases could go before a hearing officer.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated staff could
draft additional language based on the concerns raised.
Councilmember Oddie expressed concern over receiving an email from a member of
the audience; stated that he will not be politically blackmailed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the rules prohibit using email during a Council
meeting; requested the rules be reviewed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested that the City Attorney provide information.
The City Attorney stated Councilmembers are not to be communicating with the public
on issues under consideration; private communications are not allowed.
Mayor Spencer stated if a Councilmember is looking for a prior email, they can see that
new emails have come in; responding to the new email is not allowed.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of adjourning the meeting.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the City Clerk inquired whether the motion would include continuing
to a specific date.
Mayor Spencer stated Council was just in the middle of discussing an item; she would
like to complete the discussion; the last direction was staff would come back with more
information regarding willful acts.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a majority want to continue to the meeting to a specific
date.
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Potential dates were discussed.
Mayor Spencer suggested Friday, April 7th at 5:30 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,16,"In response to the City Attorney's concern over notice, the City Clerk read Section 2-
91.4.g; stated that she would get out a notice tomorrow morning.
Mayor Spencer stated there is a motion and a second to continue to April 7th at 5:30
p.m. with no additional public comment at the continued meeting.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Oddie - 1.
(17-230) Recommendation to Approve the City Council's Priorities Established at the
February 17, 2017 Priority Setting Workshop, the Referral Tracking Table, the Revised
Form for Submitting City Council Referrals and a Process for Ranking/Addressing New
Referrals. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(17-231) Consider Adopting a ""Bird-Safe Buildings"" Ordinance. (Vice Mayor Vella and
Councilmember Oddie) Not heard.
(17-232) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings for
Council to Adopt. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard.
(17-234) 2017-4046 Consider Directing Staff to Prepare a Report on the City of
Alameda Acquiring/Taking Title to the Uncompleted Strip of Shoreline Park next to
Harbor Bay Parkway. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard.
(17-235) Consider Directing Staff to Present the Steps for City Council to Return to Its
Role as Board of Commissioners for the City of Alameda Housing Authority.
(Councilmember Matarrese) Not heard.
(17-236) Consider Directing Staff to Review and Update Alameda's 2008 Local Action
Plan for Climate Protection. (Councilmember Matarrese) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,17,"ADJOURNMENT
At 12:57 a.m., Mayor Spencer continued the meeting to April 7, , 2017 at 5:30 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
17
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,18,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 4, 2017--5:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 5.
[Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 5:01 p.m. and Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft arrived at 5:04 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
Public Comment
Carole Lohr, Alameda, expressed her support for the Friends of the Alameda Animal
Shelter (FAAS); stated that she does not see how FAAS could be asking for too much
money.
Sheila Cahill, Alameda, urged the Council to approve the funding for FAAS; stated
funding is not wasted.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(17-208) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.9); CASE NAME: Boatworks V City of Alameda, et al.; COURT: Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; CASE NUMBERS: RG16841240
(17-209) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: 1590
Fortmann Way, Alameda, CA 94501; City Negotiator: Jill Keimach, City Manager;
Organizations Represented: Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter; Issue Under
Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment
(17-210) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code;
Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action). Not heard.
(17-211) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code §
54957; Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Jill Keimach, City Attorney - Janet Kern and
City Clerk - Lara Weisiger
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer
announced that regarding Existing Litigation and 1590 Fortmann, direction was given to
staff; regarding Performance Evaluation, the discussion would continue on April 18,
2017.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,19,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:00 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
April 4, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-04,20,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING
TUESDAY--APRIL 4, 2017-6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft,
Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -
5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Agency Member Matarrese moved approval of the consent calendar.
Vice Mayor/Agency Member Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*17-002 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the
Community Improvement Commission (SACIC) Held on May 17, 2016 and February 7, ,
2017. Approved.
(*17-212 CC/17-003 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-16
Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Reports. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:04
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk and Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
City Council and SACIC
April 4, 2017
1",CityCouncil/2017-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-- -APRIL 3, 2018- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(18-175) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to subdivisions (d)(2) and (e) (1) of Government Code Section
54956.9 Number of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)
(18-176) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code §
54957; Positions Evaluated: City Attorney - Janet Kern and City Clerk - Lara Weisiger
Following the Closed Session regarding Litigation, the meeting was reconvened and the
City Clerk announced that direction was given to staff to schedule another two closed
sessions.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 7:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:07 p.m.
***
Following the closed session regarding Performance Evaluation, the meeting was
reconvened and the City Clerk announced that direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:52 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
April 3, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-03,2,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -APRIL 3, 2018- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,
Vella, and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(18-177) Proclamation Declaring April 2018 as National Autism Awareness Month.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Beth Kenny, Jennifer Barrett
and Jennifer Roloff, Commission on Disability.
Ms. Kenny made brief comments.
(18-178) Mayor Spencer did a reading for the Season for Non-Violence on healing.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(18-179) Christoper Rabe, Alameda, discussed his arrest opposing installation of a
Smart Meter; demanded an investigation.
(18-180) Shelby Sheean, Alameda, stated Smart Meters are supposed to be voluntary;
Mr. Rabe's arrest was illegal; the City Council should direct the Police not to arrest
others; the arrest was a civil rights issues; Council should direct meters not be required
to be installed; Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) should be directed to remove the
Smart Meters at Mr. Rabe's house; urged the matter be placed on a Council agenda.
(18-181) Nancy Gordon, Alameda, expressed concern over Electromotive Forces
(EMFs) bombarding everyone; discussed the history of other substances, such as
tobacco, lead paint, nuclear and smog.
(18-182) Connie Roberts, Alameda, suggested casual carpool vehicles be able to use
the dedicated bus lane.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer stated the VEOCI contract [paragraph no. 18-185 was removed from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 3, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-03,3,"the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*18-183) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, Joint City Council and Successor
Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting, and Regular Meeting
Held on March 6, 2018; and the Special City Council Meeting Held on March 9, 2018.
Approved.
(*18-184) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,769,610.43.
(18-185) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a 10 Year
Contract, with Two Five-Year Options to Renew, in an Amount not to Exceed $32,000
Annually for a Total not to Exceed Amount of $640,000 Over 20 Years, with Gray Wall
Software, LLC for the Use of its Virtual Emergency Operation Center Intelligence
(VEOCI) Emergency Operations Management Software.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether a Request for Proposals (RFP) was conducted for
the software and whether any data is shared with the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The Fire Captain responded an RFP was not done; stated vendors did presentations;
for the value, staff selected VEOCI; the internal use software does not go out to the
public and is not shared with ICE or DHS.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the data is controlled by the City and not transferred
externally, to which the Fire Captain responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the information is available to those that are a part of
the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), to which the Fire Captain
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Emergency Operations Center
(EOC) has established a budget to cover the needs.
The Fire Captain responded staff is working on bringing a budget to Council.
The Deputy Fire Chief stated the item will be in the mid-cycle budget.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council will receive an overview of what
a year's budget would be for the EOC, to which the Fire Captain responded in the
affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 3, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-03,4,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the Acting City Manager
to execute a 10 year contract, with two five-year options to renew, in an amount not to
exceed $32,000 annually for a total not to exceed amount of $640,000 over 20 years,
with Gray Wall Software, LLC for the use of its Virtual Emergency Operation Center
Intelligence Emergency Operations Management Software.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired whether the contract can be terminated with
60 days' notice.
The Fire Captain responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why the City is not just buying a subscription for the
next five years.
The Fire Captain responded the length could be five years, but staff would need to
return to Council every five years to renew.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*18-186) Recommendation to Consent to a Transfer, Assignment, and Assumption of
City Deeds of Trust, Promissory Notes, and Regulatory Agreement, New Housing
Authority Loan and Affordability Agreement for the Properties at 920 Park Street (Ann B.
Diament) and 460 Buena Vista Avenue (China Clipper) and Authorize the Acting City
Manager to Negotiate and Execute All Necessary Documents. Accepted.
(*18-187) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $333,080, Including
Contingencies, to Ray's Electric for Park Street Corridor Safety and Operations
Improvements, No. P. W. 03-15-03. Accepted.
(18-188) Resolution No. 15364, ""Approving Parcel Map No. 10782 - A Parcel Map for
the Proposed Subdivision of Three Parcels at 1955, 2065, and 2095 North Loop Road
into Four Parcels."" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(18-189) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Second Amendment to a License with
Amber Kinetics, Inc. for Twenty-Four Months for Use of an Unimproved Lot Located at
641 West Red Line Avenue at Alameda Point and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute the Necessary Documents. Introduced.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Mark Stout, Amber Kinetics, gave a Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 3, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-03,5,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many employees Amber Kinetics has.
Mr. Stout responded there 50 employees currently.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the company is still growing, to which
Mr. Stout responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired where the 50 employees work, to which Mr. Stout responded
the employees work in Union City.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Amber Kinetics is contemplating a
move to Alameda, to which Mr. Stout responded it is a possibility.
Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(18-190) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with
Faction Brewing Company, LLC a California Limited Liability Company, for a Ten-Year
Lease with Two Ten-Year Extension Options for Building 22, Bay 200 Located at 2501
Monarch Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the lease amount compares to other
properties in the area.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the comparable properties
range from $0.56 to $0.78 a square foot; the Faction Lease is $0.62 a square foot.
Mayor Spencer inquired what other breweries in the area are paying.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that she is unaware of what
other breweries are paying.
Mayor Spencer inquired what comparable means.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded industrial, same size and
type of building.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether comparable means brewery.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 3, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-03,6,"Councilmember Matarrese inquired why there is no option to buy.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the building is multi-
tenanted; stated the City Manager chose not to allow either tenant to buy out the other;
if one tenant outgrows its space and the space becomes available, Faction can
purchase the building.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wishes there was a purchase option in the
contract; he believes it is important to get out of the business of owning old Navy
hangers and have the property generate tax.
Mike McManus, Cushman & Wakefield, stated just because the property is leased does
not preclude the ability to sell the property.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the option to sell is available, she would like to ensure
Faction Brewery would be able to purchase the building.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the right of first offer would
occur if the other side of the building becomes vacant; if both tenants remain and the
City decides to sell the building, Faction Brewery could put in an offer at that time.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the other tenant, Mr.
McManus stated the other tenant is Proximo, Hanger One.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the cost of having a long term lease on the
building is relative to the marketability of the building; and whether prospective buyers
would have concerns.
Mr. McManus responded the investor would be buying the income stream.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance approving a lease
and authorizing the City Manager to execute documents necessary to implement the
terms of a lease with Faction Brewing Company, LLC a California Limited Liability
Company, for a ten-year lease with two ten-year extension options for Building 22, Bay
200 Located at 2501 Monarch Street at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(18-191) Review and Comment on the City of Alameda 2017 Housing Element Annual
Report and Implementation Priorities.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired when Del Monte will pull building permits.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 3, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-03,7,"The Assistant Community Development Director responded that he hopes in the next
two years; stated he calls about every two months; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether it is possible for Council to set the number of housing
units.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
number needs to be set in the zoning and make sure the City is not downzoning;
continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether sea level rise is being reviewed.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a sea wall is supposed built to protect homes on Bay
Farm.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that he is unaware of a sea
wall on Bay Farm; stated staff is looking into how to protect Bay Farm.
Mayor Spencer stated that she understands the homes on Bay Farm are in a flood zone
and a sea wall would be built; no wall was ever built.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated that he has never seen a
document which includes said statement.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a request can be made to the developer.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the
City can adopt zoning regulations regarding sea level rise; it is much more difficult for
existing neighborhoods than future developments; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is an update on North Housing.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the project is moving
forward; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired when the Navy Base closed.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in 1990; continued the
presentation.
Expressed concern over the slow progress of affordable housing in Alameda: Laura
Thomas, Renewed Hope.
Expressed concern over traffic in Alameda and the lack of housing: Catherine Pauling,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 3, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-03,8,"Alameda Renters Coalition.
Expressed concern over the lack of affordable housing in Alameda: Bill Smith, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what the implications are if the City is only at 46% of the
objective at the end of 2023.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded under current State law,
there are no implications; stated requiring a set amount would be such a heavy load it
would stop projects.
Councilmember Oddie inquired about the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) statistics.
The Assistant Community Development Director provided an update on applications
and being able to use ADUs for the next Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
goals.
Councilmember Oddie outlined the size of the ADUs; stated the average is 527 square
feet; the largest was an existing basement of 1,048 square feet; for backyards, the
smallest was 230 square feet and the largest was 738 square feet; he agrees with the
staff report about workforce housing; discussions should be held regarding increasing
the density bonus to provide some workforce housing; he is intrigued by the City doing a
housing bond; the City used half of the County allocation pretty fast; constraints should
not be put on inclusionary housing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue is very complex; the Council decided not to
refine the MX zoning; baseline data is needed; Site A and 1435 Webster Street both
have above 15% inclusionary housing; he would like a budget adjustment of property
related tax windfalls, such as the transfer tax, to be used for housing issues and
ordinances; Planning should have a staff member not funded by permits to do the
people's business; the North Housing project should be assigned top priority; broader
policies should be considered; costs are being driven up by high pay; the City needs to
address income equality and subsidize more units; the City should maintain control and
not remove the Multi-Family (MF) overlay; discussed Measure A; stated Council should
make a policy putting affordable housing projects above others and look at income
inequality; discussed construction costs and developer profits; stated the City should
review Cupertino's project.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not interested in tweaking the
percentage of inclusionary housing, but perhaps the categories could be modified to
include above moderate income to encompass workers; expressed concern over
expedited design review taking 150 days; stated the Council should consider allocating
a portion of the property transfer tax to create a fund to help build more affordable
housing and address affordability and homeless issues; suggested a public workshop
be held on the topic; discussed the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) and using
prefab units as ADUs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 3, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-03,9,"Vice Mayor Vella stated information needs to get out about the constraints being put on
the City; traffic cannot be used to prevent housing; the City is committed to finding traffic
solutions; discussed inclusionary housing; stated a feasibility study is needed;
affordable housing projects have not received needed funding; suggested reviewing
Stockton's universal basic income philanthropic fund and working with large scale
employers; stated there should be a compressive budget discussion about using City
funds for projects; discussed the RRAC numbers; stated funds might be able to be used
more efficiently.
Mayor Spencer expressed her support for the RRAC; inquired about prioritizing
affordable housing projects.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded a Housing Element policy
requires affordable housing projects to be prioritized, but the policy should be clarified.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff has outstanding work on any affordable housing
projects, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the
negative; stated staff is currently working on the public review process for Rosefield and
128 units at Site A are ready to go.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding data collection, the Assistant
Community Development Director stated the issue is important; the City should use its
own financial feasibility consultants to show requiring units does not make a project
unfeasible.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would support a study that provides meaningful insight
into a project and figures out the sweet spot; however, the City has fiscal issues and
she would want to ensure any study is a good use of funds; inquired whether the City
has a list of acceptable manufactured units.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the designs and industry
are transforming very fast in a positive way; stated people can send links and pictures to
staff; there have not been a lot yet.
Mayor Spencer requested staff to review allowing carpools in the dedicate bus lane, as
well as a traffic signal in Oakland, and do anything that can keep traffic flowing;
suggested green housing building standards be considered; discussed workforce
housing; stated that she would like to see workforce housing for purchase, rather than
rentals; property needs to be preserved for maritime, industry and jobs, which need to
be protected.
Councilmember Oddie stated there is a need for rental data; noted a statewide effort to
repeal Costa Hawkins could be on the November ballot.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 3, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-03,10,"None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(18-192) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process.
Mayor Spencer announced the City would be holding a work session on May 18th at
9:00 a.m.
The Acting Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director noted department
work plans and the budget would be presented at the meeting.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
***
(18-193) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Information on the Citywide Dockless Bike
Sharing Program and Return to Council with Additional Safety Requirements. (Mayor
Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella)
Mayor Spencer requested an update.
The Acting City Manager/Recreation and Parks Director stated the matter would be
addressed, including a Request for Proposals (RFP), at the May 1st meeting.
Mayor Spencer stated children under the age of 13 are not supposed to ride Lime
Bikes.
The Acting City Manager/Recreation and Parks Director stated staff would work with
Lime Bikes to get out information.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City does not have a lot of bike stations between the two
business districts; inquired whether the RFP process could include the vendor funding
more areas to park bikes and making it easy for people to get helmets.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the bikes are dockless in order to be accessible.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not requesting a docking station; people have lined
up Lime Bikes near existing racks.
The Acting City Manager/Recreation and Parks Director stated other cities have used
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 3, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-03,11,"stripping to create an area for dockless bikes.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted an advantage of dockless bikes is that the public
right of way is not taken for docking stations.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Lime Bike should be penalized if underage kids are
allowed to ride Lime Bikes and are not wearing helmets, which should be clear in the
contract.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the contract should address liability.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for having an easy way to use a bicycle in
town; stated automobile traffic should be planned to ensure it does not endanger bike
riders and pedestrians.
Mayor Spencer stated the City should look at charging more if bikes are not returned
within geo fencing; she likes the idea of having bikes available; unfortunately, bikes are
ending up obstructing walkways.
(18-194) Consider Banning Motorized Commercial Vehicles, Including Robotic
Commercial Vehicles, from Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft Used for
Deliveries. (Councilmember Matarrese)
Councilmember Matarrese made brief comments regarding the referral.
Councilmember moved approval of the referral.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion is to move the
referral forward, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over staff time; stated that she would
like to hear from the City Attorney's office.
Councilmember Oddie stated the potential is not farfetched; he supports brining back a
ban.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would want a legal analysis.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the analysis should be quick.
The City Attorney stated as with any ordinance brought forward, legal analysis would be
done.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is timely; delivery companies are looking at using
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 3, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-03,12,"robots; there are safety issues.
Vice Mayor moved approval of calling the question.
Councilmember Matarrese second the motion.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would vote no because the Mayor has not had a
chance to weigh in.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is okay with changing the urgency of the matter on May
18th when staff may have a time estimate.
A vote was not taken on the call for the question.
On the call for the original question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(18-195) Consider Clarifying the Maximum Allowable Number of Units per Site and
Potentially Removing the Multi-Family (MF) Housing Overlay Designation for Various
Sites. (Mayor Spencer)
Mayor Spencer made brief comments on the referral; suggested the Attorney's memo
be made clearer.
(18-196) Discuss the Sunshine Ordinance Requirement in Alameda Municipal Code
Section 2-91.13(f) regarding Increasing the Number of Regular Meetings of the City
Council. (Councilmembers Oddie and Ezzy Ashcraft)
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments on the referral; stated the matter could
come back as part of the rules of order discussion.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Clerk said the rules of
order would be on the May 15th agenda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments; expressed support for tabling the
matter for now.
Mayor Spencer noted the Open Government Commission (OGC) had a thoughtful
discussion.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft synthesized
the OGC and Council subcommittee recommendations.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(18-197) Councilmember Oddie called on the City Clerk who recognized the Deputy City
Clerk's last meeting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
April 3, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-03,13,"(18-198) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding the East Bay
Economic Development Alliance innovators award and the City's Spring Egg Scramble.
Vice Mayor Vella made brief comments regarding the Scramble.
(18-199) Vice Mayor Vella announced that she and the Mayor met with staff regarding
the cannabis Request for Proposals to have the matter placed on the next Council
agenda.
(18-200) Mayor Spencer made an announcement regarding the non-violence speech
contest and job fair.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:06 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
12
April 3, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 7, 2009- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:43 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(09-127) Proclamation declaring the week of April 20 through 25,
2009 as Earth Week.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Pete
Halberstadt, President of West Advertising.
Mr. Halberstadt thanked Council for the proclamation; invited
everyone to attend Earth Day .
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing the
Issuance of City of Alameda Taxable Retirement Funding Bonds
[paragraph no. 09-131] - was pulled from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]
(*09-128 - ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special
Joint City Council and CIC Meeting and the Regular City Council
Meeting held on March 17, 2009; and the Special City Council
Meeting held on March 24, 2009. Approved.
(*09-129) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,861,742.66.
(*09-130) Recommendation to accept the work of Chrisp Company for
Annual Striping, Phase 6, No. P.W. 10-07-31. Accepted.
(09-131) Resolution No. 14319, ""Authorizing the Issuance of City of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-07,2,"Alameda Taxable Retirement Funding Bonds; Authorizing the Execution
and Delivery of an Indenture and a Trust Agreement; and Authorizing
Commencement of a Validation Action Relating Thereto and Approving
Other Matters Relating Thereto. Adopted.
Councilmember Gilmore requested staff to review the matter for the
public.
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired when 1079 and 1082 Plans would retire,
to which the Interim City Manager responded 17 or 18 years.
Councilmember Tam stated the present value of unfunded accrued
actuarial liability [for Other Post Retirement Benefits (OPEB) ] is
$74.5 million; the validation process includes an indenture with
Union Bank for $22.2 million; inquired whether the amount is the
present value of the 1079 and 1082 Plans.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the
indenture does not involve the $74.5 million [for OPEB].
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City would still pay the
difference between the $22.2 million and $74.5 million.
The Interim City Manager responded $2.5 million is being paid on
the $22.5 million and $2.1 million to $2.2 million is being paid on
the $74.5 million this year.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like to review escalating
the amount in the future.
The Interim City Manager stated staff has not abandoned the idea of
reviewing financing options.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City currently budgets $2.5
million for the 1079 and 1082 Plans and pays $2. 1 million for the
[OPEB] ""pay as you go"" plan; $4.6 million is paid every year on
retirement benefits.
The Interim City Manager stated the 1079 and 1082 Plans are pension
benefits; the [OPEB] ""pay as you go"" cost for medical benefits
would grow by approximately $300,000 to $400,000 per year.
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-07,3,"(*09-132) Resolution No. 14320, ""Authorizing the Acting City
Manager to Submit an Application for Measure B Paratransit Funding
for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 and to Execute All Necessary Documents to
Implement the Project. Adopted.
(*09-133) Resolution No. 14321, ""Authorizing the Acting City
Manager to Submit a Request to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2009/2010
Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Funding, in the Amount of
$68,000 to Fund the Local Match for the Safe Routes to School
icycle/Pedestrian Improvement Projects and Authorize the Acting
City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents. "" Adopted.
( *09-134) Ordinance No. 2992, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding Section 24-10 (Cost Recovery for Recurring Calls for
Service to Respond to and/or Abate Properties Due to Specified
Conditions or Owner Neglect) to Chapter XXIV (Public Health) . ""
Finally passed.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(09-135) Mayor Johnson welcomed Interim City Manager Ann Marie
Gallant.
(09-136) The Fire Chief discussed the recent fire at the
Old Navy Hospital and Supply Depot.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the community has concerns regarding the
ashes; requested an analysis be completed.
The Fire Chief stated that the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) sampled the air and did not find any asbestos or
lead in the air; debris has not been sampled; asbestos is not
airborne, does not burn, and is not in the smoke.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the BAAQMD or County Health
Department could post the results.
The Fire Chief responded that he would consult with the BAAQMD ;
stated BAAQMD furnished raw data but the data was not interpreted.
Councilmember Tam stated posting results would be helpful for the
sake of disclosure.
The Fire Chief noted the City Watch system needs to be updated.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City pays for the system, to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-07,4,"The Interim City Manager stated staff would evaluate whether the
system is worth upgrading.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether warning sirens are available for
certain areas.
The Fire Chief responded sirens can be individually activated, but
were not activated.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether activation could be considered
in the future, to which the Fire Chief responded in the
affirmative.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(09-137) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14322,
""Establishing Integrated Waste Collection Ceiling Rates and
Services for Rate Period 8 (July 2009 to June 2010) "" Adopted;
(09-137A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the
City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Second Amendment to Modify
and Extend the Franchise Agreement with Alameda County Industries,
Inc. Introduced; and
(09-137B) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXI (Solid Waste and
Recycling) to Clarify the Definition of Customer and Customer
Responsibilities and Allocate $1,052,059 from the City Waste
Management Program Fund (Fund 274.1. Introduced.
The Interim City Manager and Public Works Director gave a brief
presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the advanced payment is
not coming from a non-General Fund set aside fund specifically for
the Waste Management Program Fund, to which the Public Works
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the fund is dedicated to
funding the liability and the City is just being asked to fund the
liability earlier, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Alameda County Industries (ACI)
was in jeopardy of closing.
Louie Pellegrinni, ACI Vice President, responded the catastrophic
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-07,5,"events in the worldwide meltdown of commodity values affected ACI;
stated 10% of the company's revenue disappeared the first week of
November ACI could not meet bank covenants and was in jeopardy of
defaulting on loans; ACI had to restructure debt payments and rate
relief to make up for the commodities value shortfall the
commodities value was previously offsetting the costs of providing
service; recyclable materials could and have ended up in the
landfill because there is no market. ACI was in jeopardy of
closing.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether certain commodities are
difficult to get rid of.
Mr. Pellegrinni responded 70% of commodities are moving; stated
high value plastics are moving; lower value plastics have always
been a questionable commodity; value has dropped 50%; diversion
goals are being met.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether other cities are facing similar
situations, to which Mr. Pellegrinni responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the proposed Agreement extends to 2022;
inquired whether the proposed Agreement provides latitude for when
the market recovers and is best for the City.
The Interim City Manager responded small haulers operate by margins
of 5 to 15% profit stated large carriers operate by a margin of 25
to 35% profit; small and medium size haulers are affected by the
decline in recyclables; small haulers should remain in the market
for competition; that she thinks the proposed extension is good for
both parties.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City contracted with Waste Management
to dispose of green waste; inquired whether ACI is still
contemplating taking over the operation.
Mr. Pellegrinni responded a third party processor accepts organic
materials; stated the County is looking at a processing facility;
the City has the right to redirect the material to an in-County
facility.
Councilmember Gilmore stated an incredible amount of work, effort
and time went into the proposed Agreement the proposed Agreement
allows for working with owners of nulti-family units; most resident
complaints are about the number of bins on the street which crowd
sidewalks; using larger bins would results in getting back parking
spaces.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-07,6,"Proponents (In favor of staff recommendation) : Robb Ratto, Park
Street Business Association; Marilyn Schumacher, Alameda.
Councilmember Tam stated the extension ensures competition, which
keeps ratepayers from being at the mercy of one monopoly; Alameda
has the highest recycling rate; the City would get 75% of revenues
if the rate goes above $80 per ton, which puts a cap on future
profitability.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the benefit of
extending the term to 2022 allows for alternative fuel vehicles and
allows potential for capturing future profit sharing when the
market recovers; ACI is a leader in recycling and providing direct
service.
Councilmember Gilmore stated ACI does not have a seat at the
bargaining table; bargaining is handled through Waste Management
ACI has a ""me too"" clause and is required to follow whatever Waste
Management negotiates.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Local 70 sets the prevailing wage
for garbage haulers because Waste Management is the prevailing
provider.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City has always had a policy of
encouraging contractors to pay prevailing wage.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether ACI's facility is still open to
the public, to which Mr. Pellegrinni responded in the affirmative.
(09-138 - ) Discussion of alternative uses for the Mif Albright Golf
Course and presentation by Kemper Sports Management.
Mayor Johnson stated that matter is on the agenda for discussion
only, not action.
The Acting Golf Manager gave a brief presentation.
Jim Stegall, Kemper Sports Executive Vice President of Operations,
gave a Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-07,7,"Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether tonight's presentation was
presented to the Golf Commission, to which Mr. Stegall responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson recognized the Alameda High Girl's Golf team and
Coach Burnett, who introduced the members of the team.
Speakers Grace Na, Alameda High School Sharon Nam, Alameda High
School; Gina Kabasakalis, Alameda High School Stephen Burnett,
Alameda High School Golf Coach;Carlos Briones, Junior Golf; Derek
Schediker, Alameda; John Kabasakalis, Alameda; Joe A. Williams,
Alameda George Humphreys, Alameda James D. Leach, Chuck Corica
Senior Men's Club; John Childs, Alameda Junior Golf; Horst Breuer,
Alameda; Shawn Shelby, Alameda; Ronald Cooper, Alameda; Robert
Sullwold, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Alameda Golf Commission; Ron
Salsig; Norma Arnerich, Alameda; Jim Strehlow, Alameda; Christopher
Seiwald, Alameda Soccer club; Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Van Winkle's proposal was
presented to anyone else, to which Mr. Van Winkle responded the
proposal was presented to the Golf Commission.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Golf Commission has had the
opportunity to review the proposal in depth.
Ms. Sullwold responded the proposal was put together quickly;
stated the Golf Commission is solidly behind the proposal.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the proposed approach is not novel.
Mayor Johnson suggested that Mr. Van Winkle work with staff.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated staff should actively pursue looking at
reactivating the Golf Course well; the Mif Albright Golf Course
needs to open as soon as possible; the Mif Albright Golf Course was
never meant to be a stand-alone course Mr. Van Winkle's proposal
should be reviewed; that he does not want to miss an opportunity by
over studying the matter; that he hopes Kemper Sports will be
involved; commended Kemper Sports for bringing new quality to the
Golf Course.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked everyone who spoke so passionately
about the matter stated the City has to look at all options,
including Mr. Van Winkle's proposal; Kemper Sports indicated that
there has been a decline in rounds and discussed evaluating the
feasibility of reconfiguring and renovating to meet all of
Alameda's golf needs; inquired whether consideration has been given
to having a facility where children can learn to play golf.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-07,8,"Mr. Stegall responded there are a number of options.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she would not pre-judge the
proposed plan's viability; that she wants as much information as
possible.
Mr. Stegall stated that he would be happy to review Mr. Van
Winkle's proposal.
Councilmember Tam inquired how much the review would cost.
Mr. Stegall responded that there would not be a cost to review the
proposal and provide an option.
Councilmember Tam stated water is a big issue; 90% of the water is
imported from the Sierras; inquired whether Mr. Stegall would be
able to provide information on how much East Bay Municipal Utility
District (EBMUD) would charge for separating out the Mif Albright
Course meter and for providing a utility and maintenance cost
assessment.
Mr. Stegall responded that he would be happy to help obtain
information.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants to ensure that the
Golf Commission evaluates the matter so that a study and official
opinion can be provided to Council; a lot of decisions have been
made based on numbers that continue to be challenged for accuracy
and relevance; requested that staff ensure numbers are accurate.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether evaluation is part of Kemper
Sport's Contract.
Mr. Stegall responded the scope of service is to operate the Golf
Course.
Mayor Johnson stated that she took a tour of the Golf Course the
Golf course is looking very good; golfers are complimenting Kemper
Sports and the attention being given to detail; more needs to be
done, especially capital improvements; Council agrees that everyone
needs to be accommodated at the Golf course.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Mr. Van Winkle's elf-sustaining proposal
should be pursued with some input from Kemper Sports and overview
from the Golf Commission.
Mayor Johnson stated that she wants to ensure that options are not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-07,9,"limited; concurred with Councilmember Gilmore's comments regarding
reviewing all options.
The Interim City Manager stated staff would need thirty days to go
through the process with the Golf Commission, work with Kemper
Sports, and consider options.
(09-139) Update on federal funding for City projects.
The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) and Alameda County Waste Management Authority
(WMA) are look at applying for energy efficiency block grants as a
region.
The Deputy City Manager responded that she heard about WMA's plans
and would check with ABAG; stated larger agencies want to tap into
formula funds for bigger projects.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked staff for the comprehensive report;
stated that he is happy that the City is keeping track of projects;
inquired why the City would borrow money for sewer projects when
the Sewer Fund is robust.
The Public Works Director stated some loans could be 0% or 1%
interest and the City can earn 3% interest.
Mayor Johnson stated that having an increase in Community
Deve lopment Block Grant funding is nice.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(09-140) Kent Lewandowski, Sierra Club, submitted letter; addressed
the Sierra Club's concerns regarding SunCal's development proposal.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(09-141) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Civil Service Board and Economic Development Commission.
Nominated Dean Batchelor as a member of the Civil Service Board and
Dennis H. Viehweg as a member of the Economic Development
Commission.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-07,10,"(09-142) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of
California Cities (LCC) Meeting on April 3; most of the focus was
on three bills surrounding the use of plastic bags and proposed
$0.25 per bag charge; revenues from the fee would be used to
promote recycling and pay for litter clean upi San Francisco and
Oakland representatives were the most vocal about the initiative
Councilmember Jean Quan stated San Francisco banned Styrofoam and
plastic bags, imposed a fee, and were not sued; Oakland banned both
and were sued; manufacturers launched the lawsuit stating that a
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is needed to impose the fee and ban plastic bags ;
Oakland was advised an EIR would cost approximately $500,000
discussions involved looking for a way to adjust CEQA to exempt the
ban; a city cannot exempt itself from State law; the League of
California Cities received a letter from the Governor asking for
support on six May 19 ballot measures; the Revenue and Taxation
Policy Committee recommended supporting Proposition 1A.
The Deputy City Manager stated the LCC Board recommends supporting
Propositions 1A through 1F, which includes the pay raise issue.
Mayor Johnson stated that Oakland is thinking about doing a model
EIR that other cities could use.
(09-143) Vice Mayor deHaan stated initiative circulators are over-
exaggerating the reason for signing the SunCal petition; that he
interviewed six circulators; all had a common thread of stating
that people need to sign because the Base needs to be cleaned up
and the Navy would not clean up; circulators are stating that they
want to take the process away from the City Council and that the
proposed plan is the only plan that would provide the required 15%
set aside; the City's name is being used as a supporter and
partner the issue should stand by itself [without using the City's
name].
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-07,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 7, 2009- -7:00 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(09-126) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95) ; Claimant: Corey
Merrick; Agency claimed against City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the City Council received a
briefing from the Risk Manager and Legal Council and gave direction
regarding settlement of a Workers' Compensation Claim.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-07,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 7, 2009--7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:41 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(09-14) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting
held on March 17, 2009. Approved.
Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMEN'T
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
April 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 3, 2007 -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:01
p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(07-142) - Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to award
Vehicle Tow Contract [paragraph no. 07-151] was removed from the
agenda.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07-143) Proclamation honoring Tony Aiello upon his retirement from
St. Joseph Notre Dame High School.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Tony Aiello.
Mr. Aiello thanked Council for the proclamation; stated St. Joseph
Notre Dame High School has been part of the community for 125
years; he hopes that the close relationship will continue.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to adopt Plans and
Specifications [paragraph no. 07-146] and recommendation to
appropriate $12,400 [paragraph no. 07-150] were removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember 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. . ]
(*07-144) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on March
15, , 2007; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on
March 20, 2007. Approved.
(*07-145 - ) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,184,337.90.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-03,2,"(07-146) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Godfrey Park Play Field Renovations
No. P.W. 03-07-06.
David Kirwin, Alameda, questioned who would benefit from the
proposed changes stated the trees provide shade to soccer
spectators; upgrading play structure equipment is more important
than field renovations.
Mayor Johnson requested clarification on field space.
The Recreation and Park Director stated that the Godfrey Park
reconfiguration would benefit the entire sports community; the
Field Advisory Committee was very active in the selected design;
the new design would provide more usable, smaller fields and a full
size outfield; the field has a severe gofer problem; playtime is
limited because of the old irrigation system.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the proposed renovation is
part of the Turf Management Plan.
The Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the renovation is scheduled for the summer ; Ritter Park is
scheduled for the fall and Woodstock Park would be next.
Councilmember deHaan requested information on tree removal and area
expansion.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the Field Advisory
Committee felt more soccer space would be provided by flipping the
fields; stated all removed trees would be replaced.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what type of trees would be planted,
to which the Recreation and Park Director responded that he did not
know.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see a timeline
for playground equipment replacement; tree replacement should be
aggressive with sufficient biomass.
The Recreation and Park Director stated staff would work with the
Design Engineering team.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the public should be informed
when the play structure is replaced; the field is pocked from
gofers.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is surprised the field is being used.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-03,3,"The Recreation and Park Director stated the field has not been used
since Bayport opened.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the grass is brown at Bayport.
The Recreation and Park Director stated the grass was cut twice
because of the length; the top layer is dead grass.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Godfrey Park would have a raised
pitching mound, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated that two raised pitching mounds were removed
from Krusi Park.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the bleachers would be
relocated, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with the conditions that 1) a playground equipment replacement
timeline be provided and 2) trees be replaced with a greater than
one-to-one ratio.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(*07-147) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Replacement of Curb, Gutter, and
Related Improvements to address Street Ponding Citywide, No. P. W.
02-07-04.
(*07-148) - Recommendation to appropriate $55,000 in Measure B funds
and award a Contract in the amount of $231,000, including
contingencies, to Republic Intelligent Transportation, Inc. for the
In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights at various locations, No. P.W. 07-04-
07.
( * 07-149 - ) Recommendation to appropriate $8,200 in Measure B funds
and award a Contract in the amount of $82,400, including
contingencies, to Republic Intelligent Transportation, Inc. , for
the In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights at Eighth Street and Taylor
Avenue, No. P.W. 05-05-04.
(07 - 150 ) Recommendation to appropriate $12,400 in Measure B Funds
and award a Contract in the amount of $136,400, including
contingencies, to Cal-West Lighting and Signal Maintenance, Inc.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-03,4,"standards for all future installations in the City of Alameda.
The City Engineer provided a brief report.
Proponents (In favor of bus shelter standards) : Greg Harper, AC
Transit Richard Neveln, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda;
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates; David Kirwin, Alameda.
Following Mr. Harper's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-03,5,"shelter design considered next bus readers.
The City Engineer responded accommodating next bus readers would
not be a problem if electricity were added.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether solar power is a possibility.
The City Engineer responded she would look into the matter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the shelter design provides weather
protection.
The City Engineer responded weather protection could be provided
stated sidewalk width and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
access would need to be considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Bayport bus shelters are the worst
and provide only two seats; the City's bus shelters provide three
seats; adequate seating should be provided; shelters should be
advertisement free.
The City Engineer stated advertisement was not included in the
standard because of previous discussions.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Alamedans for Responsible Transit
Shelters (ARTS) requested that a provision be added so that
continued bus shelter funding would be possible.
The City Engineer stated the current shelters are the shelters
provided by ARTS; steel or metal might not be available.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the design criteria;
maintenance bleeds into installation and operation; the criteria
should state that the first choice is for the most durable shelters
with the least maintenance; durability and simplicity should be
ranked high.
The City Engineer stated durability and maintenance could be
included.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a maintenance budget would
be included when the next bus shelters are installed.
The City Engineer responded the budget report would address the
need for an increase if the current maintenance budget is not
sufficient.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she was impressed with the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-03,6,"survey ; the survey was very comprehensive ; she was pleasantly
surprised at the number of responses; the website should be kept in
mind when doing other surveys.
The City Engineer stated credit needs to be given to the
Transportation Commission; bus riders were given an option to
obtain a hard copy of the report or use the website; impacted
communities were targeted.
Vice Mayor Tam commended the Transportation Commission and staff;
stated twenty-two potential sites are listed on the survey;
inquired whether a criteria would be used to determine bus shelter
locations.
The City Engineer responded twenty-four high priority locations
were previously identified by Council.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the locations were based on
ridership, to which the City Engineer responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the list should be periodically reviewed by
the Transportation Commission or Council if ridership changes.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated she that likes Councilmember
Matarrese's suggestion regarding durability and maintenance.
Councilmember Gilmore amended the motion to include that priority
be given to shelters with the highest durability and least amount
of maintenance.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(07-156 - ) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of a Planning Board
decision to deny Planned Development (PD-05-0002) for 2241 and 2243
Clement Avenue (Boatworks Project) ; and
(07-156A) Resolution No. 14080, ""Upholding Planning Board
Resolution PB-07-03 Denying Planned Development (PD-05-0002) for
2241 and 2243 Clement Avenue (Boatworks Project) "" Adopted.
The Planning Services Manager provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-03,7,"Proponent (In favor of appeal) : Robert McGillis, Philip Banta
Associates.
Opponents : (Not in favor of appeal) : Joseph Woodward, Estuary
Park Action Committee (EPAC) ; Dorothy Freeman, EPAC (provided
comments) ; Virginia Dofflemyer, EPAC ; Rebecca Redfield, EPAC.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that 4.8 acres were rezoned for residential
use; inquired whether the remaining 4. 6 acres would be part of the
MU-5 Specified Mixed Use Area envisioned for the ten-acre Estuary
Park along the northwestern waterfront.
The Planning Services Manager responded the vision is for
continuous shoreline access along the entire northern waterfront
stated larger, active waterfront parks would be along the
waterfront trail; the ten-acre Estuary Park is part of the 1991
General Plan; a portion [of the park] could be on the northern end
of the site.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Applicant was aware of the
plans.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Applicant was aware of
the rezoning that occurred in December 2006; stated that he is not
sure whether the Applicant was aware of the Estuary Park concept
adopted as part of the 1991 General Plan.
ouncilmember Matarrese stated that the project does not conform
with the General Plan; the rezoning last fall was to implement the
General Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution to uphold
the Planning Board's decision and deny the appeal.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember deHaan requested an update on the implementation of a
Task Force to address the Estuary and Beltline Parks.
The City Manager stated an update would be provided.
Councilmember deHaan requested that funding options be provided
also.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-03,8,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(07-157) Michael Krueger, Alameda, stated that bus shelter
maintenance has improved thanked the Public Works Department for
all the hard work.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07-158) Mayor Johnson introduced Interim Fire Chief Jim Reed.
The Interim Fire Chief stated it is a pleasure to serve the City of
Alameda.
(07-159) Vice Mayor Tam requested a status report on the City
Treasurer and County Auditor meeting to review of the City's
investment policy.
(07-160) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the Lobby Day
session with the Alamedan's for Better Schools on March 28 in
Sacramento; she met with Senator Perata's staff; she and Mayor
Johnson were able to talk to Senator Torlakson regarding funding
equalizations for schools, which is a high priority for the
Legislature; there appears to be bipartisan support on the part of
Assemblyman Guy Houston to advance legislation to address
equalization issues.
(07-161) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Alameda Towne Centre
Old Navy grand opening would be on Thursday.
(07-162) Councilmember deHaan requested a Council review of the
Planning Board's decision to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to
address Measure A.
The City Manager stated that Council could request a review of the
Planning Board decision within ten days the matter would need to
come back within the next three Council meetings; the action would
be suspended in the meantime.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the matter would come back to Council,
to which the City Manager responded in May.
(07-163) louncilmember Matarrese stated that he requested the City
Manager to review the Governor's budget and the affect on public
transportation, particularly AC Transit; discussions have involved
cutting operational funds to transit districts; he would like
Council to deliberate on whether to consider a resolution to make
sure AC Transit is fully funded.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-03,9,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter is on a fast timeframe.
The City Manager responded that there would be a [State] budget
revision in May
Mayor Johnson requested that Council be consider a resolution at
the next meeting.
(07-164) Mayor Johnson requested a status report on Mount
Trashmore; stated methane pipes are still present.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he received information from
the Public works Director on the matter; venting is needed for ten
to fifteen more years.
(07-165 - ) Councilmember Gilmore stated Public Works provided a
report outlining ways to make the Webster Tube crossing easier for
bicyclists; requested an update on whether the space between the
Tube is a feasible option.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-03,10,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 3, 2007- - -6:00 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(07-140) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95) ; Claimant Ronald
Wilhite; Agency Claimed Against : City of Alameda.
(07-141) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Workers' Compensation,
Council received a briefing and gave staff settlement parameters
with direction; regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council received
a briefing from Counsel regarding a threat of litigation; no action
was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-03,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 3, 2007- -7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Commissioner Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]
( *07-009) Minutes of the Community Improvement Commission meeting
held on March 20, 2007. Approved.
( *07-010) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
execute an amendment to the Master Consulting Agreement with Harris
& Associates for Engineering and Construction Support Services for
the final phase of the Bayport Project by extending the term six
months and adding additional budget authority in an amount not to
exceed $232,000. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
April 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 3, 2017--5:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:01 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(17-567) Conference with Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the
Government Code; Number of Cases: One (As Defended - City Exposure to Legal
Action).
(17-568) Conference with Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the
Government Code; Number of Cases: One (As Responded (Amicus Curiae - City
Exposure to Legal Action).
(17-569) Conference with 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 Initiating Legal Action).
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer
announced that regarding City Exposure to Legal Action, a status report was provided
and direction was given to staff; regarding Amicus Curiae, that she is a member of
Mayor's Against Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Discrimination which
sent out a request to mayors to participate in litigation that is anticipated regarding
Masterpiece Cakeshop versus Colorado Civil Rights Commission; Council authorized
the Mayor and City Council to sign onto the U.S. Supreme Court friend of the Court brief
being submitted in support of the rights of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and a
same sex couple who was refused service by a commercial bakery; the commercial
bakery argued that it should be exempt from a law prohibiting discrimination against
LGBTQ people based on its owners asserted religious opposition to same sex marriage;
the Amicus brief, which is being drafted by attorneys from the Santa Clara County
Counsel's Office and the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office will focus on: 1) the
importance of ensuring the continued enforcement of non-discrimination laws
highlighting the range of local support for non-discrimination laws and policies, and 2)
the wide range in harms that granting the bakery's request would do to the enforcement
of local laws; the case is entitled Masterpiece Cakeshop versus Colorado Civil Rights
Commission; thanked the group Mayor's Against LGBT Discrimination for offering the
opportunity to local governments; thanked City Council for deciding to support the brief;
and regarding City Initiating Legal Action, direction was given to staff.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,2,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:27 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
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,3,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBER: - 3, 2017--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. and 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
(17-570) The City Manager made an announcement about the hiring of the new Fire
Chief.
(17-571) Proclamation Declaring October 4, 2017 as Walk and Roll to School Day.
Meghan Thornton, Safe Routes to School Parent Champion for Henry Haight
Elementary School, made brief comments.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Ms. Thornton.
(17-572) Proclamation Declaring October 6, 2017 at USS Kennebec Day. Not heard.
(17-573) Proclamation Declaring October 2017 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, and Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) History Month.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Mark Sorensen, Cheryl
Saxton, Denise Gasti, and Ken Werner, who all made brief comments.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(17-574) Chris Lencioni, Alameda, discussed his vehicle being stolen and getting
a
ticket; suggested license plate readers be installed on vehicles which issue tickets.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced the salary schedule resolution [paragraph no. 17-580 and
food service ware ordinance [paragraph no. 17-585 were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,4,"Calendar.
Councilmember 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.]
(*17-575) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on September 5, 2017.
Approved.
(*17-576) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,802,220.90.
(*17-577) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment to an Agreement with NexLevel Information Technology, Inc., to Add the
Amount of $55,500 for Procurement and Software Selection Services for the City's New
Enterprise Resource Planning System and $17,000 to support the Corporation for
Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC) Pilot Project. Accepted.
(*17-578) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Fourth
Amendment to the Emergency Medical Services First Responder Advanced Life
Support and Ambulance Transport Service Agreement with the County of Alameda to
Extend the Agreement to June 30, 2018. Accepted.
(*17-579) Resolution No. 15312, ""Amending the Transportation Demand Management
Plan for Alameda Point (TDM Plan). Adopted.
(17-580) Resolution No. 15313, ""Amending the Management and Confidential
Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classification of
Senior Transportation Coordinator, Allocating Two Senior Transportation Coordinator
Positions, and Eliminating One Transportation Coordinator Position Effective October 3,
2017 and One Part-time Staff for a Total Increase in Staffing of 0.5 Positions."" Adopted.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the Human Resources Director stated staff is
still reviewing the positions.
Expressed support for the positions; stated the extra staffing is important to fulfil the
commitment to climate sustainability: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a Sustainable
Alameda (CASA).
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(*17-581) Resolution No. 15314, ""Authorizing Execution of the State Standard
Agreement for the Housing Related Parks Grant from the State Department of Housing
and Community Development for Playground Improvements in the Amount of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,5,"$124,310."" Adopted.
(*17-582) Ordinance No. 3190, ""Approving an Amended and Restated Lease and
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the
Terms of an Amended and Restated Lease Agreement with Mr. Hi Chi Chen and Mrs.
Lena Muy Chiv, a Married Couple, DBA Hometown Donuts, for 1930 Main Street.""
Finally passed.
(*17-583) Ordinance No. 3191, ""Approving a Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement and
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the
Terms of Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement to Alameda Boys & Girls Club and Alameda
Unified School District for Access and Maintenance."" Finally passed.
(*17-584) Ordinance No. 3192, ""Approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement of Building
40, Located at 800 West Tower Avenue at Alameda Point, with Bladium, Inc, a
California Corporation.' Finally passed.
(17-585) Ordinance No. 3193, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code Section 4-4
(Disposable Food Service Ware) to Prohibit Certain Single-Use Plastics such as Straws
and Clarifying Compostable Food Service Ware Requirements.' Finally passed.
Mayor Spencer stated that she left the last meeting on Council business before the
ordinance was introduced; thanked Council for supporting the ordinance.
Expressed support for the ordinance; stated CASA will work with the restaurant
community to transition to compostable take-out packaging: Ruth Abbe, CASA.
Mayor Spencer stated letters were received from Edison Elementary School students in
support of the green efforts.
Councilmember Oddie thanked Mayor Spencer for bringing the referral forward; stated
Thursday at 6:30 p.m. there will be a CASA workshop for updating the City's Local
Action Plan for climate protection.
Mayor Spencer thanked staff for their work.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(17-586) Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to the Mayor's Fourth of July
Parade Committee Members, Followed by the Committee Members Presenting a Check
to the USS Hornet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,6,"Barbara Price, Fourth of July Parade Chair, made brief comments.
Mayor Spencer presented certificates to Barbara Price, Jim Franz, Mark Sorensen,
Blake Brydon, Betty Dittmer, Troy Hosmer, and Kari Thompson.
Ms. Price stated the USS Hornet representative could not be here tonight; $1,000 is
being donated from the Parade Committee to the USS Hornet.
(17-587) Proclamation Declaring October 1 through 7, 2017 as Public Power Week.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Ann McCormick, Public
Utilities Board President.
Ms. McCormick made brief comments.
(17-588) Receive an Update on Recent Water Quality Issue at Alameda Point.
The City Manager and Base Reuse Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the grants or loans are only available to the City if it
keeps a fiscally neutral position, to which the City Manager responded in the negative;
stated the grants and loans are available to the City regardless of the City's position.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the other funding is a tax measure or bond.
The City Manager responded the decision depends on what the community would like
to do.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she understood funding would be available through
potential development; inquired whether the development is being expedited.
The City Manager responded the City leases to businesses that rely on the 70 year old
infrastructure as the City waits for developers; stated the businesses in the area are at
risk with the failing infrastructure.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what is the cost.
The Base Reuse Director responded the total cost for all the infrastructure at the entire
base is $650 million; stated the three adaptive reuse areas total approximately $45
million, which includes all utilities and surface improvements; the area contains tenants
that are purchasing buildings.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the proposal includes Site A and spirits alley.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated there are several ways
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,7,"the project can be done; staff has targeted the project with an incremental, phased
approach; the Council will be involved throughout the phases; the contract has to be
started to figure out the engineering and different possibilities.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how many buildings have sold, to which the Base
Reuse Director responded only one.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Bladium has sold, to which the Base Reuse
Director responded in the negative; stated two other buildings should sell and bring in
an additional $13 million.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether all the proceeds from the building sale will be
used for infrastructure.
The Base Reuse Director responded the City always uses the proceeds from Alameda
Point for Alameda Point infrastructure; stated the question is should other sources be
leveraged to complete work faster.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a loan could be generated between funds and
the funds could be regenerated through the sales, to which the Base Reuse Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether doing so is still being neutral, to which the City
Manager responded in the affirmative.
The Base Reuse Director stated staff can explore other options that Council chooses.
Councilmember Oddie inquired when is the earliest time residents and businesses
could connect to a new trench.
The Base Reuse Director responded the date depends on the location; a new water
would take 3 to 4 years if the process is started now for the entire design and
construction.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the City digs a new trench could we connect with the
Veteran's Administration (VA), to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the
affirmative; stated doing so would depend on the timing of the VA project.
Councilmember Oddie inquired when would East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
take ownership.
The Base Reuse Director responded any time new water infrastructure is put in, it must
go through EBMUD's design process; stated once approved, it will then be EBMUD's
infrastructure.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what was the previous plan.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,8,"The Base Reuse Director responded the previous plan was to have developers pay for
the infrastructure as they came in to build the development; stated in the adaptive reuse
area, the idea is to take the proceeds from the building sales and keep it there until
there are sufficient funds to design, engineer and construct major capital improvements.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the plan is the take funds from other City projects,
meaning deferred maintenance or deferred projects.
The City Manager responded in the negative; stated staff is looking at different revenue.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether one of the options is a bond, to which the City
Manager responded in the affirmative; stated there are a number of other revenue
sources to review.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the focus is to put all the money into Alameda Point.
The City Manager responded a portion of the money would go to Alameda Point.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired where money would be borrowed from.
The City Manager responded if the Council borrows from the General Fund, once a
building sells, the money would be returned to the General Fund.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired if there is a timeline for when the buildings could sell.
The Base Reuse Director responded staff can make projections, but the funds are not
available until the building closes.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is a plan in place with no funding.
The Base Reuse Director responded staff would like Council's input to explore other
options; stated there is no new plan in place.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the City has to wait until properties sell to
receive any cash, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the entire City would be responsible for any
repayment, not just a portion of the City.
The City Manager responded Council could give direction on said policy question.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City is the legally responsible party.
The Base Reuse Director responded there is a way to structure the financing; stated
staff would work with the City Attorney's office.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,9,"Doug Linney and David Briggs, EBMUD, made brief comments.
Mayor Spencer inquired what Mr. Briggs meant when referring to ""that night.""
Mr. Briggs responded September 12, 2017 is when EBMUD confirmed there was non-
EBMUD water in the system.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a specific list of the calls has been given to the City.
Mr. Briggs responded general information has been relayed to staff; he can provide
specific information, if needed.
Stephan Cahina, State Water Board, outlined what the State Water Board did to assist
with the water incident; stated the State Water Board will need an incident report to try
and avoid the same kind of episode in the future.
Stated the problems with the water and sewer lines at Alameda Point happen on almost
a weekly basis; urged Council to put in a new water system for the residents and
businesses that live in substandard conditions: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point
Collaborative.
Urged Council to repair the infrastructure at Alameda Point: Kelly Kearney, Pacific Fine
Foods.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the problem is an infrastructure problem or if the
problem was contamination from a cross valve.
The Public Works Coordinator responded the incident was caused by a cross
connection, which is an indication that the system is not built to EBMUD standards.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether EBMUD has other cross connections within their
systems.
The Public Works Coordinator responded there is a potential for cross connection in any
drinkable water system.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the incident could have happened anywhere on the
Island, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Manager stated the incident is one in a
series of issues at Alameda Point.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff will return with specific information related to the
incident and what the City is doing to fix the issues long term.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,10,"The Base Reuse Director responded there are a number of different issues at Alameda
Point and staff would like discuss reviewing alternative financing sources.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff is asking for further direction before the contract
comes to Council.
The Base Reuse Director responded the contract is a separate item; stated staff is
inquiring whether Council would like the old plan, which was focused on development,
to be updated and to focus on inter-loan transfers and funding.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like a more comprehensive report before direction
is given.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council needs to look at the issue long term
and be proactive; the residents and businesses at Alameda Point are not second class
citizens and deserve working infrastructure.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired if there is a report that captures the anecdotal evidence that
has been presented.
The Base Reuse Director inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is referring to the incident
report.
Vice Mayor Vella responded that she is referring to a report on the other issues to justify
why Council is being asked to change the funding.
The Base Reuse Director responded there is no report; stated the master infrastructure
plan documents the condition of all the different utilities and the issues that have
occurred at Alameda Point; a report can be done at a later date.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the specific issue with the water is related to the
design and not the infrastructure.
The Base Reuse Director responded the infrastructure is safe, but the condition and
mapping are not like other parts of the City.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the mapping that occurred over the summer was
comprehensive.
The Base Reuse Director responded the mapping was focused on the water lines.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is a comprehensive map of the existing water
lines at Alameda Point.
The Public Works Coordinator responded staff does not have the results of the work
yet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,11,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired if the City had the results of the work, would it have helped
identify the problem.
The Public Works Coordinator responded in the negative; stated the project did not
involve identifying irrigation lines.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the work to map the water lines was contracted out,
to which the Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is only one well at Alameda Point, to which the
Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what the cost was for the contracting service.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the Public Works Coordinator stated the cost
was approximately $150,000.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired if mapping the water lines would have shown the
connections.
The Public Works Coordinator responded the mapping is done above ground and would
not have identified a cross connection underground.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired if the mapping project was not comprehensive
because it was not done underground.
The Public Works Coordinator responded there is adequate mapping.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the funding is different than the Site A developer
contribution.
The Base Reuse Director responded the Site A infrastructure is different.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what is the difference between Site A infrastructure and
the trench being evaluated.
The Base Reuse Director responded the City has to go utility by utility; stated there are
a lot of different ways the project can be done.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not want the City to spend money that other
people should be spending.
The Base Reuse Director stated staff is being very careful and will inform Council why
projects are being recommended before they happen.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,12,"Mayor Spencer inquired what are the next steps and if staff is requesting direction from
Council on the additional financing sources.
The City Manager inquired whether Mayor Spencer is referring to the long term or
intermediate steps in the staff report.
Mayor Spencer responded the next long term steps.
The City Manager responded staff is asking Council for direction on whether the
infrastructure at Alameda Point should be expedited by reviewing alternative funding
options.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff would return to Council for a decision at a later
date, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff is looking for
policy level direction.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the long term steps can be bifurcated from the other direction.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired when the matter will return to Council, what will specifically be
looked into and what information will be provided.
The City Manager responded staff can provide a report on the history of living and
working at Alameda Point as it relates to infrastructure; stated she would like Council to
assume the infrastructure is 70 years old and needs to be replaced; inquired if Council
would like to review ways to rectify the infrastructure.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is enough evidence that the infrastructure needs
to be replaced; he would like to see a report that has an exact description of the failure,
which calls first came in, what is the trend and root cause and why, what preventative
action is being taken immediately and the corrective action which needs to be monitored
to ensure its effectiveness; he concurs with Councilmember Oddie that the City should
not be spending money now that a developer is slated to spend; residents at Alameda
Point are using the water and the infrastructure needs to be fixed now.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated the
work needs to be done now.
Councilmember Oddie also concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated that he
would like a report from the Disaster Council on the plan; the outages should be
tracked; he would like to see pictures and maps and evaluate the cost.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there needs to be a record of the instances that have
happened; there have been a number of different utility failures; Council needs to
understand why utilities are failing; she would like to understand the design flaws to be
able to address the needs and have a long term solution; questioned how will the
phases would be funded and what is the impact if one of the phases does not go
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,13,"through; is there a Plan B.
Mayor Spencer stated that she heard complaints about EBMUD not immediately
responding and not immediately communicating with the City; she would like to know
what calls came in and when, what response was taken and how notice was given to
residents; she also received complaints that people did not know the meeting with the
Police Chief was going to take place; having the public know about meetings with the
Disaster Council is important; there are claim forms on the City of Alameda website for
residents to submit a claim for damages; she would like to know when Councilmembers
were notified and the response taken; many residents were disappointed in the
response; Nixle is one way people can be notified; she would like to know how the
project will be funded and which issues will be addressed first; inquired when Council
will receive a report on what specifically happened; requested review of the incident and
the long term solution be addressed separately.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the City Attorney's Office is conducting an
independent investigation of the incident and working with EBMUD and the State Water
Board to complete a report required by the State; the report should be ready in two to
three months.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether residence and business owners can provide their
feedback by contacting the City Attorney's Office, to which the Assistant City Attorney
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the contact information can be added to the Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ's) section on the City website, to which the Assistant City
Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired when staff anticipates returning to Council with the long term
plan.
The City Manager responded staff will have to review the whole infrastructure plan;
stated a contract will be presented to Council on October 17, which will take
approximately six months.
The Base Reuse Director stated staff has documentation of the existing conditions and
can lay out the different ways to finance the infrastructure; the project will happen in
phases; a report on the current issues can be done at the same time as the financing
options.
Vice Mayor Vella requested a breakdown of the $650 million; inquired whether the focus
can be on the pressing needs.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated there are a lot of different
ways to structure the improvements.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,14,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether all of the items included in the $650 million need to
be considered in Council's determination.
The Base Reuse Director responded $45 million for utilities and surface improvements
relates to the three loops.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:04 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
***
(17-589) Public Hearing to Consider Alteration of the Rate and Method of
Apportionment of Special Taxes for Community Facilities District No. 13-1; and
(17-589A) Resolution No. 15315, ""Calling Special Election Regarding Alteration of the
Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for Community Facilities District
(CFD) No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements). Adopted.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many registered voters reside in the
Community Facilities District.
The Community Development Director responded there are more than 12 voters, which
triggers the requirement to conduct a special election; stated the City Clerk will not
receive the information from the Registrar of Voters until after the paperwork is
submitted.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the residents are located in the TRI
Pointe homes, to which the Community Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the election would be by mail, to which
the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution calling special election
regarding alteration of the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes for
Community Facilities District 13-1, Alameda Landing Public Improvements.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired how the proposed amendment has no
impact to the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes.
The Community Development Director responded there is already a maximum special
tax levy, which would remain unchanged.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,15,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether the residents are currently not paying any monies.
The Community Development Director responded there is no assessment because the
property is still publicly owned.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there would be less monies received if the residents
are exempt.
The Community Development Director responded there would be less money, but the
bonds have been issued; stated Catellus committed to tying the debt services to new
residential construction, so it will not impact the existing residents.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Catellus votes at the election, to which the Community
Development Director responded in the negative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether anyone connected to the property votes, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the voting is strictly
limited to the registered voters in the CFD.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(17-590) Recommendation to Receive an Informational Report on the Public Access
Pathways Associated with the Tidal Canal Project.
The Public Works Project Manager and Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power
Point presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the survey was a scientific survey.
The Recreation and Parks responded in the negative; stated the survey was only to get
a read of the residents in the neighborhood.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the survey has been shared on the City's website, to
which the Public Information Officer responded in the negative; stated staff wanted the
survey targeted to the specific neighborhood.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated if public money is being put into improving public
access and paths, the survey should not be restricted to a certain neighborhood.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated once the feasibility study is done, the public
input process will include the entire community, not just the one neighborhood.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thought the idea is to give more residents
access to the water; inquired why the survey was not opened up community wide.
The Public Information Officer responded the survey was conducted to test the section
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,16,"of residents to see what ideas they had going into the feasibility study.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is the purpose of the community survey or the community
meetings; why would staff not have a consultant review the Police reports and provide
an evidence based plan to provide security to the neighbors.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded that the purpose of the feasibility study is
to receive a professional opinion on options and return to the community.
Mayor Spencer inquired why staff is not planning to return to Council with the
professional opinion to allow public comment and make a decision.
The City Manager responded Council has asked for incremental input into the process,
which staff is providing.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the input is being used to prepare the feasibility report
or will the consultant review everything, take it to the neighbors and receive feedback.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded it is important to know the neighbors'
concerns and have the consultant provide a professional opinion of what is safe and
feasible.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if another site is going to be discussed for a possible
kayak launch.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the new site for kayak launch is the East
Shore Drive access point; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired when the matter would return to Council.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded less than two months after the
Recreation and Parks Commission which is in spring 2018.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the matter will return before August 2018, to which the
Recreation and Parks Director responded that is her goal.
Mayor Spencer inquired what spring means.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded April or May 2018.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the matter could return in June 2018, to which the
Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stressed the importance of the matter returning to Council before the
August 2018 recess.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,17,"Urged Council to address the problems of trespassing, beach erosion, public safety and
security issues; expressed concerns about the sea wall, security and blind spots
backing out from garages: Donna Fisher, Alameda.
Expressed concerns with some of the short term solutions; discussed security concerns:
Rob Barretts, Alameda.
Stated Council should not waste money on a study and consultants if it is not going to
solve the issue; the survey should include the entire community: Serge Wilson,
Alameda.
Expressed concerns with encroachment on Fernside Boulevard and Eastshore Drive by
private property owners; urged Council to value public access to the space and not
allow private property owners to use the access points for personal use: Jeff
Wasserman, Alameda.
Expressed concerns with the safety and feasibility of the access points: Owen Flynn,
Alameda.
Urged Council to go forward with the feasibility study: Lee Padway, Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports a feasibility study and moving
forward with the project, including community input.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether $250,000 would be deducted from the $1.1
million available from the sale proceeds, to which the Recreation and Parks Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if $250,000 is only for the paving and the fencing.
The Public Works Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated $250,000 is only
an estimate.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what component of the cost is the paving and what is
the fencing.
The Public Works Project Manager responded the paving is approximately $150,000,
$30,000 is for a designer or civil engineer, and the final fence, which will be a wrought
iron, would cost $50,000.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there would be no cost if the fence is not
replaced, to which the Public Works Project Manager responded the current fence is a
temporary fence and will need to be replaced.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what the cost of the feasibility study is for all six access
points.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,18,"The Recreation and Parks Director responded that she would not have a cost until she
receives the proposals back; she estimates $100,000 or less.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the speaker who stated the City would then
need to hire an engineer is correct.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated after the
feasibility study, a Request for Proposals (RFP) will be done; design and construction
documents will cost approximately $150,000; she cannot estimate construction costs
until designs are chosen.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is the height of the current fence as opposed to the
proposed fence.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the temporary fence is six feet; the
proposed fence would be four feet.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the purpose of a four foot fence, the
Recreation and Parks Director stated to provide better visibility; the fence will not have a
gate because of Council's concern about the liability of people stepping into the water.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is being done to prevent flooding and sea level rise.
The Interim Public Works Director responded the feasibility study will include sea level
use projections over the next five to ten years, which might affect the use of the sites;
stated on December 5th, Public Works will be present the Climate Action Plan scope to
expanded what type of planning and adaptation measures the City needs to take.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the study will encapsulate said issues, to which the
Interim Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the long term Climate
Adaptation Plan will include said issues.
Mayor Spencer inquired if there is feedback from the Police Department regarding the
calls during the last six months, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded
in the negative.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the City is doing to ensure the area is locked or to enforce
closure at dusk.
The City Manager responded the feasibility study will review the security issues; stated
staff will provide Council with the Police Department data.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council will consider addressing the issue of adding a
gate to the pathway now instead of later.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,19,"The Assistant City Attorney responded a gate to close access to the pathways is not
logistically and aesthetically possible; stated the issue can be reviewed as part of the
feasibility study.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like staff to look into the issue of a gate being
added.
The Assistant City Attorney stated one of the pathways is used as a driveway and
another is accessible as a pathway; arrangements would have to be made with the
property owners.
Mayor Spencer stated the property owners would have to be allowed to open and close
the gates; other parks have gates and people honor the closed gates.
The Assistant City Attorney stated staff can look into the addition of a gate.
Mayor Spencer inquired who enforces no trespassing rules.
The Assistant City Attorney responded as in all parks, the rules are posted and it is an
honor system; stated some people obey the rules and some do not.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like a comprehensive report detailing all the
reports of Police activity and the phone calls received by the Police department;
inquired whether the feasibility report will include engineering in addition to the architect
study.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated with regards to
safety, lighting is more of a crime deterrent than a gate.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the lights will be a part of the feasibility study and if
staff is taking the security concerns seriously.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded staff is taking the security concerns
seriously.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the signage can include that people should not ride
bikes down the driveway access points, to which the Recreation and Parks Director
responded staff can put up signage to prohibit bikes, scooters or skateboards and
indicate the pathways are pedestrian only pathways.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated lighting is a great idea to deter crime.
Vice Mayor Vella stated signage that alerts people to the blind driveways is important;
Monte Vista Avenue pedestrian problems are still an issue; requested staff to work with
the neighbors to ensure the lighting provides security without illuminating the properties
or shining a light on residences.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,20,"Mayor Spencer stated the signage should be erected sooner rather than later.
***
(17-591) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda
items: Auctions by the Bay Lease [paragraph no. 17-592], direction tracking [paragraph
no. 17-594 and ferry parking referral [paragraph no. 17-595].
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of considering the remaining items.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Councilmember Matarrese stated there needs to be broader community input; he
agrees with doing the feasibility study; the matter should go to the Recreation and Parks
Commission with the Council comments; the funding stream should be presented to
Council along with the Police data; the Police Department should patrol the area;
signage should be posted now.
Councilmember Oddie stated safety is number one; he concurs with Councilmember
Matarrese; he is eager to see how the feasibility study addresses the sea wall issue;
expressed concerns with the budget; stated that he would like see if Council will
entertain not replacing the fence.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the fence being six feet addresses a safety issue;
expressed concern over the fence going from six feet to four feet if the purpose of the
six foot height is due to a safety issue.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded that the fence is six feet because that is
the standard size of a temporary construction fence.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if a four foot fence is adequate for the purpose
of safety.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated people should
not be in the area at night; people would see the fence and would have to climb up to
get over the fence; Council can decide whether to put the money into a lower, more
decorative fence or use the money elsewhere.
Vice Mayor Vella stated her main concern is the safety of the community; she agrees
with waiting for the fence and utilizing the money elsewhere; urged staff to work with the
homeowners; stated that she is hopeful the feasibility study will return with an actionable
plan that is within the budget.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Vice Mayor Vella about waiting to replace
the fence and using the money elsewhere.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,21,"Mayor Spencer concurred with waiting to replace the fence; stated the signage should
be posted now to prohibit bicycling and skateboarding down the access points; she
would like the report of the Police incidents on the path; people on the path after dusk
should be cited by Police; she would like the information of the prior Council decisions
made regarding the matter; requested the lighting be addressed now rather than later.
(17-592) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease
Agreement with Auctions By The Bay, Inc., a California Corporation, for a Sixty Four
Month Lease for Building 525 Located at 2751 Todd Street at Alameda Point. [In
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is
Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (c) - Existing
Facilities.] Introduced.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Vella moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(17-593) The City Manager stated the Interim Fire Chief has received two proposals for
an update to the Emergency Preparedness Plan, the cost of the one he chose is
$21,000; announced Lime Bikes would have an unlocking at Faction Brewery on
Thursday.
Mayor Spencer noted there would be a CASA meeting on Thursday at 6:30 p.m.
(17-594) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process.
The City Manager stated the item would be updated after every meeting and included
on every agenda to inform the public and Council.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(17-595) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Workshop Involving the City Council,
Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA), San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC), AC Transit and Others Relevant Groups
regarding Recently Implemented Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal Parking Solutions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,22,"(Councilmember Oddie)
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments regarding the referral.
Mayor Spencer inquired when staff plans to report back.
The City Manager responded staff will discuss preliminary data at the WETA meeting;
the matter will go to the Transportation Commission in November and return to Council
in December.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether representatives from other agencies will be present, to
which the City Manager responded WETA and AC Transit will be present.
Mayor Spencer inquired why Councilmember Oddie requested a workshop instead of a
regular agenda item.
Councilmember Oddie responded that he requested a workshop to have a regular
dialogue instead of having speakers only have 3 minutes to speak and Council not
engage with the speakers.
The City Manager stated the workshop would be a special meeting.
Mayor Spencer inquired when the workshop would take place.
Councilmember Oddie responded that he has no preference.
The City Manager stated the workshop is scheduled for the first meeting in December.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would like the workshop to
occur prior to the regular Council meeting, to which Councilmember Oddie responded a
lot of people cannot make a 6:00 p.m. meeting.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the regular City Council meeting could be recessed to
allow the back and forth dialogue, then return to the regular meeting.
The City Clerk expressed concern with having to juggle the meetings with other
agencies involved.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the workshop could occur in between the regular City
Council meeting, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney stated conducting the meeting in said manner would be messy.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the workshop should be a Saturday meeting; he
would also like to address the rest of the north shore development issues with WETA
and BCDC and the water taxis at the same meeting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,23,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if someone from City staff attends WETA board
meetings, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she concurs with the referral brought by
Councilmember Oddie; suggested having the workshop at the Harbor Bay Community
Center.
Vice Mayor Vella stated if the workshop is done at Harbor Bay Community Center she
would also like a workshop held on the West End; suggested if a joint meeting is done,
the workshop should be agendized to inform people what time the item will be
discussed.
Mayor Spencer clarified if there are two different sites there would be two different
agendas; inquired when the workshop will be held.
The City Manager responded after mid-January.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would like the workshop to occur in December
before the matter returns to Council in mid-January.
The City Manager responded that the issue would be trying to get the other agency staff
to attend.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if WETA could poll ferry riders to see when they
would want the meeting to be held.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of directing staff to conduct a workshop and to
expand the workshop, as Councilmember Matarrese suggested, to include more than
just the Harbor Bay ferry.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, with the recognition that the direction
is important but not urgent.
The City Manager inquired whether Council would like to conduct the survey to find the
best time for residents, to which Council concurred.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(17-596) Mayor Spencer nominated Penny Cozad for appointment to the Planning
Board.
(17-597) Vice Mayor Vella stated there is a lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP)
training for the remediation and removal of lead paint on pre-1978 homes Saturday in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,24,"Emeryville; she hopes Alameda can sponsor another training.
(17-598) Councilmember Oddie stated that he enjoyed visiting the Sister City in Korea.
(17-599) Mayor Spencer thanked staff for their efforts in putting the Sister City visit
together.
(17-600) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she volunteered at the Alameda
Food Bank and attended the League of California Cities implicit bias training.
(17-601) Mayor Spencer stated tomorrow is coffee with a Police Officer from 10:00 am
to noon at Starbucks.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, 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
22
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-13,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NEDNESDAY--OCTOBER 13, 2010- 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 5:10 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson -5.
[Note: Vice Mayor deHaan left at 5:40 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
Public Comment
Speakers: David Howard, Alameda; and Caroline Topeé, Alameda.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(10-492) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Titles: City Attorney, City
Clerk and City Manager
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor
Johnson announced that the City Council gave direction to the Mayor to have a special
session under Government Code Section 54957 for performance evaluation of the City
Attorney; due to lack of time, the Council did not get to address the evaluations of the
City Clerk or City Manager and deferred the items.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 13, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - SEPTEMBER 18, 2007-7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:02
p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07-445) Proclamation encouraging participation in Peoples
Republic of China Flag raising ceremony in support of Wuxi, China
Sister City activities.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Dr. Nancy Li,
Friends of Wuxi.
(07-446)
Proclamation declaring the week of October 7 through 13,
2007 as Public Power Week.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Alameda
Power and Telecom (AP&T) General Manager.
Mayor Johnson stated Alameda is contributing to the Trinity River
Restoration Project; requested that the AP&T General Manager
comment on the issue.
The AP&T General Manager stated the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act was established in 1992; Alameda has contributed
millions of dollars; the administration has gone back to review how
well the money was spent; a report would be coming out shortly.
Mayor Johnson stated Alameda should be proud of participating in
the project.
The AP&T General Manager stated Alameda invested money to protect
and rehabilitate the environment and also invested in renewable
resources back in the 1980's when it was not trendy to do so;
Alameda's renewable resources are 85% carbon free; emission rates
are approximately half of Pacific Gas & Electric's (PG&E'S and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,2,"approximately one third of the State average.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve Annual
Report [paragraph no. 07-449], the recommendation to approve the
agreement [paragraph no. 07-450], and Resolution Authorizing the
City Manager [paragraph no 07-453] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember 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. ]
( *07-447) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on September 4, 2007. Approved.
(*07-448) Ratified bills in the amount of $12,315,155.77.
(07-449)
Recommendation to approve Annual Report on the Managed
Investment Portfolio.
Councilmember Gilmore stated PFM Asset Management and Chandler
Asset Management were selected for investment portfolio management
in June 2002; the staff report compares PFM Asset Management and
Chandler Asset Management returns to the Merrill Lynch benchmark ;
inquired whether PFM Asset Management and Chandler Asset Management
were compared to previous asset managers, not just benchmarks.
The City Treasurer responded staff previously managed the
portfolio; stated the City later decided to split the portfolio
between the two asset managersi the two asset managers were given
the mandate to perform relative to a certain benchmark; typically,
management performance is measured versus the benchmark; the City's
investment strategies are constrained; managers do not have the
opportunity to set themselves far apart from others.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she was not aware that the City
changed to private asset management recently; comparing pervious
asset managers would have been a good idea if the City had previous
asset managers.
The City Treasurer stated the Finance Director is in communication
with other cities; the County Treasurer stated that the City is on
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,3,"the right track; peers provide feedback on the City's strategies;
the asset managers have done quite well; he is more comfortable and
confident with the money being in professional hands; the current
environment is volatile.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has a multi-year Contract
[with the asset managers].
The City Treasurer responded in the affirmative; stated the
Contract can be terminated, and the City can replace the asset
managers at any time.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that municipalities are ultra conservative
with investments; the total rate of return is 3.3%; most pension
funds have a 6% to 8% return; inquired what is the main difference
in the spread of the portfolios; further inquired whether the City
has opportunities to earn more money.
The City Treasurer responded an Orange County manager was involved
in some esoteric strategies that ended pushing Orange County into
bankruptcy stated the City's investment parameters are very
restricted; the City can invest in 0-5 year maturity bonds ; many
pension funds invest in long-term bonds, which pay a higher
interest rate; the City tries to provide a benchmark that is
relevant to what can be done; bonds benefit from bad financial news
and gain value when interest rates go down; interest rates go down
when the economy is slow; the City has a high quality portfolio;
what is going on today does not impact the City's portfolio but
might impact finances in other ways.
Councilmember deHaan stated the flattening hurts because the budget
anticipates growth.
The City Treasurer stated the portfolio will generate enough income
only if the budget grows at the rate of inflation; concerns are
with the revenue side; more will be known in the next couple of
months.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( 07-450 ) Recommendation to approve the agreement relating to
Combustion Turbine Project Number One.
Councilmember deHaan inquired where the combustion turbine is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,4,"located, to which the AP&T General Manager responded near Rosenblum
Winery.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether fossil fuel is used.
The AP&T General Manager responded natural gas is used to generate
electricity; two units are located in Alameda, two in Roseville,
and one in Lodi; natural gas is used to generate power; the heat
rate is very high; the units are expensive to run; the primary use
is reliability; Alameda is electrically interconnected to the
regional grid; the combustion turbines (CT's) provide reliability
benefits to the entire East Bayi the CT's ran 1% of all available
hours in 2005 and approximately 4% in 2006; 10% is the maximum
amount of running hours.
Councilmember deHaan stated the grid could be backfilled with
additional power at peak capacity; inquired whether CT1 was
developed as an emergency backup for the former Base.
The AP&T General Manager responded CT1 was built by NCPA; stated
the City had an interconnection agreement with PG&E; PG&E would
charge an extremely high fee for exceeded loads; more than ten
northern California cities built CT's and hydro-electric plants as
ways to mitigate the cost.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City would have an
opportunity to receive a greater share [of ownership]
The AP&T General Manager responded the matter was brought to the
Public Utilities Board (PUB) last night and was approved
unanimously; stated the matter was also brought to the NCPA
Commission's August meeting and was approved unanimously; Alameda
will continue to have the same amount of megawatts; the only
difference is that Alameda will own more megawatts in the Alameda
and Lodi units; Alameda will relinquish rights to the Roseville
units; rules changed in 2005; the Roseville unit went into the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) control area and was
electrically isolated from other owners California grid owners
could not get the value of the unit; the proposed action realigns
ownership percentages.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the turbines fit into future
operation plans; further inquired whether the turbines have a life
expectancy and whether the City would ever have control.
The AP&T General Manager responded the City has joint control with
NCPA; stated some PG&E plants are forty years old; loads continue
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,5,"to grow in California; generation is not keeping up with the pace;
the problem has exasperated in the Bay Area; congestion pricing
will be implemented next year; prices have the potential to go up
in areas where there is not sufficient generation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether usage would be more than 1%
or 4% per year.
The AP&T General Manager responded the maximum usage is 10%; stated
the unit is called a reliability must run (RMR) unit. ; the
California Independent System Operator performs a study of
California and sub-regions from a reliability perspective every
year; the study is done in consultation with stakeholders all over
the State; certain units are designated RMR at the end of the
study.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has no problem with moving
forward on the matter since there is an exchange of ownership; he
has concerns with continuing to run a gas turbine; he hopes that
gas turbines will not be used in Alameda in the future; the
obligation could go on forever with NCPA.
The AP&T General Manager stated that he would include tonight'
comments into the PUB's long-term planning efforts; the matter is a
reliability issue; everyone needs to work together to support the
grid; natural gas is much cleaner; Alameda is the best, or among
the top three, in the State with regard to overall carbon
footprint carbon footprint reduction efforts will continue.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Assembly Bill 32 mandates lowering
the footprint; he would not like to see more than 3% or 4% usage.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the status of the congestion fees.
The AP&T General Manager responded congestion fees are in place
now; stated the matter will become more complicated starting April
1, 2008; one regulatory victory has allowed averaging some of the
pricing points across the Bay Area, but may not be permanent.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember deHaan made a good point
regarding plans for the future; other producers may be forced to
put in less green energy to fulfill the needs of the overall grid
if decisions are made not to use the turbines more than 3% or 4%;
arbitrary limits should not be set.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,6,"Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not want the issue to be
misconstrued as arbitrary; lowering carbon footprints will be
mandated; 10% usage would cause problems with meeting requirements
in the future.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*07-451) Recommendation to approve amendment to Consultant
Agreement with EIP Associates, Inc. to increase the Contract amount
by $57,925 for the completion of an Environmental Impact Report for
Harbor Bay Village 6. Accepted.
( *07-452) Recommendation to appropriate $253,539 in Measure B
Paratransit Funds for Non-Mandated Paratransit Program. Accepted.
(07-453) Resolution No. 14144, ""Authorizing the City Manager to :
1) Enter into an Agreement with the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District for Carl Moyer Program Grants to Replace Two Ferry Vessel
Diesel Engines and One Diesel Generator, and 2) Conduct an Open
Market Purchase of Two Ferry Vessel Diesel Engines and One Diesel
Generator Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter, and
Execute the Purchase Agreements. Adopted.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is supportive of the plans to
replace the diesel engines with a more efficient system; State
legislators approved the formation of the Water Emergency Transit
Authority, which will eventually take over the Alameda and Vallejo
systems inquired whether opportunities would exist to recover
investments.
The Public Works Director responded the current legislation is not
clear on whether Alameda would be compensated for the investment;
stated Alameda is strategically seeking cleanup legislation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the local match is coming
from Measure B funding.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
Measure B funding is earmarked for Alameda ferries; Measure B funds
were not used when the ferry service was established in 1989;
Alameda used funds that could have gone into street and sidewalk
maintenance; the City is seeking reimbursement for said investment.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the funding is earmarked now.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated most
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,7,"funds come from Measure B, which are specifically earmarked for
ferries; funding also comes from Regional Measure 1, which is toll
bridge funds; Transportation Improvement Funds can be used for
other activities; contributions are received from the Port of
Oakland and Harbor Bay Business Park; Tideland funds have been used
in the past.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the project would exhaust the
$535,916 Carl Moyer grant funds and then rely on additional funds
from Regional Measure 1 and Measure B, to which the Public Works
Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are other uses for the funds.
The Public Works Director responded the funds are for ferries.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the existing Measure B funds
are proportional to what other cities are receiving without the
ferry funds.
The Public Works Director responded that Measure B funds are based
on population and street miles; stated that money is allocated for
paratransit and the Broadway/Jackson interchange.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Alameda was in negotiations with
the Water Transit Authority at one time.
The Public Works Director stated Alameda wanted assurance that
ferry riders would be well represented on any regional agency,
current fares would be maintained, and hours would not be reduced
there are concerns on whether Alameda would be represented on the
new transit agency and whether the City would be compensated for
the assets if infrastructure is taken away.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the fare box ratio for the
Harbor Bay ferry, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded
42.3% at the end of last fiscal year.
Councilmember Matarrese stated considering carbon footprint
implications is good even if the City delivers a ferry service to
someone else; he is concerned about labor difficulties with Valley
Power in San Leandro; he has heard that employee benefit packages
are being reduced.
The Public Works Director stated that he does not know if Valley
Power is still on strike; staff is looking for other local vendors.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,8,"Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a report on the outcome of the
discussions with other vendors.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07-454 - ) Resolution No. 14145, ""Appointing Reginald James to the
Social Service Human Relations Board. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(07-455) - Recommendation to accept a Grant from the Assistance to
the Firefighters Grant Program for $275,391 to develop and
administer a Technical Rescue Program and appropriate $68,848
to meet the Grant applicant 20% share requirement.
The Interim Fire Chief provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what is the funding source for the
$68,848, to which the City Manager responded the General Fund
reserve.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether additional funding would be
available in future years for on-going training, to which the
Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Interim Fire Chief for doing an
outstanding job; presented the Interim Fire Chief with a City flag
and mug.
(07-456 - ) Public Hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment and
Rezoning of an existing park/open space area of approximately 10. 77
acres. The site is located north of Singleton and Mosley Avenues
at 201 Mosley Avenue within the R-4-G, Neighborhood Residential
( Special Government) Zoning District;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,9,"(07-456A) Resolution No. 14146, ""Approving General Plan Amendment
(GPA07-0003 to Amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to Change
the Designation of Approximately 10.77 Acres Located North of
Singleton and Mosley Avenues at 201 Mosley Avenue, from Medium
Density Residential to Parks and Public Open Space. Adopted; and
(07-456B) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning
Approximately 10.77 Acres Located North of Singleton and Mosley
Avenues at 201 Mosley Avenue, from R-4-G, Neighborhood Residential
(Special Government) to Open Space Zoning Designation. Introduced.
The Planner III gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public hearing.
Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed housing.
There being no further speakers, Major Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that rezoning is a great move to
protect the park; he hopes that the same can be done to protect
open space areas at the former Base.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution and
introduction of ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that the site has
been a park for a long time; the park is one of the more recently
renovated parks in Alameda and will be a major asset; the site has
two soccer fields, a baseball field, and basketball courts.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(07-457) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed mold.
(07-458) Stevon Schwartz, Alameda, suggested making the nine-hole
golf course an eighteen-hole putting course.
Mayor Johnson suggested that Mr. Schwartz attend the Golf
Commission meeting tomorrow night.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,10,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07-459) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the League of
California Cities Annual Conference from September 5 through
September 8; the League failed to work with a bi-partisan State
Legislator to get Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 8, which
relates to eminent domain reform, on the ballot; a Howard Jarvis
group will try to place a competing measure on the ballot to
restrict local control on eminent domain; listed the League elected
officers; further stated the Assembly voted to support the
following resolutions 1) renewal of the League's grass routes
network, 2) infrastructure for the aging population, 3) a 300-foot
distance requirement between new residential care facilities, and
4) consolidation of the Office of Emergency Services and Homeland
Security in order to reduce redundancies in the roles of the two
offices.
(07-460) Councilmember deHaan stated that he attended the League of
California Cities Conference; Attorney General Jerry Brown was very
candid regarding Assembly Bill 32, which would require reducing
emissions to 1990 carbon footprint levels; legislation will not be
in place until 2012 and will need to be met by 2020; the Attorney
General was wearing a different hat when building out 10,000
residential units in Oakland and is now in the position to sue
cities that are not fulfilling the commitment.
(07-461) Councilmember deHaan stated that he took a tour of
McClellan Air Force Base on Saturday; the Base had a successful
transition because of adaptive reuse with high concentration of
uses from the federal, State and county governments; he was
delighted to see the Air Museum; seven acres were purchased for
$450,000 after site control was gained.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Air Museum is a beautiful building
and is a good example of a successful museum; not all museums are
successful; requested that staff provide Alameda Museum with
information on the Air Museum's budget, revenue sources, and
business plans.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has the contact information;
the real lesson is that there is a common thread with successful
conversions; the federal government was not afraid to come in and
help; noted that he also had the opportunity to visit the State
Senator's office also.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the money was raised to purchase the
land.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,11,"Counci lmember deHaan responded $1 million was donated; stated a
developer brought in a funding stream that provided loan
capabilities of up to $5 million.
Mayor Johnson stated Alameda museums should learn from the example
[Air Museum]. .
(07-462) Councilmember deHaan stated the City has its first green
parking lot at Blanding Avenue and Oak Street.
(07-463) Mayor Johnson requested an update on the status of the
Bay Trail plans.
(07-464) Mayor Johnson stated that she met with the City of
Vallejo and Water Transit Authority (WTA) representatives this
morning; Vallejo has the other ferry system most affected by recent
legislation; Alameda has always been interested in protecting
service and fares and needs to have a guaranteed level of service
and representation if the system merges regionally; Vallejo has
indicated that there is no intent to purchase the assets; there are
a lot of unanswered questions right now.
Councilmember deHaan stated the city needs to see that the WTA has
the wherewithal to be able to operate a ferry service; Alameda has
been very successful.
Mayor Johnson stated that the regional system participation would
not be voluntary.
Councilmember Matarrese requested an official staff report
summarizing the details of this morning's meeting; further
requested that proceedings be resurrected from previous Council
meetings when the WTA made a presentation; stated information is
needed from State representatives. the public needs to know what
has transpired and what the future may bring; he would like to have
the matter placed on the next agenda for discussion.
Mayor Johnson stated everything is moving quickly; people need to
be kept informed.
(07-465) Mayor Johnson stated that she attended a joint
presentation with the Public Works Department and Supervisor Lai-
Bitker regarding the Broadway/Jackson interchange and Tube
lighting; the Bay Farm Island Bridge is a CalTrans bridge; there
was discussion about having CalTrans use its resources to bring the
bridge to lifeline level rather than depleting County resources to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,12,"retrofit the Fruitvale Bridge. she and Supervisor Lai-Bitker will
send a letter to CalTrans requesting that the matter be included in
long-range plans.
(07-466) Mayor Johnson stated that she and the City Manager met
with Navy representatives this morning she is amazed at the Navy's
efforts and resources regarding sustainability research, power, and
green issues; the Navy conducts a quarterly Partners Sustainability
Meeting; she requested information on said meeting; Alameda can
learn a lot from the Navy's research; the Navy is very impressed
with Alameda's electric cars.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 18, 2007-6:30 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(07-442) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54953.9) i Name of Case: Harbor Bay Isle Associates V. City of
Alameda.
(07-443 ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations
:
All City Bargaining Units.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular Council meeting
at 7:40 p.m. and reconvened the Closed Session at 9:35 p.m.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Legal, Council gave
direction regarding settlement parameters; regarding Labor, the
matter was not heard.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 18, 2007- - -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:47 p.m.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
(07-033 CIC) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking
Structure Project.
The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T)
funding would be available for setting up electric car charging
stations.
The Redevelopment Manager responded that she would check with AP&T.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired when the historic theater blade
sign would be lit.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the target date is December 1;
stated the exact date would be provided.
Chair Johnson stated the blade sign lighting could be coordinated
with the holiday tree lighting; the blade sign lighting should take
place when the front of the theater looks good.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissione: Gilmore seconded the motion, which
carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note:
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore abstained from voting on the
minutes.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,15,"[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
(
*07-444 CC/*07-034 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council
and Community Improvement Commission meeting held on August 7,
2007. Approved.
[Note: Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore abstained from voting on
the minutes. ]
(*07-035 CIC) Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with
Komorous-Towey - Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount
by $15,000 to provide additional Construction Administration
Services for the Civic Center Parking Garage. Accepted.
(*07-036 CIC) Recommendation to increase maximum loan amounts for
City of Alameda Down Payment Program. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-01-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JANUARY - 7, 2014- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(14-001) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Hearing on Community Facilities District
13-2 [paragraph no. 14-008 would be continued to February 4, 2014.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(14-002) Proclamation Declaring January 7, 2014 as Girish Balachandran Day.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Mr. Balachandran.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(14-003) Irma Garcia, Alameda; Brian Beveridge, West Oakland Environmental
Indicators Project (WOEIP); Margaret Gordon, WOEIP; Nina Alvezs Ariana Winslow,
Alameda; Anselmo Cornelius, Alamedan's for a Safe Community; expressed concern
over the examination of customs containers at BOBAC Company in Alameda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*14-004) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meeting Held on December
3,2013. Approved.
(*14-005) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,741,231.30.
(*14-006) Recommendation to Approve a Contract in the Amount of $81,071 to Willdan
Financial Services to Update the City's Development Impact Fees. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 7, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-01-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-01-07,2,"(14-007) Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Housing and Community
Development Needs Statement for the Community Development Block (CDBG) Grant
Annual Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15.
The Housing Program Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City received $1 million last year, to
which the Housing Program Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the funds have been spent, to which the
Housing Program Manager responded the money is still being spent; stated the
program is in the second quarter.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding funding additional items,
the Housing Program Manager stated public services have a funding cap, which cannot
be exceeded; unfunded items fall under public services.
Councilmember Tam stated the City's allocation was cut by about 17% last year and an
additional 5% is being cut this year; inquired whether the cuts total approximately 22%,
to which the Housing Program Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a 5% cut is
expected this year.
Councilmember Tam stated the only programs being funded are safety net services;
inquired whether the City has noticed the impact of not having funding for other
programs.
The Housing Program Manager responded in the affirmative; noted job training is being
funded using economic development category funds.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City could use additional funding for housing;
however, he appreciates how funds are being spent on housing.
Councilmember Chen stated that he likes the homeless prevention services; expressed
his appreciation to staff and the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB).
Stated times are tough; outlined funding cuts; stated the cuts have resulted in an
increase in Police psychiatric hold calls; the City is doing wonderful things with limited
resources and provided an example: Doug Biggs, SSHRB.
Stated Echo Housing provides counseling for tenants, education for tenants and
landlords and reconciliation services; the importance of housing counseling services
should be considered: Marjorie Rocha, Echo Housing.
Stated the shelter would not be open without receiving CDBG funding; provided an
example of funding being leveraged: Liz Varela, Building Futures with Women and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 7, 2013",CityCouncil/2014-01-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-01-07,3,"Children.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Echo Housing was funded last year and would
probably be funded again.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Community Development Needs
Statement for the CDBG Grant Annual Plan for FY 2014-15.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(14-008) Summary: Consider forming City of Alameda Community Facilities District
(CFD) No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Infrastructure) and, if no majority protest, (a)
authorize the levy of a special tax within the District and the issuance of bonded
indebtedness, (b) call for a special election within the District to establish an
appropriations limit, (c) declare the results of the election and, if two thirds (2/3) or more
of the votes cast are in favor of the District, (1) direct a notice of special tax lien be
recorded and (2) introduce an ordinance levying special taxes within the District.
Public Hearing to Consider Formation of City of Alameda Community Facilities District
No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements);
(14-008 A) Resolution No. 14880, ""Resolution of Formation of the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements)
Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax within the District, Preliminarily Establishing an
Appropriations Limit for the District, and Submitting Levy of the Special Tax and the
Establishment of the Appropriations Limit to the Qualified Electors of the District.'
Adopted;
(14-008 B) Resolution No. 14881, ""Determining the Necessity to Incur Bonded
Indebtedness within the City of Alameda Community Facilities District No. 13-1
(Alameda Landing Public Improvements) and Submitting Proposition to the Qualified
Electors of the District."" Adopted;
(14-008 C) Resolution No. 14882, ""Calling Special Election within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements). ""
Adopted;
(14-008 D) Conduct Special Election;
(14-008 E) Resolution No. 14883, ""Declaring Results of Special Election and Directing
Recording of Notice of Special Tax Lien Alameda Landing Public Improvements.""
Adopted; and
(14-008 E) Introduction of Ordinance Levying Special Taxes Within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements).
Introduced.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 7, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-01-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-01-07,4,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the notice indicates appeals can be filed disputing the
amount of tax; inquired who would accept the appeals.
The Community Development Director responded the Finance Director.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the special tax would be based on square
footage, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether provision to prepay the full amount would
allow the developer to pay the assessment.
The Community Development Director responded the provision would allow the
homeowner to prepay the full amount in order to lower monthly payments.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding Proposition 218, Outside
Counsel Paul Thimmig stated the City's Special Tax Financing Improvement Code was
put in place years ago; the law follows Proposition 218 and requires a 2/3 vote.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether property buyers would receive a notice
regarding assessment in plain English.
Mr. Thimmig responded the notice would be recorded on the property; stated the City's
special tax consultant would draft a disclosure statement in plain English; discussed the
theory behind Mello Roos.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement
Commission (SACIC) is listed as a property owner; inquired whether the City would
have to pay the assessment.
Mr. Thimmig responded in the negative; stated there is no tax on government property;
there will not be a tax until the property becomes public.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the assessment starting in
April, Mr. Thimmig stated the tax would start next year; however, the bond amount could
be lowered if the funds collected are used to pay for improvements.
Councilmember Tam stated a similar mechanism would be used at Alameda Point;
inquired whether the City should put the mechanism in place now or wait to identify a
development partner.
Mr. Thimmig responded that he has never seen the mechanism put in place prior to
having a partner; noted developers have different viewpoints on Mello Roos; stated
some developers finance the improvements themselves; that he would recommend that
the City wait until a partner is in place.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 7, 2013",CityCouncil/2014-01-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-01-07,5,"The City Attorney noted financing options for Alameda Point would be discussed at an
upcoming meeting and the matter could be discussed in detail at said time.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the staff recommendation; stated CFDs
are useful to keep historic Alameda from paying for Alameda Point; Alameda Point has
to pay for itself.
Mayor Gilmore called for written protests.
There being no written protest, Mayor Gilmore opened the public hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Gilmore closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions forming CFD 13-1, the
resolution determining the necessity to incur bonded indebtedness, and the resolution
calling the election.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
The City Clerk opened the ballots and announced that all 24 votes are in favor.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution declaring the results of the
special election and directing recording of special tax lien.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(14-009) Summary: Consider forming City of Alameda Community Facilities District
(CFD) No. 13-2 (Alameda Landing Municipal Services District) and, if no majority
protest, (a) authorize the levy of a special tax within the District and the issuance of
bonded indebtedness, (b) call for a special election within the District to establish an
appropriations limit, (c) declare the results of the election and, if two thirds (2/3) or more
of the votes cast are in favor of the District, (1) direct a notice of special tax lien be
recorded and (2) introduce an ordinance levying special taxes within the District.
Public Hearing to Consider Formation of City of Alameda Community Facilities District
No. 13-2 (Alameda Landing Municipal Services District);
(14-009 A) Adoption of Resolution of Formation of the City of Alameda Community
Facilities District No. 13-2 (Alameda Landing Municipal Services District) Authorizing the
Levy of a Special Tax within the District, Preliminarily Establishing an Appropriations
Limit for the District, and Submitting Levy of the Special Tax and the Establishment of
the Appropriations Limit to the Qualified Electors of the District;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 7, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-01-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-01-07,6,"(14-009 B) Adoption of Resolution Calling Special Election within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 13-2 (Alameda Landing Municipal Services District);
(14-009 C) Conduct Special Election;
(14-009 D) Adoption of Resolution Declaring Results of Special Election and Directing
Recording of Notice of Special Tax Lien Alameda Landing Municipal Services District;
and
(14-009 E) Introduction of Ordinance Levying Special Taxes within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 13-2 (Alameda Landing Municipal Services District).
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore opened the Public Hearing and continued the matter to February 4,
2014.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(14-010) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners (HABOC).
Mayor Gilmore nominated John McCahan for appointment to the HABOC.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:10 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
6
January 7, 2013",CityCouncil/2014-01-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 6, 2007- - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:44 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:44 p.m. to hold the Alameda
Public Improvement Corporation meeting and reconvened the Regular
City Council meeting at 7:46 p.m.
***
AGENDA CHANGES
(07-046) Mayor Johnson announced that the consideration of Appeal
[paragraph no. 07-058] would be continued to the March 6, 2007 City
Council meeting at the request of the Appellant.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07-047) Proclamation declaring the period of January 30, 2007 to
April 4, 2007 as A Season for Nonviolence. Continued to February
20, 2007.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Recommendation to adopt
Specifications [paragraph no. 07-050], Introduction of Ordinance
[paragraph no. 07-055], and Final Passage of Ordinances [paragraph
no. 07-056] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember 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. ]
( *07-048) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on January 16, 2007. Approved.
(*07-049) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,622,716.97
(07-0050) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for three marked police vehicles.
The Police Chief gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,2,"Councilmember Matarrese stated he requested that the item be pulled
because the City has a vehicle selection policy that starts with
electric vehicles and continues with availability and practicality
of vehicle use; the staff report notes that an alternative fuel
vehicle does not meet the Police Department's needs; compressed
natural gas was the alternative fuel for a Crown Victoria, but the
alternative fuel cars are no longer in production.
The Police Chief stated compressed natural gas is not available as
a standard item with Ford Motor Company or any other company making
a police vehicle; there are design issues in terms of idling for
long periods of time and limited trunk space; ample trunk space is
needed for equipment.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that future staff reports include
steps taken to evaluate that the recommended vehicle is the most
practical solution.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the three vehicles are the only
vehicles being replaced this year, to which the Police Chief
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the three vehicles reached the
mileage point for replacement.
The Police Chief responded the three vehicles are in excess of
95,000 miles.
The City Manager stated three police motorcycles would be replaced
at a later date.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the three motorcycles
would be evaluated the same way in terms fuel efficiency.
The Police Chief responded the motorcycles have the same issues as
the police vehicles.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Crown Victoria is still
being produced.
The Police Chief responded that Ford Motor Company had reported
that 2009 would be the last year that the Crown Victoria would be
produced; stated Ford Motor Company reconsidered the matter and
plans to continue production.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Ford Motor Company was
looking at alternative fuel sources; stated taxicabs using natural
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,3,"gas have factory-type installations.
The Police Chief responded technology will continue to advance in
the next few years; stated alternative fuel sources would be
monitored at trade shows.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the meter enforcement vehicles are
gas or electric, to which the Police Chief responded electric.
Councilmember Matarrese stated more creativity is needed as the
City replaces fleet vehicles; the Crown Victoria was the standard
at a time when gas was cheap police departments around the world
use smaller, more Fuel-efficient cars.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation with the
notation that staff evaluated potential alternative fuel source
vehicles.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(
*07-051) Recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to enter into
a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Oakland to participate
in the California Task Force #4 Urban Search and Rescue Team.
Accepted.
(*07-052) Resolution No. 14065, ""Appointing an Engineer and an
Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. ""
Adopted.
( *07-053) Resolution No. 14066, ""Appointing an Engineer and an
Attorney for Maintenance Assessment District 01-1 (Marina Cove) . ""
Adopted.
(*07-054) Resolution No. 14067, ""Approving Revised Memorandum of
Understanding Between the Alameda City Employees Association and
the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing July 1, 2006 and
Ending June 30, 2009. "" Adopted.
(
07-055) Introduction of Ordinance to Repeal the Existing Time
Limit for Incurring Debt in the Business and Waterfront Improvement
Project. Introduced.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
David Kirwin, Alameda, urged Council to give the community a choice
on whether or not to use bonds.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,4,"explanation on the advantages and disadvantages.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded forty
years is the typical lifespan for a redevelopment agency stated a
number of redevelopment project areas were adopted prior to 1994;
local jurisdictions adopted time limits for issuing debt; bonds
were issued up to a certain time, after which the ability to issue
debt went away because that is what the City preferred.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how 2011 was established.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded she did
not know; stated the project area was pre-1994; the West End
Community Improvement Project (WECIP) does not have the same
requirements; the Alameda Business Improvement Area has the ability
to issue debt through the life of the project area; efforts are
being made to bring BWIP into conformity with the other two project
areas.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why the issue was not addressed in
2003.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded staff
was dealing with the [WECIP] project area where time limits were
expiring; stated 2011 seemed far away; there was time to address
the BWIP time limits.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,5,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether consideration was given to
impacts on other taxing entities; further inquired whether the
School District would be impacted.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded all
entities have pass-through agreements; stated AB 1290 sets pass-
throughs statutorily; the School District receives some portion of
the proceeds ; the City provided assistance with the Ruby Bridges
Elementary School and joint use park; the School District benefits.
Councilmember deHaan stated money would not be going to other
taxing entities after 35 years; some money goes to the County.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated every
taxing entity reaps the benefits of increased property values when
the project area goes away.
Councilmember deHaan stated the clock would start over again by
merging with another development area.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated she was not
sure whether the clock would start over by merging with another
project.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the BWIP final date is
2025.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded she is
not sure whether the final date extends another twenty years passed
2011.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the ability to pay back
bonds out of proceeds would be compromised by being close to the
end of the redevelopment area time limit.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
negative stated outstanding debt can be serviced with the
collection of sufficient increments at the end of the project time
limit.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why timing is not being set;
stated the City would have ten years to pay the bond back if the
bond was issued on the last day.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
limits are set automatically by statue stated tax increments can
be collected for another ten years after the project area expires.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,6,"Counci lmember Matarrese inquired whether ten years is sufficient,
to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether tax increment can be collected after
the redevelopment period ends.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded only the
amount of any outstanding debt owed.
Mayor Johnson stated the tax increment is a benefit to the City;
the City keeps the money instead of sending the money to the State
or other jurisdictions.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a statutory control
prevents the City from over bonding.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the City
would not be able to issue a bond without the capacity to repay the
bond within the legal time limits.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether bond issuance could go to the
ballot.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
proposed ordinance does not have an impact on Council's decision to
put bonds before the people for a vote.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(
07-056) Ordinance No. 2961, ""Reclassifying and Rezoning Property
Located Adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and Grand Street from M-2,
General Industrial (Manufacturing District to MX, Mixed Use
Planned Development District (MX) "" Finally passed; and
(07-056A) Ordinance No. 2962, ""Approving Master Plan MP05-01 - for a
Mixed Use Development Including Single-Family Residential,
Recreational Marina, Maritime Commercial, and Open Space Uses,
Located Within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 8.36 Acres
of Land and Water at the Intersection of Grand Street and the
Oakland Estuary. Finally passed.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she would abstain from voting on the
matter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,7,"Counci lmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinances.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Vice Mayor Tam - 1.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07-057) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs
for Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief Power
Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated she would like to know more about the East Bay
Community Mediation (EBCM) services.
The Community Development Program Manager stated training services
are provided; staffing is on a volunteer basis; volunteers are
certified through a 40-hour training program.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether volunteers are required to provide
mediation services.
The Community Development Program Manager responded in the
negative; stated experience has shown that volunteers have a
personal commitment to provide mediation services.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether other cities use EBCM.
The Community Development Program Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated funding would be one-time.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Teen Center would qualify for
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
The Community Development Program Manager responded the West End
Teen Center is funded through the Boys and Girls Club.
Mayor Johnson stated she was referencing the Teen Club in the Elk's
Lodge basement; the Teen Center needs improvement.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated funds are
for public services, not physical improvements; staff can research
the matter and bring it back to Council in April.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether tonight's discussion was for the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,8,"balance of Fiscal Year 2006-2007.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded
tonight's hearing was for Fiscal Year 2007-2008.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council is being requested to
approve funding for the listed public services, to which the Base
Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated she would like to do something for the Teen
Center.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated information
would be provided to Council in April.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $15,000 could be better spent
on existing public services.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated some other
public services were augmented, such as BANANAS, Inc. and the Red
Cross.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager continued with the
Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Cyndy Wasko, Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB)
President, commented on the SSHRB's recommended service needs and
funding allocation.
Priscilla Kindley, Alameda, spoke about the difficulty that low-
income families face in securing affordable housing in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson suggested that Ms. Kindley follow up with the
Assistant City Manager.
Noel W. Folsom, Homeless Network Chair, urged Council to follow the
SSHRB's recommendations.
The Assistant City Manager stated the federal government has cut
back on Section 8 housing; Alameda has fewer vouchers than the
demand.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
(07-058) Consideration of an Appeal of the Transportation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,9,"Commission's decision to install new bus stops on Otis Drive at
Pond Isle, and authorization to install new bus stops at Otis Drive
and Sandcreek Way, and Otis Drive and Willow Street. Continued to
March 6, 2007.
(07-059 - ) Recommendation to accept comprehensive Sidewalk Repair
Program and adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for
Bids for the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 repair of Portland Cement
Concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway and minor street
patching, No. P. W. 08-06-18.
The Associate Civil Engineer provided a Power Point Presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired who filled in the areas around the Shoreline
Drive trees with concrete, to which the Associate Civil Engineer
responded that he was not sure.
Mayor Johnson suggested looking into an ordinance that would
prevent homeowners from filling in the area around trees.
The Associate Civil Engineer stated staff would look into the
matter.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether staff is proactively encouraging
homeowners to use drought tolerant plants; further inquired whether
drought tolerate trees are being considered for the Master Tree
Plan.
The Associate Civil Engineer responded information could be
provided to homeowners through the City's website or leaflets.
Vice Mayor Tam stated an ordinance would be better.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Bayport planting strips are very
small; trees are very aggressive; sidewalks are being replaced
every five to ten years; inquired whether repair would be less
often if the staff recommendations are followed.
The Associate Civil Engineer responded repair should be less often;
stated branch trimming has not been done in the last few years but
would be incorporated into the Master Tree Plan.
Councilmember deHaan stated many deteriorated sidewalks are not the
result of tree issues; inquired whether the matter has been
reviewed.
The Associate Civil Engineer responded concrete will deteriorate in
eighty years; stated the homeowner is responsible for repairing the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,10,"sidewalk if the City is not responsible for the damage; letters are
sent to homeowners requesting that the sidewalk be repaired.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City could provide homeowners
with the name of a sidewalk repair contractor.
The Associate Civil Engineer responded homeowners are provided with
the name of the City's Contractor in order to get a better rate.
The Public Works Director stated homeowners are provided with the
name of the City's Contractor; the cost would be twice as much as
the bid price if the City did the work through the Contractor ;
mobilization and demobilization costs are higher for smaller areas.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether homeowners could get a better price
by getting a bid through the City's Contractor, to which the Public
Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the permit fee could be
waived by using the City's Contractori stated the permit fee is $80
to $90.
The Public Works Director responded permit fees are waived for the
first 25 linear feet of sidewalk replacement.
Mayor Johnson suggested putting the City's sidewalk repair
Contractor contact information on the City's website.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked staff for a very detailed report;
inquired whether residents are provided with care and feeding
information when trees are planted; stated most homeowners do not
know the consequences of improper watering.
The Public Works Director stated young trees need deep watering in
the first three to five years.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the first step is educating the
public.
The Public Works Director stated a PVC sleeve would be used with
all new sidewalk replacements.
Mayor Johnson stated money would be saved in the long run if proper
steps are taken; money is saved when tree pruning is eliminated,
but costs are incurred when sidewalk, streets, and gutters are
damaged.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,11,"Proponents ( In favor of staff recommendation) : Dave Needle,
Fernside Homeowners Association; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Ron Bishop,
Oakland (submitted handout) ; Rob Ratto, PSBA; Michael J. Torrey,
Alameda; Christopher Buckley, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson thanked Mr. Buckley for his personal interest in City
trees.
Councilmember Matarrese applauded staff for the presentation;
stated he likes the approach given to signature trees; inquired
whether the scope would be for City trees in general, not just
street trees.
The City Engineer responded the plan is to look at trees that fit
within the neighborhood; stated the focus is on the landscape
strip.
Councilmember Matarrese stated people are excited about sidewalk
repair; the staff recommendation is solid; he likes the idea of
updating the Master Tree Plan; stated a different tree was planted
on Gibbons Drive.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether attention would be given to planting
the same type tree on major streets; stated the replanted Gibbons
Drive tree is different.
The City Engineer responded a Red Oak was planted on Gibbons Drive
stated Liquid Ambers require a wider base; a larger base would
require encroaching on private property; the Red Oak is similar to
Liquid Ambers.
Mayor Johnson stated major street trees should be consistent; Palm
Streets should be replanted on Eighth Street and Burbank Avenue.
suggested looking at the Eucalyptus tree on Encinal Avenue between
Fernside Boulevard and High Street stated houses would be damaged
if the tree fell; requested that staff take a look at the tree to
ensure sturdiness.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Climate Protection Campaign Task
Force should review the Master Tree Plan; biomass should be
increased; the cost is worth the price; payback is not only in
looks but also in sequestering carbon dioxide.
Counci lmember deHaan stated Sycamore Trees do not displace
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,12,"concrete; many trees are missing throughout the City; infill needs
to be aggressive.
Mayor Johnson stated cement needs to be removed from the areas
around the Shoreline Drive trees; an ordinance might be necessary
to deal with the problem.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of staff recommendation.
Mayor Johnson stated the motion should include that the Master Tree
Plan come back to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese amended his motion to include that the
Master Tree Plan return to Council.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(07-060) Eugenie Young, Alameda, submitted handout ; discussed
bringing a cruise port to Alameda Point.
(07-061) Art Javier, Alameda, expressed his support for a cruise
port at Alameda Point.
Mayor Johnson stated the Development Services Department is looking
into the matter.
(07-062) Deborah James, Alameda, stated existing bus routes need
to be serviced; AC Transit does not respond to complaints.
Mayor Johnson stated AC Transit representatives attend some of the
Transportation Commission meetings.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Elsa Ortiz is the City's AC Transit
representative suggested that Ms. James contact Ms. Ortiz.
Ms. James noted Ruth Herch passed away in September; Ms. Herch
helped the Harbor Island Apartment residents through difficult
times.
(07-063) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed cruise ships.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(
07-064) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the
League of California Cities East Bay Division representative.
Mayor Johnson stated Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember deHaan
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,13,"expressed interest in serving as the League's representative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated currently Vice Mayor Tam is serving a
Presidential appointment on a sub-committee; it would most
efficient if she was also the City's representative to the
California League of Cities.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of Vice Mayor Tam serving as
the League's representative.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember deHaan could serve as the
alternate.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of Councilmember deHaan
serving as the League's alternate.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson stated that the job is huge; suggested that Vice
Mayor Tam and Councilmember deHaan work together to cover more
ground.
Vice Mayor Tam stated she is in support of dividing the
responsibilities for representing the City; Councilmember deHaan
could attend the East Bay Division meetings; she will try to work
on regional issues.
(
07-065) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Housing Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Walter Schlueter for appointment to the
Housing Commission.
(07-066) Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda's deep water port is
an asset; the matter was previously reviewed and there was no
interest in cruise ships coming to the former Naval Air Station; he
continues to endorse reviewing cruise ship port options at Alameda
Point ; Pier 3 should be considered.
(07-067) Councilmember deHaan requested that the City Manager
share thoughts expressed at the Joint City Council and Golf
Commission meeting.
The City Manager stated an operations review would be conducted
Request for Proposals (RFP) will be initiated similar to the RFP
conducted for the telecom division of Alameda Power and Telecom
(AP&T) .
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,14,"(07-068) Councilmember deHaan stated Council discussed setting
aside $20,000 to $30,000 to review a salt water pump station;
Alameda's housing stock would be vulnerable in an earthquake;
a
feasibility study should be conducted.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City of Berkeley conducted a
feasibility study; stated the Fire Department has not provided
Council with sufficient information; Alameda could use the City of
Berkeley's information if a study was conducted; she would like the
Fire Department to provide information on whether or not the system
is feasible.
Councilmember deHaan stated the information could be weaved into
the Disaster Plan.
The City Manager stated staff is in the process of developing the
Disaster Mitigation Plan; staff will provide a report on what other
cities are doing.
Mayor Johnson stated San Francisco is charged with developing an
Emergency Response Plan; requested that staff investigate whether
Alameda has a representative attending the meetings.
(07-069) Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda was established as an
electric City in the late 1990's; requested the program be reviewed
and reinstated.
(07-070) Mayor Johnson stated she attended the Annual Mayor's
Conference in Washington, D.C. during the week of January 23;
Community Development Block Grant/Section 8 cuts are always a
threat but are usually reinstated; interest in alternative power
sources, greenhouse gases, and global warming has increased; the
Mayor's Conference does a lot to advocate for cities.
ADJOURNMENT
(07-071) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the meeting at 10:07 p.m. in a moment of silence for Ruth Herch.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 6, 2007- 7-00 - p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(07-045 ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association and Police Association Non-
Sworn.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from
its Labor Negotiators; no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-14,1,"SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -APRIL 14, 2009- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : louncilmembers/Board
Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson -
5.
[Note : Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese was
present via teleconference from Hilton Cologne, Marzellenstrasse
13-17, Cologne DE]
Absent
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(09-144 CC/09-14 CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation; Name of Case: Altes V. City of Alameda and Community
Improvement Commission.
(09-145 CC/ARRA/09-15 CIC) Conference with Real Property
Negotiators; Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating parties City
Council, ARRA, CIC and SunCal; Under negotiations : Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding
Existing Litigation, the Council/Commissior approved a settlement
agreement; the settlement of $540,000 is full settlement of all
matters in dispute, inclusive of attorney's fees and costs; a copy
of the settlement agreement is available for review in the City
Clerk's
office.
regarding
Real
Property,
the
Council/Board/Commission received a briefing from its Real Property
Negotiator and provided direction for negotiating parameters.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 14, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-03-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY--MARCH - 4, 2015- -6:00 P.M.
(15-172) A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to attend an Open House
where Alameda Point Partners, the developer for Site A, discussed ideas and drawings.
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 4, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-03-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JANUARY 3, 2006- - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-001) - Proclamation declaring January as Volunteer Blood Donor
Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Ruby Liu,
Account Manager, American Red Cross Blood Services.
Ms. Liu thanked the Council for the proclamation and support;
stated 12 drives were held in Alameda in 2005; 600 units of blood
were collected.
Michael J. Torrey, Alameda, thanked the Council for issuing the
proclamation; stated that he is still advocating for a voluntary
Blood Donor Year.
(06-002) Library project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief update.
louncilmember deHaan inquired whether the furniture, fixtures and
equipment (FF&E) were selected and ordered.
The Project Manager responded that some of the $3.5 million FF&E
budget item is in the base Contract; the procurement process should
start in February; bids are due back in April the staff furniture
will be available at the beginning of September and the public area
furniture will be available at the end of September; the interior
designer recommended delaying the procurement process because
selected furniture might no longer be available if ordered too
early; the IT procurement process will go out after the furniture
procurement.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,2,"CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the bills for ratification [paragraph
no. 06-004], the recommendation to accept the work of Golden Bay
Construction [paragraph no. 06-005], and the recommendation to
approve an increase for the Construction Contract with Ghilotti
Brothers, inc. [paragraph no. 06-006 were removed from
the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *06-003) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on December 20, 2005. Approved.
(06-004) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,904,675.88.
Mayor Johnson stated that she was impressed with the progress staff
has made in purchasing within Alameda; requested staff to check on
the possibility of purchasing tires in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why there are a number of negative
amounts on the last page of the register.
The Finance Director responded the negative amounts indicate that a
credit memo was issued or an offset occurred to a payment.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why Dang & Trachuk had a $16,000
negative on the check register.
The City Attorney responded the negative $16,000 was for the
Alameda Belt Line litigation.
Councilmember deHaan stated that departments are paying attention
to where money is being spent; reporting has shown a marked
improvement.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of ratifying the bills in the
amount of $2,904,675.88.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,3,"(06-005) Recommendation to accept the work of Golden Bay
Construction, Inc. for the Webster Street Renaissance Project, No.
P.W. 07-02-07.
Councilmember deHaan requested the item be addressed together with
the recommendation to approve an increase for the Construction
Contract with Ghilotti Brothers [paragraph no. 06-006].
Councilmember deHaan stated the Webster Street Renaissance Project
involved five blocks; the project was very successful; the vast
majority of Webster Street has improved; the Park Street
Streetscape Project involves two blocks; a lot of the work still
needs to be done; inquired how much funding was provided by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
The Public Works Director responded each project received
approximately $1 million.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the remainder of the funding came
from various other sources such as redevelopment and Alameda Power
and Telecom (AP&T)
The Public Works Director stated that AP&T paid for all of the Park
Street joint trenching for electrical and cable wiring some
Measure B money covered the Webster Street sidewalk repair.
Councilmember deHaan stated the money was well spent; he has
concerns about the next phase; inquired whether more dollars were
in the cue now.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. stated a
$700,000 federal grant would go to the Park Street Streetscape
Project specifically; he is working with the Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) and Development Services Department to determine
how the money will be spent; PSBA would like the money to go toward
more street trees and lights.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the MTC funding needs to go
toward transportation-oriented activities.
The Public Works Director responded that the funding is flexible.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether matching funds need to be
obtained for the federal grant, to which the Public Works Director
responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the federal grant would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,4,"finish the Park Street project.
The Public Works Director responded that the grant should finish
the segment from Webb Avenue to Lincoln Avenue; joint trenching has
been done. continuing down to least Alameda Avenue would be ideal.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the projected budget for
continuing the work.
The Public Works Director responded that the project is going
through the Community Improvement Project process; the limits of
the $700,000 grant would be reviewed along with additional
contributions from City funds.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the same type of trenching would be
needed for the block south of Central Avenue, to which the Public
Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the lights could be installed
without trenching, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the negative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Webster Street project involved
five blocks for a cost of approximately $2 million; the Park Street
project involved two blocks for about the same amount of money;
inquired how the Park Street project was different.
The Public Works Director responded that Park Street has private
basements extending into the public right-of-way; Webster Street
does not have basements under the sidewalks the work on Park
Street was more expensive because trenching needed to be done under
the streets for utilities; Park Street was also completely
resurfaced from curb to curb.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether CalTrans money was available
for the resurfacing on Webster Street.
The Public Works Director responded that Webster Street was
resurfaced by CalTrans three years ago and did not need to be
resurfaced: PSBA wanted to have flush transit plazas, which are
more expensive; complex drainage issues also increased costs.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the same problems could occur
with the remainder of the Park Street project.
The Public Works Director responded the same problems could occur
if underground basements are in the extended phase.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,5,"Mayor Johnson stated that the City will need to address the
underground basement issue at some point some of the building
owners are using the sidewalk as the basement roof; requesting the
owners to put ceilings in the underground basements seems
reasonable.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendations
[accept the work of Golden Bay (paragraph no. 06-005) and approve
an increase for the Construction Contract with Ghilotti Brothers
(paragraph no. 06-006)]. .
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-006) Recommendation to approve an increase for the
Construction Contract with Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. by the amount of
$45,000 using Alameda Power & Telecom funds for the Park Street
Streetscape and Town Center project, No. P.W. 10-02-13. Approved.
[Note: See recommendation to accept the work of Golden Bay
Construction [paragraph no. 06-005 ] for discussion and motion. ]
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(
06-007)
Resolution No. 13918, ""Commending Community Development
Manager Carol Beaver for Her Contributions to the City of Alameda. ""
Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the resolution to the Community
Development Manager.
The Community Development Manager thanked the Council for the
resolution; stated that she has enjoyed working with wonderful
people to build a strong, supportive community.
Mayor Johnson stated that the community would continue to benefit
from all of the programs developed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Community Development Manager's hard
work would be evident for a long time; stated that the Community
Development Manager has always been cheerful and upbeat.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Community Development Manager
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,6,"for a faithful and cheerful job performance; stated the Community
Development Manager's accomplishments are helping the City to do
what is right.
Councilmember deHaan thanked the Community Development Manager for
her dedication and effort in working on the Base closure and
Alameda College Career Center.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Community Development Manager
was behind Ed Dankworth, Lois Workman, and Ken Warner in getting
Alameda to think about new ideas since the mid-1990's the
Community Development Manager's departure from the City will result
in a tremendous void.
(06-008) Public Hearing to consider Amendment No. 1 to Fiscal Year
2005-2006 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan,
approving reallocation of funds, and authorizing the City Manager
to execute related agreements with sub-grantees.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the Hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a $6,000 increase is proposed for
fair housing services Sentinel Fair Housing's (SFH) efforts were
questioned during the Harbor Island Apartment mass eviction;
inquired what additional services would be provided with the $6,000
increase.
The Community Development Manager responded the proposal includes a
$5,996 allocation to SFH; SFH requested the additional amount as
part of the grant; the increase in funds would provide the City
with additional technical assistance in meeting Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) obligations; fair housing regulations have
changed for people with disabilities and language barriers.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how SFH's scope of work was being
measured.
The Community Development Manager responded that traditionally
SFH's goals are exceeded; SFH would continue to meet contractual
obligations; technical assistance would be added to the scope of
work; more meetings would be scheduled to brief staff on community
questions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that goals are not set appropriately
when consistently exceeded the 25% increase is hefty; he would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,7,"clearly defined.
The Community Development Manager responded a substantial quarterly
report is submitted which documents every case that SFH has taken
under advisement; the scope of work is very clearly spelled out ;
the details have not been worked out for the proposed increase in
funds but can be provided once the scope of work has been
finalized.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Contract details should be provided
to the Council to ensure that the City is getting its money' S
worth; disappointing service was provided to the Harbor Island
Apartment tenants; the Council thought that SFH could have done
more to help.
The Community Development Manager stated the issue would be part of
the discussion when the scope of work is refined.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether SFH's previous Contract included
providing aid to the City with the Harbor Island tenants, and
whether SFH was remiss in doing so.
The Community Development Manager responded that the Contract would
be reviewed and information would be provided to Council; staff
feels that SFH was in compliance in terms of the number of people
contacted; stated that communication could have been better.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that caution should be exercised in
establishing criteria by the number of contacts made; emphasis
should be on the outcome of the contact; the money is not well
spent if the contacts are not helping people.
The Community Development Manager stated that more information
would be provided to the Council.
Mayor Johnson requested that staff provide a sample of SFH's
quarterly reports.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the proposed funding would cover
for the Webster Neighborhood Improvement Project.
The Community Improvement Manager responded the proposed funding
would cover Phase I, which includes the streetlights, tree
planting, curb cuts, striping, bus shelters, signage, and possibly
an engineering consulting contract for the pedestrian corridor
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,8,"design.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether money is given out as loans or
grants for substantial rehabilitation, to which the Community
Development Manager responded loans.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Social Services and Human
Relations Board for putting the amendment together.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-009 - ) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated that she was concerned
about the economic impacts of the proposed Target the neighborhood
will be negatively impacted; informed decisions cannot be made
without reviewing the economic aspects of the project; 75% of
Alameda's retail leakage comes from high-end specialty stores, not
discount stores; increased street resurfacing and criminal elements
need to be addressed.
(06-010) Dr. Arthur Lipow, Alameda Public Affairs Forum, stated
that he was disturbed that there were no barriers at the boat
launch at the end Grand Street; the Acting Police Chief does not
consider the site to be a hazard; a doctor died at the site, as
well as two others; inquired why something has not been done to
correct the situation.
(06-011) Jon Spangler, Alameda, requested that the Council
consider joining the Kyoto USA movement in voluntarily adopting
the Kyoto protocols; the City already is a leader on energy
policies through Alameda Power and Telecom and waste management
programs stated that he has great reservations about the proposed
Target Harsh Development and Target need to reach out to the
community to ensure that appropriate contributions are made as was
done by Catellus.
(06-012) ) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, stated she was concerned about
how the proposed Target would impact the small merchants on Park
Street and Webster Street the Safeway and Trader Joe parking area
is a mess; the Grand Street boat slip gives an illusion that
Oakland is very close; the street should be barricaded to avoid
accidents; eight cars have driven into the estuary; three deaths
have occurred.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,9,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-013) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Recreation and Park Commission and Social Services Human
Relations Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Michael B. Cooper for appointment to the
Recreation and Park Commission and Dora J. Dome to the Social
Services and Human Relations Board.
(06-014) - Vice Mayor Gilmore congratulated the Public Works
Department staff for doing a terrific job in maintaining the storm
drains; stated that Alameda did not face flooding situations in the
wake of the recent storms.
06-015) ouncilmember Daysog stated that members of the Encinal
High School Alumni Association inquired into the possibility of
renaming a west-end street to honor Willie Stargel he would like
to review the history of naming Tinker Avenue and the possibility
of renaming Tinker Avenue to Willie Stargel Boulevard; Mr. Stargel
grew up near Tinker Avenue.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City's street naming policy should be
reviewed and updated.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Encinal High School Alumni
Association also had concerns about how the road and streets in the
Bayport development were named.
Councilmember deHaan noted the City experienced minor incidences
with the storms a three-hour power outage occurred; stated Third
Street and Poggie Avenue reappear with different names in the
Bayport development.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be corrected.
ouncilmember deHaan stated Willie Stargel spent most of his youth
in west-end projects; consideration should be given to renaming
Tinker Avenue or Mosley Avenue.
(06-016 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Del Monte property
was under the oversight of the Planning Board for three years and
was scheduled to come back to various committees and boards but has
noti 550 housing units are scheduled for the northern waterfront
area along with substantial retail operations; he would like to
have a status report provided shortly.
(06-017) Councilmember Matarrese stated that his heart goes out to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,10,"the family of Dr. Atari; an investigation is being conducted
necessary action would be taken upon conclusion of the
investigation; inquired when the report would be provided.
The City Manager responded up to four weeks.
(06-018) Councilmember Matarrese requested concurrence from the
Council to provide direction to gather Council policies and have a
central repository established for public access.
The City Clerk stated that she has Council policies dating back to
1998; pre-1998 policies are indexed by topic and are difficult to
find.
Mayor Johnson suggested setting up a method for recording and
maintenance of Council policies.
The City Clerk stated that a method has been established for future
policies.
(06-019) Councilmember Matarrese stated that Alameda's Marine Corp
unit has been called for deployment in Iraq; requested that the
Council meeting be adjourned with the City's wishes for a safe
return; he is disturbed that fresh troops are being sent out
instead of pulling troops back in from the middle east; the Council
needs to express support.
(06-020) Councilmember Matarrese stated that tonight is the
Assistant City Manager's last meeting; the Assistant City Manager
is leaving to become the City Manager of Astoria, Oregon; stated he
will miss working with the Assistant City Manager.
The Assistant City Manager stated that he was leaving with mixed
emotions; Alameda has been a great place to work for the last three
years.
(06-021) Mayor Johnson stated benefit and pay issues have come to
her attention from the City Auditor Citywide policies are lacking;
she is hesitant to request staff to take on significant projects
that are not related to outside projects; pay and benefit policies
should be reviewed and formalized; the matter may need to be
handled by an outside service money could be allocated if needed;
requested that the matter be brought back to Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated he would like to review the $250 car
allowance for transit users; an alternative should be established
for public transit users.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,11,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that the matter should be brought
back as an agenda item.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; requested
that the City Manager provide recommendations regarding the use of
outside services and what should be done.
Councilmember deHaan stated consistency needs to be established;
issues are looked at harder during the budget processi employment
groups have inequities; efforts are being made to standardize the
employment groups; other cities' practices should be reviewed.
(06-022) - Councilmember deHaan stated the Navy League recognized
the Marine Corp unit's deployment to Iraq; concurred with
Councilmember Matarrese regarding support to the troops and their
families.
Mayor Johnson stated that approximately 1500 soldiers are being
deployed.
(06-023) Councilmember deHaan thanked the Assistant City Manager
for his open, fair, and honest approach.
Mayor Johnson stated that tonight is also the Assistant to the City
Manager's last meeting; congratulated the Assistant City Manager
and Assistant to the City Manager stated the Assistant to the City
Manager was leaving to become the Assistant City Manager in Windsor
after eight years with Alameda.
ADJOURNMENT
(06-024) There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the Regular Meeting at 9:03 p.m. in a moment of silence for the
Alameda Marine Corp unit deployed to Iraq.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 7, 2022- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella
arrived at 5:28 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-361) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9); Case Name: Unspecified to Protect Service of Process; Court:
Superior Court of the County of Alameda; Case Number: Unspecified to Protect Service
of Process; Number of Cases: 2
(22-362) Conference with Legal Counsel Workers' Compensation Claim (Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.95); Claimant: Employee - Fire Department; Claims:
149550063, 1895500067, 0695500047; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda
(22-363) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section: 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Nico Procos, General
Manager, Alameda Municipal Power; Jessica Romeo, Human Resources Manager; and
Steve Woo, Senior Human Resources Analyst; Employee Organizations: Alameda City
Employees Association (ACEA); Management and Confidential Employees Association
(MCEA); Electric Utility Professionals Association (EUPA); International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW); Alameda Police Officers Non-Sworn (PANS); Alameda
Municipal Power Unrepresented Employees (AMPU); Alameda Police Management
Association (APMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of
Employment
(22-364) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957); Position Evaluated: City Attorney - Yibin Shen
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding the Workers' Compensation, the case involves three workers'
compensation claims by a former employee with the Fire Department; Applicant
sustained injuries to his knee, hips and heart as a result of his work duties; he retired via
industrial disability retirement on July 7, 2020; the Council authorized the City Attorney
to settle the pending workers' compensation claim in an amount not to exceed
$132,480.80, resulting in a combined complete case payout of $293,645 which includes
past payments for statutory permanent disability, by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Absent: 1; regarding Existing Litigation, staff
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,2,"provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2; and regarding Labor Negotiators, staff
provided information and Council provided direction by the following two roll call votes:
Vote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1 and Vote 2: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 6:59 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:30
p.m.
Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced regarding Performance Evaluation, Council conducted the City Attorney
performance evaluation and gave direction to staff by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:17
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
June 7, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,3,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - JUNE 7, 2022--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Councilmember Herrera Spencer led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
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
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-365) Proclamation Declaring June 11, 2022 as Doug Siden Day.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(22-366) Proclamation Declaring June 2022 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and
Queer or Questioning Pride Month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(22-367) Proclamation Declaring June 19, 2022 as Juneteenth Day.
(22-368) Proclamation Declaring June 2022 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk announced the Public Hearing [paragraph no. 22-378 and called for speakers.
Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote on the teleconference findings [paragraph no. 22-
371] and the CSI Mini Storage lease [paragraph no. 22-377]. .
Councilmember Herrera Spencer recoded a no vote on the teleconference findings [paragraph
no. 22-371].
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Home Together Plan [paragraph no. 22-375 be withdrawn
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,4,"Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; 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.]
(*22-369) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held on April 28, 2022 and the Special
and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 3, 2022. Approved.
(*22-370) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,812,822.49.
(22-371) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via
Teleconference. Accepted.
Since Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the motion carried by
the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White:
Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(*22-372) Resolution No. 15910, ""Approving the City of Alameda Climate Adaptation and
Hazard Mitigation Plan as the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Including Incorporation into
the City of Alameda General Plan Safety Element by References and Adopting a General Plan
Amendment Amending the Health and Safety Element and Conservation and Climate Action
Element of the Alameda General Plan 2040 to Align with the Climate Adaptation and Hazard
Mitigation Plan, 2022."" Adopted.
(*22-373) Resolution No. 15911, ""(a) Amending Resolution No. 9460 to Reflect Current
Positions and Entities to be Included in the City of Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and (b)
Rescinding Resolution No. 15661.' Adopted.
(*22-374) Resolution No. 15912, ""Amending the Salary Schedule for Part-Time Classifications
Effective June 5, 2022 to Reflect Changes to the City of Alameda Minimum Wage and to
Maintain Adequate Differentials Between Part-Time Job Categories.' Adopted.
(22-375) Resolution No. 15913, ""Endorse the Alameda County Home Together 2026
Community Plan: A 5-Year Strategic Framework Centering Racial Equity to End Homelessness
in Alameda County."" Adopted.
The Homelessness Area Manager gave a brief presentation and shared a video.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Herrera Spencer participated in the
February Point and Time Count; Council has seen what homelessness in Alameda looks like
first-hand.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.
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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,5,"(*22-376) Ordinance No. 3322, ""Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter Four to Comply
with Assembly Bill 1276 Regarding Single Use Foodware Accessories and Standard
Condiments."" Finally passed.
(22-377) Ordinance No. 3323, ""Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a
Lease with Rhoads Property Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, dba CSI
Mini Storage for Thirty Six Months for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A C, Located at 50 and 51
West Hornet Avenue, at Alameda Point.' Finally passed.
Since Councilmembers Daysog recorded a no vote, the motion carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(*22-378) Public Hearing to Consider Collecting of the Water Quality and Flood Protection Fees
on the Property Tax Bills; and
(*22-378A) Resolution No. 15914, ""Finding [No] Majority Protest and Approving the Continuation
and Collection of the Existing 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee on the Property Tax
Bills for Fiscal Year 2022-23."" Adopted.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-379) Recommendation to Authorize City Attorney to Effectuate the Transition for the
Administration of the Rent Program from the Alameda Housing Authority, who Currently Acts as
the City's Contract Program Administrator, Back In-house to the City of Alameda's City
Attorney's Office; and
(22-379A) Resolution No. 15915, ""Amending the Salary Schedule for: the Alameda City
Employees Association (ACEA) to Reinstate the Classification of Housing Specialist Il and
Approving Workforce Changes in the City Attorney's Office to Add Six New Positions: Three
Housing Specialists, One Administrative Management Analyst, One Administrative Technician Il
Position, and One Director of Rent Program; and Authorize the City Attorney to Fill the Six New
Positions Consistent with All Applicable Laws and Regulations."" Adopted.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Expressed support for the timing; stated renters have been confused about overlapping roles
and complexities; the proposed structure improves efficiency; correspondence being from the
City Attorney's office will receive proper attention: Catherine Pauling, Alameda.
Expressed concern about the housing program being managed by the Alameda Housing
Authority (AHA); stated the City rent program is controlled by City law and enforcement is
handled by the City Attorney's office; urged Council approve the staff recommendation: Toni
Grimm, Alameda.
Stated there has been confusion about the rent program being under AHA; expressed support
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,6,"for the program being moved to the City Attorney's office; stated the switch will be clean: Laura
Woodard, Alameda Renters Coalition.
Councilmember Daysog stated the rent program should be under the AHA; the program subject
matter is a natural fit for AHA; he is confident that the City Attorney's office will perform well;
however, he feels AHA is a better fit for the rent program.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolution].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns about moving
the program from AHA; noted that she is a renter; inquired whether the City staff handling the
program will be located at City Hall West.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated there is not enough space to house the
program and staff at City Hall.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the hours of business for City Hall West.
The City Attorney responded that his intent is to have the rent program staff operate on Friday's
for critical matters; stated that he will work with the Human Resources Director to ensure intake
opportunities on Fridays.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for services being offered on Fridays;
expressed concern about the process being adversarial since attorneys will be involved; stated
moving away from mediation will be more adversarial between tenants and landlords; the City
Attorney currently takes action against landlords; inquired whether the City Attorney offers
serves both sides, representing landlords and tenants.
The City Attorney responded that he does not represent landlords or tenants; stated
enforcement actions are on behalf of the State of California; the City Attorney's office represents
the people of the State of California; mediation services have been taken over from Centro
Legal de la Raza at half the cost; staff is engaging in mediation and question and answer
sessions; staff looks forward to expanding the area of work in collaboration with the rent team;
mediation is an important part of the landlord and tenant relationship; enforcement actions are
viewed as a last resort; the goal is to provide education and mediation efforts first and take
enforcement actions only when necessary.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be any change to salaries or
benefits for employees.
The City Attorney responded staff has found parallel tracks for compensation and
classifications; stated the goal is to keep things the same.
The Human Resources Director stated staff obtained employment information from the AHA and
aligned the positions with City salaries and job descriptions; Human Resources will do
recruitments; the goal is to bring employees over.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,7,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the employees are currently employed by
AHA, to which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be any negative effects on
pensions.
The Human Resources Director responded the employees are members of California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS); stated there is reciprocity; the change will not
impact pensions; staff will receive the same benefit under the City.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Attorney's office has taken proactive steps towards
education; requested staff to provide information on mediation and education.
The City Attorney stated since taking over operations from Centro Legal in January, staff has
provided counselling to 227 different landlords and tenants; staff has completed 10 mediations
and conducted two remote conferences in coordination with fair housing month; both
conferences were well-attended; staff is looking forward to engaging with landlords and tenants
in order to educate, mediate and inform.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(22-380) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Community Development Block
Grant/HOME Investment Partnerships Program Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 Action Plan; Authorize
the Interim City Manager to Use Affordable Housing Unit Fee and Permanent Local Housing
Allocation Funds; and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related
Documents, Agreements, and Modifications at Funding Levels Approved by Congress.
The Program Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any of the funding will go towards bottle
parcel housing or transitional homes at Alameda Point.
The Program Manager responded the proposed funds for the upcoming fiscal year will not go
towards the bottle parcel or transitional housing; Council previously approved community
cabins, known as Dignity Village; approximately $175,000 of unspent funds are being carried
forward into the upcoming fiscal year.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is any new funding for the bottle parcel
or transitional homes at Alameda Point.
The Program Manager responded there is no proposed funding.
Expressed appreciation for the City supporting services; discussed small funding amounts;
urged Council to consider allocating General Fund money for services; stated Family Violence
Law Center receives funding from the County; residents would benefit from more robust
services: Erin Scott, Family Violence Law Center.
Stated the funding supports high schools and delivers mental health services to students in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,8,"need; the well-being of the community is important to the City; encouraged Council approval:
Katherine Schwartz, Alameda Family Services.
Expressed support for the funding; stated the partnership is critical to support programs for older
adults, such as legal services, Medicare counseling and education: James Treggiari, Legal
Assistance for Seniors.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the grants are critical and go towards services which
are otherwise unfunded; the programs cover a breadth of services; the City will see more need
for services in the future; expressed support for using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
funding for mental health programs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.
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.
(22-381) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15916, ""Summarily Vacate an Excess
Portion of Everett Street Approximately 116-feet Northeasterly of Blanding Avenue in the City of
Alameda Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code, Sections 8330, et seq.' Adopted.
The Deputy Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired who owns the right-of-way of the parcel being vacated.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the two parcels are owned by the same
corporation; stated that he has been working with Ross Stackhouse of Tidewater Capital.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the owners of the parcel were allowed to close off
access to the street.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the gate was in place prior to ownership.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is requirement for the gate to be open as a
public right-of-way.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded during when the parking lot was constructed, a
soil cap remediation project was completed; stated the City gave the owner the option to either
relocate the gate or prepare the vacation as part of the permit; the owner chose to vacate.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the request is from a private entity, to which the
Deputy Public Works Director responded the request is from the City.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how many years the gate had been closed.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded that he understands the gate has been in place
since 2015, but could be as far back as 2011.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,9,"the resolution].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired why the gate was in place and why
the City waited until now to decide to take action.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the actions were triggered by the permit pulled for
soil remediation; stated the condition had been present for a long time.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the owner could make a formal request to remove the
gate and roadway if the right-of-way continues.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded after Council takes action, the gate will be part of
the property; stated the owners will be responsible for maintenance of the gates and roadway
area; the City will still be allowed to access the area if maintenance needs arise.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the current General Plan designation for the site.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded there are no changes to the General Maritime
zoning.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(22-382) The Interim City Manager made brief comments on his background.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-383) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of having the referral come back to Council
for discussion.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he will not support the referral; noted
after the referral was filed, Council discussed the issue and provided direction to staff to address
the issue as part of the Housing Element and zoning changes happening across the City; he
does not see a reason to re-hash the previous Council discussion; the matter is problematic to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,10,"reconsider since an application has been filed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are a series of public forums where people can hear from the
Planning, Building and Transportation Director; stated forums have been well attended and
discussions have been robust; discussed upcoming forums.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has been able to attend meetings and hear
comments from members of the public; having hundreds of people attend meetings supports
having a separate hearing for zoning to give Council the opportunity to clarify and take actions
separate from the Housing Element.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.
Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
(22-384) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of bringing the matter back for Council
discussion on the regular agenda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the amount of meetings a referral has been on can be seen on the
agenda; pending Council referrals could have been heard at the Council priority workshop.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Council workshop was not a regular meeting where
normal business was heard; expressed concern about Council referrals and lack of public
comment at the workshop; stated referrals should be heard at regular Council meetings;
discussed public comment.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about statements made
related to public comment; stated that he will not support the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed members of the public attending Council meetings;
expressed support for hybrid meetings.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.
Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
(22-385) Consider Directing Staff to Develop an Ordinance Setting Fines for Injury-Collisions
Involving Non-Commercial Vehicles that Do Not Meet Federal Design Standards or Have Been
Lifted/Altered in a Manner that Increases the Likelihood of Severe Injury or Death in Collisions
with Pedestrians and Bicyclists. (Councilmember Knox White)
Councilmember Knox White gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
8",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,11,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the referenced letter falls under the
legislative agenda.
Councilmember Knox White responded the letter is not a part of the referral; stated the letter
aligns with the City's Vision Zero safety legislation.
The City Attorney stated Council may provide brief direction for staff to look at its legislative
policy and consider whether or not to act with existing Council authority without debating
whether or not to provide staff direction.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the content of the letter of support.
Councilmember Knox White stated the letter addresses safe vehicle design; vehicles are being
designed for higher speeds than legal on City streets; the letter is three pages long.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the letter will be directed at auto manufacturers or federal
law makers.
Councilmember Knox White responded the letter will be submitted as part of the rule-making
call for comments, which closes tomorrow; the letter will go directly to the National Highway
Safety Transportation Agency.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is being asked to develop a City ordinance
versus supporting State or federal legislation; how the process works due to federal preemption
for commercial vehicles not meeting federal design standards; stated that she would like to
know where the City fits into the matter.
The City Attorney responded there are a number of preemption concerns; stated staff will need
to perform significant legal analysis to see whether there is a way to get around the
preemptions; staff will devote significant effort if Council so directs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the referral; the matter is
preemptive and there are more pressing City issues for Council to address.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is worth looking into; expressed support for staff looking into
legislation or other options; stated the City is preempted from taking actions; Council can direct
staff to perform brief legal research and provide legislative alternatives; the issue should be
looked into; vehicles are causing serious injuries.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed meetings lobbying for federal funding; stated lobbying includes
safety matters; the referral is relevant; she has concerns about how to approach the matter at a
local level; questioned whether the topic can be brought to the Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC); stated the topic seems like more than a quick review of federal law.
Vice Mayor Vella questioned whether Council can limit the research performed; stated the City
could raise the matter with lobbyists and obtain feedback to see whether pending legislation
exists versus legislating at a local level; expressed support for bringing the matter to ACTC and
other representatives.
Councilmember Knox White stated the topic is already part of the City's legislative agenda;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,12,"Washington, D.C. found a way to take action on the issue.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the situation in Washington, D.C. is unique.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council can have staff review whatever Washington, D.C. passes and
raise the issue with lobbyists.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the proposed request would require significant staff research;
questioned whether staff can look into actions taken by Washington, D.C.
The City Attorney stated staff is happy to follow Council direction; the Washington, D.C. law
involves vehicle registration; Washington, D.C. acts as a State, similar to the State of California,
which could impose registration regulations on vehicles of certain sizes and weights; the
authority does not lie with local jurisdictions; staff is happy to look further if Council desires;
Washington, D.C. has significantly more authority acting as a State than local jurisdiction.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Council referral.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes direction to have ACTC and lobbyists
look into the matter at the State and federal level, to which Councilmember Knox White
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is part of the City's legislative package; Washington, D.C.
newly passed regulations; bringing the matter to ACTC is worthwhile; she would like to raise the
issue with State elected representatives.
Councilmember Daysog stated the referral could be unnecessary; the Municipal Code has
standards related to vehicle types; the standards cover the type of vehicles raised by the
referral; the matter is duplicative; expressed concern about the City not enforcing the standards
in Municipal Code Section 8-6.1; stated the City would be enforcing the standard on many
vehicles; many vehicles come to Alameda from off-Island; questioned whether the vehicles will
be tracked and fined; stated the matter is handled at a higher level in order to create
consistency across localities; there is virtue in working with State and federal leaders; the City
does not enforce the standard similar to other cities across the United States; the practical
approach is to have the matter dealt with at the State or federal level.
Councilmember Knox White withdrew his referral.
(22-386) Consider Supporting Assembly Bill 1445. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the Assembly Bill language provided.
Councilmember Knox White stated the Bill is worth supporting; expressed support for t
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) being used as an example for considering
climate change; stated the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process used by ABAG
aligns with the Bill; the matter is an great way to ensure other housing and planning
organizations across the State consider climate.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,13,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Council referral.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would prefer to see the matter continued
and return to Council with the Bill language.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the language quoted in the staff report comes from the
Bill; the referral process is to have the matter return to Council on a future agenda for
discussion; inquired whether the letter of support can be submitted without returning to Council.
The City Attorney responded Council rules and process for referrals include directing staff to
have the matter return for further Council discussion.
The Interim City Manager stated that staff should check for any relevant amendments to the Bill
due to the amount of time the matter has been agendized; staff can check with lobbyists and
return to Council if approved.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would support the matter returning; the report can return
with basic analysis; requested clarification about process from the City Clerk.
The City Clerk stated the one exception to not returning for further Council discussion is any
urgent or time-sensitive matter; this matter was not presented as time-sensitive or urgent and
returning for further Council discussion would be the route to follow.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern over RHNA reform; stated that she values analysis; noted
one of the supporters of the Bill is the Alameda Citizens Task Force.
Councilmember Knox White stated support should be registered without waiting a month for a
staff report; Council has taken action on legislation; expressed support for moving the matter
forward.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the referral includes the terms ""urgent"" and ""important;""
the language is clear; the matter has been on the agenda for a while; the Bill could have been
looked up.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for attaching Bill language; inquired the actions to be
taken if the referral is approved, to which the City Clerk responded Council typically sends a
letter of support.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the letter would be sent before Council has had a chance
to read the language of the Bill, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is possible to have the matter return to Council with the
Bill language attached at the next Council meeting under continued agenda items section.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated Council may create a substitute motion and
vote to continue the matter to the continued agenda items section of the next Council meeting
with the Bill and additional information attached.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-06-07,14,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a substitute motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated her motion is to proceed with the letter of support from
Council; the language is provided in the Council referral.
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.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22-387) Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about towing fees.
(22-388) Councilmember Herrera Spencer made announcements regarding a free paper
shredding event, a walk, the sand castle contest, a fundraiser at the skate park, and the
dedication of the Doug Siden Visitors' Center; discussed the Memorial Day celebration at
Veterans Park.
(22-389) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed her time in Washington, D.C.; announced Alameda
County received $25 million for rail safety programs; discussed a Zoom meeting with the United
States Coast Guard and a meeting with Veterans Affairs (VA); stated the VA Medical Clinic and
Columbarium at Alameda Point is fully funded; discussed the ""Everyone Belongs Here"" poster
and poetry contest, the Asian American Pacific Islander heritage celebration, the Memorial Day
celebration, the Change of Command ceremony and a press conference with Congresswoman
Barbara Lee about funding brought to the district; announced the upcoming graduation for
Alameda Unified School District.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:13 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
June 7, 2022
12",CityCouncil/2022-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-11-15,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 15, 2011--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:18 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(11-550) Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to the Mayor's Fourth of July
Parade Committee Members.
Mayor Gilmore thanked the committee members and presented them with certificates.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(11-551) Harriette Saunders, Paratransit Advisory Committee, encouraged people to
direct paratransit issues to her.
(11-552) Al Wright, Alameda, requested that Council stop tree construction on Park
Street during the holiday season and resume the work in January.
(11-553) Red Wetherill, Alameda, suggested adding a half cent to the sales tax as an
alternative to [golf] land swap options.
(11-554) Ken Peterson, Alameda, discussed trees on Park Street.
(11-555) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, stated that last week's tree meeting should have
been structured like a Council meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5, with the exception of Vice Mayor Bonta recusing himself from voting on final
passage of the Ordinance [paragraph no. 11-563]. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
November 15, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-11-15,2,"(*11-556) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on October
18, 2011; the Special City Council Meetings Held on October 25, 2011; and the Special
City Council Meeting Held on October 27, 2011. Approved.
(*11-557) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,420,996.46.
(*11-558) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period
Ending June 30, 2011. Accepted.
(*11-559) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ended
September 30, 2011. Accepted.
(*11-560) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Consulting
Services Agreement with Public Financial Management Inc. (PFM). Accepted.
(*11-561) Recommendation to Appoint Deborah Wright to Existing Membership of
America's Cup Ad Hoc Committee. Accepted.
(*11-562) Recommendation to Approve Reinstatement for Michael D'Orazi in Order to
Recognize Prior Service with the City of Alameda. Accepted.
(*11-563) Ordinance No. 3037, ""Authorizing the Execution of Lease of Real Property
Located at 1525 Bay Street Between City, as Lessor, and Karen Zimmerman and
Kenneth Edgerly, as Lessee, for Operation of ABC Preschool."" Finally passed.
[Note: Vice Mayor Bonta recused himself from voting on the ordinance.]
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-564) Recommendation to Approve Moving Forward with Surveys as the Next Step
in the Boards and Commissions Evaluation Process.
The Senior Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.
Suggested changes to the surveys: John Knox White, Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan requested clarification of Survey Monkey.
The Senior Management Analyst stated Survey Monkey is an on-line survey tool; a
paper version would be made available to Boards and Commissions through staff
secretaries as an alternative.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated that Mr. Knox White's question [where work would go if a
Board or Commission disbanded] should be added to the survey; the public input
process should be expanded; holding subcommittee meetings should be added; open
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
November 15, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-11-15,3,"ended questions are best.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she agrees with the idea of holding a public meeting; she is
concerned with requesting public input via a computer; not everyone has computer
access or is comfortable with using computers.
The Senior Management Analyst stated staff would continue to work with the
subcommittee to refine approaches for obtaining information.
Councilmember Tam inquired what has been the response rate to past surveys.
The Deputy City Manager responded the website survey has been up for four weeks
and has received approximately 175 responses; the tree survey went up this morning
and has received 85 responses.
Councilmember Tam stated focus should be on outreach as well.
The Assistant City Manager stated Council has requested staff to work on a public
participation policy; the policy would be brought back to Council by March.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she is in favor of doing the public survey but not with most of
the questions; concurred with Vice Mayor Bonta regarding open ended questions.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation, with amendment to
survey questions and addition of holding a meeting to gain public input.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
(11-565) Resolution No.14635, ""Approving the Update to the City of Alameda's Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex, and Authorizing Its Inclusion in the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) Report on Taming Natural Disasters.' Adopted.
Fire Captain Oliver gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore stated that a lot of time, energy, and thought went into the Plan.
Fire Captain Oliver stated that many departments provided input; the Plan would allow
the City to be eligible for grant funding, particularly for Public Works and would offer
eligibility for waiver of the 6.25% local match for public assistance money after a
disaster.
Councilmember Tam stated the Soft Story Program is mentioned in the assessment and
would provide a means for the City to be more proactive.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
November 15, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-11-15,4,"Health Department and Alameda resident (submittal); Amy Raffle, Alameda.
Not in favor of the ordinance: Alan Teague, Alameda.
Expressed concern regarding tenant rights: Jake Thompson, Alameda.
Urged postponement: Linda Cazares, Woodstock Homes Corporation; Robb Ratto read
comments on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce.
Urged revision to prohibit e-cigarettes: Suzaynn Schick, U.C. San Francisco; and
Jonathan Krueger, Alameda (also urged prohibiting smoking at bar patios).
Urged revision to prohibit smoking in bar patios: Al Wright, Alameda (also urged
amendment to permit smoking in residences with second units); Liz Williams,
Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights.
Urged revision to permit smoking in condominiums: Bryan Wilson, Alameda, (submittal);
Phyllis Klein, Alameda; Lynne Burpee, Alameda; Li Volin, Alameda; and Margaret
DosSantos, Alameda.
Urged revision to permit smoking in front of bars: Jon-Michael Freese, Alameda.
The Senior Management Analyst noted the ordinance needs to be modified to remove a
reference to electronic cigarettes.
Mayor Gilmore requested clarification on the phasing of the ordinance.
The Senior Management Analyst stated most of the provisions would go into effect 30
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
November 15, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-11-15,5,"days after adoption; property provisions would not go into effect until January, 2013.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired how phasing has been determined.
The Assistant City Manager responded ordinances normally go into effect 30 days after
final passage; staff wants to delay the housing provisions to provide transition time.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether property owners have provided any input regarding
phasing, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in the negative.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she would prefer that the ordinance become
effective sooner than 2013; she suspects that many tenants are on a month-to-month
tenancy.
The Senior Management Analyst stated nine months has been the soonest other model
ordinances have gone into effect.
Councilmember Johnson stated having the ordinance go into effect in 2013 is a long
time for people to tolerate smoke in a building.
The Assistant City Manager stated people have not had an issue with the [effective]
date.
Councilmember Tam stated other ordinances, such as the Styrofoam ordinance, have
been phased in; inquired what could be done in terms of message market penetration if
more time was given.
The Assistant City Manager responded public meetings were held for the Styrofoam
ordinance; stated the ordinance did not go into effect until six months after final
passage; an education process would be needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated electronic cigarettes and property owners with an
additional unit need to be addressed.
The Assistant City Manager stated a property owner with an in-law unit would not be
affected by the ordinance.
In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry, the Senior Management Analyst responded
a multi-unit residence refers to both rental and common interest complexes, which are
typically owner occupied.
Councilmember deHaan stated smoking is a way of life for many people coming from
other countries; employees would be impacted by the ordinance.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council gave direction to research electronic cigarettes and how
to regulate bar patios; Council could amend the ordinance to include the two items;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
November 15, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-11-15,6,"smoking residue collects on tables and chairs; inquired who would clean the tables and
chairs; further inquired whether the City would be running afoul of its own law by
allowing smoking because of workplace protection.
The Assistant City Manager responded many times, owners bus tables in order to
protect employees; stated staff if trying to establish a strong ordinance, but the
ordinance would not be perfect.
Mayor Gilmore inquired when staff would be coming back with research on electronic
cigarettes and bar patios, to which the Assistant City Manager responded as soon as
possible.
Mayor Gilmore inquired when staff would come back with outreach results for rental and
condominium owners.
The Assistant City Manager responded a series of meetings would be held; stated staff
would work with ECHO Housing; the Alameda Realtors Association provided a mailing
list of property management companies.
Councilmember Tam inquired what has been Union City's enforcement experience.
The Senior Management Analyst responded enforcement has been complaint driven;
stated Union City's ordinance is relatively new; Hayward's downtown area has been
actively ticketed.
Vice Mayor Bonta requested clarification on the nuisance issue.
The Acting City Attorney stated the Municipal Code already has language that states
that any violation of the Municipal Code is a nuisance; the ordinance would have a
component for private enforcement.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated that he likes the idea of providing clauses in lease agreements
at a future time; providing some model forms would be good so that a landlord would
know that they would be complying with requirements of the ordinance.
The Acting City Attorney stated Richmond points to the California Apartments
Association Form 34.
The Senior Management Analyst stated that she is aware of the form; the City does not
have authorization to have the form in the ordinance; the form could be included in
outreach material and posted on the website.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the City would not be able to replicate Richmond, to
which the Senior Management Analyst responded a license is needed to use the form.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated that he likes the idea of providing certainty to landlords or
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
November 15, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-11-15,7,"apartment owners; staff should seek permission or authorization [to reference the form]
if possible; that he would like to make said amendment to the ordinance.
The Acting City Attorney stated that she does not see a problem with referencing the
form.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she is concerned with the ordinance going into effect during
the holidays; she would be in favor of the first of the year.
In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry, the City Manager stated there are many
examples of federal statues that provide for statutory damages because showing how
the damage applies to a particular individual is difficult; the concept of the private
attorney general is often included in consumer and other environmental type statues
and regulations when there is an acknowledgement that the government agency may
not have the resources available to do the enforcement at legislature's desired level; the
ordinance would be a low priority enforcement given all of the other issues on the table
for the Police Department; applying a private attorney general method would encourage
enforcement of the law; further stated showing personal damage is not necessary for
some tortes.
The Acting City Attorney summarizes the suggested amendments: removing the clause:
""WHEREAS, California law declares that anything which is injurious to health or
obstructs the free use of property, as to interfere with comfortable enjoyment of life or
property, is a nuisance"" would be replaced with: ""WHEREAS, Alameda Municipal Code
Section 1- - 5.43(a) provides that any condition existing in violation of this Code is
deemed a public nuisance""; the last sentence of Section 24-11.1(v) [Smoking also
includes the use of an e-cigarette which creates a vapor, in any manner or in any form,
or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of
smoking in this Section] would be removed; Section 24.12.2 [For the purpose within the
City, nonconsensual exposure to secondhand smoke occurring on or drifting into any
multi-unit residence is a nuisance] would be removed; Section 24-12.8(g) [Any violation
of this Section 24-12 is hereby declared to be a nuisance] would be struck; a provision
would be added regarding the California Apartment Association Form 34, which would
read the same as the City of Richmond; and the enforcement date would be changed to
January 2, 2012.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated electronic cigarettes, bar patios, and beaches would be
brought back for further discussion; inquired whether electronic cigarettes and bar patio
smoking would not be prohibited now, to which the Acting City Attorney responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Johnson suggested beaches be included in the ordinance; beaches
could be removed if it becomes clear that the City does not have jurisdiction.
The Acting City Attorney stated staff took a precursory look into the matter and does not
see anything that would prevent enforcement [at beaches]; the matter could be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
November 15, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-11-15,8,"reviewed after additional research; suggested beaches be added to Section 24-11.1(s)
[Recreational Areas].
Vice Mayor Bonta moved final passage of the ordinance with the amendments.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Tam noted speakers addressing the harm and public
health concerns regarding electronic cigarettes is compelling.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:31 p.m.
* *
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(11-567) The City Manager encouraged everyone to take the website and tree surveys;
discussed public noticing and outreach; announced a November 17th Town Hall
meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(11-568) Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda, announced two Alameda
representatives would serve on the Alameda County Fair Board.
(11-569) Janet Gibson, Alameda, requested clarification on whether the Brown Act
allows Councilmembers to attend non-noticed meetings [such as the Town Hall
upcoming meeting].
The Acting City Attorney stated Council can attend any ceremonial event; however, if
Councilmembers talk to each other regarding business within the subject matter
jurisdiction, a notice would be needed.
Mayor Gilmore noted sometimes Councilmembers cannot attend meetings because of
scheduling conflicts.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(11-570) Direct Staff to Seek Alternative Options to the Golf Land Swap
Mayor Gilmore gave a brief presentation; stated the two minute rule would apply to
speakers except for Mr. Van Winkle.
The City Manager clarified Mayor Gilmore's referral is to direct staff to seek alternative
options to the property exchange that would still provide for the long-term financial
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
November 15, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-11-15,9,"sustainability of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
Opposed to land swap: Joe Van Winkle, Alameda; Michael Robles Wong, Alameda;
Mary Anderson, Alameda; Lee Paulsen, Alameda; Ann Moxley, Alameda; Marie Kane,
Bay Isle Point Homeowners Association; James Manning, Alameda; Norma Arnerich,
Alameda; former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda; Ken Peterson, Alameda; Jane
Sullwold, Alameda; Robert Sullwold, Alameda; Sean Todaro, Alameda; Nadine Levine,
Alameda; and Nancy Hird, Alameda.
Urged any alternative consider youth sports: Pat Bail, Alameda Youth Sports Coalition.
Mayor Gilmore stated that her intent was to ask Council whether they would be willing to
direct staff to look at alternatives to the land swap, to which Councilmember Tam and
Councilmember Johnson replied in the affirmative.
The City Manager stated the swap options include: 1) have the City develop the North
Loop property for sports; or 2) have staff talk with Ms. Bail and Sports Coalition
members regarding the option of having the City do the swap and having the Sports
Coalition develop North Loop Road as part of a broader agreement; the non- swap
options are: 1) have the City continue to run the Course and come up with a different
financing option to fund necessary improvements; 2) have a non-profit run the Course
altogether; or 3) have the City continue to be in charge while using an operator; the City
would continue to operate the 36-holes and a non-profit would operate the Mif Albright
Course; requested that Council give staff until January 24th to review alternatives.
Councilmember Johnson moved approval of directing staff to look at alternatives and
return back to Council on January 24th.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Acting City Attorney is ready to provide
some feed back on Article 22 [of the City Charter] and supermajority vote.
Mayor Gilmore responded said discussion might be more appropriate when alternatives
come back.
Councilmember deHaan stated on April 5, 2011, Ron Cowan wrote that the City of
Alameda is legally obligated to honor the Harbor Bay Development Agreement for 3,200
homes; that he believes the statement is contrary to the settlement agreement; a legal
settlement provided for an opportunity to build 227 homes; when the Request for
Proposals (RFP) went out, KemperSports was not the leader; KemperSports defaulted
back in April when they said they were going to provide $5 million of their own funding;
the City subsequently found out that KemperSports was banking on the City to bond it
[$5 million]; at that point, KemperSports was in default of the negotiating agreement; the
City should be going out with another modified RFP; the proposal should be for two 18-
holes and a 9-hole short course; accurate facts should be provided on the website.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
November 15, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-11-15,10,"The City Manager stated information on the website addresses operating theories;
people can have different options; facts on the website are not incorrect.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam, and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Present not voting:
Councilmember deHaan - 1.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated looking at all options is a good idea; options should not be
limited.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(11-571) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended a Waste Management
Authority and East Bay League of California Cities meeting last week.
(11-572) Vice Mayor Bonta invited everyone to attend a Town Hall Meeting this
Thursday from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Boys and Girls Club.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
November 15, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-11-15,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING
TUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 15, 2011 - 6:00 - P.M.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers/Board Members Bonta, deHaan,
Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(11-547 CC) Public Employment - (54957); Title: City Attorney
(11-548 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of
litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: Two
(11-077 ARRA) Conference with Real Property Negotiator (54956.8); Property:
Alameda Point; Agency Negotiator: Jennifer Ott, Alameda Point COO; Negotiating
parties: ARRA and US Navy; Under Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Gilmore
announced that regarding the two cases of Anticipated Litigation, Legal Counsel
explained the basis for litigation or adjudicatory proceeding and Council provided
direction; and regarding Real Property, the matter would not be heard.
Mayor Gilmore called a recess to convene the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. and
reconvened the closed session at 10:53 p.m.
* * *
Following the reconvened closed session, Mayor Gilmore announced that regarding
Public Employment, no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
November 15, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-11-15,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY--NOVEMBER 15, 2011--6:59 - P.M.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 10:44 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners
Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*11-039 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting, and the
Special CIC Meeting Held on September 6, 2011 and September 20, 2011. Approved.
[Note: Chair Gilmore abstained from voting on the September 20, 2011 minutes.]
(*11-549 CC/11-078 ARRA/11-040 CIC) Recommendation to Accept the First Quarter
Financial Report for the Period Ending September 30, 2011. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:44
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
November 15, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-JUNE 19, 2012- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Vice Mayor Bonta led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam, and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(12-302) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Park Master Plan [paragraph no. 12-323
was moved to July 3rd: and announced that the Resolutions of appointment [paragraph
no.
12-308 would be addressed after Oral Communications.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(12-303) The City Attorney introduced the new Assistant City Attorney Stephanie Sierra.
(12-304) Presentation of Arbor Day Award from CAL FIRE Urban Forestry Program to
the City.
James Scheid, CAL FIRE, gave a presentation and presented the award to Mayor
Gilmore.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(12-305) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, reminded the public of the annual AWRL Field
Day, June 23 - 24 at the Sequoia Arena.
(12-306) Serena Chen, American Lung Association, presented the State of Tobacco
Control Report Card and submitted information.
(12-307) Ken Peterson, Alameda, stated that he appreciates budget workshops and
discussed the matter of balancing the budget and the economic health of the City.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(12-308) Resolution No. 14683, ""Reappointing Dean Batchelor as a Member of the Civil
Service Board. Adopted;
(12-308 A) Resolution No.14684, ""Appointing Jonathan Bond as a Member of the
Economic Development Commission."" Adopted.
(12-308 B) Resolution No. 14685, ""Reappointing Alan Ryan as a Member of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,2,"Economic Development Commission."" Adopted;
(12-308 C) Resolution No. 14686, ""Reappointing Dennis Owens as a Member of the
Historical Advisory Board."" Adopted;
(12-308 D) Resolution No. 14687, ""Reappointing Michael Henneberry as a Member of
the Planning Board."" Adopted;
(12-308 E) Resolution No. 14688, ""Reappointing Elizabeth Candelario as a Member of
the Public Art Commission."" Adopted,
(12-308 F) Resolution No. 14689, ""Appointing Daniel Hoy as a Member of the Public Art
Commission."" Adopted;
(12-308 G) Resolution No 14690. ""Appointing Esther Mallouh as a Member of the
Public Art Commission,"" Adopted ;
(12-308 H) Resolution No.14691, ""Appointing Mary Sutter as a Member of the Public
Utilities Board. Adopted;
(12-308 I) Resolution No.14692, ""Reappointing Douglas Biggs as a Member of the
Social Service Human Relations Board. Adopted;
(12-308 J) Resolution No.14693, ""Appointing Eric Schatmeier as a Member of the
Transportation Commission."" Adopted;
(12-308 K) Resolution No. 14694, ""Reappointing Mary Orbeta as a Member of the Youth
Advisory Commission."" Adopted; and
(12-308 L) Resolution No. 14695, ""Appointing Luna Tilles as a Member of the Youth
Advisory Commission."" Adopted.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Certificates of
Appointment to Mr. Bond, Ms. Caldelario, Mr. Hoy, Ms. Mallouh, Ms. Sutter, Mr.
Schatmeier, and Ms. Tilles.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that the Plans and Specifications for Janitorial Service
[paragraph no. 12-312]; the Plans and Specifications for Annual Heating, Ventilating,
and Air Conditioning Systems [paragraph no. 12-313]; the Agreement with the Alameda
Unified School District [paragraph no. 12-314]; the Resolutions Approving the
Memorandums of Understanding [paragraph no. 12-318]; and the Resolution
Supporting Renaming the Eastshore State Park [paragraph no. 12-322 were removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,3,"Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*12-309) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 15,
2012. Approved.
(*12-310) Ratified bills in the amount of $ 2,029,580.42.
(*12-311) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for Landscape Maintenance of Median Strips and Special Areas, No. P.W. 05-12-
11. Accepted.
(12-312) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for Janitorial Service in City Buildings, No. P.W. 05-12-12.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Fire Department's training facility in
Building 522 at Alameda Point has been vacated, to which the Public Works Director
responded in the negative, stating the building is still in use.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a training facility at Alameda Point to
which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Fire Station 5 contains administrative offices,
to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the building is currently being used for
operations to which the Public Works Director stated the building is still being used,
however it's not functioning as a fire station.
Councilmember deHaan inquired where Building 522 is located, to which the Public
Works Director responded the building is across from the Red Cross and is used for
training.
Councilmember deHaan stated he would like further clarification because it is listed for
training use two days a week.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-313) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for Annual Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Systems Maintenance in
Various City Facilities, No. P.W. 05-12-13.
Councilmember deHaan inquired for clarification that Fire Station 5 is still being used for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,24,"Councilmember deHaan started the matter is a continuing step in the review process.
Mayor Gilmore stated having five members makes having a quorum easier.
In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry regarding other Boards and Commissions
with five members, the City Clerk listed seven bodies: Civil Service Board, Historical
Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Commission, Library
Board, Open Government Commission, Public Art Commission and Public Utilities
Board.
Councilmember Johnson stated the two open spots have made having a quorum
difficult.
Councilmember Tam noted the Recreation and Park Commission President was
directed to have the Commission consider the matter and come back to Council.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Johnson - 1.
(12-330) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Section 2-67 Relating to Prevailing Wages.
The Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Speaker: Andy Slivka, Carpenters Union/Building Trades, stated that the one thing he
disagrees with is the staff report indication that there would be 15% increase in cost;
urged adoption of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-331) Ordinance No. 3048 ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing
Subsections 18-5.10 (Lateral Testing Upon Sale). 18-5.11 (Private Sewer Lateral
Testing Procedures and Requirements), 18-5.12 (Failure of Test), 18-5.13 (Lateral
Certification), 18-5.14 (Condominium and Cooperative Apartment Buildings) of Section
18-5 (Abatement of Improper Sewer Connections) in their Entirety, and by Adding
Section 18-6 (Sewer Lateral Testing) to Article 1 (Sewers) of Chapter XVIII (Sewer and
Water). Finally passed.
The City Engineer gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,25,"CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(12-332) The City Manager announced that two members of Council provided potential
frequently asked questions regarding pension and labor issues, for a total of 16
questions ; requested the remaining Councilmembers submit questions.
Councilmember Johnson suggested the City Auditor and City Treasurer be invited to
submit potential questions.
The City Manager agreed to do so.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(12-333) Dr. Carol Gottstein, Alameda, discussed the June 6th minutes and requested to
view the A&B Tow contract.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(12-334) Councilmember Tam made announced that she attended a League of
California Cities meeting on June 14th
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned themeeting at 10:55 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
25
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,26,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 19, 2012- - 6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:07 p.m. and Vice
Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:10 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(12-300) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95); Claimant: David Ellis; Agency
Claimed Against: City of Alameda
(12-301) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; (54956.9) Name of Case:
Robert Zack, Bernice Jolliff, The Estate of Raymond Zack VS. City of Alameda, County
of Alameda, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Superior Court of California, Alameda
County; Case No. RG12632015; this lawsuit stems from the tragic drowning of
Raymond Zack at Crown Beach in May 2011. Family members are seeking un
specified monetary damages.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Workers' Compensation Claim, the Council gave direction to
staff; and regarding Existing Litigation, Council gave direction to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:04 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
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,4,"administrative offices, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-314) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a One-Year
Agreement with the Alameda Unified School District for the Operation of the District
Swimming Pools.
Councilmember deHaan expressed concern regarding the safety of the facility.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the facility is safe and in need of repair to
continue to function; the School District continues repairs to keep the safe level.
Councilmember deHaan stated the staff report indicates that the City is responsible for
ongoing repair including custodian repair and maintenance; inquired whether funds are
adequate to keep safe status, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether additional repair would be required a later
point in time, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded not to staff's
knowledge; stated there is always potential; repairs are not anticipated and capital
repairs are the School District's responsibility.
Councilmember Tam stated the report indicates either party may terminate the
Agreement; in the event the facility improvement costs are excessive, either party may
terminate the Agreement without cause after thirty days written notice; inquired if the
amount beyond the ability of a party to pay has been defined.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded a dollar amount is not defined; however,
the School District is responsible for any capital improvement or repair; if the School
District requests cost sharing or says they will terminate, staff would bring the matter to
Council immediately.
Councilmember Tam stated if costs to replace the pumps exceed the City's contract
share, Council would revisit the matter and could consider terminating the Agreement.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the City has the ability within 30 days to
terminate the Agreement without cause; the capital repair of pumps would be the
School District's responsibility.
Councilmember Tam inquired if the School District could not repair the problem within
budgetary constraints, the City would not have a pool, to which the Recreation and
Parks Director responded it is a possibility.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,5,"Mayor Gilmore stated the School District is responsible for capital cost; inquired what
kind of cost the City pays, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded the
City pays ongoing maintenance and half of the utilities.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about an example of ongoing maintenance, the
Recreation and Parks Director stated the City provides all custodial services, pool
servicing, and chemicals which essentially pays for normal wear and tear of using the
facility.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the School District is responsible if anything breaks
down, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded the City makes every
attempt to fix minor repairs with band aids and duct tape, significant repairs are on the
School District.
The Assistant City Manager stated the City provided the lights but the really big ticket
items, like the pumps, are on the School District; the School District came to the City
with a project which was not the City's responsibility; the matter was discussed and the
School District ended up paying for the large item; the School District found the money
in their budget but whether they will be able to find money in the future is unknown.
Councilmember Johnson left the dais at 7:41 p.m. and returned at 7:42 p.m.
*
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
[Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1]
(*12-315) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract with
York Risk Services Group, Inc. for Third Party Administrator Services for the City's
Workers' Compensation Program. Accepted.
(*12-316) Recommendation to Approve an Agreement with Holland + Knight in the
Amount of $144,000 for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services. Accepted.
(*12-317) Recommendation to Award Contract to the Alameda Journal for Legal
Advertising for Fiscal Year 2012-13. Accepted.
(12-318) Resolution No. 14696, ""Approving a Revised Memorandum of Understanding
Between the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) and the City of Alameda for
the Period Beginning January 1, 2012 Through December 26, 2015."" Adopted;
(12-318, A) Resolution No. 14697 , ""Approving a Revised Memorandum of
Understanding Between the Alameda Management and Confidential Employees
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,6,"Association (MCEA) and the City of Alameda for the Period Beginning January 1, 2012
Through December 26, 2015.' Adopted;
(12-318 B) Resolution No. 14698 , ""Approving a Revised Memorandum of
Understanding Between the Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit
(PANS) and the City of Alameda for the Period Beginning January 1, 2012 Through
December 26, 2015."" Adopted; and
(12-318 C Resolution No. 14699 , ""Approving a Revised City of Alameda Executive
Management (EXME) Compensation Plan for the Period Beginning June 17, 2012
Through December 26, 2015."" Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan requested an explanation of how the revenue sharing
mechanism works.
The City Manager stated there are five revenue streams that form the basis of the
general fund: property tax, sales tax, transfer occupancy tax, utility users tax and real
estate transfer tax; the five revenue streams will be reviewed; if the aggregate of all five
goes up 4%, the employees would be entitled to a 2% wage increase; the revenue
sharing is 50% of the percentage increase; the five revenue streams were selected after
a great deal of discussion with the bargaining units; the bargaining units did not want to
just use the General Fund, which can be redefined by Council resolution.
The Assistant City Manager stated the increases do not take effect until 2015.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the amount is a gross to which the City
Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the largest single expense for any
municipality is wages.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a need for additional expenditures
in those years does that get in consideration of this basic gross revenue increase and
share?
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the City Manager stated the formula
does not change; agreement was made with the unions; noted there is a cap and a
minimum; in 2014, 1.5% is the minimum; 4% is the maximum; half of any dramatic
growth in revenues is not being pledged; it is important to note there are no wage
increase or cost of living adjustments in the first two years; the formula takes effect in
years three and four; however, staff will begin contributing money to medical premium
and PERS contributions; there are significant concessions by labor which are structural
and will help the City dramatically.
The Assistant City Manager stated the staff reports show the net savings; there is no
cost to the City, even once the revenue sharing proposals kick in.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be a net savings if the 4%
increase occurs, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,7,"The Assistant City Manager stated even with the revenue sharing, a net savings will be
recognized because the additional PERS contribution is part of the employer share and
the employees are picking up part of the health care increase. f the additional PERS
contribution which is part of the employer share not the employee share and the
employees are picking up part of the increase in health care expenditures.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has not heard of revenue sharing in the public
sector; that he is guessing an increase around 3% a year would occur; that he has a
concern because he has never seen it done.
The City Manager stated the MOUs are not merely revenue sharing but cost sharing as
well; labor is picking up 50% of the medical premium increase which has been the
largest exposure over the past fifteen years; the City should be proud no one else has
done it; the plan is terribly innovative and creates a true partnership and an
understanding between management and labor; sharing in hand times and if revenues
get better the City is not committing to something that cannot be paid because the
increases are tied to revenue growth; employees are picking up costs either way.
The Human Resource Director stated on the PERS side, employees will be picking up
1.868% which is the maximum which they can.
Councilmember Tam stated that she agrees with the City Manager; the revenue sharing
provision is a recognition that there is a partnership; employees recognize the economic
realities the City is facing; at the same time, the City recognizes that between 2008 and
2013 employees will not have any pay increases; in spite of costs such as garbage
rates increasing, employees are seeing net decreases in wages; there is a mutual
understanding of the fiscal constraints the City is facing and recognizing that the
employees are willing to help share in the healthcare cost and in the pension
obligations.
Councilmember Johnson stated the proposal is innovative; that she expects to see
similar in the future; employees have made significant concessions in the MOUs;
agreed with the City Manager that the City might be a leader in this front; employees
have made significant concessions.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he concerned about budget difficulties and the
impact on other bargaining groups.
The City Manager stated staff has already talked with the public safety units and intends
to engage in bargaining as soon as possible, a meeting is scheduled with Fire in July to
reopen the MOU precisely for concessions; the City will need to petition the State to
allow the City to require employees to pay additional money to PERS; Council should
not look at the percentage number because the miscellaneous is a different structure
than public safety; employees will be paying half of the premium increases in medical
and the maximum amount allowable in California for pensions; the City cannot do better
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,8,"than that; bargaining units are going to pay the maximum allowable under California law
assuming the City gets PERS approval.
Mayor Gilmore thanked the bargaining units for recognizing the tough times, stepping
up to the plate, and being a good partner with the City; stated Council recognizes how
difficult the situation may be given the fact that employees are asked to contribute more
to pensions when pay increases have not been given for four years.
Councilmember deHaan stated expenditure requirements have always been increased
by 3% per year; growth has not been at that rate ink the last two or three years.
The City Manager stated staff is forecasting that revenue projections would yield the
bottom of the ladder for what these wage increases are scheduled to be; staff is
basically forecasting no growth; budget projections are at the high end on expenses,
and at the dramatically low end on revenues; departments have pushed down on
expenses very hard; the Assistant City Manager and Controller got the projections right
on the revenues and were able to jam down on expenses; by doing so, there was
actually money left over.
Speaker: Bill Garvine, MCEA, expressed his appreciation of Council recognizing
MCEA's contribution to the process.
Councilmember deHaan moved for approval. Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion
which carried by unanimous voice votes - 5 ayes.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*12-319) Resolution No. 14700, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application
to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $187,957 in
Funding from the Lifeline Transportation Program to Continue Operation of the Estuary
Crossing Shuttle, to Commit to Pursuing the Necessary Local Match for the Estuary
Shuttle Program, and to Execute all Necessary Documents."" Adopted.
(*12-320) Resolution No. 14701, ""Approving Parcel Map PM-10086, for the Subdivision
of 55.6 Acres into Four Parcels Located Mostly South of Mitchell Avenue and East of the
Coast Guard Housing Site Commonly Referred to as a Portion of the (Alameda Landing
Site) and Certain Reservations, Dedications, Acceptances, and Easement Vacations.
Adopted.
(*12-321) Resolution No. 14702, ""Electing to Receive a Portion of the Tax Increments
from the Exchange Area of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33607.5.' Adopted; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,9,"(*12-321 A) Resolution No. 14703, ""Electing to Receive a Portion of the Tax Increments
from the Original Area of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and the
West End Community Improvement Project Area Pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 33607.7. Adopted.
(12-322) Resolution No. 14704, ""Supporting Renaming the Eastshore State Park to the
McLaughlin Eastshore State Park."" Adopted.
Speaker: Alan Carlton, Eastshore State Park Committee member, stated Ms.
McLaughlin was founder of Save the Bay.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(12-323) Adoption of Resolution to Accepting Parks Master Plan and Technical Studies
for Urban Greening Plan. Moved to July 3, 2012.
(12-324) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14705, ""Approving the Engineer's
Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessments,
Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, All Zones."" Adopted.
Councilmember Johnson recused herself and left the dais.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
4. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.]
(12-325) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14706, ""Approving the Engineer's
Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessments,
Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove).' Adopted.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(12-326) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14707, ""Establishing Integrated
Waste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc.,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,10,"for Rate Period 11 (July 2012 to June 2013). Adopted.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-327) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Administrative Citation
Fees, Vacant Building Monitoring Fees, Administrative Penalties and Abatement Costs
Via the Property Tax Bills for Subject Properties.
The Building Official gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore requested the Building Official provide a general overview of the noticing
and time line.
The Building Official gave a brief review of the procedure.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the amount is placed on the property tax, to which the
Building Official responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry whether the properties have been in the system
for over a year, the Chief Building Official stated the properties have been in the system
for more than a year; one has been in the system for 20 years.
Councilmember Johnson stated including the time period in the staff report would be
helpful.
William Petzel, Attorney for 1710 Jay Street, provided a history of the property;
requested Council not make a decision for 45 days in order to allow the property owner
to file a demolition permit or apply for a variance; the City could place the lien on the
property if the property owner does not do so in 45 days.
Mayor Gilmore inquired about the time line to lien the property, to which the Chief
Building Official responded July 1st.
Mayor Gilmore stated granting 45 days would not allow an opportunity to lien the
property until next year.
The Chief Building Official noted the citations have been assessed regardless of
whether or not a permit or variance is done in the future.
Mr. Petzel stated the property owner is not objecting to the amount of the assessment,
but objects to a lien being placed on the property.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,11,"correct the health and safety issues.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether there is a defined process for issuing
citations, to which the Chief Building Official responded guidelines do not include a set
timeframe; stated time, normally 30 days, is permitted to allow the matter to be fixed
before the citation becomes effective; the citations can be appealed; none were
appealed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,12,"Councilmember Johnson inquired whether communications were going on when
citations were issued, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether citations continued to be issued at the same
time.
The Chief Building Official responded staff held off on issuing citations due to an
agreement with the attorney; outlined the significant recent work.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the realistic time line
between citations, the Chief Building Official stated the time line is seldom fewer than 30
days and is often 60 days; the time line is based on the significance of the violation;
significant electrical work was done in large portions of the house presenting a
significant fire danger; repairs were in the interest of the property owner and the City;
citations are the mechanism for gaining compliance and making the building safe; the
process is not used lightly.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff was in contact with the lawyer, to which
the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated the property was not
brought to Council last year because the attorney indicated he would work with the City,
which did not occur.
Ms. Harrington noted the prior attorney only worked 12 hours on the matter in two
years, which is not significant; read the letter from the City outlining the violations;
stated the property is not in great disrepair.
Councilmember Johnson inquired about the fines and citations issued for 500 Central to
provide comparison, to which the Chief Building Official responded that he does not
have said information.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's further inquiry, the Chief Building Official
stated five citations were issued for 1523 Pacific Avenue in the past 12 months.
Councilmember Johnson stated $16,000 in citations is typical and should be compared.
Mayor Gilmore noted unpermitted electrical and water heater work is a danger to the
property owner and adjacent properties.
Councilmember Johnson stated there should be a standard practice for issuing
citations.
The Chief Building Official outlined the significance of the violations; noted each citation
could have been appealed; stated staff moved forward to gain compliance.
Ms. Harrington noted an electrical permit was pulled on April 4, 2012; urged the City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,13,"allow the property owner to attempt to come into compliance.
The City Manager stated that he disagrees with doing so; staff has tried to negotiate
with the prior attorney; placing a lien will not put anyone out of the house; maintaining a
property in a way that is an eminent hazard is not fair to adjacent property owners;
questioned how Council would determine which cases require mercy; exercising
discretion that might result in a pattern could make the City subject to accusations about
why cases were selected.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she agrees with the City Manager that there should
be no discretion, which is why she wants to ensure internal policies do not put
enforcement at the discretion of individual staff members; particular properties should
not be zeroed in on.
The City Manager stated that he has no objection to suspending the accrual of
additional fines and penalties for 90 days; urged the amount not be waived.
Ms. Harrington stated Council has discretion and should use it.
In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry regarding Ms. Harrington's concern with the
fine being assessed, Ms. Harrington stated the property owner is struggling financially
and cannot tolerate the expenses associated with the situation; the lien would accrue
interest.
The City Manager stated regardless of interest, the amount would not be payable and
would not impact the property owner's cash flow; noted no appeals were filed.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding appeals, the Chief Building
Official stated appeals are heard by the Appeals Officer, who is a Building Official from
another city.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the notice includes information about the
right to appeal, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired when Ms. Harrington became involved, to which Ms.
Harrington responded last week.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether not assessing the lien for 90 days would effectively
delay the lien for one year, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the
affirmative.
Anita Longoria, 1523 Pacific Avenue, provided additional background on the permits.
The Chief Building Official stated the 2010 inspection record indicates everything
appeared to be very new and was not 25 year old work.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,14,"Ms. Harrington stated correspondence from the City reflects there is an illegal unit and
rooms that were never permitted; there is a discrepancy.
John Lopes, Jr., 2053 Lincoln Avenue, outlined the issues with the property; requested
the lien not be issued.
*
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:13 p.m. and returned at 9:15 p.m.
*
Mayor Gilmore inquired when the work was done, to which Mr. Lopes responded 2007.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Lopes did work on another property with permits, to
which Mr. Lopes responded in the affirmative; stated work was also done at 2053
Lincoln Avenue with permits.
Mayor Gilmore stated Mr. Lopes is seasoned and aware permits are needed for most
work.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding the back unit, Mr. Lopes
stated his daughter lives in the back unit.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the City offers installment plans, to which the Chief
Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated in cases where the work was done
by a contractor, the City advises the property owner to go to the contractor to request
payment of the permit fees; noted the case is gas lines installed without a permit, which
is a significant health and safety issue.
Mr. Lopes expressed objection to the project being called a safety issue.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding the name of the contractor,
Mr. Lopes responded Olson Plumbing.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether citations are always issued when the City
learns of unpermitted work, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the
negative; stated a series of requests are made prior to issuing a citation, which is a last
resort; the citation was issued after a fourth notice and three months.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether no citations or penalties would have been
assessed if the property owner applied for a permit after receiving the notices, to which
the Chief Building Official responded investigation fees would have been charged,
which is four times the permit amount.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether there is an opportunity to avoid citations, to
which the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,15,"Mr. Lopes stated he was told he had to pay four times the amount, to which the Chief
Building Official responded said amount is the investigation fee; stated the investigation
fee is assessed once a complaint is filed for work without a permit.
In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry regarding the permit cost, the Chief Building
Official stated the permit cost is around $150.
Mr. Lopes stated the total fine is around $2,000 now.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the citations are mailed to the residence, to which
the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Lopes outlined his financial hardship; stated that he is sorry he made the mistake;
he would rather go to jail or find another way to pay the City.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the permit and investigation fee was around $1,000
when Mr. Lopes was first noticed.
Mr. Lopes stated there are two gas lines, so the amount is double.
Mayor Gilmore stated the amount would have been $2,000 as opposed to $14,000;
a
payment schedule could have been worked out if Mr. Lopes talked to the Building
Official.
Mr. Lopes stated staff always told him he had to pay the full amount; he was never told
he could make payments; further stated that he thought the meeting tonight was the
appeal process.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Mr. Lopes was aware of the appeal process
on the citation, to which Mr. Lopes responded that he tried to talk to staff.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Mr. Lopes knew the appeal process was
described on the citation, to which Mr. Lopes responded that he cannot recall; stated
the citation looks like a traffic ticket; he asked about the next steps in the process.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Mr. Lopes knows how many citations he
received, to which Mr. Lopes responded approximately 13 or 14.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many times the liens have come to Council, to
which the Chief Building Official responded the past three years.
Councilmember deHaan stated some cases have been over 5 years; inquired why liens
were not brought to Council sooner and whether a threshold needs to be met.
The Chief Building Official responded the threshold is when it appears the property
owner is no longer interested in working with staff; stated some properties have prior
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,16,"liens and new liens are being proposed, such as the Roosevelt property.
Mark Cederborg, 2319 Santa Clara Avenue Trustee, gave background information on
the trust; stated citations were issued prior to the transfer; outlined current activities;
stated said activities show the trust wants to cooperate with the City.
Mayor Gilmore inquired if citations have stopped being issued since Mr. Cederborg's
client is attempting to come into compliance, to which the Chief Building Official
responded the last citation was issued March 1st and the first contact with the trustee
was May 1st; stated the City has stopped issuing citations.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry whether $5,000 for the compliance inspection is
under discussion, the Chief Building Official stated the $5,000 is due before a permit
can be issued; all outstanding amounts, including citations, have to be paid before a
permit can be issued.
Mr. Cederborg stated the last property tax bill included a special assessment of over
$7,000, which cannot be paid; the liens are not just assessed when the property is sold
and have to be paid on the property tax bill.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the amount is a City lien, to which the Chief Building
Official responded the amount might be an assessment from a previous year.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the liens are paid yearly or when the property is sold.
The Chief Building Official responded that his understanding is that the amount is
collected when the property is sold; stated the County pays the City half three months
after the lien is filed and the other half six months after; that he does not know if the
County charges the property owner that year or at time of sale; that he understood it
was at the time of sale.
The City Manager noted in the case, the amount could be included because the
property transferred.
There was a brief discussion about the divorce case and the trust.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about whether property owners cannot
take out permits to do the required work once a citation is issued, the Chief Building
Official stated all fees due must be paid before a permit is issued; exceptions are made
for life safety issues; an exception was made in this case to allow electrical repairs.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether staff negotiates penalties and fees, to which
the Chief Building Official stated only payment plans are negotiated; stated staff does
not have authority to waive the fee once a citation has been assessed and the appeal
period has passed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,17,"In response to Councilmember Johnson's further inquiry, the Chief Building Official
stated the ordinance is clear that people be given the opportunity to correct once a
citation has been issued; a penalty is not assessed if the matter is appealed or
corrected in the timeframe, which is usually 30 days.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether there is no penalty, to which the Chief
Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated only the permit and investigation
fee are charged.
Councilmember Johnson inquired how the citation amount is set, to which the Chief
Building Official responded the amount is set in the ordinance; the first citation is $250,
the second is $750, and the third and subsequent are $1,000.
Councilmember Johnson inquired why 14 citations are only $5,000, to which the Chief
Building Official responded the City has placed prior liens on the property.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Chief Building Official stated the
liens would be submitted to the County by July 1st; property owners have until the end
of
the day on June 28th to pay.
The City Attorney noted the lien is released if the debt is paid.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether there is a resource to help property owners;
stated property owners get frightened and shut down; information needs to be clear; the
citations look like parking tickets; the appeal process needs to be made clear on the
notice; the ordinance has been in place for a while and should be reviewed and
improved.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether citations continue once a lien has been placed on a
property, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated that he would recuse himself from 1710 Jay Street and 2319
Santa Clara Avenue in an abundance of caution because he has a relationship with the
interested parties; that he would vote, but would also like to address 1523 Pacific
Avenue separately from the rest.
Councilmember Tam stated that she should recuse herself from 2319 Santa Clara
Avenue.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she should recuse herself as well, which makes three
members.
The City Attorney stated one person is allowed to vote if a quorum is lost.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether someone discussed another property, to
which the City Attorney responded 2053 Lincoln Avenue.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,18,"In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding hardship, the Chief Building
Official stated the County may have a process if property owners have hardships and
cannot pay property taxes; the City is not a part of said process.
Mayor Gilmore stated there seems to be some confusion; inquired whether the liens are
part of the property tax paid twice per year or whether the amount is paid when the
property is sold.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,19,"The Chief Building Official stated that his understanding is the amount is assessed at
the time of sale; the County pays the City in advance of collecting the money.
The City Attorney stated liens typically have to be cleared when the property is sold, but
property can be foreclosed on due to liens.
Councilmember Johnson stated the City needs to check with the County.
The Chief Building Official stated that he would contact the County.
The City Attorney stated there are many different types of liens; assessments are paid
as part of property taxes; a lien is not an assessment.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated the attorney indicated the County has a process for reviewing
hardships.
Ms. Harrington stated as an example, San Francisco County places a lien and
forecloses on property if taxes are not paid for 5 years; whether or not the property
would be foreclosed upon is not clear.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired what is the City's process for hardships, to which the Chief
Building Official responded staff works with property owners willing to make payments;
stated enforcement is not stopped until the property is in compliance.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether enforcement means additional citations, to which
the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding the first letter, the Chief
Building Official stated the first letter informs the property owner that the City needs to
investigate a complaint; if a violation is found, the second letter states the property
owner needs to comply and pay the permit and fees; citations are brought up after there
is no compliance; three to four letters are sent prior to issuing the first citation; there are
many Code Enforcement cases and only a 13 are being brought to Council.
The City Manager reminded Council the issues are health and safety issues that could
impact surrounding properties.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved approval of providing a 90 day moratorium for 1523 Pacific
Avenue whereby there will be no additional fines imposed and giving an opportunity for
the attorney to work out a plan with staff.
Mayor Gilmore inquired what happens to the $16,750, to which Vice Mayor Bonta stated
the attorney would discuss the amount with staff.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Vice Mayor Bonta is referring to how the amount would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,20,"be paid, to which Vice Mayor Bonta responded a payment plan or lump sum.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the motion is to approve a 90 day moratorium for
1523 Pacific Avenue and allow a payment plan where the City does not impose the lien;
if the property owner does not pay up, the matter would come back next year, to which
Vice Mayor Bonta responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the intent of the motion is
to allow discussion of the penalty amount, to which Councilmember Tam responded the
intent is to allow the property owner to work out an installment plan with staff.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the motion fixes the amount, to which Vice
Mayor Bonta responded the motion does not contemplate the fixing of the amount or
how it is paid, which he leaves to staff; it is fine if agreement is reached and staff holds
the line and requests the whole amount be paid; that he is not saying one way or the
other and is giving flexibility; the time and process are the most important component.
The City Manager stated the woman is elderly and does not have income; that he does
not see how an installment plan will happen.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated family members are willing to pay.
The City Attorney stated the attorney indicated the property owner is willing to fix the
problem; requested clarification about whether the amount owed would be paid.
Ms. Harrington responded the amount of the citation should be lowered; that she would
want to review the amount of the fee; the family is willing to do whatever it takes to save
the property.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Ms. Harrington believes the citations are all
for current work, to which Ms. Harrington responded in the negative.
Councilmember Johnson stated the wiping out the past work should make the case
easier to resolve; that she would like the matter included in the motion.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the motion allows working out the amount and
whether there should be abatement based on when work was done and prior permits;
stated the flexibility does not need to be discussed.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated that he would like to delegate the flexibility to staff.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she would support the motion because in this case there is a
discrepancy whether the work was old work or new work, which is different from other
cases.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,21,"On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Gilmore provided an overview of 2053 Lincoln Avenue.
Councilmember deHaan stated a payment plan was not offered; inquired whether the
property owner would move forward with a payment schedule.
Mr. Lopes' daughter stated that she is willing to pay $1,000 for the next two months to
get the permit and following that, will make payments on the $12,000; begged the lien
not be placed on the house.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 2053 Lincoln Avenue should be sent back to
staff to give time to set up requirements for payment.
Mayor Gilmore stated there is a promise on the record to make payments.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of 90 days and direction to staff to work out
a
payment schedule.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the motion is to give 90 days to work out a plan for
coming into compliance and a payment schedule.
Vice Mayor Bonta clarified there would be a moratorium during the 90 days so that no
additional citations would be imposed.
The City Manager stated Mr. Lopes indicated PG&E said the gas lines are fine.
Mr. Lopes stated that he does not have a problem with putting in the valves; City staff
saw pictures and said the material was not good, however, PG&E indicated that the
materials is being used everywhere instead of metal pipe.
Mayor Gilmore requested the motion be amended to include that the gas valve and
material of the piping to ensure City requirements are met.
The Chief Building Official stated said matter would be addressed as part of the
inspection process once a permit is issued; the gas lines have to be unburied to do the
inspection; a test is done to ensure the gas line does not leak and the material is proper
and will not rot.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Lopes will not come back and argue that PG&E
said the material is fine, to which Mr. Lopes responded that he understands.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Johnson inquired whether there is an indication that
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,22,"the pipes do not meet standards.
Mr. Lopes responded staff told him everything would have to be replaced, which he
does not believe; inspection will pass once the valves are installed.
Mayor Gilmore stated the motion includes that there will be a complete inspection of the
gas lines, including the valves and material composition of the lines.
Mr. Lopes stated a couple of spots would be uncovered to check the material, depth
and test pressure.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, the
City Attorney responded not unless the Councilmember declares bias.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated that he does not believe he technically has a conflict, he just
did so out of an abundance of caution.
The City Attorney stated the rule of necessity allows for a drawing to be held to make
a
quorum; Vice Mayor Bonta does not appear to have a true conflict.
Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Tam expressed they do not have a true conflict
either.
Vice Mayor Bonta and Councilmember Tam voluntarily recused themselves and left the
dais.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the County required payment of a prior
assessment due to the property transfer, to which Mr. Cederborg responded in the
affirmative; stated the amount is $7,800.
Council discussed whether or not the amount could be the School District parcel tax.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the amount is not being disputed, to which
Mr. Cederborg responded the property owner has worked in good faith and citations
have continued to accrue.
Councilmember Johnson stated health and safety concerns are greater for commercial
space.
*
(12-328) Councilmember Johnson moved approval of considering the next three
ordinances [paragraph nos. 12-329, 12-330, and 12-331 after 10:30 p.m.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,23,"[Absent: Vice Mayor Bonta - 1.]
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the property owner needs to go forward with
the work to allow a tenant to move in, to which Mr. Cederborg responded in the
affirmative.
The Chief Building Official stated once the lien has been filed, the $5,000 goes away
and permit fees could be discussed.
Mayor Gilmore stated placing a lien on the property wipes the slate clean and allows the
property owners to obtain the permits needed.
The City Manager stated the property is out of compliance; staff can be directed to work
with the property owner to get into compliance; the $5,000 lien is not operative now.
Mayor Gilmore stated placing the lien would allow the property owner to go back to
court and explain there was misrepresentation.",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-- -MARCH 19, 2019- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:04 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(19-146) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section
54956.8); Property: 120 W. Oriskany, Building 530; City Negotiators: Nanette Mocanu,
Assistant Community Development Director, and Ted Anderson, Cushman & Wakefield;
Negotiating Parties: Nautilus Data Technologies, Inc. and Hot Rod Shop Inc.; Issue
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
(19-147) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section
54956.8); Property: 650 West Ranger Avenue; City Negotiators: Nanette Mocanu,
Assistant Community Development Director, and Ted Anderson, Cushman & Wakefield;
Negotiating Parties: TBD via Request for bids; Issue Under Negotiation: Relocation of
Existing tenants
(19-148) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d), and paragraph (1) of subdivision
(e), of section 54956.9; Number of cases: 6
(19-149) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: David L. Rudat, Interim City Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human
Resources Director; Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), and Executive Management Employees (EXME); Under
Negotiation: Salaries and Terms of Employment
(19-150) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring; Pursuant to Government Code § 54957
(b)(1); Title/description of positions to be filled: Interim/Acting City Manager
(19-151) Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claims; (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.95); Claimant: Jeffrey Cambra; Agency claimed against: City of Alameda
[Note: Councilmember Vella recused herself and was not present for the Liability Claims
matter.]
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding 120 W. Oriskany and 650 West Ranger Avenue the City
Council gave direction to staff by unanimous voice vote; regarding Anticipated Litigation
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,2,"and Labor, direction was given to staff with no vote taken; regarding
Appointment/Hiring, the City Council appointed Amy Wooldridge as Interim City
Manager by unanimous voice vote; and regarding Liability Claims, direction was given
to staff by four affirmative votes [Absent: Councilmember Vella - 1.].
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:10
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,3,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - MARCH 19, 2019- 6:58 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:18 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(19-152) Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing Yibin Shen as City
Attorney Effective May 13, 2019.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:20
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 19, 2019
1",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,4,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY--MARCH 19, 2019- 6:59 P.M.
Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella
and Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Vella moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*19-153) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held on
February 5, 2019. Approved.
(*19-154) Recommendation to Approve an Amendment to the Construction Ground
Lease Deed of Trust (with Security Agreement, Fixture Filing and Assignment of Rents
and Leases) for the Alameda Theater Allowing Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P.
to Incur Additional Debt in the Amount of $1.6 Million for Theatre Upgrades and
Allowing the Successor Agency's Outstanding Loan to be Subordinate to Such
Additional Debt. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:21
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Successor Agency to the Community
Improvement Commission
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,5,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH - - 19, 2019- 7:0 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:21 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(19-155) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the Season of Non Violence word of the day on
direct action.
(19-156) Proclamation Declaring March 2019 Women's History Month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(19-157) Councilmember Oddie recognized the Interim City Manager.
The rest of the City Council also made brief comments.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(19-158) Paul Foreman, Alameda, expressed concern over comments made at the
February 19, 2019 Council meeting regarding the cannabis item.
(19-159) Pat Potter, Alameda, discussed the Council workshop on March 16th;
suggested each Councilmember share what they are doing to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions at each Council meeting.
(19-160) Toni Grimm, Alameda, expressed concern over the term ""housing provider"";
urged ordinance 3131 be revised.
(19-161) Roxanne Hanna-Ware, Alameda, discussed issues with her living conditions at
Alameda Point Collaborative.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that the Central Avenue bikeway extension [paragraph
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,27,"missed.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the workforce changes resolutions;
stated that he will abstain from the budget amendments due to the budget coming in
negative and since he has only been present for two months as the two year budget; he
is looking forward to the next two-year budget cycle.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she appreciates the conservative budget projections;
even though revenues have been high, ten years ago some departments were cut in
half; spending excess revenues should be avoided; public safety vacancies are not due
to Council not funding the positions; recognized the City Clerk's office for passport
services.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4.
Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(19-176) Recommendation to Consider: (A) Introduction of Ordinance Repealing in Its
Entirety Ordinance No. 3227 (Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses) of Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations
and Industry) to (1) Eliminate the Cap on Testing Laboratories, (2) Allow for Two
Additional Cannabis Businesses to Operate as ""Dispensary/Delivery' (Delivery
Required; Open to the Public) Within the Zoning Districts for Cannabis Retail, (3)
Amend the Dispersion Requirement to Require No More Than Two Cannabis Retail
Businesses to Operate on Either Side of Grand Street, (4) Create a Two-Tier Buffer
Zone from Sensitive Uses for Cannabis Businesses, (5) Amend Certain Portions of the
Regulatory Ordinance to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-
medicinal or ""Adult Use"" Cannabis, (6) Modify Requirements for Off-Island Delivery, and
(7) Make Other Clarifying or Conforming Amendments Thereto; and (B) Introduction of
Ordinance Repealing in Its Entirety Ordinance No. 3228 (Ordinance Amending Section
30-10 (Cannabis) to (1) Add Cannabis Retail Businesses as Conditionally Permitted
Uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Business, and C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing Zoning
Districts, (2) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Enable Cannabis Retail
Businesses to Dispense Non-medicinal or ""Adult Use"" Cannabis, and (3) Amend Certain
Portions of the Zoning Code to Remove the Dispersion Requirement); and Public
Hearing to Consider: (A) Introduction of Ordinance: (1) Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Amending Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses) of Chapter VI
(Businesses, Occupations and Industry) to (a) Eliminate the Cap on Testing
Laboratories, (b) Allow for Two Additional Cannabis Businesses to Operate as
""Dispensary/Delivery"" (Delivery Required, Open to the Public) within the Zoning Districts
for Cannabis Retail, (c) Amend the Dispersion Requirement to Require No More Than
Two Cannabis Retail Businesses to Operate on Either Side of Grand Street, (d) Create
a Two-Tier Buffer Zone from Sensitive Uses for Cannabis Businesses, (e) Amend
Certain Portions of the Regulatory Ordinance to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,28,"Dispense Non-Medicinal or ""Adult Use"" Cannabis, (f) Modify Requirements for Off-
Island Delivery, and (g) Make Any Other Related Amendments; and (B) Introduction of
Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (1) Amending Section 30-10
(Cannabis) to (a) Add Cannabis Retail Businesses as Conditionally Permitted Uses in
the C-1, Neighborhood Business, and C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing Zoning Districts,
(b) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses
to Dispense Non-Medicinal or ""Adult Use"" Cannabis, (c) Amend Certain Portions of the
Zoning Code to Remove the Dispersion Requirement; and (d) Make Any Other Related
Amendments; and Consider Phasing Implementation of the Cap on the Number of
Dispensary/Delivery Permits, Through the Request for Proposals Process, and Provide
Direction to Staff, as Necessary. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(19-177) The Interim City Manager made brief comments about his time as Interim City
Manager.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(19-178) Consider Raising the Rate of the Hotel Tax (Transient Occupancy Tax).
(Councilmember Daysog)
Councilmember Daysog stated the item would be placed on the April 16, 2019 agenda.
(19-179) Consider Directing the City Manager to Create Breastfeeding Locations, Baby
Changing Stations and Gender Neutral Bathrooms. (Councilmembers Vella and Oddie)
Councilmembers Vella and Oddie made brief comments regarding the referral.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the referral.
Councilmember Vella seconded, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(19-180) Status of the Emma Hood Swim Center at Alameda High School.
Vice Mayor Knox White gave a brief update.
(19-181) Review and Discuss Charter Amendment Timeline and Issues Proposed by
the Council Subcommittee.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,29,"Vice Mayor Knox White made brief comments.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether workshop A and B are able to be agendized to
allow other Councilmembers to attend.
The Interim City Attorney responded a member of Council may attend, but not
participate in a subcommittee meeting.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether she would be able to ask questions.
The Interim City Attorney responded in the negative; stated if a Councilmember would
like to participate, the meeting should be noticed in a timely manner to be properly
agendized.
The City Clerk stated a 7-day notice is required to allow the entire Council to attend and
speak.
Councilmember Oddie stated there are many items that Councilmembers would like to
weigh-in on; expressed concern about attending a workshop without proper preparation.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the goal of bringing the item is to gain input on topics of
interest and the process.
Councilmember Oddie stated mid-April is only 3 weeks away, and may not be enough
time to produce changes that can be vetted by the community.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that her direction was to go through the City Charter in
detail; discussed items that are not currently included in the Charter.
Councilmember Daysog stated the items he has suggested have political legitimacy;
limiting the topics was not discussed; outlined his priorities for Charter updates.
Councilmember Vella stated there should be more discussion about topics; suggested
the item be continued to a future meeting.
The City Clerk noted Elections Code 1415 prohibits employment issues from being on
the March election and the City would have to pay to participate in the election.
Councilmember Oddie discussed the Charter provision deemed to be vague and
unclear.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the item may be continued to April 2, to which the City
Clerk responded in the affirmative.
(19-182) February 2019 Topic Brief on Climate Action and Embodied Emissions.
[Informational Only] (Councilmember Oddie)
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,30,"Councilmember Oddie stated the matter would return on April 2, 2019.
ADJOURNMENT
(19-183) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting
at 1:37 a.m. in memory of Victor McElhaney and victims of the terrorist attack in
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,6,"no. 19-164]; the resolution amending the concession agreement [paragraph no. 19-
166]; and the climate emergency resolution [paragraph no. 19-168 were removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*19-162) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on February
19, 2019. Approved.
(*19-163) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,959,437.29.
(19-164) Recommendation to Endorse the Central Avenue Webster Street Options for
Further Analysis and the Two-Way Bikeway Extension between Paden School and
McKay Avenue.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he pulled the item to ensure clarification for the
public; four options are being reviewed.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated each option will be discussed
in detail; a decision will be made once the preferred option is identified.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City is moving ahead with projects along Central and
Encinal Avenues in a way that does not align with the Transportation Element;
comprehensive modification of the General Plan is needed to see how projects fit in to
the updated General Plan; a robust conversation involving the public should occur.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated staff has engaged the community, Boards and
Commissions as well as Council in a great way; requested staff bring back the option
that is determined most safe, and allows the best opportunity for mode shift and
greenhouse gas reductions.
Councilmember Oddie inquired the time-frame of when the item will return to Council.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded Central Avenue has
taken longer due to its status of being a State highway; a comprehensive report on the
project will return at either the April 16th or May 7th Council meeting ; the goal is to
return to Council by the end of the year to make recommendations and final decisions.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,7,"(*19-165) Resolution No. 15507, ""Finding that the Harbor Bay Entities [Harbor Bay
Village Four Associates (HBV4), Harbor Bay Village Five Associates (HBV5), and
Harbor Bay Isle Associates (HBIA)] Have Demonstrated Good Faith Compliance with
the Terms and Conditions of Development Agreement, DA-89-1.' Adopted.
(19-166) Resolution No. 15508, ""Amending the Concession Agreement with Dialemi,
Inc. (known as Jim's on the Course), to Provide an Extension for Completion of the
Event Center at the Corica Park Golf Complex."" Adopted.
The Interim Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is a 30-day timeline as mentioned in
correspondence related to the item.
The Interim Assistant City Manager responded that she has spoken with Greenway Golf
and the owner of Jim's on the Course; the goal is to provide a final product of a quality
that aligns with the facility; she recommends an amendment to allow 45 days for the
City to approve all furnishings, fixtures and equipment (FFE); provided examples of
FFE; she recommends the landscape plan be approved by the City within 45 days of
signing the amendment; stated heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) is to be
included in the project.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the level of approval for FFE.
The Interim City Manager responded she would approve the FFE.
Councilmember Oddie inquired where the 45 days is listed.
The Interim City Manager responded it needs to be added.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if Council is allowed to make an amendment to the
current item.
Councilmember Vella inquired if there will be delays if Greenway has a discrepancy.
The Interim Assistant City Manager responded discretion and approval lies with the
City; stated that her goal is to have a quality product that benefits the golf course and
the City and to match the look of the facility.
Stated that he would like the event center to have consistent quality; stated most Jim's
patrons are not golfers; he supports the extension with the 45 day condition: George
Kelley, Greenway Golf.
Stated the Golf Commission unanimously voted in favor the staff recommendation: Ed
Downing, Golf Commission.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,8,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the number of missed completion dates;
stated two years of the contract has passed; stated that she is encouraged by the level
of communication.
Councilmember Vella stated the original timeline was idealistic; a lofty goal was set in
regard to the permitting time allotted; the proposed language ensures the City has the
ability to synthesize the project; the extension requested is not asking for an
unreasonable amount of time; expressed support of the 45 day extension.
Councilmember Daysog stated the golf course is incredibly beautiful; outlined the quality
of work he witnessed on a recent visit; expressed appreciation for the attention provided
by the Interim Assistant City Manager; expressed support of the 45 day extension and
the City approving the FFE; stated that he voted on the item in 2015 and would like to
see project completion in the near future; outlined the possibility of having Professional
Golfers' Association (PGA) events in the future.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes once completed well, the course has the
ability to attract PGA tournaments and banquets; golf is a great form of recreation and
allows young golfers to learn the sport; the venue is a good location for weddings;
expressed support of approving the resolution with the 45 day extension; stated if the
project is not completed by December 2019, she is not inclined to support another
extension.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support; stated the building permit had been issued in
December of 2018 and mechanical and electrical permits are still awaiting review; part
of the reason for delay is due to the City permit review process; expressed support of
the 45 day extension, which has not been noticed; inquired if Council has the authority
to vote on the extension.
The Interim City Attorney responded that he does not recommend adding the 45 day
extension at this time; stated Council has given direction with respect to the review
period; if a third amendment is needed, it may be brought back to Council for
discussion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the item may be continued to the next Council meeting
in order to include the 45 day extension; stated that she is not aware of any evidence
that the City's review process has caused delays.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he believes Council has the ability to add the time
extension; the item has been adequately noticed; he will not support the second
amendment without the 45 day extension language added; expressed appreciation to
the Interim Assistant City Manager for her work; stated that he will not support future
extensions.
Councilmember Vella inquired about timing for permits and if there have been delays.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,9,"The Interim Assistant City Manager responded each permit differs based on level of
complexity and what is submitted; stated the project has not been delayed by the permit
process; outlined the permit and planning process timeline; stated complex projects
often result in holds for comments, where questions arise from the reviewer and the
issuance of the permit is held until questions are answered.
Councilmember Vella inquired what degree the Council should be involved in the review
process.
The Interim Assistant City Manager responded that she will be involved to the degree of
ensuring the paving and landscape plans match existing conditions; stated that she will
be looking at overall quality and aesthetics.
In response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry, the Interim Assistant City Manager
responded if the amendment is not approved, Jim's on the Course is in breach of
contract and the City would need to terminate the contract; Greenway Golf has first right
of refusal for food and beverage service.
Councilmember Vella inquired if Greenway Golf would take over, to which the Interim
Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie's inquired whether no one is at fault, the Interim Assistant City
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated it is reasonable for the concessionaire to request an
extension; inquired the reasoning behind Vice Mayor Knox White's stance on approval
of the 45 day extension.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded Council would be adhering to the Sunshine Ordinance;
stated the extension being requested has no material impact.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated based on the way the item has been noticed, anyone
inclined to speak was given the opportunity; the item is a great example of how titled
should be agendized.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution with the additional 45 day
provision outlined by the Interim Assistant City Manager.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Vella inquired whether the parties agreed to the 45
day provision, to which the Interim Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*19-167) Resolution No. 15509, ""Accept a Construction Grant for the Encinal Boat
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,10,"Launch Facility in the Amount of $1,450,000 from the Division of Boating and
Waterways, Harbor and Watercraft Revolving Fund and Authorize the Interim City
Manager, or Designee, to Manage the Grant Agreement.' Adopted.
(19-168) Resolution No. 15510, ""Endorse Declaration of a Climate Emergency and
Request Regional Collaboration on an Immediate Just Transition and Emergency
Mobilization Effort to Restore a Safe Climate."" Adopted.
The Climate Action Coordinator made brief comments.
Expressed support: Christy Cannon, Alameda.
Suggested a property on Park Street be used as a climate action center; discussed
potential additional uses for the property: Joseph Cohen, Alameda.
Expressed support; urged it be followed with action, policies, procedures and plans:
Lauren Eisele, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA).
Urged adoption of the resolution and a local focus to end greenhouse gas emissions by
2030: Amos White, CASA.
Expressed concern over sea level rise and support for the resolution: Caroline Choi,
Alameda High School Student and CASA.
Discussed climate change; expressed support for the resolution: Zoe Moore, Alameda
High School Student.
Expressed support for the resolution; discussed goals to address climate change:
Jessica Robinson, CASA.
Expressed support for the resolution; discussed youth being affected by sea level rise:
Isabella McCracken, Alameda High School Student.
Expressed support for the resolution; discussed possible environmental solutions:
Kayoung Lee, Alameda High School Student.
Expressed support for rooftop solar: Charles Adams, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated Council is providing input on the Climate Action Plan for
the first time; the most meaningful goal is to be at zero net greenhouse gas emissions
by 2030; the Climate Action Plan may yield a different goal; once the plan is adopted,
next steps will be discussed; Alameda is the only Island city in the Bay Area and should
be climate leaders; discussed subcommittee meetings; noted all staff reports going
forward need to identify the climate impact of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Oddie stated the issue is a top priority for Council; the City must take
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,11,"action and be leaders; the City does not have the luxury of waiting and will be
significantly impacted; it is critical to set goals and take action; the youth of Alameda
deserve to live in Alameda; expressed support for the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog stated the year 2050 is 31 years from now and will happen in
the snap of a finger; it is right to declare a climate action emergency.
Councilmember Vella expressed support of the resolution; stated there are many
existing ordinances and regulations that contradict what is currently being expressed;
the permitting process and design review process need to be reviewed to reduce
consumption; there has been a robust conversation with City staff, the community, and
Council about how to reduce waste.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(19-169) Resolution No. 15511, ""Appointing Vadim Sidelnikov as a Tenant Member of
the Rent Review Advisory Committee."" Adopted.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments.
Councilmember Vella moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr. Sidelnikov with a
certificate of appointment.
Mr. Sidelnikov made brief comments.
(19-170) Presentation on the CASA Compact; and Recommendation to Direct the
Interim City Manager to Incorporate State Legislation Introduced to Implement the
CASA Compact into the City's Legislative Agenda.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director made brief comments.
Brad Paul, Bay Metro, gave a Power Point presentation.
Discussed CASA tenant protections which are of concern to the Alameda Renters
Coalition (ARC); urged Council to do better than CASA: Catherine Pauling, Alameda
Renters Coalition.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,12,"Stated Alameda should push for CASA to have strong tenant protections; discussed
opportunities to hold neighboring cities accountable, and how to capture value and fees:
Brian McGuire, Alameda.
Stated the housing plan is going to make problems worse; major changes are needed;
the emphasis should not be on job creation: William Smith, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the presentation shows no high quality bus lines;
inquired the reason AC Transit Line 51A and the ferry are not included in the
assessment.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Director responded Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) produced a map based on the definition of a high
quality bus transit route, which is a separate category from ferries; outlined the
parameters for high quality bus route per MTC.
Mr. Paul stated Bay Metro can correct any mistakes that may have been made.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he believes Line 51A meets the criteria for high
quality bus route.
Councilmember Daysog stated officials from Contra Costa County cities raised
concerned about the CASA Compact at East Bay League of Cities meetings; expressed
concern over supporting the CASA Compact; stated Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC)
is also concerned about the Compact; that he prefers the language included in late
2015 to early 2016 related to 5% threshold trigger for implementing local rent
stabilization measures; the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI) in addition to the 5%
increase could yield close to a 9% rent increase; expressed concern over loss of local
prerogative; stated that he is not able to provide any recommendations on the CASA
Compact; the City will be vulnerable if the CASA Compact is passed as presented; line-
by-line analysis is needed on the regulatory effects on Alameda; outlined San Francisco
Assemblymember Chiu's regional housing plan; stated that he would like to accept the
presentation, but have internal City analysis.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that Councilmember Vella and herself sit on a State-wide
policy committee on housing community and economic development for the League of
California cities; the subcommittee proposed legislation will reviewed at an upcoming
meeting in southern California; outlined the legislative task force to implement the CASA
Compact; stated the issue is not without controversy, but housing is an important issue,
and every city must do its part; discussed criticisms of the CASA Compact.
Councilmember Vella stated many legislative points touch on housing in various
capacities; it is important for Council to have a say in what ends up happening with
upcoming legislation; Council should be aware and able to advocate for Alameda with
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,13,"Under discussion, Councilmember Vella stated the CASA Compact map of rent
increases from 2010 to 2016 shows the majority of Alameda has had an alarming
increase of 30%; the Compact is intended to provide general solutions.
Councilmember Daysog stated the General Plan should be updated in a comprehensive
manner in order to help residents align with needs.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:32 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:37
p.m.
(19-171) Public Hearing to Consider Endorsing: 1) an Annual Report on the Status of
the General Plan and Housing Element, and 2) an Annual Report on the Status of the
Transportation Choices Plan and Associated Work Program Priorities. Continued to
April 2, 2019.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the matter not be heard tonight.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of continuing the item to April 2, 2019.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,14,"Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(19-172) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending the General Plan
Residential and Business Park Land Use Classifications to Resolve Conflicting
Language Between the Residential Density Standards in the Land Use Element with the
Residential Density Standards Adopted in the Housing Element and Clarifying Business
Park Development Standards. Not heard.
(19-173) Public Hearing and Consider Adoption of Resolution Denying the Appeal Filed
by Ty Hudson on Behalf of Unite Here Local 2850 and Approving a Design Review and
Parking Reduction to Allow the Construction of a 96-Room Hotel with 62 Parking
Spaces at 1825 Park Street (PLN17-0538).
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of lowering the speaker time to one minute.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Paul Patel, Project Applicant, gave a brief presentation.
Ty Hudson, Appellant, gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether removing the housing overlay would require
the City to make-up the housing count, to which the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director responded in the negative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the parking study observed two days at another
hotel.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded independent analysis
was conducted; stated the code referenced by the appellant is about the Planning
Board reducing the amount of available on site parking; outlined the Planning Board's
discussion related to parking reduction; stated if 96 parking spaces are desired without
the need for valet, the hotel must become smaller.
Expressed support for the project: Kari Thompson, Chamber of Commerce.
Stated the project will benefit businesses: Michelle Manousos, East End Restaurant.
Expressed opposition to the appeal and support for the project: Paul Manousos, East
End Restaurant.
Expressed support for the hotel: Zhen Zhenn Li, Saratoga.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,15,"Stated the project would help Park Street and Alameda: Justin Wong, Alameda Artists.
Stated people want to stay at hotels in Alameda instead of near the airport; expressed
support for the project: Sam Patel.
Expressed support for the hotel: Ming Yan Yin, Alameda.
Stated Park Streets needs revitalization and would benefit from the hotel: Cameron.
Stated Intercontinental Hotels is excited to have a hotel in Alameda: Ed Shaw,
Intercontinental Hotels
Stated that he supports the hotel after talking to Mr. Patel: Benjamin Winters, Phoenix.
Stated the project has been going on for three years, should proceed and will bring jobs:
Rich Krinks, Alameda.
Expressed support for the hotel, which is something the City needs: Sinohui Hinojosa.
Expressed support for the hotel, which will bring people to the area: Phoebe Ng,
Alameda.
Expressed support for the hotel which will be a boom to the economy for both the
construction phase and after construction phase: Vincent Som.
Stated that he would use the hotel: Mike Gorman, Campbell.
Expressed support for the hotel: Shawn Flynn.
Stated Alameda does not have enough hotels to support the high tourism: Vincent Ma,
Alameda.
Expressed support for the hotel: Loi Thai.
Expressed support for the hotel, which will create jobs and support businesses: Michael
Villaluna.
Expressed support for the hotel: Harvey Young.
Expressed support for the hotel; urged Council to approve the project: John Frangoulis,
Park Street Tavern.
Expressed support for the hotel, stated Alameda needs a hotel to increase tourism and
create jobs: Madlen Saddik, Chamber of Commerce.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,16,"Expressed support for the project and Planning Board decision: Ron Mooney, Alameda.
Expressed support for the hotel: Garrick Yan.
Urged Council to support the project; stated the hotel will bring more tourism: Liza Fong.
Expressed support for the project and Mr. Patel; stated the hotel tax will help the City:
Tina Blaine, Alameda and Rhythmix.
Stated that he supports the project: Gustave Link.
Expressed support for the project and Mr. Patel: Amy Quintero, Alameda.
Stated that he wants the hotel: Mike Parisi, Thai Noodle House.
Urged Council to approve the hotel; stated this is the right project at the right time: Mark
Skolnick.
Expressed support for the hotel project; stated the hotel has been a goal of the Park
Street Business Association for many years: Lars Hanson, Alameda.
Stated that he supports the project; stated the tax revenues are a tremendous benefit to
the community: Eric Relos.
Stated that she is in favor of the hotel: Christina Hui.
Expressed support for the hotel; stated the hotel will be good for Alameda: Michelle
Rayo.
Stated the Downtown Alameda Business Association (DABA) enthusiastically supports
the hotel: Janet Magleby, DABA.
Stated the project will revitalize the north end of Park Street; outlined upcoming events
that are unable to accommodate guests wishing to stay overnight in Alameda: Steven
Zimmerman, Tuckers Ice Cream.
Expressed support for the hotel: Joe Loparo, Alameda.
Stated the hotel would be good for the downtown district: Anita Ng, Alameda.
Stated a hotel without a restaurant is best for Park Street restaurants: Vaidas Sukys,
Mama Papa Lithuania.
Urged approval of the project: Richard Kannapell.
Stated the project will bring business to Alameda: Alex Bretow.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,17,"Expressed support for the hotel: Kourish Ahari.
Stated hotel guests will need to eat and restaurants will benefit: Carlos Rosales.
Expressed support for the project: Sunil Lama.
Expressed concern over where the hotel workers would live; stated Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) affordable housing needs have not been met; a social
vulnerability analysis should occur: William Smith, Alameda.
Expressed concern over project delays; suggested additional transit solutions for
rideshare: Brian McGuire, Bike Walk Alameda.
Expressed support for Mr. Patel; urged Council to deny the appeal: Carlos Serrano-
Quan.
Stated that he has never seen so many people in support; the taxes will benefit the
community: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Councilmember Vella inquired the number of rooms of the hotels on Webster Street to
which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded Hawthorne Hotel
has approximately 50 rooms.
Councilmember Vella inquired how much business both hotels on Webster Street are
generating, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that
he cannot quantify said amount.
Councilmember Vella inquired if the hotels are at capacity, to which Planning, Building
and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative for Hawthorne Hotel.
Councilmember Vella inquired if there is guidance or policies in place for rideshare.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the condition of approval
requires a rideshare program be provided free of cost to hotel patrons.
(19-174) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider new items after
11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of considering the remaining items.
Councilmember Daysog stated his referral could be heard at the next meeting.
Councilmember Oddie stated his Council Communication item could also move to April
2, 2019.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,18,"Councilmember Vella amended her motion to hear the remaining items, excluding the
two items Councilmembers agreed to move to April 2, 2019.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
***
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the hotel would pay for
rideshare services for hotel guests from the airport and any place within a 3-mile radius
in order to reduce the need for patrons to rent cars.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director outlined the process for the hotel to procure rideshare for hotel
patrons.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if a bike option was considered, to which the Planning,
Building and Transportation Director responded it was not included as a requirement.
Councilmember Vella stated there is a question about what the City is doing to reduce
single-occupancy vehicles; the free Alameda shuttle should be promoted and
supported; that she will not be supporting the rideshare agreement; public transit should
be supported; the City should help improve the business districts; outlined how
trafficking laws relate to hotels; expressed concern over the process to approve hotels;
stated the process should include a community meeting to inform people that live
nearby; expressed concern about pedestrian safety related to rideshare.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the appeal does not rise to the level of significance;
expressed support of denying the appeal and voting to approve the hotel.
Councilmember Oddie expressed concern about rideshare; stated Council should
promote the use of bicycles and walking; outlined an ideal project approval; stated there
should be a way to work in commercial, hotel and residential at the same time; there is
a missed opportunity to engage both tourism and residential foot traffic; minimum
parking requirements are a tool to oppose development projects; expressed concern
about the design not providing housing options; stated more could have been done with
the property.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated Councilmember Oddie's suggestion is great; expressed
support of the General Plan and Housing Element update to include future
requirements; discussed his tenure on Planning Board related to subcommittee work on
the North Park Street zoning rules; stated there has been significant improvement in the
project's design; expressed concern over surrogate ride programs; stated that he would
like to see engagement on the ground floor, where people feel welcome to walk into; he
would like to see the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program shift; the
parking requirements are based on a 1970's mindset and do not make sense; outlined
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,19,"the ability for those who work in the City to be able to live in the City as well and
addressing the housing issue.
Councilmember Daysog stated Park Street has many great restaurants and hotel
patrons will feel the same; the project is exciting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the parking waiver; stated riding the bus is
great; it is unrealistic for all hotel patrons to be expected to ride the bus; expressed
support for having a variety of transit options available; discussed a shuttle she
encountered on a recent trip; stated foot traffic is needed for local businesses; a hotel
will increase business visitors; housing on upper levels of commercial space is a good
idea for future projects but it is unfair to hold the current project applicant to a standard
that has not been set forth to meet; expressed concern over the current design; stated
the design is nondescript and does not seem appropriate for the downtown historic
gateway; proposed addressing the different issues before Council separately and a vote
be taken to approve the parking waiver; inquired if conditions could be added.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the first issue to decide is
whether the appeal is upheld and if the project would be sent back to the Planning
Board to address design; outlined the appeal process; stated it is important to articulate
the reasons why the design is being sent back.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is in favor of sending the item back to the Planning
Board to address the design.
Councilmember Vella concurred; stated hotels are over-parked; inquired whether there
can be a community meeting or community notification if the matter is sent back to the
Planning Board.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated
staff can notice the community that the item is coming back to the Planning Board as a
study session; holding a separate community meeting before the Planning Board review
is also possible if Council desires.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over fairness to the applicant.
Councilmember Vella stated the community meeting does not need to be separate.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated this there have been at least two public hearings before
the Planning Board discussion; he does not support sending the design back.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is responsible, as an elected official voting to
approve a project, to ensure it is as high quality and appropriate in appearance in the
downtown gateway corridor.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied with the project being properly vetted;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,20,"expressed support for the current design; stated the design is consistent with the
downtown gateway; expressed support for the parking and TDM strategy; stated that he
will continue to support denial of the appeal.
Councilmember Oddie stated the design resembles an office building; a traditional brick
design would be better suited for the surrounding buildings.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined design findings.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of sending the item back to Planning Board to
improve the design to be more compatible.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if Council is unable to make all three findings
required for Design Review, Council must specify which findings cannot be made; the
motion to follow will be to uphold the appeal for reasons independently reviewed by
Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the parking waiver may be voted on or if a straw
vote is required to provide direction.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the resolution in the packet is to deny the appeal
and approve the project; stated a resolution has not been prepared that reflects the
Council's current considerations; a straw vote is recommended to direct staff to return at
the next regularly scheduled Council meeting with a resolution which has the
appropriate findings and reflects the current discussion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the items may be bifurcated.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in order to uphold the appeal, Council may base
the decision on either not being able to make the design review findings or not being
able to make the parking waiver findings.
Councilmember Vella expressed support for the parking waiver; stated general parking
directives should be reviewed and can be agendized at a future meeting.
The Interim City Attorney stated if there are three votes to uphold the appeal on the
basis of design, the vote may occur; separately, if Council would like the Planning Board
to look at the parking issue while reviewing the design aspect, a vote can occur to direct
the Planning Board to review parking as part of the design review.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the motion may approve the parking waiver and also
indicate that one or more design review findings cannot be met to remand the project
back to the Planning Board only for said purpose.
Councilmember Oddie stated a majority of Council has expressed concern about the
transit component and rideshare; stated that he does not want to re-litigate the parking
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,21,"waiver.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Council may approve the parking waiver, but request
that it be augmented by suggestions made by Council.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated
the public hearing has been closed; at the next meeting, a resolution will come back
reflecting the Council direction; staff will inform the Planning Board why the item is
returning.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if two votes are required, to which the Interim City
Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether particular findings must be made if the
majority of Council finds the design review is questionable, to which the Interim City
Attorney responded in the negative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the design needs to become more consistent with the
second and third findings under design review.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the North Park Street plan design guidelines
include streamline moderne, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he will not support sending the item back to Planning
Board; requested if the item is sent back, there be specific reasoning; stated sending
the item back is problematic without specific reasoning.
Councilmember Vella stated the design does not work in relation to the size of the
project site; the design is abrupt; other nearby design options would better compliment
the site.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the design is stark and improvable.
By consensus, Council moved approval of sending the design back to the Planning
Board by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and Knox White - 2.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired if the parking waiver has been approved, to which the
Interim City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of as part of the design review, there be a
review of the TDM program that relies less on Transportation Network Companies
(TNC's) and more on public transit and multi-person shuttles as well as bike share, in
alignment with climate goals.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,22,"Councilmember Oddie inquired if the motion could be amended to add automobiles
after TNC's, to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he does not want to encourage
the project to offer TNC's.
Councilmember Oddie stated that it would be helpful to have staff return with an update
on the status of the shuttle.
Councilmember Vella stated rideshare should have a designated safe drop-off space.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
The City Clerk noted the item is be declared as continued to April 2, 2019.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like an item to return in the future related to
including ground floor retail, commercial and residential buildings in future development
projects.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 11:44 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
11:49 p.m.
***
(19-175) Resolution No. 15512, ""Amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 Budget""
Adopted; and
(19-175A) Resolution No. 15513, ""Approving Workforce Changes to the FY2018-19
Mid-Year Budget Update in the Planning, Building and Transportation Department,
Finance Department and Public Works Department"" Adopted; and
(19-175B) Resolution No. 15514, ""Amending the Alameda City Employees Association
(ACEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classification of Combination Building
Inspector I, Retitling the Combination Building Inspector Classification to Combination
Building Inspector II, and Providing for Equity Adjustments to Increase the Base Pay of
the Classifications of Senior Combination Building Inspector, Senior Building Code
Compliance Officer, Senior Fire Code Compliance Officer, Combination Building
Inspector II, and Fire/Building Code Compliance Officer Effective March 31, 2019.'
Adopted.
The Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) is a trade of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,23,"the previous VLF given up for property tax.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the State previously took
VLF's away from cities, but increased the property tax to cover the amount; continued
the Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Vella inquired the impact of the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act
(PEPRA) new hires under safety departments.
The Finance Director responded there are only 25 PEPRA employees.
In response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry regarding the number of vacancies, the
Fire Chief stated there are currently 11 sworn vacancies and one civilian vacancy in the
Fire Department.
The Human Resources Director responded there are approximately 10 vacancies in the
Police Department.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about the increase in the miscellaneous
retirement formula; stated that he would like to know more about the portion of reserves
above 25% that is dedicated to Other Oost-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and
retirement; inquired whether vacancies are driving up reserves.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated each department is trying to
hire staff.
Councilmember Daysog stated to the extent that departments are not hiring, there are
not actual dollars being expended causing the revenue side to be more than the
expenditures side.
The Finance Director stated the revenue will not repeat in the following year.
Councilmember Daysog stated some departments have had vacancies for multiple
years; expressed concern with the formula for excess reserves beyond 25%.
Vice Mayor Knox White requested clarification on the issue raised by Councilmember
Daysog.
Councilmember Daysog outlined his reasoning for the formulaic issue calculating
excess reserves beyond 25%.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands Councilmember Daysog's concern;
discussed her role in Council's use of budget surplus; stated Council established 25%
as a good reserve to have; Council has a growing OPEB and CalPERS liability and a
moral obligation to pay retirees; that she expects a recession in the future; the City has
saved over $1 million per year; the City needs to be extremely careful when adding to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,24,"the OPEB liability.
Councilmember Daysog stated the correct staffing expenditures is short-changing
residents out of services needed in an effort to put reserves to OPEB payments.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated neither the Police Chief nor the Fire Chief have said that
they will not hire staff members; open positions are attempted to be filled year after
year.
Councilmember Vella requested clarification of there being more retirees than active
staff; stated the vacancies are in two departments that have a difficult time recruiting
due to an involved process of academy training and background checks; inquired if the
increases shown in the presentation are due to new discount rates from CalPERS.
The Finance Director responded in the negative; stated CalPERS has changed
assumptions including how long retirees live, demographics and investment types;
outlined CalPERS new fee; stated the fee will grow over time; outlined the City's plan to
pay down the upcoming debt; stated the goal is to drive the pension costs down.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important for Council to monitor what CalPERS is
proposing; monthly Board Meetings are held discussing investments and speakers are
allowed; discussed a CalPERS 2018 conference and an upcoming session for elected
officials.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was not implying department heads were
purposely holding employment down; however, the effect of holding employment down
should be considered.
Councilmember Oddie stated as Council goes forward, the City will have more
employees on PEPRA versus classic CalPERS; over time, the liability will drop; by
putting the excess reserves to work, the City has saved a million dollars a year in
PERS; in the event of an economic downturn, the liability can be paid versus cutting
officers or closing a Fire Station; the revenues appear to be under estimated and
expenses appear to be overestimated; he would prefer the budget be more accurate.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether or not work performed for the State is
reimbursed.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; outlined reimbursement policies.
The Fire Chief stated the costs includes overtime of personnel, vehicle use charges,
and the City's overhead rate.
The Finance Director stated in Fiscal Year 2017-2018, 195 agencies made additional
contributions to CalPERS above and beyond the normal requirement.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,25,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the budget reviewed from a fiscally
conservative side; there are other unfunded liabilities; she would like every vehicle
purchased for the City's fleet to be an Electric Vehicle (EV) if possible.
The Finance Director continued the presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the $7.9 million came from a one-time amount
resulting from the agreed upon formula, to which the Finance Director responded in the
affirmative and continued the presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the risk equity distribution.
The Finance Director outlined the distribution payments.
The Interim City Manager noted the insurance pools use an actuary.
The Finance Director continued the presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about capital costs, who will maintain and repair the
proposed modular restroom at Alameda Point.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded all maintenance will fall under the
Recreation and Parks Department.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the new restrooms would be used in lieu of the
Alameda Point Gym restrooms to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the modular restrooms will be in addition
to the existing restrooms; stated the modular restrooms are meant to supplement.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to have the line items for Public Works
and safety personnel working at special events, parades and festivals included.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired the process for adding items to be considered in the
budget.
The Finance Director responded Council decisions will be incorporated either in the
upcoming budget item or brought back as a separate item.
Councilmember Vella inquired if the cost of pool repairs is included in the mid-year
budget, to which the Finance Director responded in the negative.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the cost is still unknown.
The Human Resources Director continued the Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,26,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the reasoning for a two-year term for the Permit Tech III
position.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded permits are up and the
permit counter is busy; stated since the Planning department is fee-based, the position
is limited to a two-year term; an assessment will be made to determine if more time is
needed.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether an accounting of time is being conducted on
plan check and review.
The Planning, Building and Transportation director responded even though permits are
up, the overall number is down; stated streamline procedures are being implemented;
design review exemptions to cut down steps and time, which has increased work at the
counter, resulting in the new needed position.
The Human Resources Director continued the presentation.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the focus of the new Transportation position
will change.
The Public Works Director responded the Supervising Civil Engineer will be a licensed
transportation engineer and will improve the ability of the Transportation department as
a whole.
The Finance Director completed the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie expressed concern over the previous five years of revenues
being significantly higher than estimated, and expenses coming in lower than estimated;
stated some of the increased assessed value is due to increased market value, but
some can be attributed to City departments providing services; it is critical to keep
services running in order to maintain high standards of living; stated that he will support
the resolutions; he would like to see line items for festival and parade events sooner
than later.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated funding has been identified in the non-
departmental contingency fund for the upcoming July 4th parade and has been provided
for the next budget cycle.
Councilmember Vella stated the mid-year budget comes several months into the year;
that she would prefer the report be provided earlier in the year if possible; expressed
support for the budget requests; stated the pool repair costs need to be realized in order
to keep Emma Hood Swim Center open and functioning; the City should continue to pay
down the CalPERS liability; she would like to know where revenues are under estimated
and expenses are overestimated and would like to know where the mark is being
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-10-25,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD MEETING
THURSDAY--OCTOBER 25, 2012- 7:00 P.M.
Acting Mayor Bonta convened the meeting at
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Acting Mayor
Bonta; Board Members
Absent:
Mayor Gilmore - 1.
(12-511) Work Session on the Community Needs Survey Final Report and the Board's
Accomplishments and Work-plan for 2012-13.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Bonta
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Social
Service Human Relations Board
October 25, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-10-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 17, 2019- 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:31 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
[Note: Vice Mayor Knox White was present via teleconference from
Castillo Inn at the Beach, 22 Castillo Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101;
Councilmembers Daysog and Vella arrived at 5:33 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
Public Comment
Michael Sturtz, Carnegie Innovation Hall (CI Hall), listed potential activities, including a
public/education cable studio in conjunction with the School District.
J. Marlow Schmauder, CI Hall, read a statement on behalf of Puja Dasari.
Janet Magleby, Downtown Alameda Business Association, discussed downtown
businesses; expressed support for CI Hall.
Jennifer Stein, Saint Joseph Notre Dame High School, discussed partnering with CI
Hall.
Otto Wright, The Local, stated the project is important for the long term development of
the City and the downtown.
Ron Limoges, CI Hall, discussed the need for a lease; urged approval.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(19-496) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW); Under Negotiation:
Salaries and Terms of Employment
(19-497) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: 2264 Santa Clara Avenue (the Carnegie Building) and 1429
Oak Street (Foster House); City Negotiator: Debbie Potter, Community Development
Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Carnegie Innovation Hall; Under
Negotiation: Price and terms of payment of property lease
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,2,"(19-498) Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claim (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.95); Claimant: Grand Edibles, Inc.; Agency Claimed Against: City of
Alameda
(19-499) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.9); Case Name: Guzman V. City of Alameda, et al.; Court: Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: RG17885538
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Labor, Real Property and the Liability Claim, staff provided
information and Council provided direction with no vote taken; regarding Existing
Litigation, staff provided information and Council authorized the following settlement by
unanimous vote: a lawsuit filed by plaintiff Alina Guzman against AMF Bowling Center,
Inc., Challenge Security Services, the City of Alameda, and Alameda Police Department
(APD) Officers Brandon Hanson, Alyssa Schlitt, Rich Soto, and Mike Tanagataevaha
alleging 1) negligence, 2) assault and battery, 3) false imprisonment, 4) violation of civil
rights under 42 U.S. Code § 1983, 5) violation of civil rights under California Civil Code
Section 52.3 and 6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; with respect to the City
and the APD officers, the claims generally relate to the APD officers' arrest and
detention of Ms. Guzman on May 21, 2017; the City maintains that APD Officers acted
in accordance of all applicable laws; nonetheless, in order to avoid the expense and
uncertainty of litigation, the City Council authorized the City Attorney to settle the matter
with Ms. Guzman in an amount not to exceed $17,500.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:15
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
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,3,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER - 17, 2019- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:23 p.m. Boy Scouts from Troup 2 led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
[Note: Vice Mayor Knox White was present via teleconference from
Castillo Inn at the Beach, 22 Castillo Street, Santa Barbara, CA
93101]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(19-500) Proclamation Recognizing John McCahan for His Contribution to the City of
Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation and presented it to Mr. McCahan.
Mr. McCahan made brief comments.
(19-501) Proclamation Declaring September 21, 2019 as Coastal Cleanup Day.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation and presented it to Michael Charnofsky,
East Bay Regional Park District.
Mr. Charnofsky made brief comments.
(19-502) Proclamation Declaring October 6 through 12, 2019 as Public Power Week
2019.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation and presented it to Ann McCormick, Public
Utilities Board.
Ms. McCormick made brief comments.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(19-503) Judy Blank, Immanuel Lutheran Church, made an announcement regarding an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,4,"event on September 25th to raise funds for rehabilitation.
(19-504) Linda Asbury, West Alameda Business Association, made an announcement
regarding parklets being used for games on National Parking day on Friday.
(19-505) Armida Graca, Alameda, expressed concern over her treatment from the
Housing Authority; stated she has tried everything; asked the Council for help.
(19-506) Catherine Pauling, Alameda, discussed Ms. Graca's case; expressed concern
over the way the Housing Authority is treating tenants.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the letter of support for H.R. 1225 and S. 500
[paragraph no. 19-511 and the ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code
[paragraph no. 19-515 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*19-507) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on July 16,
2019. Approved.
(*19-508) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,487,208.90.
(*19-509) Recommendation to Ratify a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) and the City of Alameda to Allow the City to
Continue to Provide School Crossing Guard Services for AUSD by Accepting $86,970
from AUSD to Fund the Program; and
(*19-509A) Recommendation to Authorize for the City Manager, or His Designee, to
Execute a Third Amendment to the Agreement with All City Management Services
Incorporated Extending the Term 12 Months and Adding the Amount of $315,648 for a
Total Contract Amount of $1,123,149 for Crossing Guard Services. Accepted.
(*19-510) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment with Marcy Wong & Donn Logan Architects, to Increase the Compensation
in an Amount Not to Exceed $241,132 for a Total Compensation Not to Exceed
$1,945,867 for Architectural and Engineering Services for the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry
Terminal and to Correct an Error in the Stated Name of the Provider.
(19-511) Recommendation to Authorize the Mayor to Sign, on Behalf of the City, a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,5,"Letter of Support from Mayors Across the Country Regarding H.R. 1225 and S. 500, the
Restore Our Parks and Public Lands Act.
Councilmember Oddie suggested leeway be given to the Mayor the next time the
legislative agenda is prepared.
The City Manager stated anything in the gray area comes to Council; the matter was not
time sensitive.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is part of the US Conference of Mayors; noted that
she is made aware of important legislation on a regular basis; stated California is under
attack from the current Administration; she wanted Council to be given the chance to
consider the item.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation with direction to
give the Mayor leeway when the legislative agenda returns to Council next year.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(*19-512) Recommendation to Approve a Service Provider Agreement with Jon K.
Takata Incorporation, dba Restoration Management Company, in an Amount not to
Exceed $61,875, for the Second Phase of Mold Remediation at the Veterans Building,
for an Aggregate Amount, including Contingency, Not to Exceed $121,754.20.
Accepted/
(*19-513) Resolution No. 15586, ""Approving the Application for Parks and Water Bond
Act of 2018 (Proposition 68) Per Capita Grant Funds for Park Improvements."" Adopted.
(*19-514) Resolution No. 15587, ""Approving Parcel Map No. 10960 for the Proposed
Subdivision of Three Parcels Located at 1310 Harbor Bay Parkway, 1410 Harbor Bay
Parkway, and 1430 Harbor Bay Parkway into Six Parcels for Commercial Condominium
Purposes."" Adopted.
(19-515) Ordinance No. 3250, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (1) Adding
Section 1-8.01 Concerning Hearing Procedures, Hearing Officers' Decisions and
Administrative Regulations, (2) Repealing in Their Entirety Article XIV (Currently
Suspended) and Article XV of Chapter VI Concerning (a) Review of Rent Increases
Applicable to All Rental Units and Rent Stabilization Applicable to Certain Rental Units
and (b) Limitations on Evictions and the Payment of Relocation Assistance Applicable to
All Rental Units; and (3) Repealing Ordinance No. 3246 (Uncodified); and (4) Adding a
Restated Article XV to Chapter VI Concerning Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions
and Providing Relocation Payments to Displaced Tenants, including Section 8."" Finally
passed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,6,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he is remaining consistent in his opposition to the
item due to the changes adopted being incredibly burdensome to smaller mom and pop
landlords, when an alternative exists.
Councilmember Oddie moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(*19-516) Ordinance No. 3251, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Article XVIII to Chapter VI Concerning Fair Housing and Tenant Protections by
Prohibiting Unlawful Tenant Harassment, Disruption of Housing Services and Housing
Discrimination including Source of Income."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(19-517) Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal Filed by Brian Tremper of the May 28
and July 22, 2019 Planning Board Decisions for a 172-Room Hotel and Restaurant at
2900 Harbor Bay Parkway (PLN 18-0381); and
(19-517A) Resolution No. 15588, ""Denying the Appeal Filed by Brian Tremper of the
May 28 and July 22, 2019 Planning Board Decisions for a 172-Room Hotel and
Restaurant at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway (PLN 18-0381) and Upholding Planning Board
Resolution PB19-16."" Adopted.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there are two decisions and one appeal, which
had been amended via e-mail.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the hearing is de novo;
stated Council is able to consider and make changes without limitation to the issues
raised by the appellant; the appellant submitted the appeal after the first [Planning
Board] decision, and then decided to consolidate both appeals once the Planning Board
made its final decision.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the appeal was made on the first Planning
Board decision, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded
the May 28th decision.
Councilmember Oddie stated in order for consideration there should have been an
appeal on the second decision as well.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated there is no difference;
outlined overturning the Planning Board's decision and having the item return for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,7,"consideration.
The City Attorney stated after the initial appeal, staff had a conversation with the
appellant; the appellant and staff reached an amicable resolution to continue the appeal
and collectively appeal both at once; he recommends Council hear the appeal in its
entirety.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the applicant has gone through the process of
combining the three parcels.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated
combining the parcels is a condition of approval.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the project applicant should speak first.
The City Attorney responded a written process is not set; recommended the project
appellant speak last.
Discussed the project and outreach; stated the hotel will be nicest in the City; the project
has been designed to be 100% compliant with City rules and regulations: Robert Leach,
Project Applicant.
Expressed support for the project; stated there is not enough hotel space in Alameda,
especially in the Harbor Bay area; urged Council to uphold the Planning Board decision:
Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Stated the May 28th meeting minutes show approval of the 35' setback; showed photos
of an empty parking lot at 2701 and 2801 Harbor Bay Parkway; requested parking
spaces be reduced: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.
Expressed support for the appeal; stated a Marriott Residence Inn would fit in better:
Donna Fletcher, Alameda.
Gave a Power Point presentation; expressed concern over the building location and
footprint: Brian Tremper, Freeport Homeowners Association.
(19-518) The City Clerk noted the rules would need to be suspended to give the
speaker 10 minutes.
Councilmember Daysog stated the expectation of the appellant having 10 minutes
should not be changed.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of allowing the speaker to have 10 minutes.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,8,"Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Gave a Power Point presentation: Ed Sing, Freeport Homeowners Association.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the plans from December
10th, May 28th and July 22nd each has a description of the setbacks which are the same;
the setback has been consistent through the process; outlined the setback
encroachment; stated there is no requirement for everything to be on the line; the
requirement is everything cannot be closer than the 35 foot line; the appellants are
asking for the hotel to be moved 5 feet closer to the park; the Planning Board made the
right decision; there have been stakes posted to denote where the building is on the
site.
Councilmember Daysog stated the matter before Council can be discussed on a de
novo basis; that he believes Council missed an opportunity to exercise the leverage of
getting the developer to work with nearby residents of Harbor Bay; a Planning Board
member correctly noted that the main parcel must be combined with two additional
parcels; the governing authority of the development project is the Harbor Bay Business
Park Development Agreement ordinance from March 1988; outlined parking impacts;
stated the project should have taken in residents' concerns; the parcels have still not
been combined; urged Councilmembers to exercise the leverage and revisit the item.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how many parking spaces are projected.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded there were originally 275
spaces and there are now 260; stated the Planning Board reduced the spaces by 15 to
have more landscaping.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Council previously reduced the amount of
spaces.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated
Council provided conditions for ferry parking and requested review of moving the
building back 15 feet, which would have eliminated a row of parking.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how many parking spaces are for ferry use, to which the
Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded there could be an extra 100
spaces that can be leased out on most days.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director stated the hotel has 172 rooms and needs 170 spaces; the
demand for parking at hotels has gone down with the use of Uber and Lyft.
Councilmember Oddie questioned whether the hotel could survive without the row of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,9,"parking; stated the Climate Action Plan has been passed; a goal is to get cars off the
road; a guiding policy is not to let parking dictate plans and planning.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated parking was originally at 275
which met the Code; the Planning Board reduced the amount by 15 spaces to allow for
further landscaping and Council has the authority to further reduce parking.
Councilmember Oddie stated the possibility should be reviewed; discussed the Climate
Action Plan parking goals; stated the setback has not been proven to be wrong; that he
is inclined to deny the appeal, but is open to a discussion about parking; the Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) should be considered as well.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated Council gave the Planning Board direction, which
included the consideration of removing more parking; that he is open to discussing
parking, but does not want to hold up the project any further; a condition can be added
for unused parking spaces to be used for future ferry riders; parking spaces should not
be removed, but allowed for ferry riders instead.
Councilmember Vella stated the parking aspect is helping to accommodate neighbors
with concerns about ferry parking spilling over into the neighborhood; if the project turns
out to be over-parked, certain spaces can be dealt with in phases, but the project
approval should not be delayed; different usage of the site can be discussed with the
developer; there has been a significant uptick in usage of the ferry terminal; there is a
need for the parking spaces; the setback has not proved to be an issue to require going
back to the Planning Board; expressed support for the project.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the project has had a lot of coverage; there has been a lot
of interaction with the public; the outreach has provided for a better project; the project
site is within a business park that does not have enough hotel space; Council should
consider whether the project is good for the City and fair to neighbors; stated as an
Island community, ferry transport makes sense; outlined difficulties in timing ferry
transport; stated Council should not take away parking spaces; she would prefer to
dedicate extra parking spaces for ferry riders; inquired whether the possibility exists.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff has included ferry
parking in the conditions of approval; stated ferry riders will be able to see available
parking via a mobile phone application.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is possible to ensure there is never a time
when ferry parking is not available.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded even if the hotel is filled,
the possibility is not likely; stated the applicant's concern for parking is related to the
restaurant; there is an opportunity to fill every space each evening with the restaurant,
the hotel and ferry riders; expressed concern for making changes without ferry riders
present; stated many promises have been made.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,10,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a lot of work has been done with the project neighbors;
many meetings have been held, which can cause a disincentive for developers to create
projects in Alameda; discussed Harbor Bay businesses; stated when businesses have
more visitors than current hotels can accommodate, guests are sent to San Francisco
or Oakland; money is spent in those cities and missed TOT is lost revenue for Alameda;
expressed support for moving forward with the project and denying the appeal.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the resolution denying the appeal.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:15
p.m.
***
(19-519) Recommendation to Approve the Transportation Commission's Recommended
Design Concept for a Two-Way Bikeway for the Clement Avenue Safety Improvement
Project and Cross Alameda Trail between Grand Street and Broadway.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Expressed support for Option 2; expressed concern over car zones: James Johnston,
Alameda.
Expressed support for Option 2; stated a protected bike lanes keep people and children
safe: Pat Potter, Bike Walk Alameda.
Stated bike lanes alone do not work; bike lanes are used as loading zones; the pathway
would be used by kids to cross town to get to charter schools: Bonnie Wehmann,
Alameda.
Discussed becoming a two car family upon moving to in Alameda; expressed support
for Option 2: Doug Letterman, Alameda.
Expressed support for Option 2; stated other streets are not sufficient: Susie Hufstader,
Bike East Bay.
Expressed concern over the proposed bike lane; discussed access to her family's boat
business; suggested using another street: Suzanne Diers, Alameda.
Stated his boatyard relies on large vessels traveling to the site, which will be prevented
by the proposed design; stated the new design will have a waterfront path: Shawn
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,11,"Throwe, Grand Marina Boatyard.
Stated that he rides his bike along Clement Avenue without problems; stated the current
lanes work; outlined other routes: Jim Strehlow. Alameda.
Stated that he opposes Option 2; expressed concern over cars not looking for cyclists
traveling at high speeds: Zach Kaplan, Alameda.
Expressed support for Option 2; stated Clement Avenue needs protection since it is a
bike route: Neela Miller, Alameda.
Expressed support for Option 2, which is the safest option; discussed being hit on
Clement Avenue by a car that fled: Rich Cusimano, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made a brief comment.
Expressed support for Option 2; discussed the need for the protected bike lane: David
Burton, Alameda.
Discussed drivers blocking bike lanes; urged Council to support Option 2: Morgan
Bellinger, Alameda.
Stated that she supports a bike path, but opposes it being on Clement Avenue; urged
Council to reroute the bike lane: Linda Diers, Alameda.
Expressed support for Option 2; discussed an incident riding his bike on Clement
Avenue this morning: Robin Oliva-Kraft, Alameda.
Stated that she and her son are avid bike riders and support Option 2: Lana Rishina,
Alameda.
Stated the three mains concern are lost parking, vehicles having to slow and cyclist
being prevented from using the vehicle travel lane; stated the focus should be safety:
Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda.
Expressed concern over safety at driveways; expressed support for traditional bike
lanes: Rick Stuart.
Councilmember Vella stated that she was hit by a car while bicycling in London but still
rides when she visits; London has evolved substantially over the last decade with
regard to bicycle access, due to the growing population, the urban center being made
more accessible, and recognizing what adding different cycling options can do for the
population; more bike and pedestrian traffic is wanted; allowing for and protecting
cyclists as well as pedestrians is what will allow for the first and last mile; Alameda has
a smaller geographic expanse and a cross-town trail is important; off-island traffic is not
controllable; within town, there is a substantial need to allow kids to bike to and from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,12,"school in a safe way; many parents need to drop their kids off at daycare or school
before heading out of town for work; expressed support for Option 2; stated safety is
paramount; as soon as a cross-town trail is approved, the City will have the safest
option for bicycles; people will learn and adapt to changing road conditions; many kids
ride their bikes on the sidewalk due to safety concerns; a cross-town trail allows safety
for all modes of transport; outlined vision-zero goals.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated some conversations pit bikes versus cars; the plan is
about helping people get around the City the way they prefer; expressed support for
Option 2.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Option 2 has a two-way bike lane, some
parking and then roadway on the North side of Clement Avenue, to which the Planning,
Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how many parking spaces would be removed from
Grand Avenue to Oak Street on the North side.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded roughly 100 spaces.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is concern over transporting boats; if there is
concern for boats, there will also be concern for trucks; questioned if space can be freed
up by removing parking spaces.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded Council can consider
removing on-street parking spaces.
Councilmember Daysog stated a lot of the parking is on industrial parcels.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the same analysis was completed in 2015
due to similar questions from the Transportation Commission; parking occupancy
exceeded 100% in the area causing an excess demand in parking.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council should go big and make the North side
completely protected.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the parking lane provides a
lot of the protections; an 11-foot travel lane is a standard width for a truck route.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is an element of elegance having the North side of
Clement Avenue dedicated to the two-lane option without cars parked next to the bike-
lanes.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he was previously on the Bike Safety Council; the
most important thing is safety; expressed support for Option 2; stated Option 2 is the
safest; the project is not the end of bicycle infrastructure; every four-lane road is a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,13,"candidate for a road diet and protected bike lanes; bikes came before cars; cars have
the least amount of history on city streets; expressed support for anything that helps
slow traffic down; stated people must learn how to share the road and be respectful with
each other.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are ways to balance concerns of all sides; more
people are using bicycle pedestrian facilities throughout the City; streets must be made
safe; discussed Councilmember Vella's point about people learning new habits; stated
that she appreciates when she can ride her bike in dedicated bike lanes or cycle tracks;
if future projects will go through environmental impact studies; newer and younger
residents are opting for one or no car households; more kids should ride to school to
help cut back on traffic impacts; Council has an obligation to ensure residents are
travelling around the City in as much safety as possible; expressed support for the
project and Option 2.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of Option 2.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the Golden Gate Bridge has lanes with 10' widths; there
is no concern for a 25 mile per hour speed limit street; the street is being built with
freeway standards for trucks.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like an amended
motion to disallow parking on the North side of Clement Avenue from Grand Street to
Oak Street in an effort to free up capacity and address concerns raised by businesses
and residents about enough width.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is making a substitute
motion.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
The substitute motion failed for a lack of second.
Councilmember Vella stated if a need develops, removing parking remains a possibility.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated with the motion set forth, staff
will continue the design process and will return with the construction contract; the
parking may be removed at said time or a future date.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he will not vote on the motion with the idea that
Council should come back and discuss the design of the project; if problems are
identified, changes can be made; this is a safety project; it is counterintuitive to the
project to widen the vehicle lanes and allow for higher speeds of traffic.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,14,"Councilmember Daysog stated the project is very exciting; taking time to remove some
of the parking on the North side of Clement Avenue would make the project even more
exciting; issues that could arise would not just be from engineering, but also from
enforcement; discussed speeding on Shoreline Drive; stated there is a missed
opportunity to work with residents and apply easy solutions; there is no issue if parking
is removed from the North side of Clement Avenue; when development occurs, it will be
much more difficult to remove the parking spaces versus now; the project is a chance
for an elegant two-way bike path; urged Councilmembers to pursue removing parking.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the average speed on Shoreline Drive and the number of
collisions has reduced significantly since the cycle track has been added.
Councilmember Oddie stated there is merit to the idea of reducing parking; reducing
parking encourages people not to drive as much; the design meets freeway standards;
that he is not in favor of reducing parking to widen lanes; expressed concern that the
project would be a repeat of the Central Avenue project that has not been completed;
stated the motion should be amended to ensure the project is completed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Central Avenue is being worked on; there are complications
arising due to State Highway status.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the motion as he understands
is to move forward with the design as-drawn with the 11 foot lanes and keeping the
parking; stated painting 15 foot travel lanes is counter to staff's recommendation; it is
helpful for Council to provide staff with very clear direction which can be relayed to
designers.
Councilmember Daysog stated the lanes can stay 11 to 12 feet wide; removing the
parking would add cushion to the North side of Clement Avenue.
On the call for the question the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(19-520) The City Manager made an announcement regarding launching the
Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC) Network and
business district street work.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,15,"(19-521) Consider Addressing Gun Violence by Sanctioning a Town Hall Event on
October 14, 2019, and Creating a Subcommittee to Organize the Event and Create
Policy Options for Council Discussion. (Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember
Oddie)
Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Knox White made brief comments regarding the
referral.
Stated that he would like to volunteer to help; discussed rifle sports, teams and
scholarships, which should be considered: Gordon Taras, Alameda.
Councilmember Vella stated the issue of gun violence has been ongoing; that she is
weary of reinventing the wheel; a number of Bills have been carried both federally and
Statewide; there have been a number of conversations with community leaders;
questioned the context of the referral; stated the issue of addressing gun violence is
broad; a number of elected officials will be involved, but there is a limit to what the City
can do; questioned the goal specifically related to the City and which staff members will
be involved.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there have been three mass shootings recently in: Gilroy,
CA, El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH; a letter has been sent urging the Senate to take on
gun control safety legislation; 281 Mayors have signed the letter; California has some of
the most progressive gun safety legislation in the Country; support letters have been
offered to committee chairs and the Governor; Assembly and Senate floor alerts have
been sent; outlined 11 State Assembly Bills; stated cities are limited; expressed concern
for duplicating staff efforts; questioned whether there is a way to fold the idea and
encourage new legislation at the State and federal levels; stated lobbying for stronger
federal action is needed; the Bay Area wide United Against Hate Campaign will be in
November; community members are encouraged to participate in events to raise
awareness to spark actions that stop hate and build inclusions; outlined event topics;
questioned whether there is room to fold ideas into the United Against Hate Campaign.
Councilmember Vella questioned which staff members would be involved; stated there
has been significant work done by Christ Episcopal Church; members of City staff and
the community have reviewed the status at State and federal levels; the work has been
done by an active and involved group of women and should be recognized; expressed
support for combining events.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for building on the work that has been done;
stated the City Attorney's office would assist with City limits; letters have been written
with no result; there is an opportunity to do something; California has some of the
strictest gun laws, but the Gilroy shooting still happened; nothing has been done at the
City level; this is a public health crisis; there still is an opportunity to solve the crisis;
people are looking to leaders for action.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a change in Washington DC needs to be made; laws have
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,16,"made a difference, but there is difficulty in measuring a negative; good laws can be
improved upon and supplemented; working collectively toward a solution will prove
helpful; staff time should be kept in mind; questioned if events can be merged; stated
the United Against Hate Campaign is a worthy event.
Councilmember Daysog stated the subject matter of gun violence correctly causes
energized emotions; there is room for Councilmembers to pursue issues; one
Councilmember can deal with gun use intervention and design local policy and
strategies; another Councilmember can look into gun violence prevention; there are
many way to approach the issue.
Councilmember Vella questioned how the item is different from the previous Town Hall
and how work done to-date will be incorporated; stated the City has taken steps and a
lot of comments have been received; questioned the goal of the referral; stated an
accounting of what has been done can be completed; there is nothing stopping Council
from bringing back ideas; questioned the use of staff time; whether there is an
Ordinance that can be discussed; expressed concern for adding another event and
impacting staff time.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he and Vice Mayor Knox White are going to complete
the majority of work; brief discussions with both the Police Chief and the City Attorney
have occurred, yielding support from both; gathering local and State representatives will
help build on what has been done; assistance from the City Attorney and the Public
Information Officer will help at the City level.
Councilmember Vella inquired where the event will take place, to which Councilmember
Oddie responded the location has not been determined.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what accomplishments are attempting to be achieved.
Councilmember Oddie responded an action plan that can be implemented by the City;
the action plan can include legislation and ways to motivate citizens to have their voice
heard; nothing has been done over the past year; there has not been a lot of
organization and energizing; staff does not have to spearhead the plan; that he had
hopes to have a Council decision on gun violence being a public health crisis.
Councilmember Vella stated Council is not choosing to not be involved; Council has
taken an active stance in supporting different legislation; substantial student action has
occurred; continued action is also occurring; expressed support for folding in the various
groups that have been continuously working on the issue; stated that she does not want
to discount groups which have been working on the issue; questioned if a request for
declaration is being made of Council; stated the request should be put before Council to
vote; stated that she is unclear of the desired outcome based on the referral.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he would like to ensure Councilmember Oddie and
himself are not the only ones working toward the goal; Council has not discussed or
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,17,"addressed gun safety since he has been in office; there is room for many groups to join
the discussion; understanding and motivated advocates need to be developed; a
conversation with those who are energized about the topic is invited to determine what
action the City can take; there is no value in combining the events; there is support and
value for having multiple events.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a moment of silence was taken after the Gilroy shooting.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated there has not been a vote on steps forward on how
Council would like to address gun violence; a Town Hall is a place for individuals to
bring ideas and engage on how to move forward.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is happy to connect with anyone who would like to
participate as logistics are finalized or invite anyone that has been involved to give
perspective or provide research; expressed support for gaining opinions and
perspectives; stated there seems to be a gap in communication from the work which
occurred a year ago; moments of silence do not solve the problem.
Councilmember Vella stated the issue has also been added to Council's list of priorities
and legislation supporting gun control, regulation and addressing gun violence has been
agendized; there are issues around enforcement and feasibility; expressed concern for
action which are not effective.
Councilmember Oddie stated the discussion allows for a set level of expectations and
understanding.
Councilmember Daysog stated community members would want the Council actively
engaged; there are specific things City Hall can do; discussions are worth having;
questioned the need for local retail sales of firearms.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated local retail gun sales are hunting rifles not automatic or
semi-automatic weapons.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the referral.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Vella inquired why the date of October 14th,
Indigenous People's Day, was chosen.
Councilmember Oddie responded that it was the only day all three elected officials were
available at the same time.
Councilmember Daysog stated the referral is asking a direct request of Council to
endorse the October 14th event; other Councilmembers can move forward on other
related items.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,18,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested consultation with the Police Chief be continued through
the process.
Councilmember Daysog stated lessons learned from the Episcopal Church process
should be obtained.
On the call for the question which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.
Ayes: 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(19-522) Councilmember Oddie announced Stop Waste had a presentation on China's
National Sword policy; urged everyone to sort trash and recycling properly; stated that
he will present an informational flyer from Stop Waste on community outreach grants on
the next Council agenda.
(19-523) Councilmember Vella made an announcement about the Alameda County
Lead Abatement meeting on September 26th; stated meeting locations will rotate in the
coming months.
(19-524) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding the groundbreaking
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-17,19,"event for Seaplane Lagoon Ferry terminal; stated the terminal will be open late Spring
2020; made an announcement regarding the Coastal Cleanup event at Crown Beach.
(19-525) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Economic
Development Advisory Panel.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Adam Elsesser, Brock Grunt, Tim Karos, David Mik,
Remy Moteko, Mike Rose, Madlen Saddik, and Debi Stebbins.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:25
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
17
September 17, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 29, 2015- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(15-276) Presentations from Avery and Associates and Bob Murray and Associates to
Discuss Their Qualifications and Process for the Recruitment of a City Manager for the
City of Alameda.
Discussed recruitment and compensation; suggested considering the Assistant City
Manager Liz Warmerdam: Ken Peterson, Alameda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(15-277) Kurt Peterson, Alameda, discussed transparency and suggested going above
the requirements of the Sunshine Ordinance.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (continued)
Presentations from Avery and Associates and Bob Murray and Associates to Discuss
Their Qualifications and Process for the Recruitment of a City Manager for the City of
Alameda.
Paul Kimura, Avery and Associations, gave a brief presentation and responded to
Council questions.
Bob Murray, Bob Murray and Associates, gave a brief presentation and responded to
Council questions.
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 5:57 p.m. and reconvened at 6:11 p.m.
***
(15-278) Resolution No. 15027, ""Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between the Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) and the City of Alameda for
the Period Beginning November 1, 2015 through December 18, 2021."" Adopted.
Mayor Spencer noted the four MOUs [paragraph nos. 15-281 through 15-283) would be
addressed together.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,2,"The City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Manager stated the trust would be
exhausted in 2034.
Mayor Spencer inquired what would happen after the trust is exhausted, to which the
City Manager responded it would be the same as what is done today; stated the City's
resources would be used to make the payments.
Councilmember Daysog stated pay go would start again in 2035; the proposal would be
a pushing out and would buy time; inquired whether the unstated piece is that the City
would have to have the same number of employees.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the figures are premised on the
current work force; the figures would change if the workforce is expanded; that he would
not suggest expanding staff.
Councilmember Daysog stated $47 million is not an actual dollar savings; inquired
whether the amount the City would not be paying in pay go would be a reduction in
expense.
The City Manager responded the City is obligated to provide the benefit; stated if the
City does not act, a payment still has to be made; the payment would be smaller under
the trust; that he considers a reduction in expenditure a savings.
Vice Mayor Matarrese requested the City Attorney statement be read into the record
and requested an explanation of running the contributions outside of payroll.
The City Attorney read the statement.
The Assistant City Manager stated running the contributions outside of payroll is not
what the City bargained for and she is not sure how it would be done; that she is not
sure how a raise could not be run through payroll and it might not be legal; the answer
is the City would not be able to run the contributions outside of payroll.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry about the budget percentages for the
Recreation and Parks Department and public safety over the years, the Assistant City
Manager stated the Recreation and Parks Department budget would be presented on
May 12th and the information would be provided then.
The City Manager stated over the years, cities have started charging fees for services in
some departments, such as Development Services and Public Works; public safety
remains under and takes the loin share of the General Fund for cities in California.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated cities are going to have to look to the State for
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,3,"some assistance that cities alone cannot solve; noted the City's State Assembly
representative is present and hearing the comments.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Council will discuss the possibility of raising the
Utility Users Tax (UUT); inquired whether the increase would count toward the Balanced
Revenue Index (BRI).
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated if the Council proceeds with the
UUT, the Council could authorize the City Manager to engage in a discussion with labor
about the matter.
Stated the matter needs to be dealt with; that he does not believe the City can fund its
way out of $91 million; the liability needs to be negotiated; that he disagrees with
proceeding with the proposal; the BRI should not include the property transfer tax;
suggested putting the money directly into a trust in lieu of raises; questioned the legality
and discussed the confidential memorandum: Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer.
The City Attorney provided clarification.
The City Treasurer inquired whether the legal opinion has only been shared with the
Council, City Manager and staff, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager clarified that the City Treasurer does not normally receive confidential
legal memorandums.
The City Treasurer stated that he is offering financial guidance on the largest issue
facing the City.
Suggested the City Attorney have expert outside counsel review whether the funds can
be put into the trust fund without being run through payroll; urged spending funds on the
legal matter; stated a decision should not be made tonight; discussed the transfer tax;
suggested that he and the City Treasurer be engaged during the negotiation process;
inquired whether only the City Manager conducted the negotiations: Kevin Kearney, City
Auditor.
The City Manager responded that he conducted the negotiations, which is his role under
the Charter; stated that he was instructed to engage in the issue by unanimous vote of
the City Council; the Assistant City Manager and Finance Director participated in the
meetings with him; a tentative agreement was reached with labor on a Friday; he
provided the information to the City Auditor and Treasurer Monday morning when he
met with him, which was as soon as possible.
Urged the Council to approve the contracts; outlined the first steps taken to begin to
address the issue when he was on the City Council; discussed his role in resolving the
State pension for teachers; stated the contracts are a step in the right direction:
Assemblymember Rob Bonta.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,4,"Read Supervisor Chan's statement urging Council to approve the MOUs: Steven Jones,
representing Supervisor Wilma Chan.
Vice Mayor Matarrese requested staff to clarify whether the $91 million liability is being
reduced by $47 million; stated his understanding is that the liability remains the same
but the $47 million is a savings against payments, which total much more; that he does
not want the public to be confused.
The City Manager responded there is an impact on the $91 million, but it is minimal.
The Assistant City Manager stated the amount is about $5 million; further stated PERS
does not contribute to the OPEB liability.
Stated the Council should be pleased to be considering this matter; outlined how public
safety contributes to the City's economy; urged approval of the MOUs and continuing
the discussion to reach a complete solution: Former Assemblymember Sandre
Swanson, Alameda.
Commended the work of the Fiscal Sustainable Committee; stated that she applauds
the effort; urged approval: Former Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker, Alameda.
Stated that he is concerned about the rush to judgment; questions have been raised;
urged Council to listen to the City Treasurer; stated the matter should be postponed; the
MOUs do not have to do with the budget: Kurt Peterson, Alameda.
Stated that he supports the contracts; a tentative agreement has been reached, which
has been ratified by the employees; the movement to delay the matter is wrong;
outlined his experience with unions; requested the City Council keep its word: Marty
Fraetes, Alameda.
Stated the members of the association have agreed to the contract which is a first step
in the right direction: Alan Kuboyama, Alameda Police Officers Association.
Stated contracts should be approved when both sides have negotiated in good faith;
urged a yes vote: Honora Murphy, Alameda.
Provided examples of pay increases being given to teachers and school districts not
going bankrupt; stated tax dollars should be spent for services; the employees have
stepped up and given concessions to reach a collaborative solution; urged Council to
vote yes: Gray Harris and Patty Osbourne, Alameda.
Mayor Spencer requested clarification on the fund balance amount, to which the
Assistant City Manager responded $31 million, which is 38%.
Urged approval of the MOUs; stated the deal was negotiated in good faith; the Fire
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,5,"Fighters are partners; negotiations have been done the right way; urged acting tonight:
Jeff Del Bono, International Association of Fire Fighters.
Provided examples Fire and Police responses to his family's emergencies; urged
approval of the contracts, which is an opportunity for Alameda to become a role model
in the area: Zac Goldstein, Alameda.
Stated Police and Fire Department efforts make the City safe; urged approval of the
contracts: Zhaldee Sadie, Alameda.
Stated the City's negotiators have reached a ground breaking agreement; urged
approval: Andy Slivka, Alameda resident and Carpenters Union.
Urged approval of the contracts; stated the contracts are the first step to control the
unfunded liability: Mike Williams, Alameda.
Expressed support for public safety; applauded the efforts of the City and union to work
out a compromise; stated an agreement has been made and should be honored; urged
approval of the MOUs: Doug Bloch, Alameda.
Expressed her support for Alameda's public safety employees; stated the deal is
amazing; the liability will not be solved tomorrow; gradual steps need to be taken to
solve the problem: Lauren Zimmerman Cook, Alameda.
Commended public safety's respectful responses to calls; stated the employees are
partners and are giving back; urged approval of the MOUs: Kathy Moehring, Alameda.
Acknowledged Police and Fire employees' efforts to build trust and a spirit of
collaboration, which has allowed negotiating a solution; urged approval of the MOUs
tonight: Bruce Knopf, Alameda.
Submitted his comments outlining budget concerns and comparing other cities Fire
Department expenses; urged not adopting the contracts; stated time is needed to study
the problem and find a solution: Paul Foreman, Alameda.
Stated as a financial advisor he addresses employee benefits; discussed cities
declaring bankruptcy; urged approval, which is a first step: Michael McDonough,
Alameda Chamber of Commerce.
Questioned why additional time cannot be given: Ken Peterson, Alameda.
Stated the contracts are the most strategic and sound he has seen and are worthy of
approval: Bill Delaney, Alameda.
Stated the Police and Fire budgets are higher than others and are unsustainable;
questioned whether the MOUs need to be approved tonight: Brian Schumacher,
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,6,"budget, which is $160 million.
Mayor Spencer stated a slide showed 78%.
The Assistant City Manager stated said amount is the percentage of the General Fund.
Thanked the City Attorney for addressing the legal issue; suggested more notice be
provided; urged holding off on the decision: Robin Gilbert, Alameda.
Stated the MOUs are a step and are not the total solution; approving the contact will
make the employees the first to start helping fund OPEB; urged approval: Kari
Thompson, Alameda.
Stated the effort has been collaborative; Council is being asked to follow through with a
good faith effort; the first contract was the first step and this is the next step; Council can
give direction to the new City Manager to open negotiations: John Knox White,
Alameda.
Stated the OPEB issue has been around for a long time; the employees are working
with the City to solve it; Council directed staff to bargain in good faith; not approving the
agreements would be regressive bargaining: Malia Vella, Alameda.
Stated the newspaper article title: ""Trust proposed to reduce liability"" explains
everything; urged unanimous approval: Don Sherratt, Alameda.
Stated interest based negotiations began in 1998 to work together to reach a common
goal; the MOUs are a step being taken to minimize the pain down the road; urged
approval: Dom Weaver, Alameda.
Stated the details need to be reviewed; the budget is a little off; compared salaries: Ken
Gutleben, Alameda.
The Assistant City Manager noted the Public Works Department budget is larger than
either of the public safety budgets.
Mayor Spencer requested information on salaries, to which the Assistant City Manager
responded that she does not have the information.
The City Attorney clarified the Charter roles of the City Auditor and Treasurer.
Urged delay to allow City Auditor and Treasurer review; stated the matter can return in a
month: Bruce Carnes, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,7,"Stated the contracts are a product of collective bargaining; that he was on the Fiscal
Sustainability Committee which urged prefunding the OPEB liability; the Council should
proceed with the contracts: Mike Henneberry, Alameda and United Food and
Commercial Workers Local 5.
Stated Alameda is going in the right direction, which the MOUs continue; the terms of
the MOUs are fair; discussed Police and Fire programs and calls: Doug Biggs, Alameda
Point Collaborative.
Stated the question is whether the City can afford the contract; that she is not saying to
vote against the contact, rather Council should wait to allow the issues to be vetted;
outlined financial details; expressed concern over the drought impacting the economy;
questioned where the City will get funding; questioned the legal opinion: Jane Sullwold,
Alameda.
The City Manager explained the funding; stated the arbitration he was addressing was
the City's attempt to unilaterally impact retiree benefits, which failed.
Stated the Council started in 2012, but the step was not a correction; discussed the
City's telecommunication business; stated paying off $91 million from a loan or bond
today would cost $5 million a year for the next 30 years; the City is still paying $1.9
million annually for a contract from the 1970s: Former Councilmember Doug deHaan,
Alameda.
Stated the City Treasurer and City Auditor have raised questions which should be
addressed; suggested anyone paid over $200,000 take a pay cut: Irene Dieter,
Alameda.
Stated an agreement should not be made until Alamedans understand the budget; that
she would like a better understanding before going forward; urged following the advice
of the City Auditor and Treasurer: Theresa Hall, Alameda.
Stated the cart is being put before the horse; the City is entering into contracts before
the budget: Margaret Hall, Alameda.
Discussed community stabilization; stated the issue is Statewide; urged approval of the
MOUs and making progress one step at a time: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Expressed support for the City Auditor and City Treasurer; stated that she would favor a
lower return estimate; health insurance costs increase every year; no one will have
health insurance canceled if a decision is not made tonight: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:38 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:47 p.m.
***
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,8,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested an explanation of pay go, to which the
Assistant City Manager responded pay go has nothing to do with salaries; stated it is
the amount the City pays on an annual basis for retirees.
Councilmember Daysog stated pay go does not help buy down the unfunded liability;
the unfunded liability is the difference between the pay go amount and what the City
really should be paying for the liability.
Mayor Spencer stated there were two votes by the City Council in closed session; the
first unanimous vote was to continue with negotiations; at a subsequent meeting, there
was another vote on a tentative agreement; Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese
and Oddie voted to proceed, Councilmember Daysog abstained and she voted no.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the second vote was Council direction to negotiate on the
terms.
The City Manager concurred with what was said; stated the unanimous voice was to
begin formal negotiations; the 3-1-1 vote was on the general terms.
Mayor Spencer stated Council saw the actual red line proposal for the first time when it
was made public.
The Assistant City Manager stated the term sheet outlined everything included in the
red line.
The City Manager noted 15 day notice is 5 times longer than what is required under
State law.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated getting complete unanimity is difficult; the question
is what course of action is best for the City; there is not a magic solution; public safety
understands this is the beginning of the road; questioned whether the debt should be
allowed to continue to grow when the City has a solution now; stated people have
argued the MOUs could have gone further; public safety came to the table even though
the current MOUs do not expire for two years; waiting for the contracts to expire would
be rolling the dice and the City would lose the agreed upon contributions; more changes
will be explored going forward; creating a hostile environment would be a loss; that she
would like a task force, similar to the fiscal sustainability and OPEB, convened; letting
the opportunity pass would be a shame; that she supports going forward with the
MOUs.
Councilmember Daysog stated the topic is very important; that he does not see
anything magical about making a decision tonight; the City could hold off for four weeks
to vet issues raised by the City Auditor and Treasurer; that he would like time to look at
a suggestion he has; he did not support the matter in the closed session because he
wanted more information; that he has been seeking a comprehensive plan on the
unfunded liability; spectacular detailed information has been provided, including the 30
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,9,"year projection, which compares OPEB pay go and the trust fund; the trust fund would
work starting in 2019, but would go to $0 by 2034; the idea he has relates to the 1079
retirement account, on which the City currently spends almost $2 million annually; the
trust fund is undercapitalized and needs an additional source of revenue; the 1079 fund
should be reviewed as a supplement; figures staff provided on the salary increases
have calmed him down; the trust fund needs to be comprehensive, improved more and
supplemented.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether staff could comment on the scenario proposed
to take funds from the 1079 plan as premiums go down.
The Assistant City Manager stated the amount is not going down very much.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's request, the Assistant City Manager
explained the 1079 plan; stated the annual change could be researched.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the line item could be extended at the same amount and
any difference could go into the trust; inquired whether doing so would be separate or
precluded from the action tonight.
The City Manager responded the issue is separate; stated the 1079 plan is funded by
the General Fund; as the figure goes down, the money becomes available and Council
could decide to use it to fund the City's $250,000 annual contribution or additional pre-
funding; labor could be re-engaged about the City adding the funding and ask what they
are willing to give.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter should be discussed as part
of the budget.
The City Manager responded the amount is not a big ticket item and is not going down
enough to have an impact; stated as the amount decreases, it should not be used on
additional programs, but should be used to address long term obligations.
Councilmember Daysog the amount was $4 million in 2003 and is down to $1.8 million
now; the amount should be locked in and the difference should be used.
The City Manager noted the Council might want to use the funds for PERS smoothing.
Councilmember Daysog stated figuring it out takes time.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Manager stated nothing needs
to be negotiated as long as the City is meeting its obligations to the retirees; that he is
suggesting labor should be engaged if Council wants to use the funds to supplement
the OPEB trust.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not want the idea used to open bargaining
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,10,"again and ask for something else; everything is set in place; that his concern is the
proposal is not comprehensive enough.
Councilmember Oddie stated on the campaign trail, there was a mandate to fix the
OPEB problem; the issue is important; staff was given direction to negotiate a partial
solution by a unanimous vote; staff returned with a term sheet which was approved by a
3-1-1 vote; the public safety employees ratified the tentative agreement, which is before
Council for a vote; doing anything but approving the agreement is bad faith, regressive
bargaining and sets a bad tone; provided an analogy of building a house; outlined past
actions, employee contributions, the current proposal, and BART contract negotiations;
stated the employee contributions have to be collectively bargained and cannot be
imposed; that he is afraid not voting tonight would deteriorate the hard work to build a
collaborative relationship; the City obtained an actuarial and legal analysis; the Council
will continue to make progress and should form a labor management committee to
continue talking and working on ways to solve the problem; discussed employees or the
City contributing more to the trust and the buyout alternative; stated the contract needs
to be passed first to set up the trust and the framework; discussed where the City would
be in 2017 without the contract extension.
***
(15-279) Mayor Spencer stated a vote is needed to consider the budget presentations
[paragraph no. 15-284
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of proceeding with the remaining item.
The City Attorney clarified the four MOUs have already been called.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would support not proceeding with the budget
presentations; inquired how to proceed administratively with not hearing the item.
Mayor Spencer stated four votes are needed to hear the item.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated hearing the presentations so late would not be
giving the departments their due; the City Clerk has been trying to figure out dates.
The City Clerk stated in order to continue the meeting to next Wednesday, May 6th, the
matter would have to be continued to the specific date because there is not time to meet
the 7 day notice requirement.
The dates were discussed.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of continuing the budget presentations to May
7th
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 3. Noes: Vice
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,11,"Mayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of reconsidering the motion and continuing the
matter to May 6th
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.
(15-280) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00
p.m.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Note: The meeting did not go past 11:00 p.m.]
Councilmember Oddie expressed concern over what would happen if the economy
tanks; stated the window of opportunity is now; read a South Lake Tahoe City Manager
quote from a Western City article.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with the terms, otherwise, he would not
have voted to have the City Manager take the terms to the bargaining table; the
proposal does not solve the problem or reduce the liability more than $5 million; the
most important part of the deal is getting a 4% contribution from the employees; the
concession is valuable; his biggest concern is not everyone understands the
mechanism, which helps correct a structural budget defect; the liability currently exists
with no mechanism to pay for it; a union representative left the door open to continue
discussions, which should be included in the motion as Council direction; discussed
concerns about additional time and comparison to other cities; stated the offer will
expire; the City has to deal with PERS smoothing; discussed a 2007 Bartel report;
stated having a permanent working group should be a required condition.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not believe it is appropriate to enter into a long
term agreement going through 2022 prior to the budget process; the budget has a
structural problem; expenditures are greater than revenue; the loss increases after the
proposed contracts; the community should have an opportunity to help figure out how to
solve the problem long term; with or without the contracts, the five year forecast goes
down to an 18% reserve; the problem is serious and has to be addressed.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution approving the MOU between
APOA and the City of Alameda for the period beginning November 1, 2015 through
December 18, 2021.
Councilmember Daysog requested an amendment to the motion; stated the City
Manager's yeomen effort falls short; the trust fund is woefully undercapitalized; that he
would support the motion with language transitioning the 1079 balance as a
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,12,"supplement.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would not accept the amendment; but he would
accept an amendment to direct staff to create a standing committee as recommended
by the Vice Mayor.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the committee would be a standing labor management
committee.
Councilmember Oddie stated the committee would be established to investigate other
possible solutions.
The Assistant City Manager stated the 1079 suggestion is one of the solutions which
could be investigated.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not see the harm in considering the
matter; everything should be on the table.
Councilmember Oddie stated the committee should review the matter.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would support the amendment.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion with the amendment [to establish a
standing labor management committee], which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3.
Noes:
Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Spencer - 2.
(15-281) Resolution No. 15028, ""Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between
the Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA) and the City of Alameda for the
Period Beginning November 1, 2015 through December 18, 2021.' Adopted.
See paragraph no. 15-278 for the discussion.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution approving the MOU between
the APMA and the City for the period beginning November 1, 2015 through December
18, 2021 with giving direction to staff to form the standing labor management committee
to consider other alternatives to reduce the OPEB liability.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Spencer - 2.
(15-282) Resolution No. 15029, ""Approving a Memorandum of Understanding Between
the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) and the City of Alameda for the
Period of November 1, 2015 Through December 18, 2021. Adopted.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,13,"See paragraph no. 15-278 for the discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution approving the MOUs
between the IAFF and the City for the period of November 1, 2015 through December
18, 2021 with the same amendment previously offered: to direct staff to convene a
standing labor movement committee.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3.
Noes:
Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Spencer - 2.
(15-283) Resolution No. 15030, ""Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between
the Alameda Fire Chiefs Association (AFCA) and the City of Alameda for the period of
November 1, 2015 through December 18, 2021.' Adopted.
See paragraph no. 15-278 for the discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution approving a MOU
between the AFCA and City for the period of November 1, 2015 through December 18,
2021 with amendment to include direction to staff to convene a standing labor
management committee to continue searching for solutions to the OPEB liability.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3.
Noes:
Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Spencer - 2.
(15-284) Presentations by General Fund Departments on Proposed Budget for Fiscal
Years 2015-16 and 2016-17.
Continued to May 6, 2015.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(15-285) The City Manager thanked Alameda for the opportunity.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(15-286) Councilmember Oddie announced that he will be holding a town hall meeting
to discuss police and public works issues on Bay Farm Island.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-29,14,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:55 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
April 29, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 1, 2022- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:03 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at
5:21 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-124) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9, Subsection (d)(4); Number of Cases: Five (As Plaintiff -
City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendants: Owners of: 2801 Newport Road, Alameda,
CA 94501 (Residential), 2825 Pearl Harbor Road, Alameda, CA 94501 (Residential), and
Steeltown Winery 2440 Monarch Street, Alameda, CA 94501, Project Burger 2319 Central
Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501.
(22-125) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director;
Employee Organizations: Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA), Alameda Police
Managers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire Managers Association (AFMA); Under
Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that
regarding the Potential Litigation, staff provided information and Council provided direction by
the following six roll call votes: Vote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No;
Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2 and Vote 2:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5. Vote 3: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox
White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Vote 4:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Vote 5: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer:
No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Vote 6:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; regarding Labor, staff provided information and Council provided
direction, by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No;
Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:00 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 1, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,2,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY--MARCH 1, 2022--6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:16 p.m. and made brief
comments in support of Ukraine. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Herrera
Spencer Knox White, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy
Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye;
Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22-03 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held on
January 4, 2022. Approved.
(*22-126 CC/22-04 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Transactions
Report for the Period Ending December 31, 2021. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at
7:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
1
March 1, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,3,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- MARCH 1, 2022- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:19 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
(22-127) The City Clerk announced that the Play House lease [paragraph no. 22-148], the
Climate Action Resiliency Plan [paragraph no. 22-150) and the Council Referral regarding the
land use initiative [paragraph no. 22-155 were withdrawn and would not be heard.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-128) Season for Nonviolence Word of the Day: Si Se Puede!
Councilmember Herrera Spencer read a quote.
(22-129) Proclamation Declaring March 7, 2022 as COVID-19 Memorial Day.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
(22-130) Proclamation Declaring March 2022 as American Red Cross Month.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-131) Zac Bowling, Alameda, discussed Seaplane Lagoon ferry ridership increasing;
expressed support for the AC Transit Line 78 bus route; expressed concern over the closure of
Oriskany Avenue and the Consent Calendar public comment process; urged the Open
Government Commission to develop a policy recommendation for the Consent Calendar.
(22-132) Clifton Linton, Alameda, discussed a recent mechanical failure of the filtration system
and heater at Emma Hood pool causing closure; stated the closure has impacted the aquatics
community and programs; the pool infrastructure is fragile.
(22-133) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority (AHA), provided a monthly Housing Authority
update.
(22-134) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed support for the monthly Housing Authority updates
being presented as an agenda item; discussed the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force; expressed
concern about a decrease in open government; urged Council to consider creating an open
working group of citizens to set priorities and create a more open process.
(22-135) Anne Lee, Alameda, discussed the cancellation of the Alameda Free Shuttle program;
expressed support for additional Uber and Lyft round-trip rides; noted there will be a cost for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
1",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,20,"Housing Secure Emergency Rental Assistance Program; stated the application is online and
able to be found by searching Alameda Housing Secure; the application is intended for tenants
who have been affected by COVID-19 and are behind on their rent or utilities; the program can
pay up to 15 months of rent as well as past-due utility payments; landlords may also apply
directly to the program; ultimately, both parties need to cooperate in the process since
documentation is required from tenants; landlords have to receive and validate information
provided by the tenants.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the process can be accessed and utilized by landlords; however,
cooperation with tenants is required; the threshold for documentation is low and includes self-
attestation; the program pays 12 months of back rent and three months of forward rent and
utility payments.
Councilmember Daysog inquired which cities have resumed payment.
Greg Kats, AHA, stated staff has looked at East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Berkeley and Los
Angeles.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Mountain View and East Palo Alto had allowed rent
increases.
Mr. Kats responded that he would have to look into the matter.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager stated only Los Angeles and Oakland are not allowing
increases.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether tenants were consulted and the reason behind the lack of
consultation.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded the impetus was landlords providing public
comment in December 2021; stated Council directed staff to present alternatives; staff shared
the presentation with landlord representatives, stakeholders and tenants.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the staff recommendation allows a 2.7% rent increase
and any capturing of banked increases will occur when the pandemic is over.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff reviewed different
alternatives; Council can approve the Annual General Adjustment (AGA) rent increases or de-
couple the AGA rent increases plus banked rent increases; staff is recommending de-coupling
AGA rent increases from the emergency rent ordinance; the action would allow landlords to
begin raising rents up to the current AGA of 2.7%.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether capturing of the banked increase would only occur
when the pandemic is officially declared over.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded banked increases are still tied to the emergency
ordinance; staff is not recommending untying banked increases from the emergency ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff's recommendation is only the increase of 2.7%,
to which the Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
18",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,21,"Vice Mayor Vella stated that she understands the Oakland rent moratorium prohibits rent
increases above 1.9% or CPI unless high is required in order to provide a fair return; inquired
what is meant by the exceptions being Oakland and Los Angeles.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded Oakland is allowing the AGA and are not currently
allowing banked increases or capital improvement pass throughs.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how long Oakland has been allowing the AGA.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded not the entire pandemic; stated that she will have
to confirm the timing.
Vice Mayor Vella stated inquired whether there is an off-ramp if Council moves forward with the
matter and COVID-19 cases rise and rent increases need to halt.
The City Attorney responded there are some off-ramps, but they are limited; stated the easiest
off-ramp would be at second reading; if cases rise within the next two weeks, Council does not
have to adopt the ordinance at the second reading; if Council approves the ordinance as
proposed and decided re-impose a moratorium, Council would need to re-adopt a rent
moratorium by either emergency ordinance and four affirmative votes or a regular ordinance
and three affirmative votes.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the process if Council amends the proposed ordinance to create
conditions which trigger the off-ramp proposed by Vice Mayor Vella and whether there are
associated problems with said course of action.
The City Attorney responded the result depends on Council; stated Council could set forth
objective criteria to pause implementation of the ordinance; Council can direct staff to bring back
a first reading after creating a set of objective criteria.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is intrigued by Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry; the rent
moratorium ordinance passed at the beginning of the pandemic does not address
advancements made since; Council has learned a lot in the interim; however, not everything is
known about COVID-19; new variants are popping up and will continue; questioned whether a
new variant could cause the Public Health Department to take extraordinary measures again;
she is not sure how to include said possibility in the ordinance; inquired whether it is worth
creating objective criteria.
The City Attorney responded as long as the local emergency remains in place, the City Manager
has executive authority and could impose regulations subject to ratifications; stated the City
Manager could implement the actions in the ordinance and bring it to Council for ratification as
long as the local emergency is declared.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the notice provision and allowing groups to have an
opportunity for input; stated there has been some input; however, the City should allow for
enough notice time and clarify the notice dates; Council is trying to be mindful in its approach;
the approach is similar to other jurisdictions trying to mitigate increases; expressed concern
about what is unknown; stated there is an easing of mandates and restrictions; expressed
support not creating language on the spot; stated that she would like staff to provide language,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
19",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,22,"which will allow time for conversation to occur with interested groups; the earliest increases
would go into effect would be June 1st; the City Attorney provided workable solutions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is proposing providing staff with
direction to bring back the matter and not move forward at the current meeting, to which Vice
Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is not easy; the initial discussion occurred when
the pandemic had just begun, people were being forced to stay in their houses and jobs were
being shut down; he does not see a scenario in the next 6 to 9 months where the same will
occur again even with future surges and variants; he did not imagine the rent moratorium lasting
two years; Council should honor the 60 day notice; Council committed to allowing landlords to
bank increases; public comment received from landlords and tenants suggests a middle ground
has be found; expressed support for the ordinance and ensuring a 60 day notice; stated that he
would also like to have a 60 day notice instead of allowing the banked AGA as soon as the
pandemic is over; when the pandemic is over, everyone will know the AGA increases will not be
available for another 60 days; if a landlord raises rent 2.7% in June, any other banked AGA
cannot be used until the following June; the increase being available for use does not mean
landlords can release the banked increases; the system and rules are in place to allow the more
phasing; the faster Council allows the 2.7% increase, the less likely people will wait until
September 1st when a larger AGA will be in place; the longer Council waits, the more likely
landlords will wait until a higher AGA percentage occurs; expressed support for Council acting
tonight; stated that he is not supportive of delaying the matter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the additional 60 day notice before banked
increases can occur; expressed concern about payment shock; stated the current situation is
different than two years ago; there are vaccines.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she prefers an effective date of May 1st; she
agrees with the comments provided by Councilmember Knox White; inquired whether there is a
cap on how much landlords can use for banked rent increases.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded landlords can bank up to 8% and can implement
increases that are based on the current year AGA plus up to 3%.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over how large the CPI will be with an
additional 3%; stated it is appropriate to begin loosening the restriction; she is concerned about
the increases since she is a renter; the increases will hit hard if the City does not allow for slow
and gradual increases; it is appropriate to approve 2.7% now; staff's report is balanced and
includes a lot analysis to try to figure out how to unwind the matter without hitting tenants with a
difficult increase.
Councilmember Daysog stated a number of renters and landlords are hurting during the
pandemic; the staff recommendation is a middle-ground approach and is reasonable; the
recommendation takes into consideration the concerns of renters and landlords; Council should
begin to move forward with the matter; many other cities that have rent control have realized
landlords cannot be hindered from performing economically; landlords and renters must cover
costs.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of staff's recommendation [introduction of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
20",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,23,"ordinance], including the associated technical corrections.
Councilmember Knox White proposed a friendly amendment which includes a 60 day notice for
banked AGA after the end of the local emergency.
Councilmember Daysog stated the notice is not currently included in the staff recommendation;
expressed support for hearing from other Councilmembers.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the 60 day notice would mean landlords have to wait 60 days
to use the banked increase; whether a landlord waiting until the end of the local emergency
could increase by 2.7% plus the next banked increase.
Councilmember Knox White responded landlords would bank the 2.7% and use the next AGA,
plus up to 3% of the bank; the 2.7% would not be added to the increase and would go into the
bank.
The City Attorney concurred with Councilmember Knox White.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the total amount able to increase would be the 3% plus AGA,
to which Councilmember Knox white responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Katz stated the most a landlord could impose at any given time would be the AGA at the
time, plus 3% banked increase.
Councilmember Daysog outlined Councilmember Knox White's proposed motion amendment;
inquired whether the process of the banked amount does not happen simultaneously, that the
amount is increased 60 days later if there is an AGA rent increase, to which Councilmember
Knox White responded in the negative.
The City Attorney stated there are a number of banking rules which remain in effect and create
limitations on rent increases; one limitation is that there can only be a rent increase every 12
months; a landlord increasing rent in July prior to the pandemic ending, cannot increase rent
again within 60 days of the pandemic ending; a landlord cannot increase rent twice within 12
months; landlords will have to wait until the 12 months is up before implementing another rent
increase plus AGA.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the reason for having the 60 day notice for banked increases.
Councilmember Knox White responded a 60 day notice starts putting the use of the AGA out far
enough that there is encouragement for landlords to use the 2.7% rent increase rather than
sitting on a rent increase for months to utilize 5% plus 3%; the proposal encourages a phased in
approach.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding banked increases, Councilmember
Knox White stated the 60 day notice pushes the increase out and banking still cannot be used
until the end of the emergency.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of staff's recommendation [introduction of the
ordinance].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
21",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,24,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the proposed 60 day notice.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff considered the 60 day notice proposed
by Councilmember Knox White.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded not exactly; stated that she is unclear whether the
existing emergency ordinance includes the 60 day notice; the proposed change is new.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if Council approves the proposal from Councilmember Knox
White, staff will need to add language to the ordinance clarifying the 60 day notice and delay of
banked increases; the original ordinance does not have the language coupled with banked rent
increases; the original ordinance 60 day notice applies to all rent increases; the new ordinance
only addresses AGA rent increases and leaves out the proposed 60 day notice of banked rent
increases.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has worked hard trying to keep people housed; she would
like to ensure the City is continuing along those lines; she understands that it is time to move
forward.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.
Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [introduction of the
ordinance] with amendment that the use of banked AGA will not be available until 60 days after
the rescission of the local emergency.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the May 1st date is part of the motion, to
which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City will be sending notifications and
how the City will notify tenants about the changes to ensure timelines are understood.
Mr. Katz responded staff will provide a variety of outreach on the matter; stated staff will send
out an e-newsletter to subscribers announcing the change and will put out a headline on the
rent program website; staff will send out new maximum allowable rent increase letters to
landlords and tenants.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for staff providing as much as possible to make it clear;
stated multiple websites are available, which can be updated with information; she would like
staff to streamline and find ways to clarify and provide an insert; expressed concern about staff
only relying on the internet or emails; stated that she would like the information provided with
enough time so that people do not scramble.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for staff including information about how
renters can qualify or sign up for assistance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
22",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,25,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he will support the motion; the motion is in line with trying to
work things out with different perspectives of landlords and tenants; two years of no rent
increases is not sustainable for many; the proposed motion is reasonable and has middle-
ground.
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.
(22-147) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Execute a First
Amendment to the Lease with Park Street Wine Cellars, Inc., a California Corporation, for
Approximately 700 Square Feet of Retail Space in the Historic Alameda Theatre Located at
2315 Central Avenue, Suite 122, to Provide Six Months of Rent Deferral with a Three-Year
Repayment Period. Continued to March 15, 2022.
(22-148) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Execute a First
Amendment to the Lease with Play House, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Doing
Business as Director's Cut, for Approximately 1,850 Square Feet of Retail Space in the Historic
Alameda Theatre Complex, Located at 2319 Central Avenue, to Provide a Six-Month Rent
Credit and a Rent Reduction. Withdrawn and not heard.
(22-149) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget; and
(22-149 A) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA)
Salary Schedule to Add the Classification of Street Light Maintenance Technician; Amending
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule to Remove the
Streetlight Technician; Upgrading Two Maintenance Worker Il Positions To Streetlight
Technicians, Effective March 12, 2022. Continued to March 15, 2022.
(22-150) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency
Plan (CARP) and the Annual Report on Transportation. Withdrawn and not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(22-151) The City Manager discussed the removal of the indoor mask mandate, the City's 4th of
July parade and the Point in Time Count.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-152) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-153) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
23",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,26,"(22-154) Consider Directing Staff to Bring the Rent Program ""In-House"" to the City Attorney's
Office. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella) Not heard.
(22-155) Consider Adoption of Resolution Expressing Support for the ""Brand-Huang-Mendoza
Tripartisan Land Use Initiative"" to Amend Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California
to Make Zoning and Land Use Community Affairs, and Not of State Interest. Withdrawn and not
heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22-156) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed the Point in Time Count.
(22-157) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the Point in Time Count, a Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) Enforcement Committee meeting discussion related to
abandoned vessels in the estuary, a joint meeting of the Alameda County Mayors and the Board
of Supervisors to address homelessness, an interview held with consultants working on the
three year strategic plan for Alameda Health Systems and a meeting of the City Council and
Alameda Health Care District subcommittee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:54 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
March 1, 2022
24",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,4,"Uber and Lyft versus the free shuttle; urged free trips be offered each month.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk announced the Police Chief would like provide revised policy language on the
Police Department Policy Manual update [paragraph no. 22-136].
(22-136) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing speakers to comment for
2 minutes on the Police Department Policy Manual and the emergency response vehicle policy
[paragraph no. 22-141].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the two matters are each policy-
related.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following rolling call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.
Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Expressed concern over increases in rent and housing for low-income; urged Council to take
action to check on the Housing Authority: Ana Morales Salazar, Alameda.
Expressed concern about the use of Lexipol; stated the City does have the ability to modify and
change policies using Lexipol; he does not support the City keeping the armored vehicle: Zac
Bowling, Alameda.
Stated the subcommittee on Police reform recommended review of Lexipol policies; the
language and motivations behind some of the policy updates are questionable and offensive;
expressed concern about using the armored vehicle at community events; stated that she would
like the community to have more of a voice regarding the matter: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Discussed the vote to extend public comment for the Consent Calendar: Jay Garfinkle,
Alameda.
Stated Police policy matters being on the Consent Calendar appears dubious; discussed the
death of Mario Gonzalez; urged policies be compliant with State law and go beyond including
not allowing positional asphyxia; stated that it does not seem as though the community is being
listened to; expressed concern about the armored vehicle being at parades in the community:
Savanna Cheer, Alameda.
Expressed support for adding the duty to intercede in unlawful use of force; stated clear
timelines for training and a definition of interceding are needed; the proposal for Assembly Bill
(AB) 490 is an abomination; Council does not respect the community and does not respect
Officers when the First Amendment policy leaves out duties; the policies need further vetting;
urged Council take a careful look: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Discussed the death of her son Angelo Quinto-Collins and AB 490; stated excited delirium is a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,5,"pseudo-scientific diagnosis and should not be used; urged Council to attend a webinar called
Debunking Excited Delirium and to support AB 1608: Cassandra Quinto-Collins, Antioch, CA
Discussed the death of her brother Angelo Quinto-Collins; stated the upcoming webinar
includes knowledgeable experts with valuable information; webinar information can be found
online and on social media; the webinar will provide a closer look at excited delirium, restraint
and physical asphyxia: Bella Quinto-Collins, Antioch, CA.
Discussed the death of his step-son Angelo Quinto-Collins; stated the death has been reported
as an accident due to excited delirium via the Contra Costa County Coroner's Office; noted the
American Medical Association has come out against the diagnosis; the term is used to cover-up
actions of Police Officers; excited delirium is controversial and a tool for obfuscation; urged
Council's support of AB 1608: Robert Collins, Antioch, CA.
Expressed concern over positional asphyxia; stated it is obvious that any policy should prevent
positional asphyxia; he is concerned over the militarization of Police; Alameda does not need
militarization of Police: Roger Slattery, Alameda.
Stated the policies presented are inhumane and contrary to treating people as human beings;
the policies should not be on the Consent Calendar, which is misleading and wrong; expressed
concern for an attempt at the matters being under the radar; urged Council to take action to stop
certain matters from being placed on the Consent Calendar: Erin Fraser, Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White requested the emergency response vehicle policy be removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested that the resolution opposing Initiative 21-0042A1
[paragraph no. 22-143) be removed from the Consent Calendar and recorded a no vote on
teleconference findings [paragraph no. 22-142].
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; 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.]
(*22-137) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on February 1, 2022.
Approved.
(*22-138) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,645,095.00.
(22-139) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, Via the Chief of Police, to Update the
Existing Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Existing Best Practices
and Statutory Requirements.
The Police Chief gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Policies 314, 318, and 312 were presented
exactly as the published in the meeting packet with no changes.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,6,"The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the only modification made relates to
Policy 300.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the changes to the policy have gone through
the City Attorney's Office, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney stated staff has reviewed and approved the changes; staff recommended
many of the changes presented.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like to see the proposed changes to Policy
300; he appreciates the changes coming forward; Council directed the changes due to the
desire for multiple community eyes being able to catch issues; the Police Chief quickly
acknowledges concerns; questioned whether the language about unreasonably impairing an
individuals' breathing fits with the Government Code; stated the Government Code does not
authorize techniques which involve a significant risk of positional asphyxia; requested
clarification on the use of the term unreasonably impair; expressed support for not using the
technique if there is any threat of impairing; stated the term ""unreasonable"" is concerning.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with concern about using the term ""unreasonably"" as a qualifier.
The City Attorney stated the term ""unreasonable"" includes ""unlawful;"" AB 490 makes clear that a
law enforcement agency cannot authorize techniques which involve a substantial risk of
positional asphyxia; the term ""unreasonable"" encompasses AB 490 and goes further by taking
the position that any method that has an unreasonable restraint on breathing and respiration is
unlawful under the policy; under AB 490, positional asphyxia is specifically called out; the
""unreasonable"" standard is read as broader and more protective.
The Police Chief concurred with the City Attorney; stated the ""reasonable"" standard is used
when assessing force, other than lethal force; inserting the term comports with how Officers
make the assessment about what force is reasonable and not.
Councilmember Knox White stated changes respond to community feedback, including the
subcommittees, wanting to tighten up language; he looks forward to supporting the changes;
expressed support for Council adopting Policy 358.3 regarding the minimum criteria for
notification of major incidents; stated notifications are not provided for traffic collisions involving
vulnerable road users; one of the biggest safety dangers in Alameda is with vulnerable road
users; highlighting the collisions would bring the policy into alignment with the current City
Manager practice; he is comfortable proceeding with the matter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White is requesting Council be
notified by the City Manager via text message, to which Councilmember Knox White responded
Council is already alerted via text.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the direction to staff.
Councilmember Knox White stated Policy 358.3 sets the minimum criteria for notification of
homicides, traffic fatalities, unusual deaths, rapes and armed robberies; he would like to direct
staff to add traffic collisions with vulnerable road users.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she appreciates the response to feedback; inquired why the City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
4",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,7,"would not include the statutory language in the Use of Force policy and is including ""or
unreasonable.""
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the section relates to Policy 300.3.
Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; inquired whether the statutory language can be
placed after: ""or unreasonably impair.""
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated the language is included
in AB 490; the terms ""reasonably"" and ""unreasonably"" are used throughout policies based on
different legal standards and reasons; questioned whether there is legal reason to object to or
use the statutory language.
The City Attorney stated that he has no concerns with Vice Mayor Vella's proposed changes;
Council may insert the language as proposed.
Councilmember Knox White stated Government Code Section 7286.5 contains the desired
language.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the text would read: ""a law enforcement agency shall not authorize
techniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxiation.""
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the policy would read: ""Officers are not authorized to use
any restraint or transportation method that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxia or
unreasonably impair an individuals' breathing,' to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the
affirmative.
The Police Chief stated the positional asphyxia language was removed to address his concerns.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on concerns related to confusion.
The Police Chief stated the direction of the original language was that terms, such as positional
asphyxia, restraint asphyxia and excited delirium, all lead to an outcome that is dangerous to
the public; regardless of the terms, his direction is that Officers not do anything which puts
someone at risk; he does not want Officers to do anything which will restrict breathing;
expressed support for adding the Council proposed language to the policy; stated that he
originally utilized the term for consistency.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for including the language of: ""substantial risk of, or
unreasonable
stated that she agrees with the Police Chief swapping out terms relative to
breathing.
The City Attorney recommended adding definitional language from the statute if the term
""positional asphyxia"" is taken out; stated the definitional language provides a caveat that if an
Officer places someone in a compressed airway situation, the person must be monitored; the
added policy language should read: "" without reasonable monitoring for signs of loss of
oxygen. if the policy copies the statutory text, there is no need for change; however, the
definitional language should be included; discussed an Officer effectuating an arrest with
actions that create risk; stated the Officer's constant monitoring of the arrestee, comports with
Fourth Amendment standards and should go back into the policy.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,8,"Councilmember Knox White stated that he understood the initial recommendation from Vice
Mayor Vella to include both options, including a substantial risk of positional asphyxia, which
addresses the City Attorney's comments; the term ""unreasonable"" can be added; Vice Mayor
Vella did not narrow the policy, she specially called out the substantial risk of positional
asphyxia due to the term being in the statute to provide clarity about the intent.
The Police Chief stated the updated language ties to the statute and respects and honors the
concerns of the community.
The City Attorney stated that he recommends adding: ""as defined by Government Code Section
7286.5"" after positional asphyxia to make clear that positional asphyxia is a defined term under
State law.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the language stricken from the originally
proposed policy is from the Government Code.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she
is not sure why the stricken language was included; she would like to ensure that the language
being struck is no longer necessary; questioned whether the language is necessary; expressed
concern about changing the Government Code language.
The City Attorney stated that he recommended striking the language; the language is not
contained in the State law and does not add to the policy; the language is not necessary and
removal is recommended.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where the language came from, to which the Police
Chief responded the language came from Lexipol.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied that the new language, which is in the best
interest of securing public safety in Alameda; expressed support for the new language; stated
that he appreciates both the City Attorney and Police Chief considering the community's
concerns; if Council adopts the matter, the action will be another profound reform implemented
by the Alameda Police Department (APD).
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the policies as written with the exception of
substituting the language proposed by the Police Chief: ""Officers are not authorized to use any
restraint or transportation method which would create substantial risk of positional asphyxia as
defined by Government Code Section 7286.5 and/or unreasonably impair an individual's
breathing or respiratory capacity. Once controlled, the individual should be placed into a
recovery position (e.g. supine or seated) and monitored for signs of medical distress
(Government Code section 7286.5).' and the addition of traffic collisions with vulnerable users
into Policy 358.3.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what the additional language means for Policy 358.3.
The City Attorney responded that he has no legal concerns about the additional language.
The City Manager stated the language is not currently part of the policy; the language would
formalize the current practice; alerts would be from APD, rather than the City Manager; he has
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
6",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,9,"no concerns with the change.
The Police Chief expressed support for adding the language.
The Police Captain requested clarification about the language being added to the policy; stated
that he would like to provide clear direction to staff.
***
(22-140) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of giving Councilmember Knox White one
additional minute.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Councilmember Knox White stated vulnerable road users are those who walk and bike;
notification would be of any traffic collisions involving a person walking or biking.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the clarification provided is sufficient, to which the Police
Captain responded he would like Council to provide the specific collision incidents which
Officers will need to report to Council.
The Police Chief recommended the language: ""any traffic collision involving pedestrians and
bicyclists;"" inquired whether Council can narrow the scope down to reportable injuries or age
groups.
Councilmember Knox White stated that the City averages about 50 collisions per year and his
proposal stands; the reporting does not appear to be overly broad.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language proposed involves any collision involving a
vehicle and pedestrian or bicyclist that results in some injury.
Councilmember Knox White responded the language can include ""results in some injury;"" stated
oftentimes people do not know whether or not they are injured; if Council wants to know where
safety is an issue in the City, Council needs to hear about collisions; Council does not hear
about collisions without the policy; the City Manager already provides the information; the
language will formalize the existing practice.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether statistics will be kept and reported.
The Police Captain responded in the affirmative; stated the statistics are generally published
around April or May.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the information is requested in real-time for
Councilmembers.
Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated that he would like the collision
report to occur the same day; having the information is useful.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,10,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether APD already keeps track of all accidents
regardless of injury, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is unsure whether Council receives a text each
time an accident occurs; inquired whether the City Manager sends out a text to Council for each
accident.
The City Manager responded APD reports to him and then he reports to Council; stated if APD
is not called to the scene, the incident does not get reported to Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the language needs to be added to make
sure staff is in compliance, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to add the
language to clarity expectations.
Councilmember Knox White stated the amendment is unnecessary; calls are reported; there is
no reasonable expectation to have a report of a call that was not received.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether both the Police
Department policy manual and the emergency response vehicle policy matters are being
considered concurrently.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded Council is currently considering the Police Department policy
manual.
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: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 5.
(22-141) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police, Via the City Manager, to Establish
New and Amended Police Department Policies Governing the Use of the Alameda Police
Department's Emergency Response Vehicle.
The Police Captain and Police Chief gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Exhibit 3 denotes major incident notifications; noted
Council just made changes to the notifications in the previous agenda matter; requested
clarification for the Council direction provided.
The Police Captain stated the exhibit is attached to the emergency response vehicle matter due
to the proposal for the new policy to make it clear notification has to be provided anytime the
vehicle is deployed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the reason the notification is being heard is due to the use of the
emergency response vehicle being added as a significant event.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the policy also refers to the previous agenda
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
8",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,11,"matter, to which the Police Captain responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he has mistakenly combined an exhibit from the current
matter with the previous policy matter; Council can take the same action under the current
policy matter for the emergency response vehicle.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to include the action under the
current matter; proposed the previous action be included in the motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated a number of comments have been received related to the
purpose of having the vehicle at community related events and public gatherings; expressed
support for Council providing direction to clarify the language; stated public gatherings have to
first find an incredible threat in order for the vehicle to be used; the vehicle will not be sent to
public gatherings and hidden away; requested clarification.
The Police Chief concurred with Councilmember Knox White's comments; stated staff
recognizes the vehicle as a tool; however, the tool has associated concerns; staff wants to be
respectful and honor the associated concerns; noted Policy 409 opens with: ""the emergency
response vehicle shall be used as an armored vehicle resource to safely resolve incidents
where there is an objective risk to civilians and/or Officer safety from a person or persons who
may be considered armed and dangerous;"" the qualifier must be met in order for the vehicle to
be used; he is willing to add language that states use at community events is for educational
purposes; the vehicle will not be used at recruitment events; expressed support for being
transparent.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation with the addition
provided by the Police Chief [and the language from the previous motion].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(22-142) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via
Teleconference.
Since Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the matter carried by the following
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(22-143) Resolution No. 15869, ""Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1, a Proposed Amendment to the
State Constitution that would Limit the Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to
Raise Revenues for Government Services."" Adopted.
The Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the initiative adds a requirement for taxes to
have a sunset dates, to which the Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer responded in
the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,12,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer further inquired what happens to current taxes that do not
have a sunset date.
The Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer responded taxes already passed by voter
would not change; stated measures passed going forward would need to have a sunset date or
specified duration of time.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the duration of time could be 100 years.
The Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer responded the language only specifies a
duration of time, not a limit.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification from the City Attorney's Office.
The City Attorney stated that he concurs with the Communications and Legislative Affairs
Officer's assessment of the amendment.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolution].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:04 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:21 p.m.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
(22-144) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal
Code Chapter XXX to Implement Senate Bill (SB) 9 Regarding Two-Unit Housing Developments
and Urban Lot Splits in Single-Family Residential Zones. Introduced.
The Planning Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) put
together a detailed letter; requested clarification about separate metering and affordability
requirements mentioned in the letter.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff anticipates new SB 9 units will
be separately metered; staff has not recommended requiring SB 9 units to be deed restricted for
affordable housing; staff does not feel the restriction is necessary at the moment; discussed a,
Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) study of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) from
the; stated the study found that many ADUs are built for family members and over 30% of units
charged very low rent and 30% charged low rent; there is a natural tendency for the units to be
made affordable; Council may consider deed restricting the units.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the affordability categories for the remaining 40% of
ADUs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,13,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded he over-generalized; stated
housing includes four categories: very low, low, moderate and market rate; the unit breakdown
was 33% very low, 30% low, 30% moderate and the remaining percentage were market rate;
the breakdown is a result of ADU builds being used for family members, not deed restrictions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Planning, Building and Transportation
Department charges fees for SB 9 units or ADUs.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded ADUs are exempt from the
Citywide Development Impact Fee (DIF); stated deed restricted, affordable units are also
exempt from fees.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether SB 9 units would incur permit fees, to which
the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog requested clarification about the issue of applying the ordinance to
residential district areas.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated AAPS suggested that residential
districts with an associated overlay, such as Harbor Bay Isle, do not fall under State law; it is
risky to take the position that an overlay will exempt the City; Harbor Bay Isle does not have
many second units since newer developments have smaller back yards; the same instance
occurs in the Bayport region; most second units are built in older residential neighborhoods.
Stated the ordinance fits with the recommendation and understanding of SB 9; expressed
support for 1,200 square foot units and for removing the cap; expressed concern about pitting
SB 9 units against ADUs; stated deed restrictions on SB 9 units could create favor toward
ADUs: Zac Bowling, East Bay YIMBY.
Questioned whether four units on a lot would all be detached or a combination of attached and
detached; urged the square footage for SB 9 units be capped at 900 square feet; stated 1,200
square foot units are not affordable by design; units under 1,000 square feet are more
affordable: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Urged Council to adopt the AAPS recommendations and consider limiting new units to 800
square feet, maintaining height limits and requiring that one SB 9 unit be deed restricted;
discussed a new sea-level rise report; urged staff to review the report; expressed support for
Council addressing whether ADUs will be allowed as AirBNB rentals: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Stated that he disagrees with staff and State regulators; the City should require a report from
Alameda's Emergency Operations Officer related to safe evacuation volume; Alameda does not
have enough electricity for existing infrastructure or a safe way to evacuate its population in
emergencies; expressed concern about allowing people to create policies which do not address
evacuation needs: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Discussed the AAPS letter; urged Council to adopt a revised ordinance with proposed
modifications; expressed support for noticing related to SB 9 construction projects and for
limiting SB 9 preemption of local development standards; stated the draft ordinance applies the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,14,"preemption to all SB 9 units; discussed requirements for non-SB 9 units: Christopher Buckley,
AAPS.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is concern that the units will be used for AirBNB rentals;
inquired whether the matter is addressed in the ordinance.
The Planning Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated a pre-
condition of building SB 9 units requires a deed restriction stating the property cannot be used
for rentals that are less than 30 days.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has comments regarding AAPS's letter
referencing limiting the preemption of local standards only to the smaller 800 square foot unit
size; requested staff to clarify the background and theory.
The Planning Building and Transportation Director responded the R1 District has a 20 foot rear
yard setback; stated the front yard setback is much smaller and the side yard setback is 5 feet;
the City can regulate back and side yard setbacks based on State law; the proposed ordinance
states SB 9 units should have a 4 foot setback from the rear and side yard; the process is
ministerial and will be handled by staff without the Planning Board or a public hearing process;
the goal is to have a clear and objective ordinance that requires the minimum amount of staff
judgement and discretion; property owners in the R1 District have a good idea of where to place
second units; 2021 yielded about 20 second units; most property owners think about and do not
wish to have issues with neighbors; staff rarely finds poor placement of second units;
implementing the AAPS idea brings second units as close as possible to the main unit in order
to keep as much of the rear yard setback as possible; second units typically work better with
space between the main and second units; Council can direct staff to use AAPS's approach.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned about the height standard; inquired whether
SB 9 unit have to be subordinate to the height of the primary unit; expressed concern about
backyard mansions.
The Planning Building and Transportation Director responded the ordinance has a 30 foot
height limit; stated a two-story house with a pitched roof would be an appropriate SB 9 unit; staff
has not recommended a lower height limit; the limit will likely create a smaller footprint; a lower
height limit would require a larger footprint; the entire R1 District has a 30 foot height limit.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council has come to a decision that makes sense and
honors both SB 9 and the 2020 election result; expressed support for staff to return with the
Housing Element; stated that he has a concern with historic preservation and design rules
adding time and cost to processes; the new rules allow for discretionary Historic Advisory Board
review; he would like to give direction to staff to come back with tighter rules on how
determinations can be made within the Housing Element; votes have gone against the findings
of fact and he would like to honor the historic extensions.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including introduction
of the ordinance] with direction that the City will look at clarifying and specific rules under the
Housing Element.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft proposed a friendly amendment of having a smaller maximum square
footage for units.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
12",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,15,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supports smaller unit size.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed information from an Alameda County Mayor's Conference
meeting about the growing homeless population being age 50 and over; living on the street
ages people prematurely; there is a lack of affordable housing for people with lower income;
many people are retiring from low paying, non-union jobs lacking benefits; many people are
vulnerable to medical emergencies or car repairs, which cause the inability to afford rent; the
best medicine is housing; more housing needs to be built; expressed support for capping SB 9
units between 800 and 1,000 square feet; stated Council is trying to increase the amount of
affordable housing by design; she would like to keep the ordinance simple; limiting the unit size
allows for more outdoor space; a property owner can still build a larger second unit under the
ADU ordinance; 800 square foot units are affordable by design; ensuring access to affordable
housing is a matter of Statewide concern as noted in SB 9.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she strongly supports the affordable by design
effort and the 800 square foot unit size; the unit size is critical; 1,200 square foot units will cost
over $1 million; many people can only afford less; there is an opportunity to try and provide
housing that is affordable by design; expressed concern about tree removal impacts to the
environment; stated there should be balance with the SB 9 units.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Planning, Building and Transportation
Director stated staff originally proposed 1,200 square feet; the Planning Board increased the
size to 1,600 square feet; noted the January public hearing yielded Council wanting smaller
units; stated staff dropped the limit to the original 1,200 square feet.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the previous total number of allowable units on a parcel.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the amount had been up to ten
units; stated there is a range; cities that wish to be liberal about second units and interpreting
SB 9 allow up to ten units; most cities are landing around four units per parcel.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council previously had concerns about ten units per parcel as
well as the unit size of 1,600 square feet; the current proposal is reasonable with a maximum of
four SB 9 units or a combination of SB 9 and ADUs; Alameda Citizens Task Force put for a
piece about price per square footage; expressed support for a smaller unit size of 800 to 1,000
square feet; stated the matter is a chance for Council to do something unique; it is reasonable to
proceed with a maximum of four units between 800 and 1,000 square feet.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would second the motion with a friendly
amendment to limit SB 9 units to 800 square feet.
Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about the 800 square foot size; stated people
will not do SB 9 units due to the size and fewer homes will be built; expressed support for
consideration of 1,000 square feet and higher; stated lower square footage will produce less
housing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes many additional units can be built at 1,000 square
feet; expressed support for a maximum of 1,000 square feet and for working towards getting
more housing built; noted a substitute motion can be created.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
13",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,16,"Vice Mayor Vella stated Council previously provided direction on the matter; expressed support
for units which are affordable by design; stated some people find affordability in building on their
own parcel in order to house family or friends; previously, she did not support capping the unit
size; expressed support for the 1,000 square foot unit size; stated additional space can make a
difference for people wishing to age in place; many people have supported higher square
footage for full visitability; she would prefer the higher end of the unit size range.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands many people are building units for family
members and multi-generational living; the ADU size limit is 1,200 square feet; property owners
have the option to elect build either SB 9 units or ADU units; expressed support for Council
being creative and trying to put into place units which are affordable by design; the option to go
up to 1,200 square feet exists with ADUs.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like more similarities between SB 9 units and ADUs so
people do not have to choose; people are considering planning for the future due to a 19%
increase in home prices; Council is trying to encourage home building that meets all needs; she
would prefer a higher unit size range.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella would support a maximum of 1,000
square feet, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White amended the motion to 1,000 square feet.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed a January article in The Chronicle related to home
prices; stated 1,000 square feet is not affordable by design; she supports Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's
analysis about ADUs being 1,200 square feet; SB 9 units provide opportunity to provide
affordable by design units; 1,200 to 1,000 square foot units are not affordable by design in
Alameda; homes are selling for above asking price; she is willing to compromise with 900
square foot units; higher unit sizes continue to drive gentrification in Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the amended motion; stated 1,000 square foot units provide
versatility and allow people to build for all needs and create more affordability; ; the size limit is
a cap; people can create smaller units.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired what would occur if Council requires at least
one SB 9 unit to be 800 square feet.
Councilmember Knox White stated an 800 square foot home in Alameda is $1.6 million; Council
arguing between the 800 and 1,000 square foot unit size is not meaningful for affordable versus
non-affordable units; housing is not affordable because people in Alameda, the Bay Area and
the State have refused to build housing for 50 years; building a few 800 square foot units will not
create affordability; Council needs to figure out how to incentivize housing to be built within the
confines of the City Charter; expressed support for a maximum unit size of 1,000 and nothing
lower; stated that he is happy to withdraw his motion if Councilmembers wish to go with a lower
unit size.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is trying to keep the ordinance fairly streamlined and easy
to administer; expressed support for leaving the decision to the property owner; stated many
things can be done with smaller units; expressed support for the 1,000 square foot unit limit.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
14",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,17,"Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council is willing to split the difference and allow for a
maximum of 900 square foot units.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what would be gained by a 100 square foot difference.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he does not know if it is
worth worrying about the difference; stated the vast majority of R1 property owners that could
build two ADUs on their property are only building one and are not getting close to 1,200 square
feet in size; the units being built are generally smaller; staff thinks that making the unit maximum
too small will cause a family not to build; 1,000 square foot maximum is a good size; height
limits are the problem with second units; property owners building 1,200 square foot units on
one floor uses much of the backyard; staff has debated the reason for second units being small
and part of the reason is due to height limits.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council has made substantial progress; the maximum amount of
units decreased from ten to four and the square footage decreased from 1,600 to 1,000; he
would have preferred 800 square foot units; however, there is compromise; expressed support
for the 1,000 maximum square foot unit size and four units on one lot.
Councilmember Knox White stated 1,000 square foot unit size is splitting in the middle; there
has been a lot of compromise and movement in the unit size.
Vice Mayor Vella stated compromise is good; however, she still would prefer not to have a cap
on unit size; Council is working on housing as a top priority.
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.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-145) Introduction of Ordinance Amending, in Part, Uncodified Ordinance No. 3275
Concerning a Temporary Moratorium on Rent Increases for Fully Regulated Residential Rental
Units and Alameda Municipal Code, Article XV, Concerning Various Clean-Up Amendments.
Introduced.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog requested clarification of the technical corrections.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager stated Alameda County is piloting a program where property
owners may borrow a small amount of funds from the County and receive a regulatory
agreement in exchange for agreeing to maintain a small percentage of units as affordable; a 50
unit building can have as few as 10 affordable units and the entire building would become
exempt from the rent program.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether all 50 units must be deed restricted, to which the
Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
15",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,18,"Urged Council to vote no on the matter; stated the pandemic has destabilized the community;
the Bay Area needs time to recoup; the matter is antithetical; expressed concern over not
receiving 60 days advance notice of rent increases; stated the 60 days are vital for renters to
get their finances in order; there is no reason for the grace period to be halved; urged Council to
reject allowing banked rent increases; stated the current rent relief options remain precarious for
renters: Austin Tam, Filipino Advocates for Justice and Alameda Renters Coalition.
Discussed Measure K; stated escalating rents and evictions are decimating the community;
55% of the Alameda community are tenants; the percentage could be higher with rentals at
Alameda Point; discussed Ordinance 3275; stated Ordinance 3275 reflects the values of a
compassionate community in Alameda; urged Council to listen to the softer voices of
compassion, vote no on the amendment and not lift the moratorium: Cheri Johansen, Alameda
Progressives.
Stated that she is taken aback by the sudden proposal to lift the moratorium; the matter affects
half of Alameda residents; questioned where the documentation exists in order to understand
the problem; renters have previously been asked to provide hard evidence of rising rents and
evictions; landlords making such a request for aid is unsettling; the matter feels like a slap in the
face; Council must make a distinction between small landlords and investment groups; proof
needs to be provided: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.
Questioned whether there is awareness that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is at 7% and when
landlords can use the banking option; stated most small landlords rental properties and income
are lifelines; Council has cut off income; landlords must keep up with repairs to provide units in
good condition; housing inventory is old and needs a lot of maintenance; questioned when
landlords can use banked rent; expressed concern about the calculations: BeBe Cheng.
Discussed the Council rent cap action of 2019; stated the previous ordinance was in effect six
months prior to the pandemic hitting; the amount of time was not enough for renters to recover
the inequities of past years; the rent moratorium provided some measure of security; the local
emergency has not ended; however, Council is considering taking away the 60 day notice to
renters; questioned whether Council believes the financial state for renters has improved over
the pandemic; stated all costs are rising, including cost of living; urged Council to vote no: Toni
Grimm, Alameda.
(22-146) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the Park Street Wine Lease
[paragraph no. 22-147] and budget resolution [paragraph no. 22-149 under Continued Agenda
Items on March 15, 2022.
Vice Mayor Vella 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.
Stated the current rent ordinance was created and agreed upon by both landlords and tenants
after many community meetings; discussed the current unemployment rate in Alameda County;
expressed concern about the proposed 2.7% limitation on rent increases; stated inflation will
create higher conditions than 2.7%; landlords should have a choice of whether or not to go with
the 2.7% increase or the current years' increase; the current ordinance does not allow banking
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
16",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-03-01,19,"in consecutive years; urged Council to temporarily suspend the limit on cost recuperation and
allow landlords to come up with a banking formula: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Stated there is a need for affordable housing; Alameda is one of the few cities in the area to
have a rent freeze; expressed support for an increase 60 days from notification and for the City
reiterating rent program assistance options; stated employment rates do not mean renters can
afford market rate or rate increases; renters must be protected; people need to remain housed:
Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Stated many people are surprised by the matter and the lack of a 60 day notice; the City needs
to have compassion for renters struggling with the pandemic: Zac Bowling,
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the technical amendment is meant to address the the 60
day notice issue, to which the Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's request for clarification of the process, the Interim Base
Reuse Manager stated the ordinance itself becomes effective on May 1st; landlords may
increase rent after May 1st; any notice that goes out starting May 1st would not be valid for
another 30 days.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the ordinance is being
presented to Council as a first reading and will require a second reading; as proposed, the
ordinance will not become effective for 45 days; the time would be further lengthened to 60
days.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the effective date for the ordinance would be
May 1st at which time landlords could give notice, to which the Interim Base Reuse Manager
responded the alternative proposed allows for notice to be given May 1st
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she heard comments from the public regarding
tenants and problems related to COVID-19; inquired whether there are rental assistance
programs.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Alameda County
emergency rental assistance program will accept applications from both tenants and landlords
for tenants behind in rent; some tenants are experiencing issues for the first time and may not
be aware of programs or associate shame with applying for assistance; Alameda County
continues to accept applications and has put in a request to the Federal Government for
additional funds.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the AHA and rent program are helping
people and where people should go for assistance.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded there is an application online; stated people can
call 2-1-1 if they cannot access the application online.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a news article; stated some money is going unused in some
cases; inquired what the money goes towards and where to look for the application online.
The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded the name of the program is the Alameda County
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022
17",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -MARCH 1, 2005- -7:30 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 8:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-091) - Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Approving
Parcel Map 8574 [paragraph no. 05-096] would be addressed at
a
later date.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar,
excluding the Resolution Approving Parcel Map 8574 [paragraph no.
05-096].
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
( *05-092) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting held on February 1, 2005; and the Special Joint
City Council and CIC Meeting, the Special City Council Meeting and
the Regular City Council Meeting held on February 15, 2005.
Approved.
( *05-093) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,312,454.99.
(*05-094) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the third calendar quarter of 2004. Accepted.
(
*05-095) Recommendatior to authorize the Mayor, City Manager
and/or designee to send letters opposing the proposed elimination
of the Community Development Block Grant Program and related
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
1",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,2,"federal programs in the Administration's 2006 budget. Accepted.
(05-096) Adoption of Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 8574 for
a Sixteen Lot Subdivision at Harbor Bay Business Park. Not heard.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-097) - Resolution No. 13820, ""Commending Recreation and Park
Director Suzanne Ota for Her Contributions to the City of Alameda.
Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson read the Resolution and presented it to Suzanne Ota;
stated that Ms. Ota has done an outstanding job.
The Interim City Manager presented Ms. Ota with flowers.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she started her service to the City
working with the Recreation and Park Department she always
appreciated Ms. Ota's enthusiasm, energy and ""can do"" spirit.
Councilmember Daysog stated that Ms. Ota brings so much joy to so
many parts of the community.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the City would miss Ms. Ota; as
a citizen as well as a Councilmember, he appreciates the great job
that Ms. Ota has done.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Ms. Ota should feel very
comfortable in her accomplishments.
(05-098) Public Hearing to consider rezoning ZA 05-0001/R 05-0001
Zoning Text Amendment/Reclassification to add a Theater Overlay
District and rezoning certain properties to include the Theater
Overlay Districti and
(05-098A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) ; Amending Subsection
30-3.2 (Combining Districts) ; Adding a New Subsection 30-4.22 (T-
Theater Combining District) ; and Repealing Subsection 30-6.23(2) (b)
of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) and Reclassifying and
Rezoning Certain Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include
the Theater Combining District. Continued to March 15, 2005.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
2",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,3,"(05-099) Establishment of a Task Force that will propose strategies
to prevent future mass evictions from rental housing complexes in
the City of Alameda.
The Interim City Manager outlined the suggested structure and
mission of the Task Force; stated the Task Force would meet on a
regular basis and report back to the Council within 90 days.
Carol Martino, Alameda, stated that she would like to serve on the
Task Force.
Steven Edrington, Rental Housing Association, stated that the
matter should not overly politicized to ensure progress is made and
there is a balanced committee.
Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association, volunteered to serve on
the Task Force.
Lorraine Lilley, Harbor Island Tenants Association, stated that new
laws are necessary to protect tenants; suggested that the committee
have two Harbor Island Tenant Association representatives and two
ar-large tenants.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the nominations would be made.
Mayor Johnson responded that she would like to receive input from
Council; that Council should submit names for potential Task Force
members.
Councilmember Daysog stated there should be a specific period of
time for application submittals.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Task Force would be an informal
committee, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
(05-100) Ordinance NO. 2936, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
to Increase the Composition of the Golf Commission from Five to
Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-9.1 (Commission Created
Composition), 2-9.2 (Membership Appointment ; Removal) and 2-9.3
(Voting) of Section 2-9 (City Golf Commission) Finally passed.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
3",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,4,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-101) Martin White stated that the Development Services
Department provided moderate income housing for the Bayport housing
development at 110% of the median income but cut off at 80% of the
median income; redevelopment law does not allow for cut offs;
stated he met with the Director of Development Services about the
matter.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to provide Council with a report on
the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that moderate income, by definition, is
80% to 110% of median.
(05-102) - Hallemariam Alema, Alameda, stated that he won the
lottery for moderate income housing in the Bayport housing
development; he has an income of $64,000 and has been disqualified.
Mr. Alema's wife stated that the Development Services Director is
unable to provide reasons for the disqualification.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the couple won the lottery; the
range for moderate income is 110%; $64,000 is below the range and
is the reason for disqualification.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-103) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the
League of California Cities East Bay Division representative.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Daysog has volunteered to
serve as the City's representative and Vice Mayor Gilmore has
volunteered to serve as the alternate.
louncilmember Matarrese moved that Councilmember Daysog serve as
the City's S representative for the League of California Cities East
Bay Division and that Vice Mayor Gilmore serve as the alternate.
Mayor Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the East Bay Division meeting he
attended two weeks ago was very nice.
(05-104) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that he looks forward to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
4",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,5,"providing Council with a report on the AC Transit Council Liaison
Committee Meeting held last Thursday.
(05-105) - Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan
wanted the matter of increasing the number of members on the
Recreation and Parks Commission brought back to Council.
Councilmember deHaan responded that the Commission could address
the matter.
(05-106) Councilmember deHaan stated that he is pleased that trash
containers are being changed at bus stops and throughout the
business districts; inquired what was the reason for the change and
who provides the maintenance; that he is concerned that the
surfaces could be graffitied.
The Interim City Manager responded that City staff maintains the
containers.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether maintenance is part of the
garbage contract, to which the Interim City Manager responded the
garbage contractor empties the containers.
(05-107) Mayor Johnson requested that the theatre design
guidelines and schedule update be brought back to Council at the
next City Council Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 8:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
5",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,6,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY MARCH 1, 2005 - - 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
(05 5-089 - ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: 1429
Oak Street; Negotiating parties : City of Alameda and County of
Alameda; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the
Real Property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,7,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 6:40 P. M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
(05-008) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: 1435
Webster Street (Webster Parking Lot D - APN 074-0427-005-01) ;
Negotiating parties : John E. Farrar Living Trust and Community
Improvement Commission Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission gave direction to
Real Property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary,
Community
Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,8,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 6:50 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Commissioner
Torrey, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 6.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
( 05-090 - ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of cases : Housing and Urban Development [Claim No. 178760 and
177448]
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the
Council/Commission gave direction to Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,9,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -MARCH 1, 2005--7:27P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 8:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(05-009) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
(CIC) Meetings of January 18, 2005; the Special Joint City Council,
CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of
February 1, 2005; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC
Meeting of February 15, 2005. Approved.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Note: Chair Johnson abstained from voting on the
January 18 Minutes. ]
AGENDA ITEM
(05-010) Recommendation to award a grant in an amount not to exceed
$5,000 from Business and Waterfront Improvement Project tax
increment funds for the purchase of a used vehicle to tow the Green
Machine operated by the West Alameda Business Association for the
cleaning of the public sidewalk and to authorize the Executive
Director to execute a standard grant agreement.
Chair Johnson stated that Robb Ratto, Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) requested that she convey that PSBA is in full
support of the staff recommendation.
Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) , urged
support of the staff recommendation; stated that additional areas
would be cleaned; noted there will be a Farmer's Market every
Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. starting June 8, 2005.
Chair Johnson congratulated WABA for the success of the streetscape
project.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
Special Meeting
Community Improvement commission
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,10,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMEN'T
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 8:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary,
Community
Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement commission
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 16, 2019- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(19-414) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.9); Case Name: Boatworks V City of Alameda, et al.; Court: Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: RG14746654;
Court: First District Court of Appeal; Case Numbers: A151063, A151919
(19-415) Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claims (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.95); Claimant: James Howley; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda
(19-416) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiator: Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organization:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW); Under Negotiation:
Salaries and Terms of Employment
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Existing Litigation, Liability Claims and Labor, the Council
received information from staff and gave direction with no vote taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 5:41
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
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,2,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY-- -JULY 16, 2019--5:30 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:43 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
(19-417) Preliminary Public Hearing on Draft Climate Action and Resiliency Plan and
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Schedule Final Council Action for September
3, 2019.
The Public Works Director and Deputy Public Works Director gave a Power Point
presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has received correspondence related to the item
and the congestion pricing and tolls through the Webster and Posey tubes; he has not
seen policies, strategies or actions within the material; inquired whether there are
policies, strategies or actions as part of Climate Action.
The Public Works Director responded congestion pricing is not a measure required to
reach the goal of a 50% cut by 2030; to reach net zero gas emissions as soon as
possible, the Climate Action Resiliency Plan (CARP) would suggest congestion pricing
benefits.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Veterans Court had been funded by the
previous budget approval.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the near term strategy has been approved
as funded or partially funded; stated the current item includes funding approval of the
storm capacity upgrades.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether two of the priority items have already been
started, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Expressed support for specific sections of the Plan: Miya Kitahara, Stopwaste.
Discussed State climate programs; thanked Alameda for leading the way: Kelly
Malinowski, California State Coastal Conservancy.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 16, 2019
1",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,3,"Urged moving forward with programs which support biking and walking: Pat Potter, Bike
Walk Alameda.
Urged Council to adopt and implement the Plan; discussed ways to reduce impacts on
the environment; submitted his comments: Damian Mason, Community Action for a
Sustainable Alameda (CASA) and Climate Restoration Circle (CRC).
Submitted her comments proposing a change to a supplemental action on Table 3-6:
Elizabeth Greene, Alameda.
Stated the Sierra Club commends Alameda; expressed support for the Plan; suggested
Alameda consider managed retreat if needed: William Smith, Sierra Club.
Stated a mode shift is needed; suggested every parking lot with 10 or more spots have
electric vehicle parking: Mark Perlin, CRC.
Outlined CASA's formation and involvement with developing the Plan; urged adoption of
the Plan: Ruth Abbe, CASA.
Councilmember Oddie stated the Plan should not be delayed and should be
implemented as a priority; questioned the different ways the Plan will be funded; stated
there are benefits from composting; the amount of vehicles need to be reduced, not just
switched to electric vehicles; outlined transportation plan alternatives to driving; stated
buildings are the biggest cause of greenhouse gas emissions; the City needs to think
about all new construction being electric; plans focused on parking allow people to
drive; people will find alternate ways to travel if plans are not built around parking;
discussed projects; stated the entire infrastructure bond should be devoted to sea level
rise; he would like to learn more about the climate fund proposal; expressed support for
a wetlands mitigation bank, as a way to restore wetlands and generate revenue to pay
for projects; the project is a priority and needs to be implemented.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the sections related to sea level rise and
goals related to excessive heat; expressed concern for the section related to
greenhouse gas emissions related to tolls and undoing Measure A; stated the tolls for
Posey Tube are heavy-handed based on driving trends; that he does not support
congestion pricing and the effort to undermine Measure A; the item cannot be used as
an emergency to undo Measure A; expressed support for building resilience; stated
there is a need for respect of the architectural history of Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested Councilmember Daysog to clarify undermining of
Measure A.
Councilmember Daysog stated Chapter 3, page 32 talks about creating higher density
and the need to change zoning to allow more multi-family use; the explanation should
be explicit and indicate Measure A must be undone to complete doing so.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 16, 2019
2",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,25,"Councilmember Daysog for a civil discussion.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not believe the City of Alameda is ready to
move on yet; the recommendations will allow healing to begin.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the process takes time, but an important first step has been
taken; Council has taken responsibility.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 10:49 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
10:57 p.m.
***
***
(19-445) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a vote is needed to consider a new items after
11:00 pm suggested hearing the three remaining regular items [paragraph nos. 19-446,
19-447, and 19-448 not the referral [paragraph no. 19-450].
Councilmember Vella requested the speaker time limited be reduced to two minutes.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(19-446) Selecting a Development Team for the West Midway Project and Authorize the
City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement
(ENA) with the Selected Development Team.
The Redevelopment Project Manager gave a brief presentation.
Stated the Main Street Plan was developed two years ago; it is time to move forward;
expressed support for Alameda Point Partners: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Outlined the qualifications of Alameda Point Partners: Joe Ernst, Alameda Point
Partners.
Stated a Request for Proposals should be taken off the table; all four developers are
capable; the questionnaire should only be done if the process is not delayed: Doug
Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.
Continued outlining Alameda Point Partners' qualifications: Bruce Dorfman, Alameda
Point Partners.
Councilmember Oddie stated development does not always happen quickly; outlined a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,26,"visit to Building 8 at Alameda Point with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; expressed support for
Alameda Point Partners (APP) to get the job done.
Councilmember Daysog stated the process worked; Jamestown fell by the wayside;
APP is a developer that has proven itself; outlined APP's accomplishments; expressed
support for moving forward with staff's recommendation in selecting APP.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated two developers were chosen in January; expressed
support for APP's ability to deliver.
Councilmember Vella expressed concern for the response from APP to ensuring the
affordable units are able to come online with no delays; for the timing of different units
coming onto the market and the total number of units; inquired the number of units
being delivered at a given time.
Mr. Ernst responded there could be concern with too many of the same type of units
being delivered at any given time; stated understanding Phases 1 and 2 of Site A will
give the ability to manage the product type for West Midway and not cause competition
which would jeopardize the project.
Councilmember Vella inquired the plan for the number of units for West Midway.
Mr. Dorfman responded there are 3 different product types in concept: rental
community, townhomes and single family; stated the highest density multi-family
component would be the largest, followed by townhomes and then single-family homes
would be the fewest; the single-family homes will be sold off to third party developers;
townhomes are being introduced to Trumark development; he is not concerned about
cannibalizing.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether Trumark will be working with APP on the project.
Mr. Dorfman responded in the affirmative; stated Brookfield might as well.
Mr. Ernst stated APP can manage the product types in order to prevent competition or
jeopardize the two projects.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the applicants have experience with the infrastructure;
outlined a groundbreaking event for the first residential construction of senior affordable
housing at Alameda Point, which she attended with Councilmember Oddie; stated the
multi-family affordable housing is set to follow; Council has a commitment to do the right
thing, but good partners are required; expressed support for selecting APP to be the
development team for the West Midway project.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether one or two motions are needed to select a
development team for the West Midway Project and authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute an Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement (ENA) with the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,27,"selected development team.
The City Clerk responded it can be approved via one motion.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(19-447) Recommendation to Approve Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee Report;
(19-447A) Resolution No. 15574, ""Declaring Intention to Initiate a Proceeding to Obtain
Approval of the City's 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee, a Property-Related
Fee Conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the State Constitution."" Adopted;
(19-447B) Resolution No. 15575, ""Ballot Procedures for the City's 2019 Water Quality
and Flood Protection Fee."" Adopted; and
(19-447C) Call for a Public Hearing Tentatively Scheduled for October 1, 2019.
The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the last date to put something
on the ballot, the Public Works Director stated the March 2020 ballot deadline is
December.
Councilmember Oddie stated the ballot will be mailed October 10th. expressed support
for having a backup plan.
The Public Works Director stated staff reports and resolutions would need to be
completed earlier than November 25th when ballots are due.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether the meeting can be classified as a special or
regular meeting.
The City Clerk responded the deadline to submit to the County is the beginning of
December; stated a special meeting versus a regular meeting will provide more time.
Councilmember Daysog stated if the item fails on November 25th, the people will have
spoken; there is no need to rush.
Councilmember Vella expressed concern over the concept of property owners being the
only voice that is heard and saying the people have spoken.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated polling results were decent.
The Public Works Director continued the Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,28,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether any voter education has been produced to date,
to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
The Public Works Director continued the Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the amount for Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E) is accurate.
The Public Works Director responded the figure is an average over the course of 1 year.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the 2 different rate structures are defined or
determined.
The Public Works Director responded fees are developed per parcel for residential as
well as permeability.
Jerry Bradshaw, SCI Consulting Group, responded a statistical approach is taken;
parcels are broken into different groups; all sizes of parcels have been reviewed; a
statistical sampling of parcels has been taken which measures rooftops and driveways.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired the tradeoff for selecting a specific fee versus a range
of fees and why one would be selected over the other.
The Public Works Director responded the range of fees allows Council more discretion
at the October 1st public hearing to set a fee within the provided range; stated if a fee is
set now, Council is bound by the decided fee at the October 1st public hearing.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated there is confusion caused by sending a letter that says
$45-78 or an expectation of a lower rate versus deciding a set fee.
The City Manager stated that he recommended the options of either setting a specific
fee or providing a range; in his experience both options do not have an advantage or
disadvantage.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there will be new information in October.
The Public Works Director responded survey data will be provided; stated there will be
a
better sense from the community; a couple community meetings will be held between
now and October; there will be more anecdotal information.
Stated constituents find the services as essential and support moving forward with
property owners voting on the matter: Ruth Abbe, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined page 7 of the staff report; inquired whether there is desire
to move forward.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,29,"Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the higher range fee and being above
50%; stated a backup plan is needed; the fund is essentially depleted; the Climate
Emergency cannot be delayed.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated Councilmember Oddie makes a compelling argument for
why Council should ask for the higher end of the range.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation with the $78 fee.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated 250 responses were gathered from
roughly 2,900; usually 600 responses are needed for 90-95% certainty; expressed
concern over the margin of error.
The Public Works Director stated the surveys were mailed to nearly 12,000 people;
2,200 responses were received; discussed tenants who are registered voters, having a
lower response rate with a higher margin of error.
Councilmember Daysog outlined Census American Community Survey (ACS)
procedure; expressed concern for the higher range fee; expressed support for the
smaller $45 fee; stated specific apartment complexes only pay $289 for the entire parcel
for hospital tax, which is unfair.
Councilmember Vella expressed support for the higher fee and putting a vote forward;
stated every voter matters regardless if they own property or not.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(19-448) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda
Municipal Code Section 30-2.B (Zoning Regulations) to Define ""Animal Shelter"" and
Section 30-4.10 (Zoning Regulations) to Add Animal Shelter and Supervised Outdoor
Animal Runs as Uses Requiring a Use Permit within the C-M (Commercial
Manufacturing) Zoning District. Introduced.
Councilmember Vella moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether a public hearing must be
opened.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are any public speakers, to which the City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,30,"Clerk responded in the negative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is opposed to the item.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(19-449) The City Manager made an announcement regarding funding related to the
Woodstock Park fire.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(19-450) Consider Reducing the Number of Commission on Disability Members from
Nine Due to Difficulty Achieving a Quorum for Meetings and Limited Staff Resources.
(Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox White). Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(19-451) Councilmember Vella requested a moment of silence for former Supreme
Court Justice and noted scholar of jurisprudence, John Paul Stevens.
(19-452) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Public Art
Commission and Rent Review Advisory Commission (RRAC).
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft Nominated Liz Rush and Kirstin Van Cleef for appointment to the
Public Art Commission and the RRAC incumbents.
ADJOURNMENT
(19-453) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting
in memory of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens at 11:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,31,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,4,"Vice Mayor Knox White stated unless there are significant changes to the document,
there should be no reason not to approve the document versus provide comments to
have the item return in September; his comments can be addressed after approval;
noted that he would like to see the Climate Emergency Declaration added to the
document; stated when the Declaration was approved, it was approved as a preamble
to the Plan; the document should be more clear; the timeline for 36"" of sea level rise
matters and a date is not mentioned; expressed support for the importance of
prioritizing mode shift over electrification; outlined related staffing costs toward
electrifying City vehicles; stated the Transportation Choices Plan needs to be more
aggressive in creating staffing to match the work needing to be done; expressed
support for the groundwater study; stated the data related to drought and water use is
helpful; he would like to see policy Council can send to encourage East Bay Municipal
Utility District (EBMUD) to have pricing that incentivizes users to reduce water use; the
maps are useful, in order to help mitigate upcoming sea level rise for not only new
development, but existing housing as well; a policy is needed for adopting a General
Plan Amendment related to land use and zoning; there are a number of places slated
for rezoning; requested that the affected property values not be impacted without
outreach and an opportunity for land owners to participate in discussions; stated
devaluing will occur; engagement must happen sooner than later.
Councilmember Vella stated that she would like a notation added under fleet
electrification, to reduce the number of fleet where possible; noted traffic signal
synchronization should be part of the Plan; stated first and last mile modes of
transportation are important especially for bus and ferry riders; an appendix should be
added to the document every year following the mid-year budget cycle to include up to
date expenditures related to the Plan; expressed support for the Plan.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated climate change is real; discussed unusually heavy rains;
stated change must be made; that she understands apprehension with regard to
Measure A; the item may have to go back to the voters; expressed support for the Plan;
inquired the reason for waiting until September to fully approve the Plan.
The Public Works Director responded California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
noticing is to be done between now and September 3 to enable adoption.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval with the addition of the comments made by
Council.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes the staff recommendation, to
which Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 16, 2019
3",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,5,"(19-418) Recommendation to Authorize the City Attorney to Join as Amicus Curiae on
Behalf of the City in Support of Lawsuits Concerning Topics for which the Council has
Already Taken an Official Policy Position.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Expressed concern over the proposal; urged the Council keeps its authority: Former
Mayor Trish Spencer, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated that his understanding of the staff report is the City
Attorney's office is seeking ability to join an amicus brief regarding platforms related to
short-term rentals; local governments would like to regulate platforms related to AirBNB
or VRBO; Council is not granting the City Attorney's office to authorize anything related
to local control; expressed support.
Councilmember Oddie stated giving authority is a great idea, when Council does not
have the time to agendize something; requested a copy of the brief be presented as an
informational item.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:54
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
July 16, 2019
4",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,6,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 16, 2019- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(19-421) Proclamation Declaring July 15 through 19, 2019 as National Disability Voter
Registration Week.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation and presented it to Susan Hauser, Karen
Butter, William Smith and Ken Werner, League of Women Voters.
Mr. Werner made brief comments.
(19-422) Proclamation Declaring July 27 and 28, 2019 as Art and Wine Faire's 35th
Anniversary in Alameda 2019.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation and presented it to Janet Magleby and
Silvie Lukacova, Downtown Alameda Business Association.
Ms. Magleby made brief comments.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(19-423) Pat Potter, Alameda, expressed support for the City's community meetings,
but expressed concern about people not reading documents; suggested five copies of
draft and final documents be placed on file in the library for review.
(19-424) McKenzie Taffe, Alameda, submitted information and requested Council to
address rape culture.
(19-425) Simmar provided business card that allows exchange of items within the
community.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,7,"The Tyler Technologies agreement [paragraph no. 19-428], Axon Enterprise agreement
[paragraph no. 19-431], the final passage of ordinance improving intersections
[paragraph no. 19-439], the rent ordinance [paragraph no. 19-440] and the development
fee ordinances [paragraph no. 19-441 were removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*19-426) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meeting Held on June 18,
2019. Approved.
(*19-427) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,419,765.13.
(19-428) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee, to Execute
a Seven (7) Year Agreement with the Option of Three One-Year Extensions with Tyler
Technologies, Inc., for the Acquisition, Implementation, and Ongoing Support of the
Munis Financial and Human Capital Management System in an Amount Not to Exceed
$3,978,212; and
(19-428A) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee, to
Negotiate and Execute a Three (3) Year Agreement with Barry Dunn to Provide Project
Management and Oversight Services for the Implementation of the Munis Financial and
Human Capital Management System in an Amount Not to Exceed $720,000.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether the platform will be customized or general.
The Human Resources Director responded there is not a plan for a lot of customization;
stated the goal is to implement best practices.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether State mandates and updates will be built into the
contract or will they be an additional cost.
The Information Technology Director responded the upgrades are part of the contract
and will update automatically at no additional fee.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(*19-429) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,257,706, Including
a 10% Contingency, to Valentine Corporation for Encinal Boat Launch Facility, Project
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,8,"No. P.W. 04-19-19. Accepted.
(*19-430) Recommendation to Award an 18 Month Contract, with the Option of Two
One-Year Extensions, in an Amount Not to Exceed $330,000, Including Optional Tasks,
to Toole Design Group to Prepare an Active Transportation Plan for the City of
Alameda. Accepted.
(19-431) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a
Six-Year Agreement with Axon Enterprise Inc. for the Acquisition, Support, and
Maintenance of 88 Body-Worn Digital Video Cameras and a Digital Evidence
Management System in an Amount Not to Exceed $793,792.96.
Submitted a letter raising questions about data protection: Craig Erickson, Oakland
Privacy.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether there is an issue with data security.
The Police Chief responded there has been no issue with data security; stated contract
approval from Council from four years prior was presented as a regular agenda item;
there is military grade server security in which the data is owned by the City, not the
vendor; the only videos released are in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1421 and
AB748 or court order.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether the efficacy of the body cameras are protecting
officers as well as members of the public.
The Police Chief responded use of force incidents were not a concern at the time of
camera purchase; stated use of force incidents have shown to not increase or decrease
since the camera purchase; there is no evidence that the upcoming decrease in use of
force incidents is due to body cameras.
Councilmember Vella inquired the reason for a no-bid contract.
The Police Chief responded that the Police Department is still under contract with the
vendor; stated a new contract was not requested; it is an extension of existing terms.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the contract; requested the expanded
sanctuary city data and privacy referral be brought back for Council consideration;
stated policy requests have been made to ensure control over data.
The Police Chief stated the existing retention policy is based on being compliant with
State laws, statute of limitations and court orders.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Knox White is questioning the
release policy.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,9,"Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated that he is interested in how
the videos are released, which should be set by a Council approved policy.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated video release policy may be included as staff direction, but
the policy is currently in place; inquired whether the direction is specific to Public Record
Act (PRA) requests or news media, to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded with all
of the above.
The Police Chief stated AB1421 and AB748 apply to release of videos; outlined the
regulation for certain types of offences when video must be released.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the request is to ensure policy compliance with
State law.
Vice Mayor Knox White responded the matter should be considered by the policy-
making body of the City.
The City Manager stated the current policy may be brought back for discussion that is
consistent with expanding policy and data collection.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated some legislation has been passed more recently and policy
updates might exist.
Councilmember Daysog stated the path of least resistance is to move staff's
recommendation; expressed concern for interjecting certain issues that still need more
information; Vice Mayor Knox White is not suggesting a discussion related to Sanctuary
City in relation to police cameras; the discussion should be separate.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the City has a Sanctuary City policy in place; outlined a
previous Council referral referencing police camera data and Sanctuary City policy;
requested the referral be brought back for discussion and expanded to ensure a
comprehensive approach.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed meetings with representatives of American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU); stated there is support for body-worn cameras; equipment is
only as good as the policy that governs use; the policy should be reviewed for
necessary updates.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation, with Council
direction.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the direction being provided.
The City Clerk re-stated the motion direction: bring back the expanded Sanctuary City
referral along with having a general discussion about data.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,10,"Vice Mayor Knox White clarified the motion is to bring back the Sanctuary City privacy
referral, expanded to provide privacy protections for all City data including a release of
the camera data.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether the request is looking beyond the reference to
all City data.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the matter needs to be brought to Council for discussion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over staff direction relating only to the noticed
item.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the motion states a policy is needed to ensure data
collected by cameras can be wrapped into the discussion coming in the fall.
The City Attorney stated the direction is understood; given that the direction is brief,
staff will ensure as much information is brought back consistent with direction given.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the equipment;
expressed concern for the add-on of language.
(*19-432) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement
with Ray's Electric Company for the Signal Installation at Harbor Bay Parkway/North
and South Loop Road and Harbor Bay Parkway/Penumbra Place and South Loop
Road, No. P.W. 04-19-23, in an Amount Not to Exceed $592,800, Including
Contingency. Accepted.
(*19-433) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendments to
Agreements with Tetra Tech, Ninyo & Moore, BKF Engineers, and Park Engineering for
the Cross Alameda Trail (Main to Constitution) Project, in a Cumulative Amount,
Including Contingency, Not to Exceed $115,770. Accepted.
(*19-434) Resolution No. 15566, ""Adopting the Plan to End Homelessness: 2018
Strategic Update Developed by EveryOne Home."" Adopted.
(*19-435) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Two-Year
Contract with the County of Alameda to Implement Alameda's Homeless Emergency
Aid Program (HEAP) Plan. Accepted; and
(*19-435A) Resolution No. 15567, ""Amending the General Fund Operating Budget for
Fiscal Year 2019-20 by Increasing Estimated Revenue and Appropriations by
$756,524."" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,11,"(*19-436) Resolution No. 15568, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Capital Projects
Fund Budget for the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Project by $10,200,000 Funded
by an $8,200,000 Grant from Alameda County Transportation Commission and a
$2,000,000 Grant from the Water Emergency Transportation Authority."" Adopted.
(*19-437) Resolution No. 15569, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Execute
a
Supplement No. 2 to Acquisition Agreement Relating to Community Facilities District
No. 13-1."" Adopted.
(*19-438) Resolution No. 15570, ""Approving Tentative Map No. 8500 for the Proposed
Subdivision of the Alameda Marina Property Located at 1815 Clement Avenue.
Applicant: Alameda Marina, LLC. The Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project
Were Considered and Disclosed in the Alameda Marina Master Plan Environmental
Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2016102064). No Further Environmental Review
is Required Under the California Environmental Quality Act."" Adopted.
(19-439) Ordinance No. 3245, ""Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 8-8.5 and
8-1.2 to Authorize the Public Works Director to Improve Safety and Visibility at Alameda
Intersections."" Finally passed.
Expressed concern over not fully discussing allowing street furniture and bike racks: Jim
Strehlow, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie Moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(19-440) Ordinance No. 3246, ""Concerning the Establishment of an Annual General
Adjustment, a Rent Registry, Banking, and a Petition Process for an Upward and
Downward Adjustment of Rents."" Finally passed.
Submitted information and discussed rent increases and tenant turnover: Karen Miller,
Alameda.
Stated that she is opposed to using Consumer Price Index (CPI) for rent increases:
Marilyn Schumacher, Alameda.
Expressed concern over renters being displaced: Julian Critobal, Filipinos Advocates for
Justice.
Stated the compromises on rent increase at the last meeting were fair; urged Council
approval: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Discussed rent control impacting development: Christopher Sparacino, Sparacino
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,12,"Realty Advisors.
Urged Council to adopt the ordinance: Elaine deColigny, Everyone Home.
Questioned where rent control has worked; urged revision: Rosalinda Fortuna,
Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog inquired which Consumer Price Index (CPI) being used; stated
there is a variety within the Bureau of Liberal Statistics for the San Francisco Bay Area.
The Community Development Director responded the CPI being used is CPI for all
Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for San Francisco Bay Area; stated the CPI number used is
from April to April due to timely issuance of the annual general adjustment for fiscal year
and registration fee payments.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern that not being specific as to what CPI is
being used could cause potential confusion in the future.
The Community Development Director stated the July 2nd staff report from referenced
CPI-U.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language may be added if necessary.
The City Attorney responded that the staff report is clear.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there will be educational opportunities for this
item.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff will
provide workshops similar to the initial launch of rent stabilization.
Councilmember Daysog outlined data provided at previous meetings; stated there is no
justification or supporting data for the stringent just cause language to be included; the
typical Alameda renter, based on census data, pays an affordable rent; data suggests
an incremental, mediation based approach similar to the previous ordinance; data
matters; outlined research based on Berkeley and Santa Monica rent control; stated
data also shows a significant reduction in the African-American population in South
Berkeley from 1980-1990; people of color suffer from certain rent control; the type of
rent control being adopted was rejected by the citizens of Alameda by defeating M1;
there is no place for a heavy-handed City Hall to control a part of local economy; he is
disappointed rent control is being adopted with the absence of supporting data; hard-
cap rent control gentrifies areas; there is a viable opportunity in mediation based rent
control.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Costa Hawkins came into effect in 1995; discussed rent
control not applying to multi-family units; stated modifications to Costa Hawkins are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,13,"being discussed.
Councilmember Vella stated there is a difference between data that shows causation
and correlation; outlined data and a study from the Hass Institute for a Fair and
Inclusive Society; stated results of the study are part of the reason Council is enacting
changes to the existing ordinance; the housing crisis, housing affordability, and access
to housing disproportionately affects seniors, low-income families, people with
disabilities and communities of color; rising rents with stagnating wages continues to set
renters back; many employers base wage increases on CPI and CPI-U, and not
everyone receives wage increases; the ordinance is being updated and can be updated
later if things change; there have been times where the CPI has been negative, but
there is still a base in the range; there can be rent increases even if the CPI drops; the
update is not meant to be punitive.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated half the renters in Alameda are paying more than 30% of
their income on rent, which is considered unaffordable; the ordinance is written to try
and help those who pay unaffordable rent; many current studies state rent control is
needed to keep people in their homes; policies made affect people; outlined climate
change aspects affected by housing policy; stated housing is a comprehensive problem.
Councilmember Oddie stated policy decisions need to be based on values and
priorities; the community has been pitted against each other; modifications have been
asked for which will return in the fall; a tremendous amount of people have been
protected from displacement; people are not able to pay double digit rent increases; he
has seen a 6.2% increase in rent, which is above 5% and above CPI; the data shows no
benefit those most vulnerable; those who cannot afford to live here, will live elsewhere
and commute contributing to greenhouse gas and global warming or will cease to work
in Alameda, affecting local businesses; Council must vote on values; a time of healing is
needed; fear of evictions is gone and maintenance issues can be addressed; Council
has a duty to protect and defend Alameda; expressed support for discussing
improvements; stated everyone belongs here and is a personal value.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(19-441) Ordinance No. 3247, ""Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXVII,
Section 27-3 (Citywide Development Fees) and Approving City of Alameda
Development Impact Fees Update and Nexus Study, dated June 2019. Finally passed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Golf Course was not a part of the recent fee
study.
The Interim Assistant City Manager/Recreation and Parks Director responded Corica
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,14,"Park is a public park amenity and is open to the public for a fee; stated it was not
included due to a significant increase in the Development Impact Fee (DIF), and being
intentionally cautious and conservative; other athletic facilities should be included;
Corica Park is considered a specialized amenity.
Councilmember Oddie moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(19-442) Resolution No. 15571, ""Appointing Carly Grob as a Member of the Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners."" Adopted;
(19-442A) Resolution No. 15572, ""Reappointing Ron Limoges as a Member of the
Recreation and Park Commission."" Adopted; and
(19-442B) Resolution No. 15573, ""Appointing Scott Weitze as a Member of the
Transportation Commission."" Adopted.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms. Grob and Mr. Weitze
with certificates of appointment.
(19-443) Provide Direction on Letter to the Presiding Judge of the Alameda County
Superior Court in Response to the 2018-19 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report. [
Councilmembers Oddie and Vella recused themselves and left the dais.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:40
p.m.
The City Attorney made brief comments regarding recusals.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated a number of letters have been received asking Council to
take action and remove Councilmembers from office; requested clarification from the
City Attorney related to elected officials holding office and being removed from office.
The City Attorney outlined methods elected officials, such as Councilmembers, may be
removed from office; stated the City charter does not allow a Council to remove
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,15,"Councilmembers; removal is not available.
Vice Mayor Knox White noted the Grand Jury did not return an accusation; requested
further clarification.
The City Attorney stated the term accusation is a legal term; outlined State Law allowing
for Grand Jury to forward a legal document called an accusation to the District Attorney
(DA) and requesting the DA to charge the public official with removal, which did not
occur in this case.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Grand Jury did comment on the electoral process with
regard to not making an accusation.
The City Attorney stated the Grand Jury deferred to the electoral process via at the
ballot box or through a recall process.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether no crime has been committed; stated violating
the Charter is not something the DA could prosecute; the only way the DA would be
involved would be to prosecute a Grand Jury accusation.
The City Attorney responded that he cannot comment on whether a crime has been
committed or not.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the Grand Jury process is being completed.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Council providing responses
is sufficient.
Expressed concern over the way the City handled the matter and paying
Councilmember legal fees; urged the tape recording be released: Russ Giantini,
Alameda.
Expressed support for the Fire Chief; urged the City to move forward on important
issue: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.
Expressed support for Councilmembers Oddie and Vella and support for clarifying
regulations: Toni Grimm, Alameda.
Expressed support for Councilmembers Oddie and Vella: Bunny Duncan, S.D.C.
Urged the Council to revise the response letter to completely support the Grand Jury
findings: Elizabeth Greene, Alameda.
Expressed concern over unethical behavior of two Councilmembers; urged Council to
censure Councilmembers Oddie and Vella and release the tape recordings: Burny
Matthews, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,16,"Expressed concern over the Grand Jury process; urged Council to support Option 2 in
response to Recommendation 19-4 and pay Council legal fees: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Outlined her support of various findings and recommendations; urged Councilmembers
to request the Councilmember resign: Pam Luo, Alameda.
Stated the proper response to the Report would be the resignation of Councilmember
Oddie and Vella and not paying attorney fees: Steve Slauson, Alameda.
Expressed concern over Councilmembers fighting to hire the less than best Fire Chief:
David Greene, Alameda.
Expressed support for Charter review and Councilmembers Oddie and Vella; urged
moving forward with training and revising the Charter: Cheri Johansen, Alameda.
Discussed the Declaration of Independence and how it relates to current conditions;
outlined an organization called Equal Justice; stated the Grand Jury report is scathing:
Robert Todd, Alameda.
Noted the Grand Jury report reported the settlement vote incorrectly; outlined the
Findings and Recommendation options she supports: Former Mayor Trish Spencer,
Alameda.
Stated the Councilmembers are smart and would have known better than to violate the
Charter; expressed concern over paying legal fees: Barbara Cone, Alameda.
Stated the public should be able to review the un-redacted report; expressed concern
over Councilmembers editing the report: Rosalinda Fortuna, Alameda.
Stated the Council is not addressing removal or legal fees; noted the Grand Jury report
has flaws; stated the Charter needs to be updated; addressed legal fees: Doug Biggs,
Alameda.
Stated that he supports Councilmembers Oddie and Vella: Doyle Saylor, Alameda.
Expressed support for Councilmembers Oddie and Vella and expressed concern over
the flawed Grand Jury Report: Robin Torello, Alameda.
Stated that she would like to hear the tape: Catherine Bierwith, Alameda.
Expressed support for the Fire Department; noted over 90% of the crowd stood up to
support Councilmembers Oddie and Vella: Auturo Rodriguez.
Discussed the tape; urged it be released: Rock Harmon, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,17,"Discussed that the City Manager's job includes addressing personnel issues; stated
there was an election after the issue; the Grand Jury is not recommending proceeding
with a formal accusation: Catherine Pauling, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the Councilmembers' tactics: Andrew Huntoon, Alameda.
Read from the Grand Jury summary; stated the Councilmembers violated the Charter
and should be removed: Marilyn Bowe, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read a brief introduction to the item; stated people are complex
and one person is many things; it has been a pleasure to work with all Councilmembers
since becoming Mayor; there can be no pretending the past has not happened; a better
Council can come through the other side of this; Council will address the matter and do
the right thing; the purpose is not to remove colleagues, which is not an option to
discuss.
***
(19-444) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the 9 minute time limit be waived.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.]
The City Attorney provided a brief explanation regarding the motion passing even
though the rules of order requires four votes.
Councilmember Daysog stated no person is above the law and all are equal before the
law; the law of the land is the Alameda City Charter; Alameda's democracy takes the
form of a professionally run City Manager type of government; a similar crisis occurred
in 1936-37 resulting in the Superior Court and DA being involved to remove the City
Manager, Mayor and two Councilmembers at the time; the current situation facing the
City is of similar magnitude; indication must be made that local government will still be
professionally run; specific details will be responded to after opening statements;
moving forward means not reading into the Grand Jury report findings any further.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Council does not have the ability to release
the tape, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated there was a Council decision to release the original
document plus the errata sheet; inquired whether there was no other draft of the full
report presented, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he was not here when the incident occurred; his
knowledge comes from two reports that were written with small degrees of variance yet
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,18,"come to the same conclusion; both documents find that one Councilmember violated
the Charter; the Grand Jury report finds that both Councilmembers were not on the
same level of violation; both documents recommend not moving forward with removal;
expressed support for the recommendations and to agree to all four of the findings, and
to accept the recommendation of the Grand Jury; stated this is the end of the process;
both reports show a City in chaos; two members of the current Council had not yet been
elected when this incident occurred.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to go through each finding; outlined
Finding 19-1; stated that she has trouble completely agreeing with the finding; training is
good for new members and is available in the Capitol; there is an oath sworn when
office is assumed to uphold the Charter; any decisions must be made by unanimous
vote; there is no benefit in returning September to finalize the item.
Councilmember Daysog stated that his approach for Finding 19-1 is to keep it simple;
Council should not read beyond what is printed; his recommendation is to indicate
agreement with Finding 19-1.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated returning the report to the Grand Jury with findings is most
important; new Councilmembers should receive training; inquired whether
Councilmember Daysog thinks it is best to agree with Finding 19-1.
Councilmember Daysog responded accepting Finding 19-1 acknowledges that
Councilmembers need better training.
Vice Mayor Knox White agreed.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Finding 19-1 agree with no statement after.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.]
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether any Councilmembers have a response to Finding
19-2 other than agree.
Councilmember Daysog stated Finding 19-2 needs modified language; the current
language does not accurately capture the Charter review process underway; a decision
has been made as a Council to bifurcate the Charter implications resulting from actions
taken by Councilmembers Oddie and Vella in 2017 from the Charter review process
described in the draft letter; Council will take on remedies to the Charter to deal with
Section 7-3.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the finding discusses the Charter; the Grand Jury reviewed
the Charter in conjunction with their investigation; points of comment would be best
applied when Council discusses the recommendations; outlined Finding 19-2.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,19,"Councilmember Daysog stated the draft letter to Judge Carvhill under Finding 19-2
currently lists two options; he would prefer not to move forward with option 2, option 1
does not tell the full story.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the recommendation should be to respond with agree,
and no explanation.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Finding 19-2 agree with no statement after.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.]
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Finding 19-3; stated that she disagrees with the
statement; the response should be a simple agree.
Councilmember Daysog stated the substance to the findings is held within the response
to the recommendations section; at a minimum, the findings should be accepted.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of Finding 19-3 agree with no statement after
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.]
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Finding 19-4.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he agrees with Finding 19-4; outlined Finding 19-4;
stated Council does not agree with the actions taken by other Councilmembers;
responding with one word ""agree"" to the finding is just as powerful as 100 or 200 words;
expressed support for responding to Finding 19-4 with agree.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Finding 19-4 agree with no statement after.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-
3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.]
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the recommendations should be accepted; some
language should be changed to highlight the actions currently being taken; the response
for Recommendation 19-1 should be: ""This recommendation will be implemented in the
near future, City staff expects to return to the Council at an agendized public meeting
within the next 6-months to provide recommendations on implementation of this policy.""
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Recommendation 19-1.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the response should read: strike line 1, ""The City of
Alameda will implement strategies and develop a work plan for implementation. City
staff will return to Council at an agendized public meeting for update and discussion not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,20,"more than 6-months after this meeting;"" stating ""will"" implies the action will be taken.
The City Attorney stated the penal code requires the first sentence to state: ""The
recommendation has not been implemented.""
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Recommendation 19-1.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.]
The City Clerk read Recommendation 19-2.
The City Manager clarified the matter would come back within six months of the date of
the letter.
The Council concurred with the clarification.
Councilmember Daysog stated there should be language that states: ""The City of
Alameda agrees with Recommendation 19-2"" including language ""as well as outlined in
enforcement process, such as censure, City Council sponsored recall, etc.'
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he would prefer to keep details out.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the mandatory language plus the following should be
included: ""Upon being sworn into office in December 2018, Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
noted that in Alameda the public trust has been shaken by turbulent events of this past
year. We need to restore public trust and make City government more effective. One
place to start is by bringing the City Charter in line with current day needs and realities.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft established a City Charter subcommittee consisting of Vice Mayor
Knox White and Councilmember Daysog to review the City Charter and return to the
Council with proposed changes and amendments to provide greater guidance and
clarity to City officials, staff and the public;"" the subcommittee is still working and will
return to Council in the fall with proposed updates
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern for the paragraph starting: ""On March 16,
2019 which only tells part of the story of the Charter review process; stated if the
paragraph is to remain, there should also be a separate paragraph that says: ""as part of
the Charter review process, City Council as a whole agrees to separate out the
situations leading up to 7-3 violations and the possible remedies to that, and that the
City Council would have a conversation related to remedies.""
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the workshop was not related to this item and should not
be mentioned.
Councilmember Daysog stated for purposes of the residents and giving clarity to the
Grand Jury, a timeline must be provided.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,21,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog would accept her
language with the addition of a timeline, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the placement for timeline language.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated: ""to provide greater guidance and clarity to City officials,
staff and the public, the next update discussion will return to the full Council in early fall
2019 for consideration and will be considered to be put forth before the voters in 2020.'
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the point of clarification is helpful; outlined the process for
amending the Charter by a vote of the people; inquired whether the Charter
subcommittee will be coming back with revisions in the fall.
Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated there is nothing local on the
March ballot and to add the item would be an $800,000 addition to join; it is much
cheaper to go in November.
Councilmember Daysog stated if the City Charter review process is being referenced,
clarification of bifurcation is needed in relation to Section 7-3; the Charter review
committee will return to Council as a whole with recommendations and a timeline.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not think the bifurcation item needs to be
addressed.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the portion of the recommendation stating: ""the
subcommittee will continue their work proving regular updates to the City Council in
consideration of potential changes to the Charter on this issue, for consideration or
presentation of voters in 2020. The next update and discussion by the full Council will
occur in early fall 2019.""
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to let the judge know the subcommittee
work is continuing; questioned whether more work is needed by the subcommittee or
whether the work will be ready to come forward with a recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would prefer to respond to the plain text reading
of what the Grand Jury report says; the plan text reading specifically calls out a
response to 7-3; specificity is needed to come back with Charter review amendments 7- -
3 that align with the concerns raised in Recommendation 19-2.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated the
upcoming Charter review process deals with district voting, rank choice voting and two
other items; those items are not related to 7-3 and he would like to be clear to the judge
that Council will act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,22,"Vice Mayor Knox White requested the language be added.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the paragraph related to March 16th be removed.
Vice Mayor Knox White requested ""in recent months.. be changed to ""in December
2018;"" outlined further edits.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for having the paragraph mimic the
language in the Grand Jury report.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft agreed; outlined further edits.
Vice Mayor Knox White suggested replacing the word report with proposal.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is an inherent problem with the report under the
third paragraph.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the discussion is becoming too prescriptive; the Grand
Jury would prefer to hear to recommendations are in motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is trying to convey that the effort is not to re-
change the plain text language of 7-3; he anticipates updates to enforcement
processes.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Recommendation 19-2.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-
3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.]
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Recommendation 19-3.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he proposes option 2.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a reason Council cannot implement a
change now.
The City Attorney responded because the change is not agendized; stated if the Council
wishes to implement the policy, it should be agendized for a future meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is necessary to wait 6 months, to which the City
Attorney responded in the negative.
The City Manager stated this particular item is more complex and can return in 4
months for discussion.
The City Attorney stated there are ongoing claims which may or may not be implicated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,23,"by the policy and the City Manager is allowing for sufficient time to return within 6
months.
Councilmember Daysog stated something historic has happened and Council is being
asked to change policy.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft clarified that Council has no policy and is being asked to
implement new policy.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he intends to adopt a policy; the Grand Jury does
not direct and cannot compel Council to adopt a policy; the Grand Jury has
recommended a policy be adopted and Council's response is it intends to adopt a
policy; if there are delays in adopting policy, Council will report back to the Grand Jury;
expressed support for the current language.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Recommendation 19-3 and returning 4
months from the meeting for Council discussion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
[Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.]
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Recommendation 19-4.
Vice Mayor expressed support for option 2; stated that he would like to change the term
""expects"" to ""will.""
The City Manager expressed concern for the timeline of the Councilmember handbook;
stated the document could be lengthy; expressed support for a timeline of one-year for
the second part of the recommendation and 6 months for the first part.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the new language for the response.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like a comma after conduct.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the first line should read: ""these recommendations have not
been implemented.""
Vice Mayor Knox White clarified the recommendation is singular itself.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Recommendation 19-4.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.]
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the entire letter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,24,"Councilmember Daysog stated the people want more information; Council must
recognize the implementation strategies resulting should offer language such as:
""throughout this process, residents of Alameda have voiced a desire for not only
transparency in the form of any information including electronic recordings being
released, but also for strong remedies including censure as well as a City recall;""
expressed support for reflecting the fact that the people have made requests.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the people have said a lot of things; the requests have
been made by few, not all; the language is going beyond the scope of what the
presiding judge is asking for; Council should be responsive to the findings; there is still
time as matters come back to Council for implementation of what the people want;
Council has completed its current task.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the addition from Councilmember Daysog is not an
appropriate statement; the letter to the judge is not a letter to the community.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would hate for the matter to come back in
September due to lack of consensus for the first and last paragraph language.
Councilmember Daysog stated people are upset about the Grand Jury report implying
that some are above the law; Council has a process in place which is not transparent
enough to gather information to demonstrate the extent which some are above the law;
people have been frustrated by the inadequacy of remedies in 7-3; he would like to
capture that in the letter to the judge due to the importance and historic nature.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated everything Council has done in agreement with the Grand
Jury's findings and responses drafted does everything Councilmember Daysog has
requested without specific interpretation; there is not a consensus to move forward with
Councilmember Daysog's proposed language; the Council is ready to address the issue
head-on; there are other ways to communicate to the people; it is time to put closure on
the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated the power of the document is in the fact that a majority
of Councilmembers have agreed with Grand Jury findings; it is time to move on.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.]
Vice Mayor Knox White stated tonight was not an easy evening for any Councilmember;
things have not gone the way they should have; mistakes have been made and that has
been acknowledged unanimously and civilly; the community must move forward and
move on; both the investigative report and the Grand Jury came to the right conclusion;
people make mistakes, it does not mean Councilmembers should be removed from
office; Council does not have a censure process, but this is as close as possible; public
bodies have censure; requested the community to find a way to join Council in figuring
out ways to move forward; expressed gratitude toward Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-03-10,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY - -MARCH 10, 2008- -6:00 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Roll Call - Present Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Note: ouncilmember Matarrese was present via teleconference from
Novotel Hotel, Via Mecenate 121-20138 Milano.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(08-111) - Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency Negotiators :
Craig
Jory
and
Human
Resources
Director; Employee Organizations : All Public Safety Bargaining
Units.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that direction was given to Labor
Negotiators on Fire and Police eighteen-month package presented by
staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 10, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-03-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 21, 2015- -6:30 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Paul Foreman led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6: 01 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON-AGENDA
(15-069) Joseph Woodard, Alameda, discussed the budget and public safety contracts,
including salaries and benefits.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(15-070) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Study to Review Suggestions to Provide
Relief for Traffic on Island Drive. (Councilmember Oddie) (Continued from January 20,
2015)
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments on the Referral.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands the Council can vote to
proceed on Council referrals; she supports the referral and would make a motion with
an amendment to request the City Council to direct appropriate City staff to conduct a
study to determine if some or all of the suggestions would provide relief for traffic on
Island Drive and, in addition, she would like to include ""or other remedies;"" the list is
good, however, staff might come up with another idea or two to alleviate traffic.
The Assistant City Manager stated the appropriate language is to direct the City
Manager so Council stays away from directing staff.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Assistant City Manager's suggestion.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with the amendment; the list is not
exhaustive of what causes traffic on Island Drive.
Vice Mayor Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's suggestion to
broaden the list and incorporate the Assistant City Manager's suggestion that Council is
directing the City Manager.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval [of the Council referral with
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,2,"amendments to direct the City Manager to conduct a study to review suggestions:
extend the left turn lane on Island Drive to Robert Davey Drive, renegotiate the Bay
Farm Bridge hours of operation to allow the bridge to open for emergency only between
the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
work with Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) to change the start time for Lincoln
Middle School to 8:10 a.m. thereby allowing a better flow of traffic up Island Drive with
better traffic flow for student drop off at Earhart and Bay Farm elementary schools,
check signal synchronization from Island Drive, Fernside Boulevard, and Otis Drive to
Broadway, or other remedies to provide relief for traffic on Island Drive].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer requested staff to clarify whether a request can be
made to Public Works when someone has a traffic issue; then, Public Works adds the
issue to the queue and it goes through the process.
The Assistant City Manager stated said process is the case in general; the referral is
pretty broad because it addresses a bridge and discusses working with the School
District to change hours; it is appropriate for the Council to have a discussion because
the matter is broader than one intersection.
Mayor Spencer stated in regards to AUSD, joint meetings between the City and the
District have been held in the past to discuss similar issues; the matter would have gone
to the joint committee as part of the process before, which is appropriate; the referral
should go through the joint committee; having been on the School Board, she is familiar
with said process.
The Assistant City Manager stated the joint committee is the appropriate body when
staff reaches that point.
Mayor Spencer inquired if it was possible to amend the motion to state: ""through the
joint meeting.'
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she favors keeping the language broad,
rather than narrow because working with AUSD to change the start time encompasses
a lot of things; it could encompass the committee, but might be as simple as making a
phone call or two without the City having to wait for the committee to meet; the
possibility of the committee meeting is not eliminated.
Mayor Spencer stated having served on the School Board for six years, she does not
anticipate a school start time would change from a phone call; using the process which
she has been a part of for a long time is appropriate.
The Assistant City Manager inquired whether the language could be revised to: ""work
with AUSD and the committee, as appropriate,"" so there is an opportunity to do both.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,3,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the language is appropriate; that she would like to work board to
board.
Councilmember Oddie stated changing the time may require negotiations with the labor
union so he is fine with the correction; however, he would prefer not to be so descriptive
about how staff should operate because the Council does not know what it will entail.
Mayor Spencer stated in regards to the referral process, she understands that the
referral comes to the Council; then, the Council agrees that the matter goes on an
agenda for another decision; inquired whether the matter would come back to Council.
The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the referrals would
have to come back to Coucil; the earliest would be in two meetings given publication
deadlines; staff would come back with a proposal that lays out a scope: what it would
take, how long it would take and potentially how much it would cost.
Mayor Spencer requested the statement about changing the start time be clarified;
inquired if ""work with AUSD to change the start time for Lincoln Middle School to 8:10
a.m."" suggest Council is agreeing to the change.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the notion of keeping the matter broad is important
because the examples are all anecdotal suggestions and are not based on any traffic
engineering or study; the Council does not know if the time change may make traffic
worse; the examples are suggested to be explored; staff is going to review the matter
and give Council an evaluation; the City is a long way from calling the School District.
Mayor Spencer stated that she appreciates the clarification; she would strike the time
and state: ""work with AUSD to change the start time to allow a better flow of traffic"" as
opposed to being specific about a set time; the School District hearing the Council
wants to change the start time to 8:10 a.m. is specific, not broad.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated examples are anecdotal; the referral process gives the
Council majority an opportunity to direct the City Manager to expend staff time to
research issues and apply a solution if one can be had.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would be willing to strike the start time.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why Councilmember Oddie included the 8:10
a.m. time, to which Councilmember Oddie responded the time would make Lincoln
Middle School start later than the elementary schools.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is some rationale.
Mayor Spencer stated elementary schools start at 8:20 a.m.; Lincoln starts at 8:00 a.m.;
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,19,"Alameda's identified commercial and industrial business clusters by providing both
strategic policy and tactual business attraction and retention advice; the seven member
Panel would be appointed by the Mayor for two year terms and report to the City
Council; in contrast to the EDC, the Panel would be a more flexible and informal
structure assessing the rich pool of experience and personal contacts by working with
the advisers individually or in subgroups; the Panel may officially convene once or twice
per year; there are differences between an ad hoc committee and a Commission; the
prior Council decision was progress; she appreciates having insight from the
Councilmembers that made the decision; she concurs with Councilmember Daysog;
inquired what Vice Mayor Matarrese would like to do and if he is open to having the
Economic Development Manager speak to Council about why the change was made.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded everyone can read why the change was made; that
he would prefer a more formal and public process; he agrees to table the referral for the
moment and come back with a more compelling argument after hearing the objections;
he will come back with additional information.
Mayor Spencer stated the Mayors Economic Development Panel was agreed upon and
can move forward; she is proceeding and looks forward to the Panel, which is a good
step moving forward.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(15-077) Designation of a Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California
Cities. (Continued from January 20, 2015)
Mayor Spencer stated the delegate is appointed by Council, not by the Mayor; the
League of California Cities meetings are held monthly; meeting announcements and
locations are sent to the representative; the designation of the voting delegate at the
annual conference requires a Council vote; the League's mission is to expand and
protect local control for cities through education and advocacy and to enhance the
quality of life for all Californians; the liaison had been former Councimember Tam and
the alternate had been Councilmember Daysog; inquired whether Councilmember
Daysog would like to provide additional information about the League; stated that she
would support Councilmember Daysog being the delegate.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was the City's representative to the League in
2005 and 2006; he appreciated serving as alternate which allowed him to attend
meetings in Sacramento; the League of California Cities involves cities as a group to
influence major legislation; he is a member of the Housing Community Development
Subcommittee, which worked on a massage parlor ordinance; many cities across
California were concerned about the State taking over ways in which massage parlors
are allowed to operate locally; the Committee members worked with State legislators
and had the law changed; he would like to continue participating on the League of
California Cities.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,20,"Mayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Daysog would like to continue as the liaison
as opposed to the alternate, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended East Bay Division monthly
meetings with former Councilmember Tam; she would be happy to continue as the East
Bay Division representative.
Mayor Spencer stated she is not sure about the East Bay Division and requested the
voting delegate be discussed first.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the East Bay Division was mentioned; she would
support Councilmember Daysog serving as the League voting delegate at the State
level; she was indicating that she attends the locals meetings.
Mayor Spencer stated an alternate is needed; inquired whether anyone is interested in
being the alternate.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if the East Bay Division is different than the League of
California Cities, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded the League of
California Cities East Bay Division is informed about pending legislation; she and former
Councilmember Tam brought matters back to Council a couple of times; however, it is
not the same as going to Statewide meetings and having a vote at the State level,
rather it is the local version of the State League.
The City Clerk stated former Councilmember Tam served as both; the City has had one
League representative; the League is looking for an East Bay Division representative;
the City also needs to have a voting delegate for the annual conference; Council has to
decide whether to have one person or whether to break it into two different
representatives; in the past, the City typically has had one person; former
Councilmember Tam served as both.
Mayor Spencer requested staff to explain what Council is being asked to do because
said information is contrary to what staff told her.
The Assistant City Manager stated Council needs to designate a voting delegate to
represent the City of Alameda at the annual conference.
The City Clerk stated the Annual Conference is in September.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council should iron out the East Bay matter when
needed; the voting delegate is the question on the floor.
Mayor Spencer stated staff discussed a representative being needed with her; she
wants to make sure the City is doing what needs to get done; she was told the East Bay
Division is separate.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,21,"The Assistant City Manager stated as far as he is aware a Council vote is not needed to
have a representative attend East Bay Division meetings.
The City Clerk stated the East Bay Division asked who would be the City's the voting
delegate.
Mayor Spencer stated there are dinner meetings; the East Bay Mayors also have
monthly dinner meetings.
The Assistant City Manager stated according to the email, it is the East Bay Division of
the League, not the State; the next meeting is the 29th
The City Clerk stated the League is asking who would be the voting delegate.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the voting delegate is for the annual conference, the
City Clerk responded the City always had the same person and never broke it into two
people.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would attend meetings with former
Councilmember Tam; the League may want to know who would be the voting delegate
now even though the conference is not until September because there are often emails
sent about pending legislation; the League does a very good job of keeping in touch
with the Council throughout the year.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is happy to serve as the voting delegate and the
practice could continue the way in which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft worked with
former Councilmember Tam; he and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft could work
together.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would want a role in the East Bay Division.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can work that out.
The Assistant City Manager stated the City should get clarification.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the matter should be brought back, to which
Mayor Spencer responded in the negative; stated Council needs to make a decision; a
vote is needed for the League of California Cities voting delegate; she was informed the
City has a liaison and an alternate.
The City Clerk stated the email indicates an election of Executive Committee members
would be held at the January 29th East Bay Division meeting; in order to be on the
Executive Committee, perhaps a Councilmember would have to be the voting delegate.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of appointing Councilmember Daysog as the
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,22,"representative and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft as the alternate.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog stated he would make sure to maintain the relationship the way
that Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft worked with former Councilmember Tam.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(15-078) Discuss City Council Rules and Procedures for City Council Meetings and the
Possibility of Holding a Future City Hall Open House. (Mayor Spencer)
Mayor Spencer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Sunshine Ordinance would be discussed
tonight; stated if three meetings in a row go past 11:00 p.m., Council must add extra
meetings for the rest of the year; Council may want to think about economy of time.
Mayor Spencer stated staff tried to come up with all the different resolutions and
ordinances and the Brown Act which support the Council meeting workings; she wants
to discuss actually making the agenda.
Councilmember Oddie inquired about the open house.
Mayor Spencer responded that she does not believe Council has to vote on the matter.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned why the matter did not come as a Council
Referral because she is just hearing about it now and does not have information and the
public does not know what is being discussed or have any background; stated that she
would like to discuss whether all members of the City Council should have to go through
the Council Referral process.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he had a similar concern about not having any detail
on the matter; agendas are full; an open house should be done at the appropriate time,
which would probably mean a workshop; inquired whether the intent is to have the
Council make a recommendation on the matter tonight; stated in order to direct staff to
do something, staff needs Council direction.
Mayor Spencer stated her intent is to allow Council to have an open discussion if people
have ideas about how to work together.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she recently reread the Sunshine Ordinance;
she does not dispute the topics are very interesting; however, she feels Council is doing
so without the benefit of any context.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,23,"Councilmember Oddie stated that he also has a few concerns; the open house is not a
bad idea; however, Council gave staff a lot of work today and yesterday; he is not sure
he wants to give staff more work tonight; if Council asks staff to do something, staff are
will give 110%, which takes a generous amount of effort; perhaps the matter would be
tabled and brought back in the summer time; the first discussion point is submission of
matters, which refers to a Municipal Code section; order of business, rules of order,
start time and length of meetings, and continuation of items also refer to Municipal Code
sections; teleconferencing refers to the Government Code Brown Act; the public does
not have notice if Council is going to consider changes; there is not an opportunity to
hear staff's in depth analysis of impacts; two readings are required to change an
ordinance; that he is not sure the intended outcome of tonight's meeting.
Mayor Spencer responded that she thinks reviewing the matters is important so the
Council knows the process, such as for referrals; today, Council went through the
referral process, which was not necessarily as clean as it could have been; she would
like to review how to hold meetings under the Brown Act and the exact protocol; from
the School Board, she is used to calling an agenda item, having a staff presentation,
clarifying questions, public comment, discussion, and then the motion, which is the way
she has been running meetings.
Councilmember Oddie stated the Council has its own procedures; the School Board's
procedures are different; Mayor Spencer's comment about being able to explain a no
vote is in the School Board procedures, not Council procedures.
Councilmember Daysog stated the agenda item seems appropriate and does not have
any specific actions that alter any of the ordinances; his interpretation of what Mayor
Spencer is seeking to do is have a conversation about the submittal of matters, not
saying Council is going to alter the ordinance tonight, rather Council is going to discuss
it; Council is not going to take specific actions to alter anything; Council is not precluded
from having such discussions; he is fine with the idea of a future open house.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is happy to bring the open house back as a referral;
having this conversation is important.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Spencer that having the
conversation is important; stated that she is concerned members of the public might like
to be included in the conversation; inquired whether Mayor Spencer would consider
tabling the matter to the next Council meeting; stated the agenda for the first meeting in
February is still light; there would be time for a staff report to be generated with more
information.
The City Clerk noted the February 3, 2015 meeting packet would be published
tomorrow.
Councilmember Daysog stated the matter is properly described in the very first
background sentence: the Mayor is requesting to give the new Council and members of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,24,"the public an opportunity to discuss the existing practices and protocols on the conduct
of City business, which is a straight forward description; Council is going to discuss
existing practices and protocols in the referenced ordinances; there is a frame of
reference for discussion; his sense is that the mayor put the matter on a Wednesday
night because there are not going to be any substantive outcomes.
Stated that she was excited to see the matter on the agenda; expressed support for an
open house; encouraged greater participation on boards and commissions: Carol
Gottstein, Alameda.
Encouraged the Council to impart an appearance of fairness; discussed calling
speakers; stated important issues should not be addressed late: Elizabeth Tuckwell,
Alameda.
Mayor Spencer stated tonight is a workshop; she appreciates the audience informing
the Council how meetings can be held to encourage participation and be transparent;
she wanted the meeting on a special night because Council is not going on a retreat; a
retreat would be a similar event; the Sunshine Ordinance limits the way business is
done in front of the public [requires broadcast]; that she appreciates Councilmember
Daysog and Ezzy Aschraft's comments; she worked with staff; quite a bit of time was
spent drafting the information so that the public would be aware of what would be
discussed; the objective is to help Council move forward; noted she calls speakers in
the order submitted.
Stated people watch meetings at home; Power Points should be shown on the
broadcast and there have been audio issues: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
The City Clerk stated staff is working on a split screen solution for Power Point
presentations; addressed audio transmission issues; encouraged contacting the City
Clerk's office when issues occur.
Vice Mayor Matarrese noted the video went dark last night at 1:00 a.m. on Comcast;
stated the open house presentations by departments should happen outside a regular
meeting; adopting Robert Rules of Order to keep order could benefit the rules;
suggested establishing a Council rules subcommittee similar to a previous Charter
review subcommittee.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is used to working with a modified Roberts Rules of
Order; concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese; it is very important; her understanding is
the motion is to be done immediately under Roberts Rules of Order, which is different
than the way she has been doing it; tonight is an opportunity for the Council, with input
from the public, to address what procedural aspects of meetings should look like; she
would support the recommendation and could bring a referral forward to have the
discussion.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated anyone interested in bringing the matter forward could
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,25,"noted there are 10 members of the public present.
The City Attorney stated staff pulled together a series of resolutions and ordinances that
were adopted by previous City Councils addressing how business should be conducted;
one of the resolutions references using Roberts Rules of Order as a guide; people use a
condensed version of Roberts Rules of Order; if Council wants to establish a
subcommittee, said things could be considered; the idea tonight was to review what is
being done and determine if what is being done complies with previous resolutions and
ordinances; guidance could be provided about where the Council wants to head and the
desired way in which to proceed; staff could return with something if Council provides
guidance or a Council subcommittee could be appointed; the Council can change
ordinances and resolutions.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether there is a problem that is trying to be
fixed; stated there has been a progression, for example Oral Communications is now at
the beginning of the agenda and at the end if the speakers could not fit into the allotted
15 minutes; that she would be hesitant to change things, such as the order of business
and meeting start times, because the procedures work well now and have been thought
out by a number of Councils; she tries to be mindful of how much is being requested of
staff; the rules of order could benefit from being consolidated, perhaps by a rules
subcommittee; Council should be mindful of staff's time when considering scheduling
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,26,"extra meetings, such as an open house; suggested tackling the most important matters
first.
Discussed the election results and the prior Council; stated creating a welcoming
atmosphere is important; that she would not suggest adhering to Roberts Rules of
Order; stated meetings should not be scheduled with the public input at 11:00 p.m.:
Elizabeth Tuckwell, Alameda.
Mayor Spencer stated the meeting is achieving her goal; she loves having members of
the public tell the Council what is working and not working and how the Council can best
serve the public's needs; that she appreciates that Councilmembers can follow up with
referrals and have an opportunity to work with staff more closely; it was not known that
additional items would be continued to tonight when the special meeting was called; the
meeting has gone beyond the intended time.
Councilmember Oddie expressed concern over the meeting turning into a session to
criticize the former Council; stated the City needs to move forward; the election is over;
how meetings are run and speakers are called is the Mayor's prerogative; the Council
could discuss the items in the report.
Mayor Spencer stated the intent is being taken out of context; that she always
welcomes public participation; the meeting has been very productive for her.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft provided an example of her daughter working with
people from other countries risking their lives to participate in the democratic processes;
read from the Sunshine Ordinance regarding access to government; stated the benefits
of a democratic society are taken for granted; expressed concern over criticizing past
Councils; stated Councilmembers are doing the people's business and should do so in
the best way possible.
Mayor Spencer stated it was not disrespectful to call the meeting; the meeting was
called to discuss the items and that is what has occurred.
Councilmember Daysog stated the intent of the workshop is right on; it is about letting
people understand the way in which government works and opening the doors of City
Hall even wider; the intent is noble; that he is fine with the way the Council does things.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he did not state holding the meeting is disrespectful;
concurred with Councilmember Daysog that the Council is doing fine but
Councilmembers should feel free to raise suggestions; sharing the information was
valuable.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the election is over; moving forward is important and
sends the message that the Council is here to work; if Council wants to consider having
an open house, there should be a vote and consideration for staff; stated the longer the
time between when a motion is made and the second occurs, the motion might get
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,27,"better or become unintelligible; Roberts Rules of Order or some other system gets the
motion on the table with a second so there can be discussion and something real can
be modified, which is why Council should consider adhering to some specific points of
Roberts Rules of Order, which has some practical parts; the Council has to walk the line
between freedom of speech and practical policy applications; noted having a rules
subcommittee would take less staff time.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has procedures for making motions,
which perhaps have not been followed; the City Attorney could provide a workshop or a
write up; on the Planning Board, she had a guide on how to handle motions;
consolidating the rules would be good; she would be happy to work on a rules
subcommittee with Vice Mayor Matarrese; stated Council should consider the number of
Council Referrals that can be included on an agenda; having seven to eight every time
will cause meetings to be long; her preference would be all members of the Council use
Council Referrals to get items on the agenda, which is more informative to the public
and staff.
Mayor Spencer stated her understanding is that in the past, the Mayor worked with the
City Manager to submit items directly and did not submit referrals; stated that she wants
to adjourn the meeting, which has gone on longer than she intended and the meeting
last night ended at 1:30 a.m.; stated that she appreciates everyone's input.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a motion to adjourn is needed, to which
Mayor Spencer responded in the negative.
Councilmember Oddie noted the Council Communications section of the agenda still
needs to be heard.
In response to a public speaker, the Assistant City Manager clarified that staff does not
put controversial items at the end of the agenda to limit the ability of the public to speak.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(15-079) Councilmember Oddie reported that he attended the League of California
Cities new Mayor and Councilmember training.
(15-080) Councilmember Daysog reported that he attended the League Housing
Community Development Policy Committee meeting last Thursday.
(15-081) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft reported that she recently attended the signing
of a memorandum between Bay, Ship and Yacht and the College of Alameda for a joint
training program; applauded Bay, Ship and Yacht for providing job training and
employment opportunities.
ADJOURNMENT
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,28,"There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:25 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
28
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,4,"the solution does not resolve the issue; parents would have to get to Lincoln at 8:10
a.m., drop off, and get back to the elementary schools at 8:20 a.m.
Councilmember Oddie stated details can be addressed when the matter comes back to
Council; the referral is just a broad policy level discussion; ideas may work or may not
provide relief; Council would receive information about what does and does not work;
that he would prefer not to be overly prescriptive, set Council policy from a high level
and not micromanage staff activity.
Mayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Oddie would be willing to strike 8:10 a.m., to
which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the referral would read: ""to work with
AUSD to change the start time for Lincoln Middle School to allow a better flow of traffic,""
to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the referral which is based upon
contact Councilmember Oddie had with residents and reflects true concerns; his
concern is the City Council has to deal with competing concerns; putting checking signal
synchronization from Island Drive, Fernside Boulevard, and Otis Drive to Broadway in
the front of the queue would not be as fair to all Alameda residents as checking signal
synchronization for all roads in Alameda; other parts of town might have the same
issue; the fourth bullet point [check signal synchronization from Island Drive, Fernside
Boulevard, and Otis Drive to Broadway] is general enough, so he will support the
referral; however, when the matter is brought back to the City Council he might raise the
same concern; concerns about Lincoln Middle School traffic flow warrant dealing with
because issues related to the Bay Farm Bridge; questioned whether the first bullet
[extend the left turn lane on Island Drive to Robert Davey Drive] is similar and whether
left turn lanes throughout the City might need to be checked.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether asking Public Works staff to speak to the Council
about how concerns would normally be addressed in the queue is appropriate; stated
that she would not like to micromanage Public Works; she appreciates the comments
about people from across the community having traffic concerns and why would Council
prioritize this area over other community interests; questioned whether that
[prioritization] would be part of the process.
The Assistant City Manager stated the matter could be agendized as a staff report.
Mayor Spencer stated no one intends to bump other areas through the motion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she did not understand that Council was
pushing the item to the front of the queue; she understood staff would come back with a
report when able; as part of the report, Public Works could weigh in on the Mayor's
question; the Council tends to hear from citizens on other problematic areas; Council
does not want to micromanage staff; Council hearing the referral does not mean staff
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,5,"would go back and put the item ahead of other things; the City Manager will tell the
Council when the matter can be addressed; everyone has heard concerns that trying to
get back and forth over the Bridge during commute time is challenging; no one is
denying there is a problem; the City will try to address all problems as expeditiously as
possible.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous vote - 5.
(15-071) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Consultant Study to Determine the
Feasibility for a Wetland Mitigation Bank at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Oddie)
(Continued from January 20, 2015)
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments on the referral.
Stated wetland mitigation banks typically produce a better environmental outcome;
creating a bank would create a business deal for projects; areas will not be protect by
sea level rise; suggested asking California Fish and Wildlife to do a walk through and
receive free advice before spending money: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Stated plans were passed to have wetlands at Alameda Point; obtaining information can
never hurt; urged the Council to support the referral: Irene Dieter, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie stated a portion of the referral addresses consultants estimating
the cost of removing the concrete by the west side of the seaplane lagoon; he supports
Mr. Bangert's idea of an interim step if it would be helpful; the City is moving on Site A
and is maybe not moving so fast on Site B; that he would like to see the City move
forward on the wetlands and the park portion of Alameda Point as well.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would amend his referral to
include the intermediate step, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the
affirmative.
The Assistant City Manager suggested revising the referral to: ""an appropriate agency""
so it is not restricted to one body because there may be another body that staff would
like to approach.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the referral with amendments [directing the
City Manager to conduct a consultant study to determine the feasibility for a wetland
mitigation bank at Alameda Point, including the interim step of asking an appropriate
agency to do a walk through and receive free advice before spending money].
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thinks the suggestion
is a good idea; Vice Mayor Matarrese discussed the matter on the campaign trail; Mr.
Bangert indicated a bank may not be right for Alameda; while gaining information never
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,6,"hurts, using consultants costs money; she favors the cautious route of having the
appropriate State agency conduct a review; the City should get information and proceed
in an incremental process, which is what the amended language encompasses.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie agrees that the Council would
hear back and staff would determine the next step depending upon what the State
agency says, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-072) Consider Directing Staff to Install Flashing Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs at Two
Locations: 1) Maitland Drive and Mecartney Road, and 2) Mecartney Road and Belmont
Place. (Councilmember Oddie) (Continued from January 20, 2015)
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments on the referral; noted the referral should
read: Maitland Drive and Island Drive and Mecartney Road and Belmont Place; since
the referral, he has also been asked about Broadway and San Jose Avenue; that he is
willing to amend the referral so that Council will get a report back on priority areas for
flashing crosswalks.
Mayor Spencer expressed her appreciation for Councilmember Oddie's comment.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to hear from a department,
such as Public Works, as to whether flashing pedestrian crosswalk signs are the best
remedy.
Councilmember Oddie concurred flashing crosswalks might not be the best remedy.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmembers are probably not as well
equipped to decide; something needs to be done to address the issue of pedestrian
safety; the referral might be one thing to consider; however, there is probably a whole
tool box; Public Works, the Transportation Commission and Police Department should
review the matter.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he was amenable to modifying the referral or coming
back with a different referral.
The Assistant City Manager recommended demoting the matter from a Council referral
to add three individual intersections to the Public Works queue; stated there are many
tools in the tool box; Public Works would have to study the matter and recommend the
best option; the matter would be brought back so Council could see how the Public
Works queue works as opposed to the referral regarding the Bay Farm Island Bridge
[paragraph no. 15-070]; the two requests are very different scales; normally, an
individual or group of neighbors would make a request; the request would go into the
queue and Public Works does studies and public outreach; Public Works views each
Councilmember as a representative of more than one neighbor; there is a balance of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,7,"why some matters are Council referrals and why others should go into the queue; the
matter would come back to Council to see the difference in the procedures.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with demoting the referral; neighbors
indicated they did not receive a response before but there is a new Public Works team
now.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not sure whether the Public Works
queue system is widely known; perhaps the public discussion will help increase
awareness.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Council referral as amended
[demoting the referral to have Public Works add the matter to the queue and the matter
would return to Council to compare the process to the Island Drive traffic study referral].
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City still has the Traffic Transportation
Committee, which reviews requests for stop sings; noted there was a past controversy
over the use of State warrants.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff now completes the review with the immediate
neighbors; if there is an appeal, the matter is elevated to the Transportation
Commission (TC); if the TC decision is appealed, the matter comes to Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated perhaps one issues is to improve is the way in which the
City makes residents aware of the process.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated later tonight, Council would discuss an open
house to improve communications.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-073) Consider Directing Staff to Collaborate with East Bay Regional Park District
(EBRPD) on Acquisition and Expansion of Crab Cove. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)
(Continued from January 20, 2015)
Vice Mayor Matarrese made brief comments on the referral.
Stated a letter should be drafted to the General Services Administration (GSA); the
letter should encourage GSA to cease the eminent domain and accept the Park
District's last offer: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the referral because it sends the right message to all the
parties involved; the City needs to take an assertive role; the liaison committee has to
find out what kind of help the Park District needs: Irene Dieter, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,8,"Stated the City Manager has shown a strong bias against the Park District and should
be recused from any meetings; provided examples: former Councilmember Karin Lucas,
Friends of Crab Cove.
Stated during the petition campaign, everybody wanted to see Crab Cove become part
of Crown Beach; expressed support for the referral: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the collaboration; encouraged improvements in the storm
drainage on the easement in front of the park: Susan Galleymore, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated 6,000 signatures being gathered very quickly shows that
the people of Alameda are very interested in making sure this occurs and validates the
2008 election which included the project in Measure WW; a liaison committee with two
elected EBRPD Board Members and two elected Councilmembers is a good model for
setting the tone; management representing the City well in a conciliatory and productive
manor going forward is important; the issue is critical because more park land is not
available; the City has to work well with the sister agency [EBRPD], which has a stake
in Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie stated passing the referral will turn the page; requested changes
to the referral; suggested engaging the City's lobbyist in Washington D.C. to help assist
in the matter; stated having assistance from federal representatives, such as the City's
Congress member, would be nice; the State Assemblymember's office would be willing
to lend a hand; that he spoke to the State Senator's office and was told that they would
be willing to assist in any way possible; the City should approach State legislators, but
should especially approach federal representatives because the issue needs to be
resolved by the federal government.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the support given by Attorney General Kamala Harris was
greatly appreciated; all help is welcome; accepted the addition.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has a different take on the referral; she
has no problem working in harmony with fellow agencies; however, EBRPD sued the
City; the ink hardly seems dry on the Settlement Agreement; the lawsuit cost the City
hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, which comes out of the City's General
Fund; she supports parks in Alameda; Assymblymember Bonta's office deserves credit
for stepping in and trying to help with the settlement; the litigation was long and costly;
the Park District also paid legal fees and used a good, expensive law firm; the City has
done its part to support the Park District land acquisition of Crab Cove; the last City
Council voted to approve the [initiative] ordinance, which was a great community
grassroots effort; the City down zoned the property to Open Space at risk of a lawsuit
from the developer who had the option to purchase the land at the time; at some point,
the Park District is going to have to pay something or convince the federal government
to give them the land; the land was never the City's land; telling the federal government
how to precede with regard to its property is not the City's role; GSA and EBRPD are
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,9,"both capable of fighting their own battles; the City is fortunate to have EBRPD as the
steward of wonderful land; she does not object to establishing a good working
relationship between the City and Park District, however, the road runs two ways; she
has not seen the Park District reach out to the City; there are opportunities for the City
to work with the Park District in the future at Alameda Point and on the main Island; right
now, the memory of the litigation and refusal to settle bothers her; the City cannot keep
doing EBRPD's work, so she cannot support the referral.
Councilmember Daysog stated Mr. Bangert referred to land on Alameda Point near
Encinal High School; in the mid 1990's, the City, particularly neighbors in the area
including himself, were concerned about an EBRPD project being contemplated; a great
agreement was reached with EBRPD at the time, which became a model of how the
City can air out concerns; Crab Cove did not reflect how the situation worked in the
1990's; there is a lot of good in the proposal before Council; through whatever
mechanism, the liaison committee or the City Manager meeting the General Manager,
details will be ironed out and a positive relationship will return; the residents of the City,
as well as Council, need to let State and federal representatives know the community's
sentiments; he is fine with the referral.
Mayor Spencer stated the City Manager is part of the team and Council is working with
the City Manager moving forward; that she was elected to represent all Alamedans and
everyone is working together; she appreciates the comments about moving forward; in
regards to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's comments, the prior Council rezoned the
property to housing which led to the litigation; however, everyone wants what is best for
the community moving forward; she has had conversations with EBRPD
representatives; she also attended meetings with the Sierra Club and has spoken with
State and federal representatives; everyone appreciate the park and will work together
in regards to the referral; during litigation, conversations occur and positions are taken;
then, the City moves forward, which is where the City is now; suggested that the City
invite EBRPD to an upcoming Council meeting; stated EBRPD could update the Council
on the project's status; then, the City could meet with EBRPD as appropriate; the City
cordially inviting EBRPD to a meeting provides an opportunity to update the City about
the project, with staff and Council recognizing this is post litigation; she does support the
referral and she is a friend of Crown Beach and collected signatures.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the Council referral as amended to include
outreach to others: federal, lobbyists, State.
Mayor Spencer stated the referral is to direct the City Manager to initiate the
conversation; requested the motion be clarified.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the Council referral from the Vice Mayor to
increase collaboration between the City of Alameda and EBRPD including the
amendments adding enlisting the help of federal and State officials.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the motion includes the City Council directing the City
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,10,"Manager to meet with the EBRPD General Manager.
Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Matarrese responded the motion is to approve
the referral as written [request that the City Council direct the City Manager to meet with
the General Manager of EBRPD and following that meeting, prepare a work plan for
steps that the City can take to support EBRPD's land acquisition and expansion of Crab
Cove; those steps shall include, but not be limited to those needed for: settling any
remaining issues related to litigation (on advice of City Attorney and City Council),
petitioning the GSA to cease eminent domain efforts (McKay), and establishing a
Council-EBRPD liaison committee with the goal to establish a good working relationship
between the two organizations and to maximize use of limited resources for current and
future Alameda parklands; this plan, with projected milestones for key deliverables, shall
be presented to the City Council for discussion and action not later than the first regular
City Council meeting in February 2015].
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, noting that the last line mentions February,
2015, which should be adjusted by staff to meet noticing requirements and preparation
time; requested staff to indicate a date now or provide it at some point.
Under discussion, the Assistant City Manager stated that he cannot provide a date now;
he would recommend having staff provide updates under City Manager communication
on when all the referrals passed tonight would come back to the Council to handle
response quickly.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the referral is a chance to lead the effort; if the effort is not
lead, it is going to languish; even though that part of the park system [Crab Cove] is not
under the City's control, it is so important and future parks depend on it; therefore, the
City has to lead; the method is not new and is very effective; the School-City liaison
committee was composed of the City Manager, two members of Council, the School
Superintendent and two members of the School Board; the committee was initiated
when the City and School District were fighting over Bayport; the liaison committee got
the City Manager and Superintendent together in the same room and helped lead the
path to resolve the conflict between the School District and the City; the working
relationship became very good, lasted several years and accomplished things, such as
ensuring that schools maintained a much lower electric rate; the approach is not untried
and will provide a lot of benefit.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the motion could be amended to strike the part about
the City Manager and include a liaison committee instead.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the negative; stated the leaders of the two
operations need to have a cordial relationship.
Councilmember Oddie concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese; stated that he does not
want to amend the motion.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,11,"Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support the motion and stands by her suggestion
to invite EBRPD to a Council meeting; she is concerned about holding a back room
meeting after being involved in litigation; the City should be very public; a liaison
committee does not exist; the olive branch should be extended by inviting EBRPD to a
Council meeting.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, and Oddie - 3. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft and Mayor Spencer - 2.
(15-074) Consider Directing Staff to Create a Comprehensive Transit/Traffic Strategic
Plan and Implementation Tool. (Councilmember Daysog) (Continued from January 20,
2015)
Councilmember Daysog gave a Power Point presentation on the referral.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Daysog's presentation might go a
little beyond the scope of a Council referral, which are supposed to be a brief
description of the subject to be printed on the agenda sufficient to inform the City
Council and public of the nature of the referral; questioned whether Councilmember
Daysog is asking Council to take positive action; suggested Council might want to
consider directing the City Manager to consider the matter at a special City Council
workshop, rather than just coming back to the Council as an agenda item; stated the
referral jumped off the page as a framework considering the recent Council discussions
on traffic and transit.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the workshop idea for the topic and the direction
Councilmember Daysog is laying out is relevant to all the discussions the City has had
about development over the past few years and what the City would have going
forward; he would also like to see if Council is interested in making the workshop joint
with the Transportation Commission because part of the Commission's job is to take
direction from the Council and get into details; Councilmember Daysog provided a
sample schematic that could easily be populated by workshop with the Transportation
Commission to deliver back to Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated maybe the motion should read: ""consider directing the
City Manager to facilitate a workshop with regards to comprehensive transit traffic
strategic planning.""
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated being comprehensive should not to just considered, but
should be established as a goal or deliverable.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the workshop would be a joint meeting.
Councilmember Oddie stated multiple workshops may be needed; suggested holding a
workshop on Bay Farm; stated the idea is great; Councilmember Daysog has suggested
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,12,"that the Council lead the discussion; ultimately, Councilmembers are accountable; the
Planning Board and Planning staff does a lot of work; however, if things do not work or
are perceived as not working, Council will be held accountable; Council should have
some say and oversight responsibility; other things to include are: having a review of
existing transportation goals, revising the City's Transportation Plan, the General Plan,
the Bike Plan, the Traffic Capacity Management Procedures (TCMP), the long-range
transit plan, the West Alameda Shuttle plan, and Transportation Demand Management
(TDM); goals should be reviewed to determine which are not being met, including what
additional planning can be done to ensure goals are met and to propose a course of
action; there should be a tiered structure; the gold standard would be taking X number
of cars and people off the road is going to cost X amount of money and whether the City
willing to do so; then, there could be a silver standard and a bronze standard.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City of Emeryville spent $400,000 on the Emery-go-
round in 2015 and 2016 because Emery-go-round seeks to expand its services; Emery-
go-round is not a poor operation, but the Emeryville wanted to expand operations and
provided an infusion; the City of Alameda might have to make hard decisions; using
Councilmember Oddie's terms, the City wants to achieve the gold standard; developers,
through contributions, and residents, through fees, might only reach X in revenues to
pay for the gold standard; however, X plus Y might be needed; questioned how the City
would make up the delta; stated the workshops would to lay out issues, including gold,
silver and bronze standards.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of directing the City Manager to facilitate a
workshop.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the motion could be amended to include City of
Alameda; meaning Citywide.
Councilmember Daysog agreed to amend the motion to include Mayor Spencer's
amendment; stated however, the impacts and projects are stemming mostly in the
northern waterfront and Alameda Point.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Assistant City Manager stated staff can certainly do so; a joint
meeting could try to be scheduled; staff would need to consider audio visual
requirements and seating to have a formal joint meeting with the Council,
Transportation Commission and Planning Board; noted a joint Planning Board and
Transportation Commission workshop would be held in February; scheduling the
Council workshop for some time in March makes sense.
The City Attorney stated legally, three bodies can meet; the meeting just needs to be
noticed; the matter is really more logistically how to manage the meeting.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the direction was not necessarily a hard and fast
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,13,"three body workshop; the matter can be left to the City Manager working with staff to
decide who to involve; Council is not specifying the workshop must be three bodies.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff appreciates the ability to have the conversation
and determine the appropriate bodies; the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point has
been contemplating the referral in general, is working on some thoughts and was
planning on coming back in the beginning of March.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated having heard the original presentation and the comment
from Councilmember Oddie, the City Council is going to maintain the lead because the
buck stops with the City Council, which might help clear up the meeting logistics.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-075) Consider Directing Staff to Initiate Steps in Preparing a Structurally
Sustainable General Fund Budget. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) (Continued from January
20, 2015)
Vice Mayor Matarrese gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it would be helpful to hear from staff, specifically
the Assistant City Manager because she has such an active role in the budget and
understands the intricacies.
The Assistant City Manager stated that she attended a presentation about Proposition 8
adjustments, which addressed property taxes and the economy; reassessment
adjustments are going to impact property taxes; the City will see improvements probably
next year and the year after; however, this year is not as great as staff had hoped; the
public sector lags; the Vice Mayor is addressing dependency on one time funding; staff
removes one time money when forecasting; forecasts are based on what is sustainable,
not one time money; assumptions will be addressed at the first budget kick off meeting;
staff will ensure that the concerns are addressed; staff does not consider one time
money a source of revenue; she has not been in contact with the City Treasurer and
Auditor; hopefully the Vice Mayor has and they agreed to participate.
Mayor Spencer stated the Council can invite them [Auditor and Treasurer]; that she
does not see that as an issue.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated they [Auditor and Treasurer] participated in the past.
Councilmember Daysog stated in a meeting in October, the City Manager, Assistant
City Manager, and Interim Finance Director discussed more revenue being anticipated
and the reserves looking quite healthy; however, the City Manager noted revenue came
from one time upside hits; the nature of one time reserves was discussed; he has had
similar conversations with previous City Managers; he has seen City Managers on top
of their game when dealing with these issues for the most part; however, the information
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,14,"looks very opaque when put into a 200 page budget document and supporting reports,
which is the issue Vice Mayor Matarrese is raising; one time revenues, reserves and
advanced loans need to be clear when the City interacts with the public; these three
specific items fall under the general notion of best practices; the City might want to have
best practices when it comes to financial items and these three items rise to the top; the
City Council should probably have a conversation to understand best practices when it
comes to one time revenues because the City might not want to make permanent plans
around one time revenues; one time revenues bump up from different sources from one
year to the next, such as property being sold and the City receiving a lot of transfer tax
revenue or the State making a decision regarding sales tax given to another city; these
kinds of onetime revenue hits occur in different ways; deciding how to handle the funds
is where the best practices notion comes into place; having principles and hard and fast
policies is fine; based upon experience with different City Managers, he trusts leeway
can be given as long as best practices are clear; having a onetime revenue jump is
good news because the City can stash away funds and start the Other Post-
Employment Benefits (OPEB) trust fund; the City Manager has made alterations to
bargaining agreements to have Police and Fire pay more towards retirement; he would
not handcuff the City Manager into how to do the budget, rather Council should give
leeway so the City Manager is clear about best practices; when going through the
budget sessions, Council can ask to what extent the City Manager has followed the best
practices; differences can be spelled out if Council does not agree with the City
Manager.
Councilmember Oddie stated that his thoughts are very similar to Councilmember
Daysog; he was a little concerned about Council setting a policy without understanding
the consequence; by setting a policy to not include certain revenues, Council might be
setting a policy that could have potential service cuts; the Council might not want to do
so at this point; best practices need to be followed; however, the proper time to address
the matter is closer to the budget.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he used the word ""principle"" rather than ""policy"" on
purpose; the referral is not so well written because according to the Charter, budget
preparation belongs to the City Manager; his intention is not to direct the steps; the
principles are talking points; he would like a motion passed which says: things are
clearly defined, such as the definition of onetime revenue; going through the budget
process, definitions should be understood and highlighted; advances, loans and other
transfers have a habit of drifting off the radar, which is why the items should also be
highlighted; the last point ties back to the midyear report projecting the General Fund
reserves reaching zero in fiscal year 2018; Council has to keep its eye on the ball; the
public needs to be reminded; if said matters are pointed out during budget discussion
and said direction is given to the City Manager, then he will be satisfied that the intent of
the referral would be accomplished.
The Assistant City Manager responded staff is fine with said direction.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Vice Mayor Matarrese referred to something said
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,15,"issue is of Statewide importance; she truly appreciates why the Vice Mayor brought the
referral; each Councilmember has the responsibility of due diligence to ask questions
when the budget is presented; she has had meetings with staff regarding the budget
process; ample public meetings and workshops with public discussions will be held; the
first part of the request is for the City Council to direct the City Manager to take specific
steps to prepare a structurally sustainable General Fund budget for the upcoming Fiscal
Year 2015-2017 cycle; she has concerns about the language; the process is long term;
everyone knows the City is not going to be able to address the matter in the two year
cycle; she is looking for a long term plan on how the City will chip away and address the
issue; the points are good principles that everyone would support; however, there
should be Finance Director, City Treasurer and Auditor input; Council will have the
opportunity to discuss assumptions and have input; requested the Assistant City
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,16,"Manager to clarify the budget process.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff is looking to kick off the budget at the first
meeting in March; assumptions will be discussed; suggested the referral language be
modified to have the City Council direct the City Manager to prepare the General Fund
budget for the upcoming two year cycle ensuring that the principles are defined and
critically evaluated during the budget process; staff may not be able to follow the
principles for a particular reason, such as being in a recession; rainy day funds and
flexibility are needed; the Vice Mayor is asking staff to critically evaluate pieces during
the budget process; staff is fine with doing so; defining advances, loans and transfers
from other funds is important and can be done as part of the budget process.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is confident staff would do so without Council direction; if
a definition is not adequate, Council can always ask questions.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council created something that she is prepared to
support; the Assistant City Manager honed in on the concerns and made improvements.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he likes the language and appreciates staff listening.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing the City Manager to prepare the
General Fund budget ensuring that the three points would be defined and critically
evaluated; stated that he specified the Fiscal Year 2015-2017 cycle in order to start right
now; the City has a long way to go.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the last paragraph [the principles shall be evaluated
by the City Council with advice from the City Treasurer and City Auditor up to and
during the public hearings for the up-coming General Fund budget and during the
course of the two year budget cycle] is still in the motion, to which Vice Mayor
Matarrese responded in the negative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the three items are: one time revenues, advanced
loans and reserves, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired if the last paragraph was stricken to which
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated the assumption is that the
Treasurer and Auditor are already involved.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he exhibited hesitation because he saw the
discussion being framed as addressing the budget's structural deficit, which everyone
knows exists; Council moved away from indicating that the referral will solve the budget
structure, which is beyond the scope; he is supportive of the literal wording; the Council
cannot make a promise that the structural deficit will be solved; the motion now has
value to the public; specifying the three items is valuable.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,17,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether the three principles will be considering along with other
assumptions, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
staff is going to define and evaluate the principles.
Mayor Spencer stated the language is intentionally broad; she expects staff would have
done so without the referral; the referral is not necessary to have staff do so; Council
will work with staff; she will support the motion but thinks it is redundant.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Dayosg, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 4.
Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.
(15-076) Consider Directing Staff to Re-establish the Economic Development
Commission (EDC). (Vice Mayor Matarrese) (Continued from January 20, 2015)
Vice Mayor Matarrese made brief comments on the referral.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to hear from staff about the history of the
Commission.
The Assistant City Manager stated the matter was presented to Council on October 1,
2013; the report discussed the reasons the Commission should be eliminated and what
should be used in its place; a more nimble process was proposed to take the place of
the EDC; the Council should have the benefit of a conversation with the Economic
Development Manager who has done a lot of leg work on economic development, as
well as the Community Development Director; the discussion should come back.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she reviewed the previous Council vote; a lot
has occurred since the EDC was created; Vice Mayor Matarrese was one of the EDC
founders; she briefly served on the Commission; the roll of the EDC was greatly
reduced after redevelopment money was lost and a lot of projects in the pipeline were
taken away; fortunately, projects, like the theater, were completed; by January 2012, the
EDC had already reduced meetings to six times a year and was not doing much; by
October 2013, two of four meetings had been canceled; a staff member and an attorney
attend commission meetings; the Economic Development Manager's work on recruiting
and attracting business would be interrupted to prepare reports and staff EDC meetings,
which may not be the best use of time; the City has seen some good results in recent
years from the use of ad hoc committees and task forces, such as the Fiscal
Sustainability and Americas Cup committees; discussed business attraction strategies
and provided examples; further stated the reasons the EDC was discontinued are still
valid; there are other things the City might do short of revitalizing the Commission.
The Assistant City Manager noted another reason the Commission was disbanded was
because City staff attends various business organizations monthly meeting and meets
regularly with the same people that would occasionally be scheduled for an EDC
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,18,"meeting; the issue is wanting to know how the four tasks in the referral [recommend
policies and plans to the City Council for bringing businesses to Alameda and replacing
jobs lost when the Navy left Alameda Point, work with current businesses and business
associations to attract and retain businesses in Alameda, provide ways to coordinate
with regional efforts to grow the local economy and Alameda's commercial tax base and
perform other economic development activities at the direction of the City Council] are
being performed; suggested the Economic Development Manager report back to
Council to discuss the matter; suggested tabling the referral for now until Councils hear
said report.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he might be open to the suggestion; in the past, the
Commission had a litany of work and truly accomplished specific things requested by
Council, such as the Downtown Plan for Park Street; the Commission had sufficient
work; deficiencies at Alameda Point and Harbor Bay hinder business retention;
business retention was a big part of the EDC; the Commission grappled with
recruitment and retention, redevelopment was only a small piece; that he is willing to
table the referral pending information, but would reserve the ability to bring the referral
back with more justification.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is not ready to dismiss the idea which has merit; if
Council voted today, he would probably support ways to have a productive EDC;
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's examples are the what he envisions the EDC doing;
each Councilmember probably knows a business person that would be ideal to help
cheerlead for Alameda and attract business; if the Commission is reconstituted, each
Councilmember should appointment a member; perhaps the Mayor would select three
or five members; he is inclined to support the referral or continue it to another day.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted one function of the Chamber of Commerce is
businesses attracting other businesses; the Chamber is a broad based organization.
Councilmember Oddie stated the referral is worth considering; noted the State approved
a replacement for redevelopment; hopefully, the Council will receive a staff report on the
matter soon.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Mayor's Economic Development Task Force, which
includes marque organizations, was established; that he envisions letterhead from the
Mayor including the top business, which would be impressive when attracting
businesses; the Task Force fits with the recent experience of attracting businesses via
networks and personal contacts; having top national brand entities on the City's
letterhead is powerful; Mayor Gilmore was very supportive and the City should continue
the model.
Mayor Spencer stated that she reviewed the information establishing the Mayor's
Economic Development Panel, which is to be composed of high level Alameda business
and business association executives; the Panel's purpose is to enhance the business
climate at Alameda business parks and commercial districts and support the growth of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - APRIL 7, 2020- 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
[Note:
Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie and Vella were present
via teleconference.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(20-195) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8) Property: Northwest Territories, approximately 1,704 acres of rentable
space on the former Naval Air Station Alameda at Alameda Point; City Negotiators: Eric
Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney, Debbie Potter, Community
Development Director, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development
Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Porsche Club of America, Inc.; Under
Negotiation: Licensing, price and terms.
(20-196) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8) Property: Building 14, approximately 31,194 rentable square feet of
building area, located at 1800 Ferry Point at Alameda Point; City Negotiators: Eric
Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney, Debbie Potter, Community
Development Director, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development
Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Navigator Systems; Under
Negotiation: Price and terms.
(20-197) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.9); Case Name: City of Evanston, et al., V. Barr; Court: United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Case Number: 19-3358
(20-198) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. Union Pacific; Court: Superior Court
of the State of California; Case Numbers: RG18920939
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Union Pacific, staff provided information and Council provided
direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye;
Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; regarding Evanston,
staff provided information to Council and no vote was taken; regarding Northwest
Territories, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll
call vote: Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 17, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,2,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; regarding Building 14, staff provided information
and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Daysog:
Absent; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes:
4, Absent: 1.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:30
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 17, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,3,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - APRIL 7, 2020- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. and had everyone make noise
to recognize medical personnel, first responders and other essential service workers.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
[Note: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie and Vella were present
via teleconference.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(20-199) Proclamation Declaring March 30th through April 3, 2020 as National Boys and
Girls Club Week. [Informational only]
(20-200) Proclamation Declaring April 22, 2020 as Earth Day Alameda 2020 and April
24, 2020 as Arbor Day Alameda 2020. [Informational only]
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Vella moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*20-201) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on March 3,
2020. Approved.
(*20-202) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,304,053.64.
(*20-203) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Four-Year
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,4,"Agreement for Online Applicant Tracking, Recruitment, and Onboarding Services with
Governmentjobs.com Inc. (NEOGOV) in an Amount Not to Exceed $116,400. Accepted.
(*20-204) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Garland/DBS, Inc. for City Hall
Exterior Walls Waterproofing Restoration Project, No. P.W. 07-19-38. Accepted.
(*20-205) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement
with Innovative Construction Solutions, in an Amount Not to Exceed $407,184, for
Alameda South Shore Lagoons 3 and 5 Dredging Project, No. P.W. 09-14-49.
Accepted.
(*20-206) Resolution No. 15640, ""Declaring the City's Intention to Revise the Sewer
Service Charge and Establish Procedures for Accepting Protests Pursuant to Article
XIID, Section 6(a) of the California Constitution Regarding Property-Related Fees and
Charges.' Adopted; and
(*20-206A) Recommendation to Set a Public Hearing on June 16, 2020 to Consider
Adoption of New Sewer Service Charges. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(20-207) Urgency Ordinance No. 3271, ""Suspend During the Local Emergency due to
the COVID-19 Pandemic Certain Provisions of the City's Sunshine Ordinance to the
Extent Inconsistent with, or Impose Requirements Beyond Those Explicitly Waived or
Waivable by, Executive Orders of the Governor."" Adopted.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the urgency ordinance.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the changes are
specifically about meeting together due to close proximity; and whether the 12-day
noticing will still be in-effect.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the restrictions are related to
meeting proximity; the current 12 and 7 day noticing requirements stand; various
provisions within the Sunshine Ordinance which require human interactions are being
considered and suspended.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(20-208) Urgency Ordinance No. 3272, ""(A) Extending the Declaration of the Existence
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,5,"of a Local Emergency to Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic for the Duration of the
State of California's Emergency Declaration; (B) Authorizing the City Manager to Forego
the Competitive Bid Process, Subject to Ratification by the City Council, Consistent with
City Charter Section 3-15.2, for the Duration of the Local Emergency; and Approving
City Manager Spending Authority of Up to $2 Million Dollars to Address the Local
Emergency.' Adopted.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see the language that would apply to
Charter Section 3-15.2 to seek Council ratification post-spending of each expenditure
beyond $75,000 as soon as practical; the City Manager will need to make fast decisions
at times and will not always be able to seek Council approval; noted that she would feel
more comfortable if the Charter Section could be cited in the ordinance itself.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the thoughts given to streamlining the competitive bid
process; questioned which parts of the competitive bid process are problematic in terms
of getting needed items.
The City Manager responded typical bidding procedures can be anywhere from 15 to 30
days in an emergency situation; stated that he is unsure if the normal bidding procedure
could be accommodated; staff has been evaluating the purchasing procedures; bidding
would not be a problem in a normal situation; the item is related to emergency
situations; an item over $75,000 might need to be purchased in a short time frame; the
$2 million funding is available; however, allocation and budget authorization is not
available to be able to spend the funds; there is no current anticipation of spending $2
million; expressed concern about not having spending authority readily available in the
event of emergency needs; stated the emergency is not like a natural disaster; noted
that he does not anticipate spending any of the $2 million funding based on savings in
areas that do have authorization.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is a way to streamline the bid process
so that there is not a 30-day delay; stated should a good or service be needed, a
provider will need to be identified and some level of procurement will be required.
The City Manager responded the concept can be defined more narrowly, such as
waiving purchasing policy as bid timelines and restricting to quotes from various
vendors; stated the changes should not pose an issue.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not want to speculate on the events which
could happen; Council owes residents the ability for City Hall to respond quickly to
protect residents should things go haywire.
Councilmember Vella concurred with Councilmember Oddie's comments; stated there is
a way for Council to check back on the accounting of the funds; expressed concern
about being in a position of inability to respond to crisis.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,6,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmembers Oddie and Vella; stated that she
would like the ordinance to reference to the Charter Section.
Councilmember Vella moved adoption of the urgency ordinance, adding the Charter
language reference.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(20-209) Urgency Ordinance No. 3273, ""Imposing within the City of Alameda a
Temporary Moratorium on (A) Residential and Commercial Evictions due to the COVID-
19 Pandemic and (B) Landlords Shutting off Utilities in Residential and Commercial
Rental Units Except for Emergency Situations, and Repealing Ordinance No. 3268.
Adopted.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director
stated the ordinance and regulations urge the tenant to provide communication, but it is
not mandatory to take advantage of rent deferment.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he has been alerted via social media that some
tenants have been locked out of laundry facilities; inquired whether there is a plan to
educate people about the emergency ordinance; noted some tenants are receiving
letters related to rent being due and payment is needed.
The Community Development Director responded laundry rooms are essential services
and must remain open; however, the landlord has the ability to reduce the hours for
cleaning and other purposes or to restrict the number of people allowed in the laundry
room to enforce social distancing; stated outreach will be similar to the first moratorium
ordinance; an additional press release and distribution of an e-mail blast with
information to the rent program list of over 3,000 landlords and tenants; the information
will be available on the rent program website; the rent program link will be available on
the City's website; rent program staff is preparing to field questions and follow-up.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director
stated the regulations provide that the landlord cannot target, collect late fees or
processing fees if paying by credit card.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed gratitude toward the City Attorney's office for
addressing a senior citizen's concern related to laundry room cleanliness.
Councilmember Daysog stated it is reasonable to ask tenants to pay what they can and
to protect those who make an effort; the emergency ordinance should not protect those
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,7,"who can cover their rent but refuse to pay; the ordinance, as drafted, addresses his
concern under Section 2 Provision 5; outlined the provision; expressed support for the
emergency ordinance.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether Centro Legal de la Raza is aware of the
emergency ordinance and whether they aware each time it is changed.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated once Council
takes action, staff will forward the new language and accompanying regulations to
Centro Legal.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether any evictions or tenant issues have been
reported to Centro Legal aside from the laundry room issue.
The Community Development Director responded that she has not heard any reports
from Centro Legal; stated most staff are fielding calls and trying to provide resources.
The City Attorney stated the City Attorney office has received a number of calls with
many questions from landlords and tenants about rights and responsibilities; staff has
worked to field calls to the best of abilities; in every circumstance, landlords and tenants
have been able to reach a reasonable place through mediation; no direct action has
been needed and no cases have been referred to Centro Legal.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether the new information could be included in an
Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) bill in order to help spread knowledge; expressed
concern about only sending the information to a rent registry and not including
commercial tenants.
The City Manager responded that he has a request in with the AMP General Manager
to have information in upcoming utility bills, but he has not received a response back;
stated the request is possible in some form.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the action would be a request or a directive.
The City Manager responded the action is currently a request based on printing timing.
The Community Development Director stated a lead time on printing is needed; the City
can work with AMP; stated staff will work with the Chamber of Commerce and other
business associations in order to push out the information.
The City Attorney stated that his office has prepared an information item for public
circulation and has provided the information to the Alameda Sun; staff will continue to
provide the information on a regular basis.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to have the information shared with both
the Alameda Sun and Alameda Journal.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,8,"Councilmember Vella stated laundry areas are essential functions; inquired whether
something can be posted in facilities to inform people of any changes.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Vella expressed concern about vulnerable populations, which may not
have access to, or be comfortable with, using different modes of technology in order to
acquire information, stated small businesses may not be associated with a business
groups and might not receive information.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City is under a shelter in place directive and any
direction provided by Council to staff, including posting notices, should attempt to
protect staff going out physically; notices could also be placed in Food Bank orders;
stated staff can work to discover the best way to notify the most tenants and landlords
possible.
Councilmember Vella expressed support for the lack of late fees and processing fees;
inquired whether language has been reviewed prohibiting increases for residential and
commercial tenants at this time.
The Community Development Director responded the ordinance does not include a
freeze on rent increases; stated Council could provide direction to staff to return with
something for consideration.
Councilmember Vella expressed support for a freeze on rent increases; stated there are
currently millions of people applying for unemployment; that she would like staff to look
into whether or not Council may place a freeze on increases at this time.
The Community Development Director stated a rent freeze could be imposed for
residential tenants, but not for commercial tenants.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the reason a rent freeze would only apply to residential
tenants.
The City Attorney responded if the City were not under a declared emergency, State law
is clear that local agencies have no right to regulate rents with respect to commercial
entities; stated the City's ability to regulate rent is exclusively residential; the Governor
issued an Executive Order which carves out a narrow exception with respect to
evictions; staff has reviewed the Order, which does not extend far enough to controlling
rent; staff's recommendation is for residential tenants only.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether after one year, the rent due is no longer
evictable.
The City Attorney responded staff does not believe the rent to be non-evictable; stated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,9,"local agencies have not been given authority to regulate the matter; case law needs to
be evaluated to clarify.
The Community Development Director stated the ordinance, as drafted, will provide up
to six months to repay any rent deferred during the local emergency; deferred rent is a
separate issue.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the six month time frame begins when the
emergency is over, to which the Community Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Manager will declare the emergency
over.
The City Attorney responded either the Council or Governor will declare the emergency
over; stated the declaration of emergency is adopted by the Council; therefore, the
Council has the authority.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the current rent regime would place a
maximum on any rent increases should the City not develop a rent freeze.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Council has set the increase to be
70 to 75% of Consumer Price Index (CPI); rents cannot be increased beyond said
index; the program administrator will announce the index in the fall; the previous year
percentage was either 2.7 or 2.8%.
The Community Development Director stated the 70% of CPI maximum allowable
adjustment of 2.8% would go into place without a rent freeze.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a rent increase issued effective July 1stcould
have a maximum increase of 2.8% as a result from the September 2019 CPI, to which
the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how low rent increases could go should the CPI drop
drastically given the economic conditions.
The City Attorney responded the increase could be zero; stated the result could never
be negative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the rent freeze would remain for the six month
duration of non-payment.
Councilmember Vella stated that she would like feedback from staff on two options: 1)
during the moratorium, and 2) in concurrence with the payback period; expressed
concern about facing a rent increase and the burden of paying back rent.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,10,"Councilmember Oddie expressed support for a rent freeze; stated there are other topics
to consider from various agencies; one month of rent will be easier to pay back over a
six month period versus three months; rent cannot be collected that is over one year
old; Berkeley has provisions related to rent increases based on original rent; that he
would like to hear comments from the City Manager and City Attorney about judicial
courts in California; many landlords can post items and notices.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is questioning rent
collection past one year old or asking staff to look into the validity of rent being ineligible
past one year.
Councilmember Oddie stated the eligibility should be known; that he understands the
court will not hear eviction cases.
The Community Development Director stated a publication has been issued related to
court cases and evictions.
The City Attorney stated the Judicial Council's rule making provides for a 90-day period;
the courts are not issuing summons for unlawful detainers; unlawful detainers may be
all encompassing; the City Attorney's office has not had a chance to take a close look at
the document; noted there will not be evictions for 90-days; the ordinance provides
more protection than the Judicial Council rules; stated local protections are sufficient.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the alternative stating: direct staff to
prepare a revised ordinance based on City Council direction; such direction could
include: expanding the moratorium to cover evictions due to no fault of the tenant, such
as a removal from the rental market, unless necessary for the health and safety of
tenants, neighbors or landlords; establishing the moratorium for a specific number of
days, etc.; stated it will be difficult to be out and about looking for another place to rent
let alone packing and moving during the shelter in place; inquired whether Council
cannot allow said types of evictions during the emergency declaration; inquired whether
Council would have to legally allow the evictions and if Council could require proof that
the owner move-in is due to COVID-19; expressed concern about people being evicted
during the crisis.
The City Attorney responded the ordinance is drafted to target protections for COVID-19
impacts; stated should Council want to expand the ordinance to preclude all evictions,
staff will recommend not precluding evictions based on the Ellis Act due to State law
requirements; under the Governor's Order, local jurisdictions cannot bypass Ellis Act
provisions; many provisions based on owner move-in become illusory due to an owner
exercising their right to an Ellis Act provision; tenants could not be evicted for quite
some time based on no court summons being issued for 90 days; tenants are protected
under both State and local law at this time.
The following comments were read into the record by the City Clerk:
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,11,"Stated many of her neighbors cannot meet the high rent within the Bay Area; people
fear becoming infected and becoming homeless; the span of the moratorium will not be
long enough to help; urged Council to expand the moratorium to extend beyond the
shelter in place, to require landlords to give tenants a period of no less than one year to
bring back-rent current and to institute a freeze on rent increases for at least one year:
Jacqueline Barden, Alameda.
Stated her family is experiencing a more than 50% loss of income due to COVID-19;
unemployment claims have not been addressed; the urgency rent ordinance better
protects renters; the ordinance does not ensure renters affected by COVID-19 have
enough time to recoup loss of income and employment; urged Council to modify the
ordinance with a freeze on rent increases for 2020 applying only to tenants experiencing
a loss of 20% or more of their gross monthly income from COVID-19 disruptions,
changing Section 3 of the urgency ordinance to extend the substantive defense against
non-payment evictions from 180 days to 365 days after the conclusion of the COVID-19
pandemic, and extending the rent deferment policy to continue for 30 days after the City
rescinds its emergency declaration: Staci Lewis, Alameda.
Expressed concerns about his landlords actions to evict tenants during the COVID-19
pandemic; noted that he lost his job in March; stated the ordinance does not fully protect
renters through COVID-19 related financial hardships; urged Council to consider a
freeze on rent increases for 2020 applying only to tenants experiencing a loss of 20% or
more of their gross monthly income from COVID-19 disruptions, changing Section 3 of
the urgency ordinance to extend the substantive defense against non-payment evictions
from 180 days to 365 days after the conclusion of the COVID-19 pandemic, and
extending the rent deferment policy to continue for 30 days after the City rescinds its
emergency declaration: Stephen Bissinger.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he would like to discuss allowing eviction protection
to go past 30 days after the state of emergency; people are having a hard time paying
rent; expressed concern about Council being unable to provide much protection to
those having a difficult time paying mortgages in relation to the rent freeze; stated
residents have two new recent parcel tax items; going beyond 180 days would be a long
time; Council cannot assume that all property owners can bear the lack of payment for
months at a time.
The read an additional comment:
Expressed support for passing the moratorium on evictions ordinance including
commercial and residential tenants; stated businesses will be able to maintain a roof
over their head; the moratorium will help many who are struggling: Eric Gantos,
Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie stated hopefully the speakers can take advantage of the new
system; noted that Council needs to discuss and plan what will happen when things get
back to normal; stated one month of rent is easier to absorb versus six months;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,12,"expressed support for a two year period and for the rent freeze; stated there are
programs in place for people with mortgages; expressed support for a temporary freeze;
stated there needs to be a way to make landlords whole again based on partial
payments; the shelter in place could go on for an unknown amount of time; Council
must be flexible and open to adjusting to whatever happens; this will likely not be the
last emergency ordinance; expressed support for more eviction protections, including
commercial tenants and finding ways to offer support to small businesses; stated the
challenge is going to be how people get back on their feet; the next round of ordinances
should include ways to help small businesses.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated anything done has to be fair in balancing all sides; that she
is mindful of many landlords working with tenants; a lot has been imposed on property
owners; no one should suffer; people will not be thrown out; repayment time periods can
start out conservatively; proactive work from the State and County will create success at
flattening the curve of COVID-19; more will be known before the next meeting; a year to
repay rent is too long; expressed support for starting conservatively and extending if
needed.
Councilmember Vella stated that there is an incredible amount of stress being placed on
the community; people are now depending on the Food Bank in Alameda which has
seen a tremendous increase; millions of people are applying for unemployment;
expressed concern for those that are behind in paying, not only rent, but also utilities
and other items; stated the stress of repayment is difficult; stated six months is a long
time to pay items back, but the time is not long considering that people are unemployed
with no way of earning an income for at least 3 months; stated there are a lot of things
most families cannot prepare for and many could not prepare for this; expressed
support for a longer payback period of 12 months; stated allowing longer payback
periods will put more pressure on the federal and State government to come down
harder on the banks and force a negotiation of longer payback terms; noted Governor
Newsom has been able to negotiate a 90-day forgiveness period with banks; stated the
federal government needs to do more; everyone must work together to prevent another
housing and mortgage crisis; it is reasonable to allow a rent increase freeze through the
end of 2020; expressed support for the inclusion of commercial tenant protection.
Councilmember Vella moved adoption of the urgency ordinance, with a 12-month
repayment period.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like more information; that she would like
staff to have the ability to hear from property owners in order to avoid operating in a
vacuum; expressed support for Councilmember Vella's comments; stated that she has
difficulty understanding the pressure being placed on State and federal government by
this action; noted that she would like to ensure people are aware of the available
assistance from federal, State and local governments; stated that she would like an
understanding of the implications for all landlords; she would like staff to have a better
opportunity to conduct outreach.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,13,"Councilmember Vella inquired whether Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft would be amenable to
adopting the urgency as drafted with the 6-month repayment period and direction to
staff to conduct more outreach and look at potential impacts of a longer repayment
period.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative; stated that she would also like to see
language in the ordinance about a rent freeze for residential tenants.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether it is possible for Council to find a way to support
property owners and add priorities to lobbyists for mortgage relief for landlords.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she is in support of the idea; inquired whether the
Council may take such action.
The City Manager and City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Vella moved adoption of the urgency ordinance, with direction for staff
to return with rent freeze language for residential tenants, to conduct outreach relative
to the payback period, and to look at impacts and language for an extended payback
period.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, with a friendly amendment to evaluate
transition timing.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White stated that his understanding from the City
Attorney would be to allow adding the 30-day language at the current time rather than
delaying another two weeks for discussion.
The City Attorney stated some of the Council changes could be enacted at this meeting
and some changes will have to wait until later; that he would like to review the list of
actions that can be taken at this meeting and which need to be performed at a later
date.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he would like to see how the City is balancing the
rent freeze range; expressed support for the motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City is going to have to work with State and federal
legislators and lobbyists sooner rather than later; outlined allowable tax expense
examples for unpaid rent; stated smaller landlords would like some provisions allowed
for unpaid rent expenses on tax returns.
The City Attorney reviewed the list of Council direction and possible timelines; stated
direction has been given to look at a rent freeze for a short period; staff believes the rent
freeze item can be brought back at the next Council meeting as another emergency
ordinance; direction has been given to staff to look at whether or not the City can
expand the substantive defense to be 30-days after the conclusion of the pandemic;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,14,"direction can be given at this meeting and will be incorporated into the current
emergency ordinance as a clear, simple, additional change; direction has been provided
to staff to look at whether or not a longer repayment period beyond 180-days after the
conclusion of the pandemic is appropriate; staff will need approximately two months to
conduct outreach to stakeholders; which can be done given the existing grace period of
180-days after the conclusion of the pandemic; direction has been provided for lobbying
at this meeting and staff will do so as appropriate.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(20-210) Public Hearing to Consider Entitlements and a Development Agreement for the
Development of the 9.4 Acre Property Located at 2229 to 2235 Clement Avenue with
182 Residential Units and Publicly Accessible Waterfront Open Space;
(20-210 A) Resolution No. 15641, ""Approving Tentative Map Tract 8060 PLN 20-0118,
Density Bonus Application PLN 20-0119, Development Plan PLN 20-0120 and Open
Space Design Review PLN 20-0121 for Development of the 9.48 Acre Property Located
at 2229 to 2235 Clement Avenue;"" Adopted; and
(20-210 B) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement By and
Between the City of Alameda and Boatworks, LLC Governing the Boatworks Project for
Real Property Located at 2229 to 2235 Clement Avenue. Introduced.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director, City Attorney and Assistant City
Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether changes made to the first reading can be
placed into the second reading for final passage.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated any Council changes at the
meeting will be considered dais changes and can be incorporated for adoption; when an
item is brought back for second reading, the only change that can be made would be
clerical changes, nothing substantive.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Planning Board had concerns related to the
concession of affordable units requested by the project proponent; outlined the Density
Bonus ordinance; noted that he did not see a proforma or financial report in the record
as required.
The City Attorney stated State law has changed and become more restrictive; when the
City's local Density Bonus ordinance was written, the onus fell on the developer; State
law has recently changed; Government Code Sections 65915e1 provides that the City
now has to bear proof or denial of a Density Bonus request; the change results in the
City not being able to bear the burden to disprove the request.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,15,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated State law has changed; the
City now has the burden to provide evidence that there is no validity to the proponent's
contention of project viability; the information would be a high lift for staff to produce and
present to Council and would also present a high risk of challenge; noted the proponent
is only allowed one concession.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she sits on a Statewide policy committee with
Councilmember Vella; she has discussed housing production within the State as well as
how to increase housing; the current crisis brings to light the lack of adequate housing;
cities are scrambling to find hotel rooms, trailers, motels, etc. so those living in
encampments are less likely to spread COVID-19 she understands where this change
in State law is coming from.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Planning Board expressed interest in
conducting a study.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated all
Planning Board members expressed concern about the aspect of State law and what
the law means for future projects in Alameda; affordable units in Alameda are required
to be distributed and of comparable size; Planning Board members expressed concern
about State law overriding the City in good planning; the new law will make it difficult to
impose requirements on future Density Bonus projects; future developers may use the
same strategy; there is no quick fix of State law.
Councilmember Daysog stated the project is seeking a waiver to Alameda Municipal
Code Section 30-4.2.D; the Code prohibits lot sizes less than 2,000 square feet;
inquired whether the prohibition is also reflected in the City Charter.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated
both waivers deal with the Municipal Code and City Charter.
Councilmember Daysog inquired City Council is able to waive a City Charter provision;
stated it is a hard sell for him.
The City Attorney responded generally, the Council could not waive Charter provisions
unless provided for by State law; stated State law allows an unlimited number of
waivers under Density Bonus law to the extent that it precludes the project; in addition
to one concession, State law also authorizes these types of waivers to the extent that
they preclude the project and there is not a numerical limit; the City has a right, under
State law, to attempt to demonstrate there are specific adverse impacts to public health
and safety, the environment, or that the project would harm historical resources; Council
would have to make very strong findings in order to deny such a waiver; staff is not
aware of any case where a court has upheld a city denying a waiver on a similar basis
of the prohibition of a multi-family residential housing; there is significant risk to the City;
planning staff has recommended that there is no factual basis to make such findings;
legal staff does not recommend Council deny the waiver.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,16,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the way State law is written, a
developer may request, and the City can approve, a waiver of any development
standard that precludes the additional units whether adopted by ordinance, resolution or
initiative; State law is specific.
Councilmember Daysog stated the waiver requested from the developer goes around
the third part of Measure A; Charter cities have some leeway that General Law cities do
not with regard to initiatives; inquired the protections given by Charter cities with
reference to initiatives.
The City Attorney responded Charter cities have the Home Rule Doctrine: Charter cities
have the right to regulate municipal affairs, notwithstanding State law to the contrary;
State law is clear on the issue of housing; the loss of affordable housing and the
production of affordable housing is a Statewide concern; courts have upheld the
findings many times; staff believes the legal fight would be difficult; should Council direct
staff to take legal action, staff would comply; however, it is not the recommendation;
Charter cities do not have home rule authority.
Stated that he is available to address questions or comments from Council; that he is
looking forward to moving the project forward: Robert McGillis, Boatworks.
Expressed support for moving the project forward: urged Council not to take action on a
portion of the density bonus waiver: Shona Armstrong, Boatworks.
The City Attorney stated Ms. Armstrong is requesting Council to delay action on the
waiver on universal design, which is consistent with the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director's request; the action is premature at this time; the Planning,
Building and Transportation Director will be working with the project applicant to go to
the Disability Commission first; the waiver may return to the Council at a later date.
Expressed gratitude for meeting under unprecedented conditions; noted the Planning
Board has recommended approval of the project; stated that she is available to help:
Nicoley Collins, Boatworks
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the project; stated staff has a chance to
work out details with Boatworks; the item will come back for a second reading.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with comments made by the Planning,
Building and Transportation Director; noted the City Manager and the Planning, Building
and Transportation Director have been instrumental in reaching this point; stated the
item is being discussed at a strange time in history; expressed support for the item.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with Vice Mayor Knox White and
Councilmembers Oddie and Vella; only items of crucial importance are being
considered; providing more housing is of crucial importance; noted that she served on
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,17,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,18,"COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(20-212) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed her appreciation for medical personnel, first
responders, essential service providers, retail clerks and drivers, sanitation workers,
and transit workers; expressed gratitude toward members of the public who are
following proper protocol; noted it is advisable in smaller, closed areas to wear a face
covering or mask; many people are practicing social distancing and following the shelter
in place order; stated everyone is in this together; the Governor has communicated
frequently about the status and timing of items; public health officers are working
together throughout the County; urged all to continue social distancing and follow the
shelter in place order; expressed gratitude for City staff.
(20-213) Councilmember Oddie expressed gratitude for Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's
leadership and City staff.
(20-213A) Stopwaste March 2020 Topic Brief: Fruit and Veggie Storage Guide.
(Councilmember Oddie) [Informational only]
Councilmember Oddie made brief comments.
(20-214) Vice Mayor Knox White expressed gratitude toward City staff and the Mayor of
San Francisco.
(20-215) Councilmember Daysog stated the following days and weeks are going to be
very trying; urged people to do even more to stay safe.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:28
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,19,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY--APRIL 7, 2020-7:0 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 9:29 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmember Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
[Note: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie and Vella were present
via teleconference.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
(20-216) Recommendation to Approve Recommendations on Continuation of City
Operations and Compensation for Employees, Implementation of the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and to Increase Vacation Accrual Caps and Other
Employees Actions Related to the City Response to COVID-19.
The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the item covers part-time staff.
The Human Resources Director responded many departments continue to have work
for part-time staff; stated staff is not recommending the continuation of pay for part-time
employees past the COVID-19 bank; there are many part-time employees that do not
have work; staff recommends working with part-time employees, providing the available
hours, but they can also apply for unemployment; some part-time employees continue
to work in a very specialized manner and continue work.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Vella stated that she is ready to support the item.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(20-217) Consider Directing Staff to Identify Funding for Four Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Trailers and Develop an Overnight Safe Parking Site for
Homeless.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,20,"County guidelines for safe parking; stated City staff has been great and has looked at
guidelines from other cities safe parking guidelines; the COVID crisis makes these items
urgent; the Governor has directed cities to find places to house the unsheltered
because they are at high risk.
Councilmember Vella expressed stated this is the right thing to do; expressed support
for the item.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the trailers come to the City for free; the trailers are new
and will provide a resource during the COVID crisis; and the City can use the trailers
even after the COVID crisis.
Councilmember Oddie stated homelessness has been a known issue for a long time;
expressed support for making solutions permanent.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the first steps are the hardest; once policies and guidelines
are in place lessons are learned.
Councilmember Daysog requested clarification about the safe parking areas.
The City Manager responded the area near the Fire training site; stated the area is
fenced in and not far from the Encinal Boat Launch.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the location is near Alameda Point and the Encinal Boat
Ramp.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the process for safe parking; questioned whether the
operation will be on a first come first served basis.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 7, 2020
2",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,21,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the safe spaces will be registered; stated a
combination of working with Building Futures and Operation Dignity will be used with
certain criteria to be followed; no Recreational Vehicles (RV's) will be allowed; noted
facilities for homeless have changed since COVID-19 and have created a separate
health and safety crisis; the safe parking process will be regulated.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the trailer direction is to come back with funding ideas at
some point as potentially part of the budget discussion and to continue to work on safe
parking in the discussions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Knox White is requesting safe
parking be part of the budget discussion.
Vice Mayor Knox White responded that he is questioning the direction being provided to
staff.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated direction is to develop funding for the four trailers; the
trailers are free, but they do come with a need for some staff and security oversight; the
overnight safe parking will require working with Operation Dignity and Building Futures.
The City Manager stated the safe parking areas will have security as well.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the expenses are Homeless Emergency Aid
Program (HEAP) funded.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded some is HEAP and Home Acquisition Program (HAP)
funded.
The City Manager stated the safe parking is part of HEAP funding.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Oakland Mayor Schaaf announced Alameda County will
receive $3 million related to the FEMA trailers; noted staff will be looking into said
funding opportunity.
The City Manager stated the funding has been indicated as not available for FEMA
trailers; noted the $3 million funding is primarily related to the hotel project.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated funding will be pursued; noted that she has received
messages related to funding for the FEMA trailers.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Council supporting and encouraging staff to
come back with a funding plan for the FEMA trailers and continue to support moving the
parking forward with a program to be developed.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-07,22,"Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he is not in support of the safe
parking aspect.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion could be bifurcated.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for bifurcating the motion.
On the call for the question regarding the FEMA trailer funding, the motion carried by
the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye;
Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of continuing to work on the safe parking.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the conditions for Councilmember Daysog to convert his
vote.
Councilmember Daysog responded he would need more information and can discuss
the issue with staff.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated questions should be directed at the City Manager.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:49
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
April 7, 2020
4",CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBER 19, 2021-6:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via
Zoom. Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 6:19 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-638) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases: One (As Plaintiff - City
Initiating Legal Action - Bond Validation Action); Potential Defendants: All Interested
Persons.
(21-639) WITHDRAWN - Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54957.6); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager; Gerry Beaudin,
Assistant City Manager; and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee
Organization: Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA); Under Negotiation: Salaries,
Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment. Not heard.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced
that regarding Litigation, staff provided information and Council did not take any action or
vote.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:25 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
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,2,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 19, 2021--7:00 - P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:01 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
(21-640) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested City Manager Communications be moved up to allow
the new Fire Chief to be introduced.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(21-641) The City Manager introduced the new Fire Chief Nicholas Luby.
The Fire Chief made brief comments.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21-642) Proclamation Declaring October 2021 Filipino American History Month.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.
Councilmember Daysog and Vice Mayor Vella made brief comments.
(21-643) Proclamation Declaring October 2021 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
(21-644) Proclamation Declaring October as Disability Awareness Month 2021.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-645) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed concern about the City's Prosecution Unit pursuing
landlords, which is resulting in significant income for the City; he believes it would be
appropriate for Council to include a summary of recent actions by the Prosecution Unit on the
agenda; discussed concerns about the Prosecution Unit.
(21-646) Marcus Holder, Alameda, stated a stadium at Howard Terminal would be crazy; traffic
in and out of the Tube is already jammed; urged correspondence for the matter be read; stated
a stadium would take away 1/7th to 1/8th of the Port capacity; the Port is the economic engine for
the region; discussed condos being built; stated building the projects with infrastructure makes
sense; expressed support for building the coliseum in the existing location.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,3,"Expressed concern about the Cultivate agreement [paragraph no. 21-652] ; stated the Planning,
Building and Transportation Department has frequently advertised its expertise; he is not clear
why the City should be spending so much money for an outside company: Jay Garfinkle,
Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White requested the Open Government Commission appointment
[paragraph no. 21-649 be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the Cultivate agreement [paragraph no. 21-652 be
removed from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; 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.]
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Cultivate agreement be heard at end of the regular agenda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the item at the end of the regular
agenda.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(*21-647) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Joint City Council and Alameda
Public Financing Authority Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on September
21, 2021. Approved.
(*21-648) Ratified bills in the amount of $27,860.48.
(21-649) Recommendation to Accept a Report on the Appointment of a Member to the Open
Government Commission.
Councilmember Knox White stated Ms. Montgomery could not attend the meeting due to a last
minute issue; Ms. Montgomery has shown herself to be interested in the business of the City
and ensuring people are informed, involved, and engaged.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(*21-650) Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Annual Report for the City's Rent
Program. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,19,"Mr. Morales stated that he is a Director at UFI; he has over 30 years of public and corporate
financing experience; he has a degree from the University of Michigan, a Masters of Public
Policy from Harvard University, a Masters of Business Administration in Finance and Real
Estate as a Dean's fellow from University of California Los Angeles; he has worked at
Transamerica Corporation and abroad as a Technical Advisor for the United States Treasury
and the Country of Paraguay; he has extensive derivative, mathematical and quantitative
experience doing complex financial transactions, including P3's, derivative transactions and
complex valuations and workouts.
James Wawrzyniak stated that he is Bond Counsel from the law firm Jones Hall; Jones Hall is a
bond counsel only firm which represents public agencies in public finance transactions including
POBs, lease revenue bonds and other kinds of municipal financing; the Jones Hall firm is
located in San Francisco, has been a bond counsel firm for 50 years and has represented
hundreds of cities and local agencies throughout the State; he has worked with multiple cities
around the Bay Area for the past 5 years; he previously practiced corporate law and graduated
from Harvard Law School.
Stated the idea has some merit and also carries a lot of risk; the City owes the public a thorough
vetting of the matter before issuing any bonds; he and the City Auditor have not been involved
in any discussions on the matter prior to tonight; he has not seen any public discussion; the
appendix of the presentation includes a great outline of an outreach program, which includes
Council workshops and community meetings; the City should follow the program outlined prior
to taking any final action; expressed support for putting the matter on the ballot to have voters
weigh-in; the resolution indicates the City is going for both judicial approval and approving an
issuance; Section 4 of the resolution indicates hiring a finance team, which seems premature
during the process to seek judicial approval; he is in favor of getting judicial approval; the
approval puts the City in a place to make an educated decision; the matter requires more
discussion in public and among Council; the City needs to fully understand the matter and risks:
Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer.
Questioned how the bond payments will be made, if payments are by property taxes if renters
would be charged and could landlords add the payments to rent if renters are not charged;
stated the current residents ran up the bill and should be the ones to pay; payments can be
made with money already held, such as the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding;
expressed support for the idea of paying the cost over time: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Stated that he hopes the City can follow the plan on page 34 of the presentation; the decision is
important; expressed support for a thorough analysis and considering the dollar amounts;
expressed concern about the effect and impact on possible future borrowings; discussed a
future infrastructure bond; stated that he is concerned about how the allocation of funds is going
to be amongst the two groups; expressed support for a pro-rata approach and for a discussion
on the possibility of involving voters; discussed the City of Oakland's similar experience not
working out; stated the timing of the market is a crucial element; he is not 100% sure where the
City is going; urged Council to consider the timing of the market; stated there is a long way to go
before making the decision; the public needs to be involved; further communication is needed;
future generations are stuck with the decision: Kevin Kearney, City Auditor.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about how payments will be made and any
implications for property owners.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
18",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,20,"Mr. Wawrzyniak stated the payment is through the General Fund which is the same as the
unfunded CalPERS liability; the General Fund includes property and sales tax and is available
for all purposes; the General Fund is currently paying CalPERS; instead of paying CalPERS,
there will be debt service payments on the bond; no new additional taxes would be levied.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City is currently covering pensions or
whether the City is continuing to accrue more unfunded pension liabilities.
The City Manager responded the bond would pay for the unfunded liability; stated the payment
is for unfunded liabilities, which accrued over time; moving forward CalPERS set out a schedule
and cost per employee for current and future liabilities; the current format is set; however, there
is no guarantee of payment; as more employees are hired, an extra percentage is paid per
employee.
Mr. Morales stated the normal costs are part of the current bill; the City has to pay its normal
cost at a minimum; the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) is a past due amount; the UAL is $300
million; the City has a big mountain to climb; eventually $22 million will go to approximately $30
million; as increases or other adjustments occur, the amount will fluctuate; as long as the City
makes the UAL payments, plus the $6.7 million, the City should be able to pay it off, with the
caveat of annual adjustments made by CalPERS; the liability is dynamic and ever-changing; if
the City keeps pace with the adjustments, the City should be able to keep pace with the
liabilities; CalPERS is similar to a bank; whatever deposits are made to the system, investments
are managed and trued up every year; the City could fall behind; the $30 million base liability
not being paid in cash at once would mean the $6.7 million, plus the $20 million UAL payment
and the new base of $33 million could be spread out over a typical 20 year period; it is important
to understand that the amount is not static; the liability is changing and dynamic.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City has enough money in reserves to
pay as it goes for the next five to ten years; stated that when she looks at the numbers, she
does not think the City has enough money to pay as it goes.
The Finance Director responded the normal cost is based on the percentage of payroll; each
budget cycle has to budget the costs; the City currently covers the normal costs as a
percentage of payroll; the budget is sufficient to cover the current and next year.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a chart shows the current payments as dropping at
year 10 or 15; inquired whether the City will be paying more in the last years.
Mr. Morales responded many cities have a similar profile; stated the payment schedule has a
peak; almost every agency has the peak around $32 to $33 million; credits and liabilities are
added each year, so the structure of the UAL payment increase might change as it has in the
past.
The City Manager stated the current annual UAL payments to the UAL total $557 million in
payments without financing.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how the drop from 2043 to 2044 occurs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,21,"Mr. Morales responded that he has structured the POBs to match the dollar amount of the final
years; stated bonds are done in $5,000 increments; the image shown is as close as possible
mathematically.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether current interest rates were used to project
the amounts, to which Mr. Morales responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the number used.
Mr. Morales responded municipal bonds are a series of bonds; each year has a different interest
rate; stated a coupon rate is included; the amounts are also priced as a spread to treasury,
which is different from a tax-exemption; pricing the amount day-of, the City will have the two
year treasury rate; an underwriter who sells and buys the bonds to investors will explain the
bonds as market rate for 25 basis points above the two year treasury rate; the pricing will be up
to the 3, 5, 7, 20 and 30 year treasury rate; all rates are indexed off the spread; there is an
interest rate cushion; recent bonds have all been below 3% on the back end; a significant
cushion has been given due to the required four to six month validation period.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what happens to numbers if fluctuation happens.
Mr. Morales responded interest rates going down result in the bottom number lowering; stated
one interest rate is not used in the calculation; multiple interest rates are used; a gross spread
has been presented, with an average rate of 3.33%; interest rates that increase, cause a
decrease in cushion or savings; a 0.75% point cushion from current market rates is considered
conservative.
The City Manager stated UFI included rate a 0.75% higher than the current rate.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what the cities that lost money on the same process
did wrong and why the recommendation is the right thing to do.
Mr. Morales responded other cities POBs were completed at much higher interest rate
environments and had unideal timing; discussed case studies; stated bonds issued in 2008
were not done at a good time and had a 6% interest rate; the use of cab structures, or zero
coupon bonds, extended payments and took payment holidays; a number of different things are
effecting other cities, including not using the most prudent financial practices; UFI does not
guarantee the financial outcome; when cities study and understand the risk, the results are
substantially different.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is mindful of the comments provided by the City Auditor
and Treasurer; Council should make sure there is as much information and outreach as
possible; further steps will be taken prior to a final decision to issue POBs; expressed support
for understanding the further steps; stated that she would like more flesh on the bones of the
section referring to the strategy to recommended setting 50% of the POB savings creating a
sinking fund to stabilize any future risks and pension obligations; she would have liked more
information about the sinking fund savings; she would like to know more about the option before
voting to authorize issuance of POBs; she is intrigued and has been preaching about how the
City needs to set aside a portion of all unanticipated revenues once debts are paid down; she
would like more information before Council embarks on the current step.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
20",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,22,"Councilmember Knox White stated that his understanding is Council needs to authorize staff to
move forward through the process laid out on page 41 of the presentation; the process is four to
six months; Council may provide direction during that time; he agrees and has questions which
should come back, including policy recommendations about the sinking fund; he would like to
ensure that Council is being asked to start the process and provide direction as to what should
come back for discussion as part of the process before voting to authorize any bonds.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, the City Manager stated the current matter is the first step;
staff will have to return to Council before bonds are issued; Council is not be able to issue
bonds under the current action; the Official Statement has to return to Council as a step in the
process; additional steps are included on page 34 of the presentation; this step is critical in the
process and needs to be taken prior to other steps over the next four to six months; a delay is
fine; however, an interest rate risk is associated.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether or not the City Auditor and Treasurer were consulted.
The City Manager responded there have been brief discussions; neither has been fully involved
with the matter.
Mr. Morales stated every day of delay is costing roughly $30,000; the current matter does not
necessarily approve anything; legally, staff has to come back to Council to approve the offering
document, known as the Official Statement; approving the first step will save the City money;
there is time to put on workshops, ask questions and perform analysis; he has more than
enough time and ability to answer almost every question raised.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can proceed on more than one front at the same time;
inquired whether the City Attorney is in agreement about the four to six months court validation
process.
The City Attorney responded it is difficult to predict litigation timelines; stated that he does not
want to predict timelines in open session; staff is happy to discuss the matter privately in Closed
Session.
The City Manager outlined the current estimated debt service under the assumptions in the
presentation; stated the debt service is projected under the interest rate of 3.3%; outlined
budgetary savings and UAL costs; stated his recommendation is not to spend all the savings
and have Council set aside up to 50% of the money; staff will have to bring back a process to
set aside any money; over two to three years, any volatility or risk associated would be solved
through the sinking fund; if Council sets aside $4 to $5 million per year, the City would have
$10 to $15 million in the first three to four years to mitigate against any downsides of investment
risk.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined rating agencies taking a neutral position on POBs; stated
agencies are taking the time to study pension liabilities and understand the risk of POBs;
inquired the risks Council should be aware of.
Mr. Morales stated most of the risks have been addressed through the systematic process; the
risk of investment is not germane to POBs; ARPA funds cannot be used on pension obligations;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,23,"there is still the risk of whether or not now is the correct time to invest, regardless of the source
of money; Council must decide whether now is the right time to invest; outlined various risk
assessments; stated the most difficult part of POBs is that municipalities are not necessarily
designed to take on the inherent equity risks; when all bonds changed over from fixed income
investments to equities and fixed income, everyone was looking for gain to be received; equities
are a rollercoaster ride; risk free options do not come with the gain of equities; the pension
component adds to the equity risks and occurs with CalPERS every day; the liability will be
something to live with; the risk is difficult to address; however, Council can follow systematic
methods; the market timing is the primary risk to deal with.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated while considering the matter, Council must simultaneously be
looking at ways to keep the City's pension obligations from increasing unreasonably; discussed
hiring contractors versus full-time benefitted employees and using Code Compliance Officers for
inspections instead of Firefighters; stated that she looks to the City Manager to help manage
pension obligations; Council cannot keep digging out of a hole with one shovel while filling with
another; when staff are added, the City has to pay a long-term obligation long after the current
Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council and residents need to understand the magnitude of the
decision; Council is considering issuing a POB for roughly $298 million to cover unfunded
liabilities; when the interest is added, the actual amount comes out to roughly $420 million; he
understands the net present value based on the discount rate; Council is considering the
possibility of $420 million; he is focusing on four areas of the matter.
(21-663) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider new items after 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the first two referrals.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether Council Communications will still be able to be
heard.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated Council must consider hearing new, regular,
agenda items after 11:00 p.m., not the agenda sections of Oral, Council and City Manager
Communications.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would still hear Oral and Council
Communications, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White stated the remaining regular agenda item being discussed does not
need a motion to continue.
The City Clerk stated the remaining Consent Calendar item related to the Cultivate agreement is
outstanding due to being moved to the end of the Regular Agenda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
22",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,24,"Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m. in order
to hear the Cultivate agreement [paragraph no. 21-652].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which failed since it required four affirmative-votes, by
the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White:
Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the Cultivate agreement to Section 6 of the
November 2, 2021 agenda.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
Councilmember Daysog stated the magnitude of the matter is beyond the initial $298 million
POB; when the interest is taken into account, the sum is $420 million; he understands the net
present value of the figure is different; Council should not take the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) insight related to POBs lightly; the GFOA are the people who certify the
annual budget and are a reputable organization that the City turns to for validation; the GFOA's
advisory states that State and local governments should not issue POBs; Council should frame
its discussion based on the vantage point of the GFOA; discussed how POBs previously worked
for cities; stated cities would invest the POB money into the market in the hopes that the Return
On Investment (ROI) would be above the 3.5% interest rate; Council is not attempting a
previous POB approach; the new approach would generate and issue a $298 million POB in
order to pre-pay the City's unfunded liability; expressed support for the new POB approach;
stated the new approach is not without risks; if the return rate from CalPERS is not be 7% in the
next year, the unfunded liability rate would recalibrate; the City will have to make up for the
shortfall; the budgetary savings would be south of $2.7 million; CalPERS' return falling to the
same amount of or less than the interest being paid is a concern and eliminates the POB
savings; outlined employee hires eliminating the budgetary savings, which eliminates the
purpose of the POB; stated the City Manager is correct in his recommendation for a strict, fiscal
strategy in order to ensure locking the budgetary savings; CalPERS might have a return rate
higher than 7% and will not issue a refund for any excess paid; the City will still pay the annual
debt service; he recommends going slow; he will not support the matter.
Mr. Morales stated the matter is complex; CalPERS returned 21.4% in the past fiscal year; the
City will get a credit of $74.3 million; CalPERS has announced that the discount rate has to go
down to 6.8%, which increases liability; the City will net $24 million; the $295 million liability will
likely be somewhere closer to $241 million; a demographic adjustment always comes into the
process; there is a lot of estimation because the POB is a $300 million liability which changes
each year; he recommends the $295 million amount because of the CalPERS adjustment; the
City does not have to borrow the full amount; there are a lot of mathematics and moving parts;
outlined credits and cash flows; stated impacts would drive payments down; projections have
been shared with City staff; the City should ask for the full amount and decide the amount,
structure and when to perform the POB in the future.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the GFOA advisory.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,25,"Mr. Morales stated the GFOA has a warning on its website which states: ""Do not issue pension
obligation bonds;"" a number of policies are designed to be written for the entire country; the
City's financial sophistication is different from anyone else; the GFOA policy is written with cities
which might not have high financial sophistication; the information is important because each
plan, State law and funding level is different; the CalPERS system is different from the County
of Alameda, the State of New Jersey, Illinois or Minnesota; the GFOA writes one universal
policy to cover the nation; the financial circumstances of each agency in the country are
different; UFI believes a number of the circumstances have been addressed; the most
disconcerting part about the GFOA is the advisory not to issue POBs without any recommended
alternative options provided outside of using reserves; Council should feel free to adhere to the
GFOA advisory; however, the points and counterpoints mentioned by the GFOA should also be
considered; the matter is complex and has some downsides, which include equity risks; the
answer is not easy; doing nothing has a detrimental impact on operations going forward; the
projected operating deficit has to do with increasing pension costs and a shortfall over the next
four to five years; the deficit is due to an increase in UAL payments.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the current economy, stock market and low interest rates are
sustainable and factors into the matter.
Mr. Morales responded rates are at historic lows, which makes the matter compelling; stated the
discount rate has lowered; he does not believe the growth will continue on a long-term basis; a
second industrial revolution is causing some tremendous economic growth; cities cannot
continue at 21.3% growth and outrun the problem; the orders are taking more measured steps
and being realistic; outlined gains and downsides; stated Council must consider the downside;
Councilmember Daysog is correct in his statements about risk; there are things the City can do
to prepare itself; the POB is not a panacea and is not without risk; Council should take the time
to understand and think about alternative options; doing nothing is not ideal; a plan to address
the matter is needed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not plan to support the matter; she would
have liked the City Auditor and Treasurer to have had more time to speak; it is premature to
proceed at this time; the City needs to look at both sides of the equation; she would like to hear
from community members; expressed support for a workshop; stated the matter is a huge risk;
expressed support for Councilmember Daysog's comments; stated the comments help provide
further understanding; the City is rushing through a huge risk; expressed support for the matter
returning with more information; noted cities have lost a lot of money on POBs; the examples of
losses have been minimized in the report.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification from the City Manager on how he envisions the
process going forward.
The City Manager stated the City will start the court process and simultaneously come back with
a Council work session and public meetings; the policies can be refined; staff will return to
Council after the court decision and bring back a full recommendation; there is risk associated
with the matter; the risk of doing nothing will cost roughly $530 million; the POB solution helps.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Manager stated the timeline is about four
to six months; court processes can cause delay; four to six months has been the average time
in other communities.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,26,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the matter would return to Council next.
The City Manager responded staff can hold a workshop in the following months to continue the
educational period; staff will perform other steps during the four to six months in order to
prepare Council to make a decision.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the validation process included in the presentation
is accurate, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White noted sometime between now and next February, there will be a
workshop; inquired whether the matter will come to many meetings in March and April and
Council approval is set for May or June.
Mr. Morales responded the assessment is correct.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he has been doom and gloom on the economy for some
time; he is happy to be proven wrong; if Council wishes to take advantage of the POB, the
advantage should be taken earlier, rather than later; bond rates will likely only go up; every
month of waiting is a month of increased rates; the concerns raised are reasonable; expressed
support for Councilmember Daysog requesting UFI's staff bona fides; stated the City Auditor
and Treasurer will provide input and recommendations; the City Auditor and Treasurer have
both expressed support for moving forward to start the conversation.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolution] with direction to ensure there are two workshops, not Council meetings, between
now and the first Council approval whereby the City can have Mr. Morales and City staff give
a
presentation and have a deep discussion with Council and the community.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated Council owes the City and constituents a
conversation to explore the option; the experts have said now is the time to have the discussion
based on bond ratings; other jurisdictions have done so at less opportune moments; she does
not want to be in a situation where Council is making decisions out of desperation; she wants to
be in a position to make decisions based off the best possible set of facts, knowing that Council
is acting in a fiscally responsible manner; doing nothing is fiscally irresponsible; expressed
support for taking a step forward in giving direction to return to Council to look at POBs as an
option, allowing for a vetting process, the chance for people to weigh-in to have a work session
and for Council to make an informed decision about whether a POB is the right thing at the right
time for the City; the matter does not exclude the ability to look at other options and parallel
tracks; Council must ensure the City is put in a financial position that is responsible; she has not
heard the City Auditor or Treasurer oppose exploring the possibility of a POB; the timeline
provides the opportunity for full vetting; expressed support for moving forward; stated doing
nothing will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and will create an even bigger problem; she
hopes the City can take a positive step forward.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important that Council considers steps to ensure the City is not
creating more liability in moving forward; expressed support for moving forward carefully; stated
that she would like staff to explore ways to minimize getting further into debt; inquired whether
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,27,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the resolution begins by stating for Council to authorize
issuance of one or more series of pension obligation bonds; the resolution contradicts the
current discussion; the resolution has more legal significance then being suggested.
Councilmember Knox White requested clarification be provided by the City Attorney.
The City Attorney stated Section 1 of the resolution exists, so that staff can validate and bring a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
26",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,28,"judicial action for bonds; if Council approves filing a judicial validation action, bonds must exist
as a requirement under State law; staff has provided assurances verbally and in Section 5 of the
resolution that the matter will return to Council before finalization occurs; there will be nothing
for staff to validate if Section 1 of the resolution is removed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the process has to take place in order to begin; checkpoints occur
in the timeline.
Mr. Morales stated it is Council's legal and fiduciary duty to review the Authorizing Statement; a
bond cannot be sold without Council authorizing the Authorizing Statement; the document has
not been generated; there is currently no way the City could legally issue or sell bonds without
coming back to Council.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-664) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed concern about information not being released
regarding the Mario Gonzales investigation.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21-665) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(21-666) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational
Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.
(21-667) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate
Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.
(21-668) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting
Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember
Daysog). Not heard.
(21-669) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to
Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023-
2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard.
(21-670) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers
Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-671) Councilmember Knox White made an announcement regarding the AC Transit Inter-
Agency Liaison meeting and an upcoming special meeting of the City Council and School Board
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,29,"Subcommittee.
(21-672) Councilmember Daysog noted AC Transit will have cameras and be able to issue fines
for cars parked in bus stops; announced that he attended the First Tee event at the Chuck
Corica Golf Course.
(21-673) Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she attended the Italian Heritage Festival
parade in San Francisco; announced an upcoming Airport Noise Forum meeting; expressed
concern about the letter to the County supporting the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
[paragraph no. 21-660 being added to the agenda.
(21-674) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended Walk and Roll to School Day at
Wood Middle School and the Fire Chief swearing in ceremony.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced that she also attended both the Walk and Roll to
School Day and the Fire Chief swearing in ceremony.
ADJOURNMENT
(21-675) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:40
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
28
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,4,"Alameda City Council
3
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,5,"(21-657 B) Resolution No. 15828, ""Appointing Dan Poritzky as a Member of the Mayor's
Economic Development Advisory Panel.' Adopted.
Councilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Daysog 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.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and Ms. Jennings made brief comments.
(21-658) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff to Pursue One or More Options for
Reducing the Negative Impacts and Public Safety Challenges Associated with Automobile-
Oriented Events at Alameda Point.
The Assistant City Manager gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the reason the chain link fence near the Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA) does not extend to cover the area where people practice
motorcycle driving.
The Assistant City Manager responded the USS Hornet (USSH) lease covers some of the
areas; the City wants to ensure alignment of the fence is as inclusive as possible without
infringing on lease rights.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated sometimes the USSH has events with many people
driving; the USSH goes beyond the available area; inquired whether the area within the fencing
would be opened for USSH events.
The Assistant City Manager responded it could be; stated the current USSH lease does not
cover the area; however, staff can coordinate with USSH representatives to address any
additional parking needs for large events; the fencing is temporary which can easily be
relocated or moved over time as needed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated many areas have installed raised Botts' dots to address
issues; inquired why staff has not done other similar things to allow the space to be used by
law-abiding citizens; stated she is hearing staff jump to cutting off areas, making them
inaccessible to cars; the intention could be to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to use the areas.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Police Chief provide clarification of the problem being
addressed.
The Police Chief stated the concern being addressed is the gathering of cars; the dots would
actually deter people engaging in reckless driving of areas; noted many of the burnouts occur in
the entry chutes; vehicles can still go into the areas for people to enjoy scenery.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the entry chutes do not have speed bumps to slow
traffic; inquired why has staff not considered speed bumps or humps.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,6,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded both strategies work; stated staff
is trying to make the area unattractive for people to do inappropriate activities with automobiles;
Botts' dots or a barricade system can work; the dots will likely be a more expensive strategy to
implement and maintain.
The Public Works Director stated both speed bumps and Botts' dots are options; the use of
fencing is due to the lack of travel lanes at Alameda Point; the intention is to safely focus travel
in one area; if staff were to only utilize speed bumps or Botts' dots, safety issues are caused; an
option to create travel lanes is possible; the approach staff has taken builds on existing
conditions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the safety plan; the comments
received show that the approach does not seem to be working; inquired why staff is not
considering adding speed bumps.
The Public Works Director responded speed bumps can be an option within the 40-foot lane;
staff is also trying to prevent large-scale congregations, not just reckless driving; a number of
safety issues arise from the large congregations; speed bumps will not necessarily prevent
large-scale congregations from forming; staff can put in speed deterrents if the issue of
speeding becomes a factor within the 40-foot lane.
Stated the car congregation is two-fold; the USSH would like to grow its admission; the USSH
took a 90% revenue hit during COVID-19; the parking leased by the USSH is generally
sufficient; the Enterprise Lot is sometimes used for overflow parking for larger events; the USSH
depends on car traffic for museum attendance; discussed USSH special events being attractive
to transportation enthusiasts; stated specific car clubs have kicked people out due to poor
behavior; expressed concern about eliminating car clubs due to individual poor choices;
expressed support for wheel stops in the parking lot: Laura Fies, US H Museum.
Stated the City needs to do something; Option 2 shows a car show area that has been full the
past two weeks; car shows have gotten very large with over 500 cars, over 1,000 people, food
vendors and a vendor serving alcoholic beverages; the events' trash and sanitary mess are a
problem; it takes his customer 25 to 30 minutes to get to the building; expressed support for
Option 2, which does not require a gate to be closed and provides a nice parking space in the
more scenic parts of Alameda Point: Steve Shaffer, Urban Legend Cellars.
Stated that he has noticed two to three car shows per month with hundreds of cars speeding
and nearly hitting kids; he is speaking for the neighborhood safety of the West End; speed
bumps could help, but might merely be quickly accelerated over; his neighborhood is impacted
while car show participants leave the area; he agrees with the recommendations and has
compassion for the USSH; expressed support for fencing and maximum barriers to prevent
congregation and allowing permitted shows to continue: Victor Hsu, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested an explanation of the challenges Alameda Police Department
(APD) Officers have face at Alameda Point.
The Police Chief stated enforcement becomes difficult when hundreds of people gather; the
area has no lanes; getting emergency medical assistance through would be difficult; the mindset
with side shows is to draw a large enough audience to perform reckless stunts and driving;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,7,"having a bunch of participants fuels the activity; much of the reckless driving occurs when
participants leave an event; an approach that addresses and minimizes the number of
participants provides a position of public safety; emergency response is possible when
audiences are not as large.
Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is complicated; DePave Park will not be driven on
and instead will be accessed by walking and biking; he does not see any reason to encourage
people to drive within the area; he is saddened to learn about the impact of some of the
activities happening near Building 25; he would be very supportive of choosing Option 1; he
does not know why the City would choose Option 2, which would create another long driveway
for people to race up and down; expressed support for the fence near the USSH; stated many
people have pointed fingers at the USSH; however, the issue is mainly due to people using the
USSH parking space; many people will head back to the large USSH parking area if the
DePave Park area is closed down; sideshows were not the problem back in June; the problem
is people racing through neighborhoods; the City can stop some of the sideshow behaviors by
using Botts' dots and barriers; however, neighbors will still call due to people racing through
streets; he would be more than happy to continue working with the USSH to figure out a way to
support meaningful events which that have an auto-centric focus; the events should have a
focus toward the USSH business.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Dash Cellars and Building 25 will still be
present when DePave Park is created.
The Public Works Director responded the current Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) for Alameda
Point shows the perimeter levy saves Building 25; stated Building 2 is inland of the perimeter
levy, protected from sea level rise and not part of DePave Park.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the area already cordoned off by Dash
Cellars and the Air Tower will be part of DePave Park.
The Public Works Director responded the current MIP indicates the area will be a large
stormwater retention basin, similar to the layout of Bayport; the area will collect storm water
before discharge.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer displayed photos of current parking conditions at Alameda
Point; stated that she goes out to Alameda Point all the time; she does not think it is illegal to
congregate; staff has added cement barriers; the cement barriers are often filled with
skateboarders; the area is a great place for adults, youths and families to congregate; the area
depicted will no longer be accessible to the public from what she understands; inquired whether
the cement barriers will remain for skateboarders to continue using or be removed and
inaccessible.
The Public Works Director responded the intent with Option 2 is not to remove the cement
barriers; stated Option 2 has been presented to allow for access to the end of the area near
Building 29; the space shown is exterior to the barriers.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated quite often, up to 50 young adults are skateboarding on
the barriers; skateboarding is a healthy activity; the area is similar to a playground; photos show
cars parked with people coming out to fish and enjoy the view; inquired whether the area is part
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,8,"of Option 2 and allows cars to come out for people to fish.
The Public Works Director responded Option 2 keeps the area accessible for vehicles.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is not sure how wide the space is; the space
will often have multiple cars on the weekends; people use canopies for shade and have chairs
to enjoy the shoreline; she would like to speak for the law-abiding citizens that hang out and
enjoy the Bay; there will be less Bay access for cars; she supports DePave Park; however,
people should have access via cars in the meantime; accessing the area is very long to walk
while carrying items; she would like Council to come up with a way to allow law-abiding citizens
to congregate and enjoy the space; she thinks the area is insufficient; she would like a ""U""
shape large enough for cars; she is fine with blocking off more of the middle area; more speed
bumps to slow traffic should be considered; she disagrees that people will perform doughnuts
over speed bumps; she believes speed bumps work in deterring and slowing traffic; she has
seen car shows down other long streets; the issue is present Citywide; she needs staff to be
willing to help figure out how to address the criminal behavior as well as support law-abiding
citizens who want to enjoy the bay; the ""U"" shape would be a better solution; expressed support
for the USSH; stated that she would like to work with the USSH on fencing to try and
accommodate shows and events; the biggest event at Alameda Point is the Antiques Faire
which has a lot of cars; expressed support trash cans and bathroom facilities in the area;
expressed concern about overreaching and not addressing the problem; stated the goal to slow
down cars is different from cordoning off large areas and not allowing access.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification whether Option 2 would provide vehicle access and
parking for Building 25 customers and allow vehicle access to the southern-most shoreline;
inquired whether the photos show the southern-most shoreline.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated Option 2 would continue to allow
vehicle access to just the southern portion, but not the full length of the eastern portion.
Councilmember Daysog stated for West Enders traumatized by sideshows and reckless driving,
the message that help is on the way is clear; he supports all of the staff recommendations; he
thinks the issues of barriers and speed bumps raised by Councilmember Herrera Spencer might
help slow down speeding in the area; speed bumps could be placed outside of the USSH as
well; the staff recommendation will go a long way in addressing the underlying causes of
reckless driving; the large open areas allow people to hold massive sideshows.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the visuals from the presentation help the discussion; she wants to
preserve bicycle and pedestrian access; more needs to be done to limit vehicle access; a
number of areas are still left completely open; she does not think additional speed bumps will be
helpful; the City can add things in along the way; however, if the City does not block off larger
spaces, problems of sideshows and large gatherings will still arise at Alameda Point; expressed
support for Option 2, which will offer more protections for the City; many people call related to
events at Alameda Point; APD is doing what it can to enforce the area; it is difficult for APD to
be in all places at all times; mitigation efforts through design will make a difference.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has asked herself the advantages and disadvantages of
auto-oriented events at Alameda Point; the Antiques by the Bay Faire is contributing to the City
by way of sales tax and also causes traffic; the Antiques Faire coincides with the spontaneous,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,9,"non-sanctioned events organized via social media which can create havoc for safety and trying
to get on and off the Island; outlined correspondence and comments received from residents of
the area being terrorized by not being able to safely cross the street or ride a bicycle; stated
unsanctioned gatherings of autos are not paying any revenue; many times litter and human
waste is left behind; cars also spew particulate matter into the atmosphere while the City is
struggling to get greenhouse gas emissions under control; the events interfere with existing
businesses at Alameda Point; visitors cannot get to the buildings; she has been to many USSH
events; she struggles to see the connection to the USSH and permitting auto-related events of
up to 1,000 autos; she thinks the events send the wrong message about Alameda Point being a
great place for open space to perform reckless driving; she wants to support the USSH;
however, she does not want to support it by allowing up to 1,000 autos; automobiles are
clogging streets and causing traffic; she would like to work to help support and market different
events other than cars; expressed support for the staff recommendation of restricting or
eliminating Use Permits; stated that she would like to eliminate Use Permits authorizing large
scale automobile oriented events in order to minimize noise, speeding and emission risks
associated with the events; expressed support for implementing Option 2, for implementing the
West Hornet fence option and for working with the USSH while events are occurring to ensure
visitors have good parking options; stated that she would like to leave the wheel stops in place;
it is time to listen to residents and businesses being impacted at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation with the addition of
having staff consider speed bumps as the situation warrants along the path towards the areas
depicted in the photos.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated Option 1 would restrict or eliminate Use
Permits authorizing large-scale automobile or car events; he would be okay with eliminating Use
Permits with the exception of maintaining the existing contract held with USSH which allows
maintaining a certain number of events.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is amenable to the additions to
the motion proposed by Councilmember Knox White.
Councilmember Daysog responded that he is okay with the addition; inquired whether the
addition would affect Antiques by the Bay, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in
the negative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thinks a permit allowing up to 1,000 vehicles is too many
and she would like to see the number reduced.
Councilmember Daysog stated the reduction seems fair; inquired the amount desired.
Councilmember Knox White stated that there has not been an issue with the USSH; he is
concerned about bumping up against the issue of the USSH trying to find ways to stay solid; he
would rather address the amount of vehicles later on if it becomes an issue; Council is taking a
major steps; he does not see the need to limit the number when staff is working with USSH to
approve appropriate auto-oriented shows to ensure events are thematic, not sideshow.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
8",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,10,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the impact of 1,000 vehicles is significant.
Councilmember Daysog requested staff provide input related to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's
comments.
The Planning, Building and Transportation stated the current Use Permit for the USSH allows
up to 4 car-oriented events per year and limits the events to 75 military and/or antique cars 50
years or older; the Use Permit is set up by treating the USSH as a museum and event space; a
special event permit is only needed when 1,000 people or more are anticipated in order for staff
to warn Police, Public Works and other departments as needed; an additional limitation is set
when the special event is for a car show.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the information provided by staff and for the motion
on the table.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not support the motion; it is unfortunate
that Council is doing an overreach and not doing more to slow down the problem; people have a
right to park their cars and talk to other people; she is concerned about trying to eliminate
congregating.
Councilmember Daysog stated his understanding of Option 2 is that people can still drive down
the road to the end where photos depicted people fishing.
The Public Works Director stated the understanding is correct; her use of the term congregate is
related to the large number of vehicles, not shoreline access by individuals; the large,
unpermitted events relate to the term congregate.
Councilmember Knox White stated there is no prohibition on congregating; there are 846 acres
where people can park their cars next to each other and congregate; the City is trying to
address some large areas that have attracted huge and illegal sideshows which are causing
significant problems; he does not want people to think Council is keeping people from parking or
driving at Alameda Point.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(21-659) Recommendation to Adopt the City Facilities and Street Naming Policy.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council will be involved with the development of
criteria.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated as-written, Council is not
involved in determining the criteria; new facility names start at the Board or Commission level
and Council determines the final, deciding vote; the process starts with the Council deciding
whether or not to rename; the criteria is determined at the Board or Commission level.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,11,"Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a Councilmember is prohibited from expressing hopes
for criteria during the renaming process.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the hopes for criteria
could be included in the motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated the recommendation includes maintaining the list of potential
names; and also includes not using the list; requested clarification for the rationale of having a
list which has no use.
In response to the Recreation and Parks Director's inquiry, Councilmember Knox White stated
that he thinks the reference was noted in the staff report and recommended by the Historical
Advisory Board (HAB).
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the HAB will no longer have a list and it is not
included in the new policy; the Recreation and Parks Commission has expressed an interest in
the list of names established through the Chochenyo Park naming process; a lot of work has
been put into the community process; the Recreation and Parks Commission did not want to
discard the remaining names in the event another park naming process occurs; the list will be
included in a community process once the criteria is determined; the staff report reflects an
intention to not throw out any previous community work.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted page two of the staff report references keeping the list of names for
future reference only.
Councilmember Knox White stated the section was likely conflated with the list referenced by
the Recreation and Parks Director.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated her understanding of the proposed draft policy is that
all costs associated with renaming such street shall be borne by the new property owner if a
street is named after a business and the business leaves.
The City Planner stated the corporate street naming criteria is not being modified; a new
business or property owner will be responsible for naming the street if the prior business the
street is names after leaves.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Council should look at what can be done; inquired
whether public outreach meetings will be noticed to ensure members of the Council and public
can attend.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded all four of the steps are at the Board and
Commission level and will be required to be noticed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how the City knows that signers of a street name
petition are actual residents of Alameda and whether all ages can sign the petition; further
inquired what the process looks like.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded staff does not have a way to verify signers;
emphasized the amount of public outreach; stated public hearings will ensure voices are heard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
10",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,12,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there are costs for homeowners to change legal
documents to reflect the current name of the street; inquired whether the City would assist with
costs.
The City Planner responded there is a fee for filing the application; stated once Council
approves the street naming, there will be time and logistic costs for residents of the street to
change their mailing address and work with the Post Office.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated legal documents must also be changed, not just the
mailing address.
The City Planner stated some processes might involve costs; the costs are a key consideration;
staff has reached out to other cities with similar processes and received advice not to
underestimate the costs of changing a street name.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like more information about the legal
document costs at some point.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Planning Board process includes applying a tiered system; two
thirds of residents could veto a name change on their street; requested clarification.
The City Planner stated the idea behind the tiered system is for a relatively short street; there
are streets in Alameda which only have 10 homes; a majority of homes would be 6 property
owners; 500 signers on a long street might not be proportional to obtaining a majority; the
approach is based on giving more weight to residents living on the street; the proposed
approaches are variations on what Council might want to establish as a threshold.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the staff report references an application process for renaming
facilities and streets; inquired whether the process will be criteria or subjective based or whether
staff will bring a report to Council.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the policy does not create criteria for whether or
not a facility will be renamed; stated staff will take the information from the application process,
perform due diligence and bring the proposed change to Council; the process might be different
for any particular name.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the draft policy and procedures state: ""the intent of broad outreach
and notification is to involve a more diverse group of stakeholders in the community, including
residents who are historically under-represented in City public discussions;"" inquired the
residents envisioned for the outlined section.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated more people are attending Council meetings now with
Zoom; there are many underrepresented people, including people of color, disadvantaged, low-
income and youth residents; the intent of the sentence is to include people who do not know
how to or choose not to be involved with the bureaucracy of public discussions; there is more
that can be done and learned about in performing outreach and getting information out to
people for active engagement on important issues.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,13,"Stated that he submitted a letter; expressed support for the work of the Recreation and Parks
Department staff; stated costs should be subsidized; renaming Jackson Park was relatively
inexpensive and was a moral imperative; discussed the City's participation in the Shuumi Land
Tax; stated the next step after acknowledging the role of colonialism and white supremacy is to
take substantive steps to start to materially repair the harm done to people in the community;
the issues are not fringe or boutique concerns; the decision between tacit acceptance or active
rejection is fundamental to the collective conscience and the identity as a diverse, inclusive
community on the right side of history; the circle of concern extends beyond the residents of a
street; the concern is for all in the community; actions taken should make people whole: Josh
Geyer, Alameda.
Recommended the City include a financial outlook plan as part of the consideration to allow
homeowners to understand potential financial impacts; the City can offer support if costs are
more than nominal: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Discussed the imposition of moral imperatives and justice; stated the issue is for the entire City;
name changes are not urgent and should be placed on the ballot for a vote; the approach is
more equitable; he does not see why a handful of ideologues should be calling the shots: Jay
Garfinkle, Alameda.
Stated the City is discussing a finite list of street and park names, which are concerning;
discussed a Planning Board meeting discussion about renaming a long street, concerns about
Jackson Street and Jackson and Godfrey Parks and the process of naming Chochenyo Park;
urged Council adopt the process to conduct renaming on an ongoing basis and focus on the
three potential renaming efforts as opportunities to address concerns: Drew Dara-Abrams,
Alameda.
Stated a transition of a name change for someone includes the street name in their will, legal
documents, driver license and mail; expressed concern about her elderly neighbor; stated that
she understands changing park names; renaming streets can be a large toll on individuals:
Megan Larson, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella stated a lot of time has been spent discussing the naming and renaming
processes; a process is being created to get street names on a list; not having enough names
has been an issue; the process has been bureaucratic, which is unnecessary and cumbersome;
Council is also balancing having an accessible process; she has learned a lot about naming in
her time on the City Council and HAB; much effort has been put into the matter; she is
comfortable with the process developed; she hears concerns about the expenses related to
renaming; however, the concerns are reasonably addressed by the public process.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council is not creating a new opportunity to rename streets;
Council is clarifying a process; Council is deciding how to ensure people are plugged into the
process; the item that jumps out to him is the focus on property owners, instead of residents;
Alameda has 52% renters; renters voices are just as important as the people that live out of
town; the majority of rental units are owned by people who do not live in Alameda; ensuring
local input should include renters, not just property owners; expressed support changing the
policy; stated the corporate naming makes the street essentially become a privately named
road; the business should pay for the maintenance to the named street; branding public streets
should not be City business; expressed concern about businesses named after a person;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,14,"questioned whether Council will place a person's name on a street supporting the business, not
the individual person; stated Council should allow for wiggle room; the policy is great and carries
forward a lot of discussions held at both the Council and Boards/Commissions levels; there are
already two requests for naming which have met the criteria set; the alternatives include
providing direction to form an ad hoc committee to discuss street names; expressed support for
Council providing direction to move Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street renaming forward through
the process; stated the time is now; the change from Jackson Park to Chochenyo Park was a
two and a half year process; Council should not have to wait for moments of community uproar
to take on some issues; Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street are two good examples where the
community has stood up; after the new policy is adopted, he hopes Council can provide
direction to bring the names back for discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to include both residents and
property owners in regards to collection of 50% plus one signature; she agrees with
Councilmember Knox White about the corporate street naming having the corporation maintain
the named street; she thinks the corporation should include enough money so that any
departure on the business' part should not include costs borne by the new business entity to
remove the former company name; Council has received an email about using the name of a
deceased person after three years; stated that she would prefer ten years; expressed support
for ways to reimburse property owners for costs of changing legal documents related to street
name changes; stated owners could submit the actual costs to the City for reimbursement; the
changes could be expensive.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is struck by, and appreciative of, the importance
of
having Council start the conversation of renaming streets or facilities; the criteria for Chochenyo
Park caused him to vote no on the matter; there could be other criteria to consider; a portion of
the criteria considered is racial diversity; expressed support for the community being more equal
and representative; he feels as though staff has included responses to concerns previously
raised; he sees the process in which ideologues on the far left, right or center cannot hijack it;
expressed support for Council being involved from the beginning to the end of the process in
renaming of streets; stated it is important to analyze the cost implications for property owners;
he would like to know the costs that will be borne to change mortgage and related documents;
renaming streets should include understanding and analyzing associated costs; expressed
supporting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she likes everything that has been recommended and laid out;
Council needs to have more information about private companies naming a street; discussed a
prior issue with the Penumbra request since the business is located on multiple streets; stated
Postal Carriers were confused about where to deliver mail; the United States Postal Service
(USPS) asked the City whether it would be possible to have the main corporate building be set
as 1 Penumbra Way; she worked with the Building Official and the USPS Postmaster for
Alameda to make the change; she does not know whether the address change should require
paying for street maintenance; expressed support for staff looking into the implications; stated
the maintenance requirement might be a quantum leap above naming a street after a business;
an effective process has been laid out; she would like to see the process adopted and followed;
she is hesitant to put together an ad hoc committee for renaming Jackson Street and Godfrey
Park; Jackson Street and Godfrey Park can be moved to the top of the queue while using the
adopted process; she does not think someone needs to be deceased for ten years to consider
using their name; three years seems like a reasonable time frame.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,15,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Councilmember Knox White's street renaming
recommendation of having resident-only signatories gets rid of the option to have 50% plus 1 of
property owners or 500 resident signatories; inquired whether Councilmember Knox White is
amenable to the option of having either.
Councilmember Knox White responded that he is okay with having the option; stated there is
benefit to having 50% of the street concurring, which gets to the concern of people impacted by
the name change; people affected by the change can sign-off on beginning the process;
expressed concern about the requirement of 500 signatures approving the change when the
signatories might not live on the street.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like clarification that the 50% plus 1 signatories of
property owners would not be eliminated; inquired whether 500 Alameda resident signatories
must include a certain percentage of street residents.
Councilmember Knox White stated the 50% plus 1 signatories are not property owners, but
people who live on the street to be renamed; expressed concern about property owners living in
Southern California not knowing the City; stated there are large corporate land owners with
hundreds of units in Alameda; questioned whether Council should allow large corporations to
vote on the matter; stated that he would rather consider the residents of the street; the intention
is to make sure that the people living on the street have an opportunity to say whether or not
they would like the change.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how Council will determine that the 500 Alameda signatories are
actual residents.
The City Planner responded staff has looked into the issue; stated initially, staff's approach was
directed towards property owners due to having good property owner data; staff does not have
good data on tenants, especially new tenants; based on input from Boards, Commissions and
members of the public, staff added the possibility of either 50% plus 1 of property owners and
residents or at least 500 Alameda resident signatures; petitions should include a name and
address; staff does not have very good data to verify all 500 signers are actual Alameda
residents or residents of the street in question; the signature requirements are a threshold to
initiate the conversation; when staff schedules the hearing before the City Council, staff will
formally notify the residents and occupants of the street to be renamed.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is okay with either the 50% plus 1 resident property
owners or 500 Alameda resident signatures; the corporate name issue can include the City
waiving fees in the future; Council should be careful not to start down a road where corporations
name City streets.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the petition with 500 signatures will be required to be
a paper petition or whether the signatures can be electronic.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded there is no requirements for the signatures;
stated the signatures can be paper, electronic or a combination of both.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated her understanding of the 500 signatures is there is no
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
14",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,16,"way to verify signers are residents of Alameda; inquired whether staff will be asking for name
and address within the City in order to verify and confirm residency.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the policy stipulates the signatures need to be
500 Alameda residents; stated a petition turned in with 500 random names and no addresses
will be rejected due to non-compliance.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated when a company with a street named after it leaves,
the City could waive fees for the new company; she does not think it is appropriate for a new
company to pay to change the street name; the City has companies of all sizes which come and
go.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the process for verification of the 500 signatures; noted some
instances only require a portion or sample of the signatures be verified.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the process is to be determined; stated staff does
not have a method outlined in the policy; the petition is not being considered on the same level
as an election; the petition is the start of a conversation that would include a five-step publically
noticed discussion where the public can make their voices heard.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation with a change to the
corporate street naming criteria to collect funds to pay for future renaming if the company moves
off the street and direction to staff to work with the submitters of the two petitions having over
500 signatures to begin the process to submit an application for Council consideration for
Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street would go through the
process recommended by staff, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the 500 signatures should
be residents of Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White responded the signers need to make a best effort of having
Alameda residents; stated the signatures are not for a ballot measure; City staff does not need
to call and verify residency of the 500 people; he accepts at face value that the signers live in
Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the reimbursement for costs on a street
renaming has been addressed.
Councilmember Knox White responded the reimbursement is not part of the policy; stated
reimbursement can be part of the discussion when the matter comes forward.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would rather not have the two renaming additions
included in the motion; discussed qualifying signatures; stated a signature with no address is
not valid; he is still able to move support the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,17,"On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:48 p.m.
***
(21-660) Recommendation to Support County of Alameda Participation in an Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing District in Support of the Oakland Athletics Stadium at Howard
Terminal. Not heard.
(21-661) Resolution No. 15829, ""Authorizing the Issuance of One or More Series of Pension
Obligation Bonds (POB) to Refinance Outstanding Obligations of the City to the California
Public Employees' Retirement System, Authorizing the Initiation of a Judicial Validation Action
by the City Attorney, and Approving and Directing Related Matters."" Adopted.
Julio Morales, Urban Futures, Inc. (UFI) gave a PowerPoint presentation.
(21-662) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to allow additional time; inquired how
much time is needed.
Mr. Morales responded 2 to 3 minutes.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested 5 additional minutes.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing 5 additional minutes.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
Mr. Morales concluded the PowerPoint presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that Mr. Morales is a consultant for the City; inquired
how much Mr. Morales has been paid to date, plus any issuance additional costs; questioned
the structure of payments to Mr. Morales.
The City Manager responded the pension analysis has cost $32,000.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a second portion to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's
inquiry related to issuance.
The City Manager stated an issuance will require a financial advisor with a flat fee of $90,000 to
$100,000.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 19, 2021
16",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-19,18,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the $32,000 has been in full.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the cost does not include the financial
planning from earlier in the year.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be additional costs paid to Mr.
Morales or UFI for the next step in approvals or whether the $32,000 covers the next step.
The City Attorney responded the validation action is a legal action; the associated legal fees
have been shared confidentially in Closed Session and is subject to attorney-client privilege with
respect to legal fees; the legal fees do not cover Mr. Morales' fees.
Mr. Morales stated the services provided to-date include what is needed to validate; fees are
covered in the quote provided by staff.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether multiple issuances of the bond over 20 years
could occur and whether additional costs will be paid to UFI.
Mr. Morales responded each time a bond financing occurs, fees are incurred; the City would pay
firm staff, lawyers, financial advisors and underwriters for each transaction.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many transactions are anticipated and the
estimated total cost at the end of 20 years.
Mr. Morales responded typically, one bond is issued with a 20 year timeline; stated often there
is an opportunity to refinance for cost savings within a 10 year period; the process is similar to a
mortgage being refinanced in time; at least one transaction, possibly two, is a reasonable
estimate.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the dollar amount for each transaction.
Mr. Morales responded the current market value is $90,000 to $100,000; stated that he
anticipates the cost would go up in 10 years due to inflation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council will be hearing from the City's
elected Auditor and Treasurer.
The City Manager responded that he has had discussion the with City Treasurer about
involvement moving forward; noted the City Treasurer has his hand raised for public comment.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City Treasurer and Auditor are being
allowed three minutes to speak or whether they will be treated as a paid consultant.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the meeting will proceed as usual, according to Council rules; stated
a vote to extend speaking time can occur; however, four affirmative votes are needed.
Councilmember Daysog requested each of the consultants provide personal background and
certification information.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-05-12,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-MAY - 12, 2020- -2:00 P.M.
(20-307) A special meeting was called to allow the City Council to attend the Alameda
Business Community's Town Hall: Tuesdays at 2 pm.
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 12, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-01-14,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY- - - JANUARY 14, 2013- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(13-013) Proclamation Recognizing T. David Edwards for over 25 Years of Excellent
Service on the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Board.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Mr. Edwards.
(13-014) The City Attorney introduced the new Assistant City Attorney, Alan Cohen.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(13-015) Jon Spangler, Alameda, discussed the lawsuit filed by East Bay Regional Park
District.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that the resolutions regarding alternate and reduce work
time options [paragraph no 13.-024 were removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*13-016) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on December 11, 2012;
and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on December 18, 2012.
Approved.
(*13-017) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,305,239.49.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 14, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-01-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-01-14,2,"(*13-018) Recommendation to Approve a Contract with David Sams for Management of
Golf Course Improvements. Accepted.
(*13-019) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Ranger Pipelines, Inc. for Cyclic
Sewer Repair Project, Phase 9, No. P.W. 03-11-05. Accepted.
(*13-020) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Fort Bragg Electric, Inc. for the
Dublin Sewer Pump Station Backup Generator Installation Project, No. P.W. 04-10-10.
Accepted.
(*13-021) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Mountain Cascade, Inc. for the
Upgrade of the City of Alameda Sewer Pump Stations, Bay Farm Island Pump Station
Rehabilitation, No. P.W. 12-10-35. Accepted.
(*13-022) Recommendation to Allocate $29,120 in Contingencies and Award a Contract
in the Amount of $194,280 to Harris & Associates for Engineering Consulting Services
Related to Alameda Landing. Accepted.
(*13-023) Resolution No. 14761, ""Appointing Ryan Clausnitzer as Trustee to the
Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Board."" Adopted.
(13-024) Adoption of Resolution to Establish an Alternate Work Arrangement Policy.
Not adopted; and
(13-024 A) Adoption of Resolution to Establish a Reduced Work Time Option Policy.'
Not adopted.
The Human Resource Director gave a brief presentation.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Senior Management Analyst
responded employees would have the two-thirds and three-quarters options because
PERS health requires employees to work a minimum of 20 hours per week; if the
employee has a 36-hour work week, reduction to 50% would be 18 hours, which does
not meet the PERS healthcare requirement.
Councilmember Tam inquired if a 40-hour work week reduced by 50% would meet the
PERS requirement of 20 hours, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam stated the reason Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exempt
employees get administrative days and additional compensation is because they do
not get overtime; she struggles considering the benefit for FLSA exempt employees
versus hourly employees; if an FLSA employee wants to work two-thirds or three-
quarters, or even 50%, succession planning and promotional opportunities would be
beneficial.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 14, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-01-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-01-14,3,"The Senior Management Analyst stated the City would not be prevented from
assigning employees to different type of work; the City would still have flexibility to to
assign employees to particular projects or programs.
Councilmember Tam inquired if another employee within the same department, but
different classification, would have the opportunity to take on some of the projects of
an FLSA employees who decides to reduce to two-thirds time.
The Senior Management Analyst responded the City would retain the right to assign
employees to various work; stated if work not being covered by the employee on the
alternate work arrangement could be reassigned to another employee, provided it is
within the employee's classification and job responsibilities.
The City Manager stated the policy is intended to provide more flexibility for the
employees; the City wants to accommodate the reduced work schedule to keep from
losing the employee's talent, experience, and institutional memory.
Mayor Gilmore inquired if the policy would require the City to allow an employee not
included in a protected category to go to three-quarter time.
The Senior Management Analyst responded in the negative; stated the request has to
be approved by the Department Head and City Manager after review by Human
Resources.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether an employee doing the work of a reduced-time
employee would be promoted before the reduced-time employee if the City needs
somebody in the position.
The City Manager responded in the negative; stated that if the City needs somebody
in the position full time, the person would not have been granted a reduced schedule.
Mayor Gilmore stated said scenario assumes needs stay static, which is not the case.
The City Manager stated an alternative work arrangement is not intended to be a
permanent arrangement.
The Human Resources Director stated the person would have the right to return to full
time.
Mayor Gilmore inquired if there is a specified time frame, to which the Senior
Management Analyst responded in the affirmative; stated reduced schedules can be
for no more than the one fiscal year and cannot go on in perpetuity; the employee
would have to submit an application for each fiscal year.
The City Manager stated the reduced schedule can be for less than one fiscal year,
not longer.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 14, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-01-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-01-14,4,"Councilmember Tam stated the issue is about job sharing and creating succession
planning; an employee on half-time can share the job with another person who
happens to have a lot of potential.
The City Manager stated the policy protects the person on the reduced hours;
succession planning is a separate issue because the policy is an option, not a right.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would limit the number of
employees who could be on an alternative work arrangement at one time.
The City Manager responded circumstances would differ depending on a department's
workload.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Manager stated approval
of a reduced time request is on a case-by-case basis and is entirely at the City's
discretion.
Councilmember Chen inquired if anyone can apply for the reduced work schedule, to
which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative; stated applying is
voluntary and each department examines the issues the request creates.
Councilmember Chen inquired if losing one employee to the reduced schedule would
cause efficiency issues, to which the Human Resources Director responded the City
could always deny the request.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the City Manager responded the policy
does not create a right or an entitlement; the City would only approve requests which
serve the City and the employee.
Councilmember Chen stated that he was still not comfortable with not setting criteria
about who can apply; there has to be a valid reason for an employee to work reduced
hours, such as taking care of a sick baby or senior, or some other valid reason.
Councilmember Tam stated policies are in place; noted a previous City Attorney
requested part time and ended up working for another city; inquired whether there are
outside employment restrictions.
The Senior Management Analyst responded all employees with outside employment
are required to submit an application; stated the City's approval process is driven by
the City's needs.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether other cities have a similar reduced work
policy in place, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in the affirmative;
stated other cities have prorated benefits for part-time employees but Alameda does
not.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 14, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-01-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-01-14,5,"Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City has regular part-time
employees that work more than 20 hours, to which the Senior Management Analyst
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Gilmore noted if the policy is approved, regular employees working 20 hours
will receive benefits, while part-time employees working more than 20 hours would not
receive benefits.
The Senior Management Analyst noted the program is only available for non-sworn,
regular employees who have passed probation; the full time employees seeking the
reduced work hours have all been through the civil service process to be appointed.
Councilmember Chen stated that he is very supportive of accommodating staff needs
but cannot support the work arrangement as written because there is no defined
criteria and there is not limit on the number of employees who can be on the program
at the same time; his concern is efficiency in each department.
On the call for the question, the motion FAILED by the following voice vote Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog and Ezzy Ashcraft - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Chen, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 3.
Mayor Gilmore requested staff to make revisions and bring the matter back.
The City Manager requested direction on what areas the Council wants staff to
change.
Mayor Gilmore stated that staff should address the issue of different treatment;
requested an illustrative list of activities that would be considered if an employee
wants reduced work hours.
(*13-025) Resolution No. 14762, ""Approving an Amendment to the Alameda City
Employees Association Salary Schedule for Early Morning Street Sweeper."" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(13-026) Resolution No. 14763, ""Approving a Complete Streets Policy, in Accordance
With Requirements from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Alameda
County Transportation Commission."" Adopted.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 14, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-01-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-01-14,6,"Stated the City was ahead of other cities in implementing policies; urged adoption: Jon
Spangler, Alameda.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
(13-027) Recommendation to Approve the Revised Draft Prioritized Transportation
Project Lists.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Chen left the dais at 7:56 p.m. and returned at 7:58 p.m.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding public participation and acceptance,
the Public Works Director responded there are two mechanisms: 1) the annual review
would be publicized and provide the public an opportunity to give feedback, and 2) grant
applications require a collaborative public outreach process.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested an explanation of the lifeline project designation.
The Public Works Director stated lifeline terminology is used by CalTrans for bridge
structures identified as usable after a credible, sizable seismic event; none of Alameda's
bridges currently meet said criteria.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested an explanation of the ""Estuary Crossing Minor
Modifications to the tube"" project.
The Public Works Director stated several years ago the City went through a feasibility
study for improving the estuary crossing for the Posey and Webster Tubes; several
different alternatives, the short term and long term were identified; Council accepted the
short term alternative and the City has worked with Caltrans; the intent is to bow the
railing on the West side of the bike lane to widen it; the long term option is to provide a
separate facility for bikes and pedestrians and to make sure that transit is
accommodated.
Stated the list is good and will continue to improve; urged approval: Jon Spangler,
Alameda.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 14, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-01-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-01-14,7,"CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(13-028) The City Manager encouraged feedback on the City's new website; and
announced meetings are being held on the Alameda Beltline.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(13-029)
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(13-030) Discussion of Mayor's Appointments to Outside Agencies.
The Deputy City Manager provided a handout and gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore appointed Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft to serve on the Alameda County
Transportation Commission (ACTC) and selected Councilmember Chen as the ACTC
alternate; selected Councilmember Daysog as the alternate for the AC Transit Inter-
Agency Liaison Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 14, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-01-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-01-14,8,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION (SACIC) OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA MEETING
MONDAY--JANUARY - 14, 2013- 6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers / Commissioners Chen, Daysog,
Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(13-011 CC/13-003 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, City of Alameda
Financing Authority, and SACIC Meeting Held on December 18, 2012. Approved.
(13-004 SACIC) Recommendation to Approve a Form of Gas Pipeline Easement
Agreement between the Northern California Power Association and the Successor
Agency to the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda for a
Portion of a Gas Pipeline at the Former Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Authorize the
City Manager to Execute the Agreement; and
(13-012 CC) Recommendation to Approve a Form of Gas Pipeline Easement
Agreement between the Northern California Power Association and the City of Alameda
for a Portion of a Gas Pipeline at the Former Fleet Industrial Supply Center and
Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:07
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
January 14, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-01-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-09-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY--SEPTEMBER 7, 2011--7:01 - P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:24 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
Public Comment
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated PSBA would like to see the Acting
City Attorney made permanent.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(11-427) Public Employment - (54957); Title: City Attorney
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that the City Council gave direction to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,1,"358
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - SEPTEMBER 1, 2015- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 7:01 p.m. and
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 7:02 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(15-496) The City Manager suggested the Wetlands Bank matter [paragraph no. 15-
526 be heard on October 6th
Mayor Spencer pulled the CSG Consulting Agreement item [paragraph no. 15-505 for
discussion.
Councilmember Daysog pulled the Quarterly Sales Tax Report item [paragraph no. 15-
502] for discussion
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the Sunshine Ordinance amendments
[paragraph no. 15-521 be heard at the end of the regular agenda.
Mayor Spencer summarized the changes, including the items removed from the
Consent Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(15-497) Proclamation Declaring September 1, 2015 as Housing Authority Appreciation
Day for 75 Years of Service to Lower Income Alameda Residents.
Mayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to the Housing Authority Executive
Director and Art Kurrasch and John McCahan, Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners.
(15-498) Proclamation Declaring September 1, 2015 as Alameda Fights Back Day to
Promote Awareness of the Fight Against Cancer and the Alameda Relay for Life.
Mayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Jess Nelson, Deanna Huie, and
Anne Marie Fourre, Relay for Life.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,2,"359
(15-499) Jim Hager, Alameda, discussed lighting concerns at Harbor Bay related to VF
Outdoors.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced the sales tax report [paragraph no. 15-502], the plan check
agreement [paragraph no. 15-505], and the ordinances regarding rents [paragraph nos.
15-516 and 15-517 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*15-500) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on July 7, 2015; the
Regular
City Council Meeting Held on July 16, 2015; and the Special and Regular City Council
Meetings Held on July 21, 2015. Approved.
(*15-501) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,938,594.14.
(15-502) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period
Ending June 30, 2015 Collected During the Period January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog commented on two of the top sales tax generators at the
Harbor Bay Business Park.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(*15-503) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ending June
30, 2015. Accepted. [330-50]
(*15-504) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Purchase
Agreement not to Exceed $130,452 for the Replacement of One Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Bus for the Paratransit Program. Accepted.
(15-505) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute an
Agreement with CSG Consulting Services for Professional Plan Check Services for a
12-Month Term in an Amount not to Exceed $300,000.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,3,"360
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated
25% of Alameda's projects are complicated and need to go to outside engineers for
plan check services; CSG Consulting is the same plan check service the Fire
Department uses; there is no impact to the General Fund; the position may be
underfilled with a plans examiner; Alameda has an efficient model in place based on
analysis.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City has engineers on staff, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the Planning
Department does not have a structural engineer.
Mayor Spencer stated she prefers to have one engineer as part of our staff, counter to
what the plan currently is; letters to the editor were sent regarding City engineers.
The Interim City Manager stated the letters to the editor were regarding Public Works
engineers, not Planning Department engineers.
The Community Development Director stated it is more efficient to have access to
multiple structural engineers during busy period; certified plans examiners are what is
needed internally.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4.
Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.
(*15-506) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Rosas Brothers Construction for the
Repair of Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, FY14-
15, Phase 15, No. P.W. 04-15-08. Accepted.
(*15-507) Recommendation to Award Three Separate Contracts in the Amount of
$75,000 Each (Total Expenditure of $225,000) to the Following Providers: Salas
O'Brien, YEI Engineers, Inc., and Schaaf & Wheeler, for On-Call Mechanical
Engineering Services. Accepted.
(*15-508) Recommendation to Award Three Separate Contracts in the Amount of
$75,000 Each (Total Expenditure of $225,000) to the Following Providers: Salas
O'Brien, YEI Engineers, Inc., and The Engineering Enterprise, for On-Call Electrical
Engineering Services. Accepted.
(*15-509) Recommendation to Amend the Term of the Contract for Brown Reynolds
Watford (BRW) Architects to Provide Professional Services for the Design, Construction
Documents, and Contract Management for the Emergency Operations Center/Fire
Station 3. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,4,"361
(*15-510) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount Not to Exceed $305,698
to AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for Containment, Off-Haul, Disposal, and Reporting
of Hazardous Soil at the Project Site of the Emergency Operation Center/Fire Station 3,
1809 Grand Street. Accepted.
(*15-511) Recommendation to Award Two Separate Three Year Contracts with up to
Two Optional Three Year Extensions to Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in an
Amount Not to Exceed $200,000 for City of Alameda Occupational Medical Services
and to Preferred Alliance, Inc., in an Amount Not to Exceed $30,000 for Drug Testing
Services
in Conjunction with Services Provided by Kaiser Permanente Medical Center (Total
Expenditure of $230,000). Accepted.
(*15-512) Resolution No. 15069, ""Amending the Electric Utility Professionals
of
Alameda (EUPA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classifications of Utility Analyst and
Utility Project Manager. Adopted.
(*15-513) Resolution No. 15070, ""Amending the City of Alameda Executive
Management (EXME) Compensation Plan to Eliminate the Classification of
Administrative Services Director."" Adopted; and
(15-513A) Resolution No. 15071, ""Approving Workforce Changes in the Human
Resources Department,"" Adopted.
(*15-514) Resolution No. 15072, ""Electing to be Subject to the Public Employees'
Medical and Hospital Care Act at an Equal Amount for Employees and Annuitants to
Include Non-Represented, Part-Time Employees into the CalPERS Public Employees
Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) Health Program Due to the Employer Shared
Responsibility Provision ""Pay or Play"" Rule of the Affordable Care Act ""ACA"". Adopted.
(*15-515) Resolution No. 15073, ""In Support of New Sustainable Funding for State and
Local Transportation Infrastructure by the State of California."" Adopted.
(15-516) Ordinance No. 3131, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Article XIV to Chapter VI Concerning the Review of Rent Increases.' Finally passed.
(15-517) Ordinance No. 3132, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Section 2-23 to Article II Concerning the Creation of a Rent Review Advisory Committee
(RRAC).' Finally passed.
Mayor Spencer requested the rent increases and RRAC ordinances be address
together.
Outlined her rent increases; urged Council to implement a law to protect residents: Ute,
Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,5,"362
Expressed concern over Alameda residents being displaced: Barbara Duncan,
Alameda.
Expressed concern over Section 6-56.10, which prevents landlords from implementing
rent increases for one year for failure to appear: Doug Smith, Rental Property Owner.
Outlined rent control benefits: Garfield Kincross, Alameda.
Outlined a suggestion to modify the ordinance which he submitted in a letter dated
August 13th: Steven Pahl, California Apartment Association.
Stated she is a retired teacher and had to have her daughter co-sign to get a lease in
Alameda; urged Council to find out what is working in other cities: Karen Wald,
Alameda.
Stated people with disabilities are greatly impacted and have a more difficult time
moving: Patricia Nash, Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC).
Stated that she would like to see an ordinance passed; the ordinance does not address
30 and 60 day notices to vacate; renters are concerned the ordinance will not do
enough; the conversation needs to continue: Angela Hockabout, ARC.
Stated people are being evicted so landlords can double rents: Jason Buckley,
Alameda.
Encouraged not taking a one size fits all approach; urged balance: Grover Rudolf.
Stated his apartment was just purchased and he just received notice of a 30 to 50% rent
increase; outlined his history of managing the property: Gary Barlow, Alameda.
Urged the Council to do something to address rent increases: Sawar and Lucia Tariq,
Alameda.
Submitted a letter; outlined his concerns with Section 6-56.10; urged the Section be
placed on hold and reviewed: John Sullivan, Alameda.
Outlined her recent rent increases; stated that she feels like she is being asked to leave:
Linda Weinstock, Alameda.
Read a letter on behalf of a real estate broker outlining concerns over rent increases:
Arminda Graca, Alameda.
Outlined the lifestyle changes she has had to make to pay her rent increases: Stephanie
Chenard, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,6,"363
Outlined a letter she received about her apartment building being purchased, including
new requirements to pay garbage, sewer and water; a 50% rent increase; and
renovations to her patio, but she does not have a patio; shared a picture of sewer back
up in her bathroom: Crystal Felder, Alameda.
Expressed support for the ordinance; stated the ordinance should go further and
landlords should be watched; reviewed correspondence submitted regarding the
agenda item: John Klein, Alameda.
Stated that she rents the unit she lives next to and would like some consideration given
to buildings under four units: Lisa Brown, Alameda.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the speakers gave emotional testimony;
requested a report at the end of the year on what other cities are doing to address the
rent increase problems.
The Community Development Director responded that staff will be looking at best
practices and impacts of rent increases and provide a report to Council.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he understands all the issues raised; housing is a
basic need; it is disappointing that the issue came to the Council and has taken 15
months to get going; there is a larger problem; apologized to tenants, stated the needle
is not moving to where it needs to be; landlords do not have to mediate, they just have
to show up; Council has not really done anything to stop egregious rent increases; there
is no teeth to the ordinance; if there is a bigger pattern of massive increases, the
Council will be forced to act; if citizens put something on the ballot, it will be far worse
than what is going on now.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated the rent
increase reports are alarming; it is not a level playing field; she is moved and impressed
with so many citizens; encouraged landlords to make a difference; agreed with Angela
Hockabaout that the ordinance is a ""good first step, but should not be the last"".
Councilmember Daysog stated the ordinance is a first step, and he would ultimately like
to take stronger steps; he would like to see specific language on just cause evictions
and a moratorium on rent increases; Alameda will lose the working class flavor if
something is not done; the rent increases is a crisis; he looks forward to passing the
ordinance, but also to specific action in the future.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated changes should be evaluated in the next six months; there
is no reason to delay as stories are getting worse; the Council has to protect citizens in
manner of fairness; he has heard that Santa Rosa is looking at rent control; Council has
to act fairly or there will be a ground swell of action.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,7,"364
Councilmember Daysog moved final passage of the first ordinance [adding Article XIV
to Chapter VI concerning the review of rent increases].
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated Council has received emails and other
communications about landlords using another tactic and charging utilities; inquired
whether utilities can be included in the definition of base rent.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated if changes are made
tonight, the ordinance would have to be reintroduced and have a second reading; the
report brought back in December could fine-tune the definition.
Mayor Spencer thanked Jeff Cambra and the people who participated in multiple
hearings; stated there is a change in the landscape; she has been renting the same
home for 16 years; the approach is trying to address all renters; encouraged review of
Costa Hawkins and for people to participate in the process.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved final passage of the ordinance creating the
RRAC.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 8:47 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:58 p.m.
and announced that the Sunshine Ordinance amendments [paragraph no. 15-521
would be continued to October 6th
***
(*15-518) Ordinance No. 3133, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Deleting
Section 25-2.4 Concerning the Accrual Of Sick Leave By Part Time Employees.' Finally
passed. [360-50]
(*15-519) Ordinance No. 3134, ""Approving and Authorizing an Option and Purchase
Agreement Between the City of Alameda and Alameda Housing Authority and
Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents."" Finally
passed. [NF: 600-30]
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(15-520) Resolution No. 15074, ""Appointing Arnold Brillinger as a Member of the
Commission on Disability Issues."" Adopted;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,8,"365
(15-520A) Resolution No. 15075, ""Reappointing Susan Deutsch as a Member of the
Commission on Disability Issues."" Adopted;
(15-520B) Resolution No. 15076, ""Appointing David Mitchell as a Member of the
Planning Board.' Adopted;
(15-520C) Resolution No. 15077, ""Appointing Sandy Sullivan as a Member of the
Planning Board.' Adopted;
(15-520D) Resolution No. 15078, ""Reappointing Daniel Hoy as a Member of the Public
Art Commission."" Adopted;
(15-520E) Resolution No. 15079, ""Appointing Ronald Limoges and as a Member of the
Recreation and Park Commission."" Adopted;
(15-520F) Resolution No. 15080, ""Appointing Adam Trujillo as a Member of the
Recreation and Park Commission."" Adopted;
(15-520G) Resolution No. 15081, ""Reappointing Chris Miley as a Member of the
Transportation Commission."" Adopted.
Read a letter she submitted regarding a Planning Board applicant: Dania Alvarez,
Alameda.
Expressed support for Dania Alvarez: Walt Jacobs, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the process for incumbents; outlined the history of incumbents
being reappointed; expressed support for Dania Alvarez: Lorre Zuppan, Planning Board.
Expressed appreciation for Dania Alvarez; discussed the process; urged the Council to
take ownership of making appointments: John Knox White, Planning Board.
Expressed support for Dania Alvarez: Larry Witte, Alameda.
Discussed past vacancies on the Planning Board; urged Council to keep Dania Alvarez
on the Planning Board: Krisoffer Koster, Planning Board.
Expressed his support for Dania Alvarez and expressed concern over previous Mayoral
appointees not being reappointed: Mike Henneberry, Planning Board.
Expressed support for Dania Alvarez and urged she be reappointed: Nancy Gordon,
Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he requested the Planning Board nominees be
present to answer questions for due diligence; moved adoption of the resolutions
appointing the members of the Commission on Disability Issues, Public Art
Commission, Recreation and Park Commission and Transportation Commission.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,9,"366
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to exclude the
Transportation Commission reappointment.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a motion on the floor and called for the
question.
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.
Councilmember Oddie asked questions of the two Planning Board applicants.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would have preferred Dania Alvarez to be
reappointed; asked a question of the Planning Board applicants.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft asked a question of Ms. Sullivan.
Mayor Spencer stated the questions reminded her why she nominated the Planning
Board applicants.
Vice Mayor Matarrese asked a question of the Planning Board applicants.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she has known Dania Alvarez a long time; she is
troubled that Ms. Alvarez is not being reappointed to the Planning Board and that Mayor
Spencer wants to appoint people who share her own political perspective; she would
want qualified individuals who would render objective decisions rather than voting the
way the Mayor would want them to in order to be reappointed; similar sentiments were
shared by members of the public and other board and commission members; she would
like the Mayor's decision to be reversed and reappoint Ms. Alvarez; failing that, Council
should make a careful decision about tonight's vote.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is distressed that Ms. Alvarez was not
reappointed; she has an independent voice; all other members of Planning Board
agreed that Ms. Alvarez should not be replaced; he appreciates all applicants;
presented options, including: appointing both nominees, choosing one only one
nominee, or rejecting both nominees.
Mayor Spencer stated that she appreciates Ms. Alvarez's service over two years; she
interviewed everyone who applied to the commission; she attends many board and
commission meetings, listens to the public, and tries to make very balanced
nominations; it is not true that she did not reappoint anyone from the prior
administration; Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's comment about choosing people based
on her political views is not true; applications are public information; she appreciates
that Councilmember Oddie asked questions of the two nominees, it reminded her why
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,10,"367
she nominated them; she stands by her nominations and hopes Council will support
her.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is saddened that Ms. Alvarez is not being
reappointed; the Charter is clear about the process; the Mayor chooses the nominees;
whether there is a political agenda or not, the consequence comes with the territory;
although he prefers Ms. Alvarez stay on the Planning Board, he is prepared to support
the Mayor's nominations.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated there has been good discussion regarding qualifications;
the nominees are qualified; he appreciates Councilmember Oddie's initiative to have the
public hear the nominees present themselves; he is confident the nominees can make
discretionary decisions on the Housing Element and Density Bonus; it is healthy to have
new faces on the Board and he would like to move forward.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolutions appointing Ms. Sullivan and
Mr. Mitchell.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded, the motion which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3.
Noes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 2.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Brillinger, Ms. Sullivan, Mr.
Mitchell and Mr. Miley.
(15-521) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending Various Sections of Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) in Chapter Il
(Administration) and Adding New Sections 2-90.3, 2-90.4 and 2-91.18 Concerning Local
Standards to Ensure Public Access to Public Meetings and Public Records. [Not heard.]
Following the 8:47 p.m. recess, Mayor Spencer announced the matter would be moved
to October 6, 2015.
(15-522) Summary: Review of 100-Room Hotel Development at the Harbor Bay
Business Park.
Public Hearing to Consider (1) an Appeal by UNITEHERE! Local 280 Challenging the
Planning Board's Approval of Final Development Plan and Design Review for
Construction of a 100-Room Hotel at 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway, (2) Mayor Spencer's
Call for Review of the Planning Board Action, and (3)
(15-522A) Resolution No. 15082, ""Upholding the Planning Board Resolution PB-15-16
Approving a Final Development Plan and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a
100-Room Hotel on the Harbor Bay Business Park Shoreline at 2350 Harbor Bay
Parkway (PLN14-0305)."" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,11,"368
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he was recusing himself and left the dais.
The City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the option for hotel parking is near Gardner
preschool, to which the City Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the lease radius is, to which the City Planner responded
1000 feet.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether it is possible to be stuck with an empty building
if the owner is unable to get a lease, to which the City Planner responded it is
theoretically possible; stated an easy fix is Council can change the condition so that the
trigger is building permit, not occupancy.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the disadvantages of a dedicated
asphalt lot will be discussed.
The City Planner responded the Planning Board took six months to approve the plan;
the issue of shared and permanent parking came up; the Planning Board determined
there was enough space on the site to not require another site to be paved over as
another lot.
Councilmember Oddie noted that neighbors are not yet aware there may be a parking
lot next to their homes; they may come to the Council with light pollution issues; inquired
what are the options to keep the project moving if Council does not choose a permanent
parking lot.
The City Planner responded that he recommends the Council direct staff to change the
condition on the parking plan; certain things need to happen before a building permit
can be issued: property purchase, parking lot design and lighting, anddesign review
approval; if there is no design review approval, the project would have to come back to
Council.
***
(15-523) Mayor Spencer announced a motion is needed to considering the remaining
agenda items.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the remaining items.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor
Spencer - 1.
***
The City Planner completed his presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,12,"369
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the project is directly on the water, to which the
Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated there is a pathway between
the structure and the water.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Planner stated the Balboa Park case is
important because the court stated the structure is surrounded by a park which is urban
use; in Alameda's case, the building is surrounded by business offices and an urban
park which is considered urban use.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the project is an appropriate exemption to CEQA, to
which the City Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the exemption would have applied to
the Hampton Inn, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many floors the Hampton Inn has, to which the Assistant
City Attorney responded that she does not know but will find out.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Planner stated the current project is a
five-story building at 63 feet and there are no other buildings in the area that are 63 feet;
the height limit for the project is 100 feet, which is in the zoning for the Harbor Bay
Business Park adopted in the early 1980's.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council could revisit the building height issue to which
the City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the development agreement
expires in 2019 and Council can address the height issue at that time.
Discussed issues that have been addressed with VF Outdoors; expressed concern over
the hotel impacts, including traffic, parking and lighting: Gary Thompson, Alameda.
Urged the appeal be rejected; outlined the need for the hotel: Kari Thompson, Chamber
of Commerce and Alameda resident.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated a reason
does not have to be specified when filing an appeal; stating a reason implies taking a
position on the project.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how would Councilmembers prepare to address
an appeal when they do not know the grounds for the appeal.
The Assistant City Attorney responded an appeal is different than calling something for
review; stated Unitehere! had a detailed letter when they filed their appeal.
The City Attorney stated it is a de novo review on a call for review, which means
anything can be addressed in the review.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,13,"370
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether other issues can be addressed that were not
brought up in the appeal.
The City Attorney responded there are two issues: an appeal by Unitehere on a specific
matter, and the call for review by the Mayor, which opens up the entire issue for review.
Expressed support for the project; discussed business travel: Robert Sanger, Marriott.
Expressed his support for the applicant; stated that he has experience and has not seen
parking be a problem: Chris Clark, Texas.
Stated meeting space is needed; Penumbra tells employees to use shuttles: Joy Bose,
Penumbra.
***
(15-524) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00
p.m.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor
Spencer - 1.
***
Stated that he submitted a letter and resolution from the Business Park Board;
discussed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Daniel Reidy, Harbor Bay
Business Park.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding CEQA, the City Planner stated a new
CEQA exemption was used on top of the EIR, which was backed by environmental
studies done this year.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the CEQA addresses traffic impacts, to which the City
Planner responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Planner stated staff determined the
traffic generated by the hotel would be much less than what was originally assumed to
be on the site and in the business park.
Expressed concern over jobs and the employer; discussed the reason for the appeal as
outlined in the letter from Corey Briggs: Ty Hudson, Appellant.
Stated the exemption is not being used appropriately; outlined concerns about the hotel:
Pat Lamborn, Alameda and UNITEHERE.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,14,"371
Expressed concern over appeal trying to use CEQA to stop the project; discussed
parking, building height and lighting; urged the project move forward: Michael
McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Outlined her positive experience as a union hotel worker; expressed concern over the
hotel not being union run: Maria Aguilar, UNITEHERE.
Expressed concern over traffic and hotel employees not having benefits, vacation, sick
and holiday pay: Melody Li, Alameda resident and UNITEHERE.
Discussed the quality of jobs at non-union hotels; expressed concern over parking;
questioned why the lease has not been secured: Wei-Ling Huber, UNITEHERE.
Outlined his concerns about the project, including the site being too small to
accommodate the hotel: Mike Henneberry, Alameda.
Stated the Association Board has concerns over the appeal, when the project complies
with the Planned Development and meets all requirements; the Bay Area Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC) approved the project: Joe Ernst, Harbor Bay
Business Park Association.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Planner stated the applicant
would not be able to open without a lease; staff has been assured that the applicant can
get the lease; if she has a problem, she should not build the hotel; staff has never
required an executed lease.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether light pollution would be an issue, to which the
City Planner responded in the negative; stated there is no lighted signage on top of the
hotel; a lighting plan will be submitted with building permits.
Teresa Ruiz, SB Architects, addressed the Council regarding lighting; stated a staff
member could do a final approval on site.
Mayor Spencer recommended bifurcating the two votes on the item.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of denying the appeal called on CEQA grounds.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated significant issues were raised regarding CEQA
which warrants more than an exemption; she does not support the City waiving
something very critical.
The Interim City Manager clarified the traffic analysis on the project was done in 2014.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,15,"372
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 3. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.
[Absent: Vice Mayor Matarrese - 1.]
Councilmember Oddie expressed that he would rather remand the matter back to the
Planning Board, but would support the motion in order to have conditions added.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution documenting the
Council action for 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway with the conditions or additional tasks that
Council has given staff to address.
The Interim City Manager stated the tasks should be included in the record.
Councilmember Oddie clarified the additional tasks include that the parking is resolved
either with a signed contingent lease or some other executable contract.
The City Planner stated the condition is there be an executed lease prior to building
permit.
Councilmember Oddie stated the lease would be for 24 hour lease parking or an
approved parking lot that has gone through the Design Review process.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified that her motion does not include paving over
something to just be a parking lot.
Councilmember Oddie stated Council should be clear a parking lot is not desired.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she means lease-shared parking.
Councilmember Oddie stated if it does not get approved, there is no project.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred; stated the ball is in the applicant's court.
Councilmember Oddie clarified the lighting issue is also included in the motion.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the applicant could return to Council if the
lease is not done, to which the City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the
applicant could ask Council to reconsider the motion.
The City Planner stated that he has been talking to the architect; the lighting has to be
reviewed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified what Council wanted addressed is avoiding the
impact on the neighbors.
The City Planner stated there is no need to uplight the building.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,16,"373
By consensus, on the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie 3. Noes: Mayor
Spencer - 1. [Absent: Vice Mayor Matarrese - 1.]
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 12:12 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:19 a.m.
(15-525) Public Hearing to Consider the Planning Board's Recommendation to Approve
a Vesting Tentative Map and Density Bonus Application to Permit Construction of 52
Units on a 2.78 Acre Parcel Located at 2100 Clement Avenue, and
(15-525A) Resolution No. 15083, ""Approving Vesting Tentative Map 10305 and Density
Bonus Application for the Development of 52 Homes on 2.78 Acres of Land at 2100
Clement Avenue."" Adopted. The Proposal is Categorically Exempt from Review Under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15332 Infill Development Projects.
The City Planner gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Spencer left the dais at 12:23 a.m. and returned at 12:24 a.m.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Planner stated the State
density bonus law is structured so that it is the applicant's choice regarding the
minimum inclusionary requirement; if the applicant wants a bonus or waiver, they could
choose to give more affordable and in which category they want; in Alameda's case, the
applicant chose to do very-low income which is a 20% bonus.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Planner stated the number of required
parking spaces is based on the number of units; there are two parking spaces, plus six
guest spaces, per unit.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether resident's could use their two-car garage for storage if
they only own one or no cars, to which the City Planner responded in the affirmative;
stated the language as it is currently written allows using the garage for storage, but not
for business offices or workshops, or living quarters.
Outlined changes made to improve the project; discussed changes in development;
urged approval of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) requiring cars be
parked in garages: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.
Discussed parking and urged CC&Rs included the parking requirement: Joseph
Woodard, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,17,"374
Stated the project has improved; expressed support for the addition of the CC&R
requirement: Andrew Warner, Applicant (City Ventures).
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding density bonus, Mr. Warner
responded a 1/2 mile radius walking distance to services shows the project is a great
place for density; the Chamber of Commerce and business association agreed to
having more houses in the project; there are great transportation opportunities; the
project area is where Alameda should have more density and City Ventures wanted to
get the most density as possible; the number of overall units was reduced from 58 to 52;
the Housing Element predicted 53 homes.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the breakdown of bedrooms are in the project, to which
Mr. Warner responded there are four homes that have two bedrooms each, and the rest
are a mix of three to four bedrooms.
The City Planner stated the parking code has existed and been in use in Alameda for a
long time; the code was not created specifically for the project; exceptions were not
made for the project.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there will be opportunities to park on
the Clement Street frontage, to which Mr. Warner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated he would like to address the neighbors' concerns about
keeping as many trees as possible, and keep the bike path all the way to Clement
Street.
The City Planner stated Council is not approving architecture or the final street tree plan
tonight; the Planning Board still has to do the public process and approvals at a future
meeting.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Mr. Warner responded the
affordable units will be interspersed throughout the development, and will look like the
market rate homes.
Discussed the CC&Rs requiring cars be parked in garages; discussed the importance of
enforcement: Ginni Dofflemyer, Alameda.
Expressed support for the development and the developer; outlined the need for
housing; urged approval: Helen Sause, Alameda Home Team.
Discussed the need for housing; expressed support for the project: Karen Bey,
Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,18,"375
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated what she likes about the project is that seven of
the 52 units are very affordable; the project will improve the neighborhood; she
applauds the work of the Planning Board and is prepared to support the project.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he wanted to make sure the language, as written, is
included in the conditions of approval of the tentative map; the project is a model for
Alameda; he likes the creation of open space and parking, and making the appearance
match the neighborhood; he is ready to support the project.
Councilmember Oddie concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese on all points and is
prepared to support the project.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is not ready to support project; more hard work
needs to be done.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Planner stated the final designs of
homes have not yet been approved.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the tentative map and density bonus
application with the condition of approval include the CC&Rs distributed at the meeting.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated her proposed changes are not being included.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3. Noes: Councilmember
Daysog and Mayor Spencer - 2.
(15-526) Response to City Council Referral Regarding a Possible Wetlands Mitigation
Bank at Alameda Point. Continued to October 6, 2015.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(15-527) The Interim City Manager announced the City's permit tracking system has
been linked to Zillow.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(15-528) Nicole Goehring, Associated Builders and Contractors, expressed concern
over Project Labor Agreements (PLA); invited Council to tour their training facility;
offered services if Council plans to include contractors in negotiations.
(15-529) Eric Christen, Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction, stated PLAs
contain discriminatory aspects which make it difficult for non-union workers and
contractors to bid on projects; urged Council to allow all workers to have a fair chance to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,19,"376
bid projects.
(15-530) Dania Alvarez, Alameda, submitted a letter in support of revising the Board
appointment process
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(15-531) Consider Directing the City Manager to Draft a Policy or Strategy to Increase
the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Above the Current Rate of 10%, with a Portion, or
All, of Revenues Attributable to the Rate Above the Original 10% Dedicated to Specified
Visitor-Serving Activities. (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.
(15-532) Consider Directing the City Manager to Draft Policies with Regard to AirBnb
and Related Temporary Lodging Activities in Residential Homes and Zoning Districts.
(Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.
(15-533) Consider Requesting an Update on Project Stabilization Agreements (PSA)
and Consider Providing Direction on the Priority, Deadline and Parameters of PSA for
Alameda Point and Public Works Projects. (Councilmember Oddie) Not heard.
(15-534) Consider Directing Staff to Review the City's Process for Board and
Commission Appointments. (Councilmember Oddie) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(15-535) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that Supervisor Wilma Chan will
host a conservation workshop on September 12th from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at
Alameda High School.
(15-536) Councilmember Oddie announced he attended the Alameda County Lead
Prevention Program meeting on August 27th
(15-537) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues,
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Library Board.
Mayor Spencer nominated for Carol Gottstein and Tony Lewis appointment to the
Commission on Disability Issues; John McCahan for appointment to the Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners, and Gertrude Woods and Kathleen Kearney for
appointment to the Library Board.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,20,"377
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 1:22 a.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
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-01,21,"357
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - 1, 2015- -5:30 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie
and Mayor Spencer - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 5:32 p.m. and
Councilmember Daysog arrived at 5:52 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(15-494) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); City Negotiator: Elizabeth D.
Warmerdam; Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA),
Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association
Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and Alameda Management and Confidential Employees
Association (MCEA); Under Negotiation: Salaries and terms of employment
(15-495) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: Two (As
Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)
Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer
announced that regarding Labor, direction was given to staff and regarding Anticipated
Litigation direction was given to staff on two cases.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:58 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
September 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 17, 2009- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:39 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : ouncilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, and
Mayor Johnson - 3.
Absent :
Councilmembers Gilmore and Tam - 2.
AGENDA CHANGES
(09-069) Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing to
consider an appeal [paragraph no. 09-078] would be continued to the
March 3, 2009 Council Meeting at the request of the Appellant.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(09-070) Proclamation declaring February 17, 2009, as Alameda
Chamber Day.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Blake Brydon,
Chamber President.
Mr. Brydon thanked the Council for the proclamation; stated the
City has been a tremendous help to the Chamber thanked the
community for the support.
(09-071) Proclamation declaring March 1 through April 11, 2009 as
the period for the second annual ""Across the Pages an Alameda
Community Reads"" Program.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Annemarie
Meyer, Supervising Librarian, Adult Services.
Ms. Meyer thanked the Council for the proclamation; outlined
programs available to the community; provided mystery books to
Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 3. [Absent Councilmembers Gilmore and Tam - 2] [Items
so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,2,"paragraph number. ]
( (*09-072) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on February 3, 2009. Approved.
(*09-073) - Ratified bills in the amount of $1,852,353.63.
(*09-074) Recommendation to authorize the execution of a Lead-Based
Paint Hazard Reduction Grant Agreement with Alameda County Lead
Poisoning Prevention Program. Accepted.
(*09-075) Resolution No. 14309, ""Authorizing the City Manager to
Submit an Amended Application for Measure B Paratransit Funding for
Fiscal Year 2008-2009 and to Execute All Necessary Documents to
Implement the Project. Adopted.
(*09-076) Resolution No. 14310, ""Approving Parcel Map 9757 (1531- -
1533 Morton Street) Adopted.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(09-077) - The Deputy City Manager gave an update on the State budget
and federal stimulus package.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the lagoon system would
qualify for funding since it is part of the City's urban runoff
system.
The Deputy City Manager responded that lagoon projects might
qualify for loans; stated the Bay Farm Island Shoreline and Seawall
Project is listed as one of the 103 Corp of Engineers eligible
projects.
Vice Mayor deHaan noted the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funding has some shortfalls.
The Deputy City Manager stated there is always a need for CDBG
funding.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the State budget eliminated funding
for local transit agencies, to which the Deputy City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Water Emergency
Transit Authority (WETA) is included.
The Deputy City Manager responded that she did not know; stated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,3,"WETA has a variety of funding sources.
Councilmember Matarrese requested information on whether WETA funds
are in jeopardy due to the State cutting all funding for local
transit agencies.
Mayor Johnson stated the [WETA] transition plan should be completed
by July.
The Deputy City Manager stated the transition plan would be
completed in July, but the transition would not happen until
January 2010.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any environmental super funding
has been identified.
The Assistant City Manager responded a special $300 million line
item did not survive; stated super funds are only for non-federal
property.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Deputy City Manager for doing a good job
in keeping Alameda ahead of the game.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
( *09-078) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's denial of a request to remove 2413 Buena Vista
Avenue from the Alameda Historical Building Study List and denial
of a certificate of approval to allow demolition of the structure;
and adoption of related resolution. Continued to March 3, 2009.
(09-079) Public Hearing to consider Introduction of an Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XX to Chapter
XIII (Building and Housing) and Amending Subsection 30-7.12
(Reduction in Parking Requirements for Existing Facilities) of
Section 30-7 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations) of
Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) By Adding Subsection 30-
7. 12 (c) to Allow for Reduction in Parking Requirements for Seismic
Retrofit. Introduced.
The Building Official gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a notification timeframe has been
established.
The Building Official responded the first notifications would go
out late April or early May; stated notifications for larger
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,4,"buildings would be first.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the appeal process would work.
The Building Official responded the initial appeal would need to be
filed with the Building Official within thirty days; stated the
Appellant could appeal the Building Official's decision to the
Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board within 30 days ;
a lot of appeals are not expected; soft story identification is an
engineering issue.
Speakers: Sandi Garcia, Alameda; James D. Leach, Alameda Rob
Platt, Alameda Association of Realtors; Carl Searway; John Fox;
Steve Edrington, Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda
County; Mark Irons, Alameda; Karl Beckmann, Beckmann Engineering
and Construction; Dennis Cox, Alameda; Betsy Mathieson, Alameda.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how many soft-story buildings are under
five units.
The Building Official responded that he does not have the number
stated there are more buildings under five units than large
buildings.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the 2003 Code was a major
update.
The Building Official responded the 2003 Code addressed existing
buildings; stated the International Existing Building Code is
different than the normal Code; Chapter A4 specifically addresses
retrofit of soft-story buildings; work done in 1998 could meet
Chapter A4 requirements.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether an engineering report would be
required for retrofitting prior to 2003, to which the Building
Official responded an engineering report may or may not be needed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether other cities have adopted a
soft-story ordinance.
The Building Official responded Berkeley adopted a similar
ordinance; stated Fremont adopted a mandatory retrofit ordinance;
San Francisco is in the process of establishing an ordinance;
Oakland is conducting a survey; most cities are taking the matter
seriously.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the proposed ordinance is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,5,"similar to other cities ordinances.
The Building Official responded the proposed ordinance is similar
to Berkeley's ordinance but differs from Fremont's mandatory
retrofit ordinance.
Vice Mayor deHaan noted someone might want to turn a boxed in first
floor into livable space.
The Building Official stated the issue is a concern.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how parking spaces could be retained.
The Building Official responded the Planning and Building Director
would be able to allow some exceptions to parking requirements ;
stated loosing a space or two might work on larger property.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated some existing street parking problems are
a result of units built in the 1950's and 1960 s ; inquired whether
financial aid has been reviewed.
The Building Official responded CDBG funding has been reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how many units are included in all
of the large soft-story buildings, to which the Building Official
responded 4,500 units.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether affordable housing funds
could be used for a loan program.
The Development Services Director responded units would need to be
low and very Low-income units and be deed restricted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated 4,500 units represent approximately
10,000 people who could end up homeless; that he is interested in
pursuing a loan program.
Mayor Johnson stated the City should not be involved in making
loans; the City could work with a lender. i inquired whether the
implementation phase includes a priority for rental units over
owner occupied units.
The Building Official responded the priority is the size of the
buildings.
Mayor Johnson stated preserving parking should be emphasized;
inquired whether mandatory upgrades would be the next phase.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,6,"The Building Official responded mandatory upgrades would not be
addressed for approximately two years.
Mayor Johnson inquired how other cities handled phasing the
engineering reports and implementing mandatory retrofitting.
The Building Official responded Berkeley's engineering reports have
been in place for approximately eighteen months Fremont is five
years ahead of Berkeley and Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a reimbursement and
assistance program could be applied for similar to the unreinforced
masonry buildings.
The Building Official responded staff reviewed some of the fee
adjustments; a bigger deduction could be offered early on as an
incentive.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether anything should be done with the gas
lines in the interim.
The Building Official responded the Building Code requires that a
shut off valve be installed whenever work is done on a gas line ;
stated the fix is fairly inexpensive.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the shut off valve requirement
should be added to the proposed ordinance.
The Building Official responded that staff would look into the
matter.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a shut off valve is required
when property is sold, to which the Building Official responded in
the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated information needs to be available to the
public.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 3. [Absent : Councilmembers Gilmore and Tam - 2. ]
(09-080) Discussion of alternative uses for the Mif Albright Golf
Course and provide direction.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,7,"The Interim Golf Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Mif Albright Course closed
because the Course lacked $20,000 [in revenue] per year to sustain
operation, to which the Interim Golf Manager responded the Course
lacked closer to $50,000.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired why reopening the Course is not one of
the alternatives.
The Interim Golf Manager responded direction was to close the
Course.
Mayor Johnson stated Council direction was to look at other
recreation uses while the Course is closed.
Speakers : James D. Leach, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Alameda Golf
Commission. Norma Arnerich, Alameda; Mel Grant, North Loop Business
Group spoke on behalf of Eva Hom, North Loop Business Group
Michael Robles Wong, Community of Harbor Bay isle; Nick Villa,
Islandia Homeowners Association; Elizabeth dos Remedios, Islandia
Homeowners Association; and Leslie Robey, Islandia Homeowners
Association. Additional speakers Randy Rentschler, Alameda Soccer
Club; Nick Villa, Islandia Homeowners Association.
Following Mr. Leach's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the
fence cost $40,000, to which the Interim Golf Manager responded the
cost was $18,000.
Mayor Johnson requested the Interim Golf Manager to provide
information on the Mif Albright Course making money.
The Interim Golf Manager stated a concerted effort was made to
reduce rates and have special promotions to generate more revenue;
rounds increased but revenue dropped because fees were cut the
discrepancy between the cost of running the Course and revenue is
approximately $50,000.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated water was and still is a concern.
Councilmember Matarrese stated open space would require some water.
Following Ms. Sullwold's comments, Councilmember Matarrese inquired
whether the Golf Commission made a recommendation.
Ms. Sullwold responded that the Golf Commission was not aware of
the staff recommendation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,8,"Mayor Johnson stated that the Golf and Recreation Commissions
should review the recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a [Golf Commission] discussion would
be valuable; the twelve acres should be looked at objectively.
Ms. Sullwold stated that a study should be performed regarding the
need for additional softball and soccer fields.
Mayor Johnson stated the demand for softball and soccer field is
huge; another issue is the highest and best use for the property;
the Poppy Ridge Course should be reviewed; a nine-hole course could
be structured back into the golf complex.
Ms. Sullwold stated there have been rumors that Ton Cowan's goal
for the Mif Albright Course is really a new Harbor Bay Club in
exchange for the property he owns behind Peet's Coffee.
Mayor Johnson stated a lot of rumors come out of the Golf Course.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated there was some concern about play on
Sunday [in the rain] ; requested that the matter be reviewed.
Ms. Sullwold stated that Kemper Sports is doing everything possible
to maximize revenues; Kemper Sports wants a long-term contract.
Following Ms. Arnerich's comments, Mayor Johnson stated there
should be a nine-hole course; Kemper Sports should consider the
matter, but options should not be limited; Monarch Bay's nine-hole
course is much better.
Following Mr. Grant's comments, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired who
represents the homeowners.
Michael Robles Wong responded that he is the President of the Board
for the Community of Harbor Bay Isle.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Wong is speaking on behalf
of the Homeowners Association or just exploring the matter.
Mr. Wong responded that he is expressing an opinion and requesting
Council to explore the issue; stated no vote has been taken.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda Point has a soccer complex used by
Piedmont soccer; the field can be brought back for Alameda use at
any point ; revenue generation is the reason for allowing Piedmont
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,9,"to use the field; the Mif Albright Course has activity all day i
youth sports utilize fields after school and on weekends ; the
Course provides an activity for seniors.
Mayor Johnson suggested that the matter be brought back at the next
meeting to allow Councilmembers Gilmore and Tam to comment.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants some direction to be
given; playing fields are in bad shape; the Woodstock field becomes
a pool because there is no drainage; the City is short on fields ;
the City needs to take every opportunity to get the highest and
best use; Council should give direction to get input from the
Recreation and Golf Commissions and Kemper Sports; stated that he
wants to ensure that the contractor is not squeezing every dollar
at the expense of the Course.
The Interim Golf Manager stated Kemper Sports does not have any
financial interest in the Course.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Kemper Sports' interest is in
getting a long-term contract; rules need to be clear the
Recreation and Golf Commissions and Kemper Sports need to provide
input on possible uses before the matter comes back to Council.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not want to limit Kemper Sports
to look at the Mif Albright Course as the only way to provide a
nine hole course; the matter should come back at the next Council
meeting; Councilmember Gilmore raised the issue and should be
allowed to comment on the matter.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he concurs with direction given;
tonight Council was to have a Closed Session regarding the price
and terms of Village VI and Mif Albright Course; the matter was
pulled; that he does not want to see the matter come back to
Council until there has been dialogue; the Closed Session was
premature.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to review include looking
at the Village VI issue.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he received a phone call regarding a
football field option; inquired whether a football field would be
considered.
The Interim Golf Manager stated the all weather soccer field
potentially could be used as a football field.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,10,"Mayor Johnson requested configurations for the Village VI and Mif
Albright sites.
The City Manager summarized Council's direction: 1) obtaining
additional input and recommendations from the Recreation and Golf
Commissions and Kemper Sports; 2) addressing the Village VI issue;
and 3) placing the matter on the next agenda for Councilmembers
Gilmore and Tam to comment.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to review having two
complete 18-hole courses or two 18-hole courses and a nine-hole
course.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the community needs to be engaged in the
discussion of options.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(09-081 - ) Follow up discussion and direction on Internal Service
Funds repayment plan.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Internal Service Funds were discussed
at the Saturday Budget Meeting; that she wants to have further
discussion on paying back the workers' compensation short fall.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he thought the City had a
balanced budget back in June; the budget was not balanced because
the General Fund and other funds contributing to the workers'
compensation fund did not pay enough into the budget and showed up
as a deficit in the Internal Service Funds (ISF) ; the deficit was
pushed onto the next year the fund balance absorbs the debt; that
he does not know how much unencumbered cash the City has because
the workers' compensation debt encumbers the cash.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the solution discussed on Saturday was to
pay the debt over the next three years.
Mayor Johnson stated Information Technology (IT) has needs. the
City Treasurer does not support the idea of moving money out of the
vehicle reserve fund; money should only be moved out of the vehicle
reserve fund to go to IT; the workers' compensation deficit should
start to be paid for this year.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,11,"Vice Mayor deHaan stated setting the Vehicle Reserve Fund aside was
a healthy move; taking money out now is not a good now; a question
was raised Saturday regarding the spending history over the last
five years; retirement expenses are outstanding; discussions
involved bonds against the debti direction was given to review
other options.
The City Manager stated the Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB)
financing options would be shared with the Fiscal Sustainability
Committee.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue needs to move rapidly; a
drop-dead date is needed if the Fiscal Sustainability Committee
wants input; the original direction was that the OPEB issue would
be addressed this year.
The City Manager stated the Interim Finance Director is working on
the [bond] validation suit with the City Attorney's office.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a specific date needs to be set for
discussion; direction was given in June; time is slipping away.
Mayor Johnson stated Council could address the matter at the second
meeting in March.
The City Manager inquired whether Council is requesting that the
matter come back for action.
Mayor Johnson stated Council is requesting that the matter come
back with a final plan.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated financing during this year is a concern;
the news was concerning to Council; adjustments need to be made
this year.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $2.1 million workers'
compensation expense includes this year.
The City Manager responded $2. 1 million is a projection through
June 2009.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated a report should be provided on what was
accumulated this year.
The City Attorney stated the City has a $2.1 million loss reserve
fund this year for medical payments; $961,000 has been spent, which
is different from the deficit.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,12,"Mayor Johnson inquired how costs are allocated.
The City Attorney responded departments are charged back for
participating in the insurance pool; stated the amount is based on
the number of employees within each department.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether each department is charged back at
the end of the year.
The City Attorney responded the question is a Finance issue.
Mayor Johnson requested that the Interim Finance Director provide
an explanation at the next meeting.
The City Manager stated the Interim Finance Director would also
explain what is contributing to the projected deficit.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether money is set aside for medical
expenses.
The City Attorney responded the $2.1 million loss reserve fund is
real money that has been set aside; stated the City processes
medical payments through the fund; the workers' compensation budget
for 2008-2009 was approximately $3. 1 million; the biggest piece is
the loss reserve fund; the annual cost of participation in the risk
pool is approximately $600,000 medical payments and settlements
run against the loss reserve fund, which is different from Labor
Code 4850, another component of Police and Fire workers'
compensation costs; carried by the Police and Fire Departments; the
City is required by law to report the combination of Labor Code
4850 pay and all medical payments.
Mayor Johnson requested that the Interim Finance Director explain
the appropriate way to handle allocating workers' compensation
charges to departments.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated per capita does not seem to work; inquired
whether AMP is included, to which the City Attorney responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Interim Finance Director
provide information on the root cause of the workers' compensation
deficit and proposed preventative action.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Planning and Building Department has
seen a reduction in fees because of the economy ; the issue could be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,13,"Vice Mayor deHaan stated he IT issue should be addressed also.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether direction was given to pay for the
IT expense out of the Vehicle Replacement Fund.
Vice Mayor deHaan responded in the negative; stated the Vehicle
Replacement Fund has been frozen; the IT expense would be an
obligation this year he would like to know the scope of work for
the IT item; the need to update the system is a result of the
audit.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Interim Finance Director would
bring back the IT proposal.
Mayor Johnson stated direction should be clear not to pay for the
IT expense until further information is provided.
The City Manager stated the expenditure has not occurred; staff is
projecting the expense; any plan would need to come to Council
before resources are allocated; staff wanted to note that the
budget did not have money for the expense this year; the proposal
was to take the money from the Vehicle Replacement Fund.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the plan is to address a way to
build the IT fund.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the IT fund
was implemented over the last three years.
Mayor Johnson stated the [IT] system is broken; upgrades need to be
addressed; mandatory contributions should be established.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Council could reduce the amount
authorized for contracts, to which the City Attorney responded
Council would need to adopt an ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to see more
visibility for contracts over $50,000.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be placed on the next Council
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,14,"meeting.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he does not want to micromanage but
would like to expand the communication level.
(09-082 - ) Discussion and direction on the 90-day working capital
fund balance for operating reserves in Special Revenue Funds.
Mayor Johnson stated Council needs to be clear on direction given;
a financial policy should be established immediately.
The City Manager stated the Special Revenue Funds (SRF) could be
brought back for discussion; there was no discussion about which
funds are in compliance and which are not.
Mayor Johnson stated Council could give direction on a general
policy and bring the matter back for adoption at the next Council
meeting; direction should be given to maintain a 90-day working
capital.
The City Manager stated the matter could be brought back to
identify impacts.
Mayor Johnson stated adopting a policy now is important, not six
months from now.
The City Manager stated some funds have restrictions; the issue
would be brought back.
Mayor Johnson stated AMP might need to review the matter first.
Councilmember Matarrese stated information should come back to
Council because AMP is part of the City; the same financial
principles apply; having a specified working capital fund is
universal and is a good, prudent practice regardless of the number
of days.
Mayor Johnson stated that she wants AMP to have a policy.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council needs to decide what needs
to be done if less permits are coming to the Planning and Building
Department and the department is overstaffed; information needs to
be provided on whether the fund balance is being spent down, and,
if so, for how long; numbers need to be provided.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated too often the focus is on the General Fund
only; the SRF need to be reviewed; Council needs to decide what to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,15,"do when funds start disappearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the ISF absorbed a deficit that
should have been attributed to the General Fund; the real cash
deficit was buried; that he wants to ensure that there is a broad
approach for the entire City budget including AMP, Housing
Authority, and Enterprise Funds and that root causes are determined
when there is a problem.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated more background is needed; taking $2. 1
from liquid reserves is a pretty good hit and cannot be taken
lightly.
Mayor Johnson stated operational reviews are being done for public
safety; consideration should be given to performing operational
reviews for the entire City.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired when the public safety review would come
to Council, to which the City Manager responded the beginning of
April.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the operational review is relevant
to the 90-day working capital fund balance for operating reserves
in SRF; that he would like to receive numbers on the affect that
the economic downturn has had on the Planning and Building
Department in order to fix any problems and apply standards for
SRF.
The City Manager stated staff might not be able to provide
information at the next Council meeting.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether staff knows how much money
is coming in and going out; stated that he wants information on
whether enough money is being brought in to cover operation and
whether there is a draw down on the fund balance; that he wants the
number now.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the economy has changed drastically;
whether other operational activities are having a downturn needs to
be understood; the economic ramp up could take three years.
Mayor Johnson stated the City would be out of money in thirty
months if everything stays status quo.
Councilmember Matarrese stated property assessments have declined
and the City potentially could have less revenue next year.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,16,"Vice Mayor deHaan stated costs are going up and revenue is going
down.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(09-083) - Vice Mayor deHaan commended the Public Works Department on
the work done during recent storms ; suggested an analysis and
assessment on gutter ponding throughout the City be done while it
is raining.
(09-084) Mayor Johnson stated the Fire Department responded to an
apartment toilet leak, turned off the water and later went back to
vacuum up the water; the response was not an appropriate use of
public funds; requested staff to work with the ICMA representative
to ensure that taxpayers' money is not being abused.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-17,17,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 17, 2009- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, and
Mayor Johnson - 3.
Absent :
Councilmembers Gilmore and Tam - 2.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(09-066) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Manager.
(09-067) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
54956.9; Number of cases: One.
(09-068) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8)
;
Property: 1855 N. Loop Road and 1 Clubhouse Memorial Drive ;
Negotiating parties Village VI and Golf Course (Mif Albright) ;
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Performance Evaluation,
Council met for periodic review of City Manager performance; no
action was taken; regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council gave
direction to Legal Counsel regarding a matter of anticipated
litigation; and regarding Real Property, the matter will be
continued.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MARCH 16, 2021--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:04 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
(21-153) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she would like to propose hearing the
Council Referral Urgency Ordinance [paragraph no. 21-169 after the Consent
Calendar; noted the matter is time sensitive.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the Council Referral Emergency Ordinance
after the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is disappointed in
the motion; noted there are two very important matters on the Regular Agenda; stated
the Regular Agenda is anticipated to take all of the meeting time; outlined the matters
on the Regular Agenda; stated Council has received many e-mails on the matters and
there have been months of community-led meetings; it is important that the matters be
heard in their entirety; the Council Referral is new to the agenda with four prior
Referrals.
Councilmember Daysog stated that his understanding of the agenda is that items
cannot move once set; noted that he previously attempted to move Council Referrals up
in the agenda and had been told that moving Council Referrals is not allowable; stated
there are many Council Referrals in the pipeline with one being agendized since
December 2020; Council Referrals should be taken in the order received.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the particular matter is time critical and has bearing on
people's lives.
The City Clerk stated Council may consider reordering matters on the agenda the
evening of a Council meeting; the Council may not change the order of set items on the
agenda when it is published; an agenda may not be created with matters listed in a
different order; the agenda order is set by resolution; however, the night of the meeting,
Council can consider changes and make any desired amendments.
Vice Mayor Vella stated at a previous meeting, a motion was made to hold a Special
Council Meeting to hear all the Council Referrals; if the Special Meeting motion had
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,2,"passed, the Council Referrals could have been heard; expressed support for calling the
question.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he understands the concerns raised; stated
Council should not make a regular practice of jumping matters in the agenda; the
Council Referral is timely.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a Special Meeting to hear the Council
Referrals.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(21-154) Season for Non-Violence Word of the Day: Compassion.
Councilmember Knox White read a quote.
(21-155) Proclamation Declaring March 2021 as Women in History Month.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(21-156) Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda, stated two ghost bikes will be installed
at two locations where bicyclists have been killed; discussed the intersections, driver
speed and road changes.
(21-157) Venecio Camarillo, Alameda, encouraged the use of auto-generated closed
captions or sign language interpreters at Council meetings.
(21-158) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, inquired about changes to the City Council meeting
Rules of Order regarding public comment on the Consent Calendar.
(21-159) Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda, read from the March 16, 1943 minutes, which
state: ""At the request of Mayor Godfrey, the City Manager reported on the problem of
the increased Negro population which is a result of the influx of shipyard workers in the
City of Alameda and the housing shortage attended thereto; the City Manager stated
the City, with the cooperation of the Alameda Housing Authority would endeavor to
control as much as possible, the number of Negroes wishing to reside within the City of
Alameda, within limitations set forth by government acts and regulations; Mayor Godfrey
stated this matter would receive the unceasing vigilance of the Council and the Alameda
Housing Authority; it is believed the problem will not grow to be as serious as rumor has
implied;"" stated actions by Mayor Godfrey helped initiate segregation in Alameda's
projects during World War II.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,3,"CONSENT CALENDAR
Expressed concern about the final passage of ordinance amending Municipal Code
Chapter 30 [paragraph no. 21- - 1; stated that he thinks it is inappropriate for the matter to
be on the Consent Calendar: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer request final passage of the ordinance be removed
from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; 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.]
(*21-160) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on February
16, 2021. Approved.
(*21-161) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,676,437.54.
(*21-162) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year
Agreement with SLR International Corporation (SLR) to Provide Groundwater
Investigation and Monitoring Services for the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park for an
Amount Not to Exceed $178,120. Accepted.
(*21-163) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a One-Year
Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $150,000,
with the Option to Extend for up to Two Additional Years for a Total Compensation of
$450,000 for On-Call Economic and Financial Consulting at Alameda Point. Accepted.
(*21-164) Recommendation to Authorize the City Attorney to Bind Pollution Legal
Liability Insurance Coverage for 10-Years for Alameda Point with Ascot in an Amount
Not to Exceed $529,776. Accepted.
(*21-165) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Accept the Improvements
Completed by Alameda Point Partners, for Tract 8336, Site A, Phase 1, at Alameda
Point. Accepted.
(*21-166) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Pre-Purchase a Modular
Restroom Building from CXT, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $225,941.35; and
Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with NBC Construction &
Engineering, Inc. for Alameda Point Modular Restroom Building, No. P.W. 09-20-36, in
an Amount Not to Exceed $336,580. Accepted; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,20,"reduce Police calls as a way to ensure the City is being thoughtful; outlined traffic
enforcement data; stated there have been 84 collisions and 74 citations in 2021;
previous citation numbers would be in the tens of thousands and some should not have
been issued; stated that he would like to see the Transportation Commission engaged
in discussion around how to provide traffic safety; expressed support for staff being
engaged in conversations around traffic safety in Oakland, Berkeley and other places.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated 63% of survey respondents expressed support
for greater Police presence in neighborhoods; 5% stated there is too much Police
presence; the survey results provide valuable information and should be considered;
robberies and assaults are up 19% and 9.7% respectively; auto thefts are a 35 year
high, up 16% from the previous year; stated shootings are up dramatically from 3 in
2019 to 17 in 2020; expressed support for a focus on crime; stated that she hears
people do not feel safe; crimes are up and people do not want to be victims; she will be
looking to Police to reduce crime; the Committee chosen by the City Manager is not
representative of the community.
***
(21-173) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed before 11:00 p.m. to consider
any new items.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval continuing the meeting to hear the
armored Police emergency response vehicle [paragraph no. 21-175 through its entirety.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes a meeting end time, to which
Councilmember Knox White responded in the negative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which required four affirmative
votes, failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera
Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3.
Noes: 2.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the vehicle item with the meeting ending at
midnight with direction to schedule a special meeting if the item cannot be addressed
tonight.
The City Clerk noted the specific date and time of the meeting must be approved if the
meeting would be held with less than 12 days' notice.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Council Referrals would be included to be
heard at the continued meeting.
Vice Mayor Vella agreed to have the motion include Referrals.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,21,"Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the date needs to be specified
now, to which the City Clerk responded the date needs to be specified before the
meeting ends.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated part of her ask will be on each of the items; she
wants to hear from APD in regard to reducing crime.
Councilmember Daysog stated one of the biggest asks is for an Accountability Board;
that he is not ready for a City Charter Accountability Board as shown in the reports;
expressed support for taking baby steps first; stated an Advisory Board can be formed
after the baby steps are taken; Council can do something to move the ball on the issue.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not agree with confidential
meetings; she disagrees that it was appropriate to have the meetings handled as they
were; the community has been left behind; the meetings needed to be public; she does
not consent to any more private meetings by the Subcommittee or Steering Committee;
she does not believe private meetings match the spirit of the Brown Act; expressed
support for having public meetings that allow for engagement; discussed an e-mail
address: apdreforms@gmail.com, which was posted on the City's website; stated that
she submitted a Public Records Act Request for e-mails related to the account; she
would like immediate access to the e-mails; the City must ensure no e-mails have been
deleted from the account to allow for public record keeping; she wants to know that the
Steering Committee will cooperate with the City Attorney's office; the e-mails are City
records and need to be maintained by the City; she does not want private e-mails
posted on the City's website going forward.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should see whether a vote can be taken on the
items as the City Manager suggested to bring forward: two or three asks brought back
with both a strategy for implementation and a funding plan in the next six weeks; that
she has high regard for the Community Paramedicine Program, which is not the
equivalent of CAHOOTS, but might work in conjunction with something like CAHOOTS;
Oakland is doing something similar; she would like to see if direction can be given on a
mental health crisis response program, which is a significant part of the unbundling
process.
Councilmember Knox White stated the seven items recommended by the Steering
Committee do not need to be prioritized or cut.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of adopting the items as direction for staff
to bring back: 1) facilitating the development of an Accountability Commission, without
making the decision tonight about whether it needs to be in the Charter; nothing can be
adopted tonight; Council can only accept and give direction; 2) the mental health crisis,
with the direction that has been discussed; options can come back for that; 3) the ""Who
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,22,"to Call;"" 4) clear and concise protocols for APD social media, with direction to stop using
it until the protocols are in place; 5) City leaders to be notified; leaders are notified for
the most part, but the Council can commit to that; 6) bring back as a part of the budget a
Block by Block or similar funding request; and 7) supporting the business community,
which seems very simple as well.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated regarding the Block by Block and homelessness
ambassadors coming back, the City also contracts with Village of Love; there would be
a little bit of overlapping, but more help can always be used; Village of Love goes into
the business community and neighbors with a staffed van in addition to the work they do
running the day center and the City's safe parking.
Councilmember Knox White stated Block by Block does do some interaction, but staff
indicated they are ambassadors and hand out masks; he wants to make sure it is not
being prioritized as a homeless service.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she also discussed the issue with staff; the matter can
be addressed by email or with the City Manager; she wants to clarify the first
recommendation in the staff report was to create and staff a new City department
focused on Police accountability and racial equity to determine the feasibility of a Police
Citizens Accountability Board, which she does not support.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he was reading from the Steering Committee
report, not the staff report, which just addresses development of the Citizens' Police
Accountability Commission; concurred with the Mayor; stated that he is not at the stage
of creating a department either.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about adding the biannual mental health and de-
escalation training.
Councilmember Knox White agreed to include the matter in the motion; stated it was not
one of the first seven Steering Committee recommendations, but he is happy to add it.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted it was in the next four recommendations.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the motion shifting responsibility for mental health
crises would also include direction to look at different options, including building off of
the City's existing structure, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the Who to Call campaign would also include
direction to look at Dispatching protocol and procedure relative to things like the
Community Assessment and Transport Team (CATT) program, to which
Councilmember Knox White responded that he would be happy to add that to the
motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,23,"Vice Mayor Vella requested the motion be amended to direct staff to look at adding AB
1400 to the City's Legislative Priorities; stated that she would specifically like to call out
AB 1400; a bill has been proposed by Assemblymember Chiu; she would like the
motion to direct staff to report back to Council on additional pending legislation relative
to traffic; she would like to hear about the regional model and what people are shifting to
that does not involve armed Officers.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding which Assemblymember Chiu
bill, Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not necessarily supportive; it is AB 550
regarding using cameras to do automated traffic control; she would like a report back on
non-armed options; stated that she would second the motion with the addition.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to add the direction to the motion;
that his intent was not to have only one motion; rather than piling on, there can be
additional motions on other items.
Councilmember Daysog stated the staff report that returns to Council should be fully
detailed about the level of service needed to achieve the type of impact that the Council
expects and the associated funding, as well as anything less that is necessary due to
limited funding; the staff report should have programs that will achieve optimum success
regardless of funding; City Council should not tell the Police what and how to post
things on social media; what the Accountability Commission will be should not be
prescribed; a key element should be to address the main issues that brought the City to
this point, but he is not convinced it needs to be completely about that; he will support
the motion, but he has his points of view; Police need to carry guns and be prepared.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the social media post in the report was troubling; noted a
picture of a person arrested, but not convicted was posted on the Police social media
page; stated public help might be needed to locate someone who allegedly committed a
crime, but it is of questionable value to post a photo between arrest and before trial.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he agrees, but the matter is a department head
issue.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the motion be repeated; stated staff should
share the hourly rates and benefits of the Block by Block program employees; she
wants to ensure people are being paid appropriately.
Councilmember Knox White stated the motion is to adopt the first seven items in the
Steering Committee Report: 1) the Citizens' Police Accountability Commission, which is
staff work to determine what it would look like and bring it back to Council for further
discussion and direction; 2) shift responsibility for responding to mental health crisis
from the Police Department to other City or County programs as recommended,
including options reflected in the conversation tonight; 3) initiating a campaign to
educate the public on Who to Call; 4) he did not ask for the protocols for APD social
media to come back to Council, but until there are clear social media protocols and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,24,"communications goals, social media would be put on hold and what is adopted by staff
should be shared; 5) City leaders to be notified; 6) come back in the two year budget
with information on a Block by Block, or similar type of budget request, that could be
considered or adopted, including funding for mental health; 7) supporting the business
community; 8) legislative effort direction and updates on AB 1400 and 550, which he
believes is already in the Legislative Agenda; and 9) regular mental health and de-
escalation training as well.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the funding for mental health is a CATT type
program.
Councilmember Knox White responded there was direction from Vice Mayor Vella about
CATT like trainings for Who to Call; stated the mental health is for a CAHOOTS or
Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland (MACRO) program, which is
more like Community Paramedicine; stated that he would still like to address the
Steering Committee's other three recommendations and other Council
recommendations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the motion could include direction to
disclose the pay of Block by Block employees, to which Councilmember Knox White
responded that he takes it as staff direction, but absolutely given Block by Block is not
being approved in the motion; Council is requesting information to come back.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired regarding social media, what would happen if
the Police Department is looking for someone who has committed a crime, to which
Councilmember Knox White responded the City has its own well-followed social media
account, which could be used.
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.
***
(21-174) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing each Councilmember
to have 5 additional minutes.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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.
***
Councilmember Knox White stated before making another motion, he would be
interested in hearing whether there is interest in hiring a Crime Analyst; expressed
support for the Crime Analyst position; stated the City Manager should decide which
department will house the position; Vice Mayor Vella made good points about the right
place.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,25,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification that Council would be
supporting hiring up to 88 Officers; she would like specific training for the public on
detentions and consensual contact; the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a
Know Your Rights program; 100 Black Men in Oakland did a great program; she would
like a public education component; she would like to hear from the Police that they are
getting the training on detention and when people are free to leave; she would like to
know whether other Councilmembers agree.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the Crime Analyst position with the
concept of where the position lives to be determined; she also supports the Steering
Committee recommendation to continue having 88 Officers in the budget; inquired
whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer would support posting a link on the City's
website to the ACLU Know Your Rights program for the public.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative; stated the ACLU has a
lot of information online and also have volunteers who teach the public; she is not sure if
100 Black Men in Oakland paid anyone; there could be an ongoing educational
component; the City could work with the Schools; she would like to have it added.
Councilmember Knox White stated it is a good program; that he is a little uncomfortable
tying it into the conversation; he knows the program is not about how to keep from being
arrested; it is about knowing your rights; he is not clear about the ask or cost;
questioned whether the Public Information Officer is able to arrange four events per
year; stated perhaps the Police Crime Prevention Unit could bring the ACLU in as well;
it is worthwhile; he does not understand what staff is being asked to do.
Councilmember Daysog stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer has a concept similar
to the previous motion asking staff to return with information to flesh out the concepts.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands the concept but is not sure it belongs
in this particular set of recommendations.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the concept seems a little outside what is being contemplated;
she would like to focus on what is before Council; the current focus is what the City can
do internally and which services the City can provide, not public training; she does not
quite understand the request.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not hearing three votes in support of the ACLU
training being included at this time.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of items 1, 3, and 4 in the second set of
the Steering Committee recommendations.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Councilmember Knox White specify each item.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,26,"Councilmember Knox White restated the motion: [Steering Committee Item] 1: reaffirm
the number of APD authorized Officers is 88, [Steering Committee Item] 3: create a
Code of Conduct for sworn Officers as described, and [Steering Committee Item] 4: hire
a Crime Analyst; and providing direction that if staff can find ways to support a Know
Your Rights training within Alameda, Council would be supportive; and requesting a
report back on how many Officers have been trained as part of the DA's training on
detentions, which could be off agenda and does not have to be at a meeting.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council is asking for staff to come back to
Council about how a Code of Conduct could be pursued, such as within the existing
document or as the separate document the Committee discussed or as something else;
inquired what is expected.
Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated as long as both models
are consistent with the Steering Committee's recommendation; the Steering Committee
is saying the community should have some say in what Code of Conduct looks like; a
corporation based out of Texas should not just be sending updates and saying this is
the Code of Conduct.
Councilmember Daysog stated staff is going to filter the concerns raised by the
Committee and try to put together a document that hopefully works.
Councilmember Knox White concurred.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees the Code of Conduct should not come out
of Lexipol; she also believes members of the Police Department need to provide input;
she does not want to create an adversarial process of us against the Police; we are all
community partners; people doing the job need to be asked what they hold to be a high
standard of conduct; she would welcome community and Council input as well; a group
of civilians should not be telling Officers how to do their job.
Councilmember Knox White stated the statements are 100% consistent with what he
heard from the Steering Committee and the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated if what she said matches the motion, she can support it.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns regarding the Code of
Conduct; the Oath of Office should be looked at; read the Oath; stated the document is
strong and should be reviewed; she would like to hear from the Union regarding this
item in particular; if the Police are being asked to do this, Council should be looking at
all City departments.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion included the Know Your Rights training;
discussion was it might be beyond what Council is trying to accomplish now.
Councilmember Knox White stated that the motion was just to give staff direction that if
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,27,"they found opportunities to support the training, Council is supportive; a specific number
or requirements are not being approved; he is trying to find a way to honor the fact that
Council all seem to think it is a good project; if the Communications and Legislative
Affairs Manager is planning something and Know Your Rights fits in, she should know
the Council thinks it is a good project.
Councilmember Daysog second the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera spencer requested the motion be repeated.
The City Clerk stated the motion is approval of the second recommendations from the
Steering Committee report items: 1) 88 officers, 3) Code of Conduct, and 4) Crime
Analyst position, with the addition of the Know Your Rights.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft added the motion includes how many Officers have been trained
in the DA training.
The City Manager inquired whether staff could have the ability to keep the Social Media
active until next Monday to allow for a transition period.
Councilmember Knox White responded while Council already approved that, it does not
bother him.
On the call for the question, 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.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like the City Attorney's office involved with
criminalization of poverty regarding prosecutorial matters, not on the enforcement side;
he would like a staff report explaining whether it is logistically possible for the City
Attorney's office to pursue the idea and how it might look; he understands if it is not
possible since State or County Courts deal with the issue.
The City Attorney inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is referring to non-moving
vehicle violations, to which Councilmember Daysog responded that he would prefer to
relate it to things intimately related to poverty, but he leaves it to the City Attorney; non-
moving vehicle violations seem to be related.
The City Attorney stated in an advisory capacity, the City Attorney's office can work with
APD colleagues to address best ways not to have cases brought into the criminal justice
system; similar to the County prosecutorial process; it is ethically problematic for the
Council to give the City Prosecutor specific direction on whether or not to prosecute
cases because Prosecutors represent the people, not the City; in an advisory role, the
City Attorney could work with APD to address perhaps a class of cases that do not need
tickets issued and maybe warnings could be given or some other process.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,28,"write a memo indicating areas in which advice could be given along the lines the City
Attorney mentioned to begin to address the issue that was raised by the Committee
members about the criminalization of poverty.
The City Attorney stated a section on the topic can be included when reports return to
Council.
Councilmember Knox White stated an issue somewhat tied to the matter is diversion
programs and traffic enforcement, such as whether tinted windows need to be enforced
when other drivers are speeding.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of directing staff to identify a traffic
enforcement policy that focuses on safety related citations, as well as any diversion
ideas within traffic enforcement and working with the Transportation Commission; in
addition, he would suggest getting a report back on Universal Basic Income (UBI); he
heard a lot of support for the conversation; he did not hear Council take up his idea for a
catalytic converter rebate or other ideas to avoid crimes; noted the Review Committee
will take a long time to get going and that he would like the City Manager to return with
ideas in the short term about how the City will shift and change review of the practices
of the Police Department so there is civilian review out of the City Manager's office; he
does not know what it looks like and will leave it up to the City Manager; he would like a
report back on the matter as well.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated catalytic converters are an important issue; she
would like add that the City support making it so that catalytic converters cannot be
turned in; other States are starting to do so and the legislature should be asked to look
into making it illegal for scrap metal people to purchase catalytic converters.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to amend the motion to add the
matter to the Legislative Agenda; he thinks there already are a lot of rules around it, but
he is not an expert.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the catalytic converter shield
rebate; stated that she is not sure if it was included in the motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated he left it in the motion as something staff could come
back with and ideas how to do, along with other crime prevention ideas.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the intent for traffic related issues which are
not safety related, such as non-moving vehicular violations, whether Officers would not
enforce violations; stated his intent is that the Officer still enforces it, but per the advice
coming from the City Attorney's office something other than issuing a citation can be
done; the Officers still need to inform people about violations.
Councilmember Knox White stated his motion included direction for staff to come back
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
28
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,29,"with a policy that focuses on safety related citations.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated citations are given out for
street cleaning violations; blocking driveways or parking in front of fire hydrants; there is
also not paying the meter; she would like to hear back from staff; if the City is going to
have meters, people need to park far or pay; she would not want to ask the Police not to
enforce the law; she would like clarification; a clear message should be sent to the
Police Department; there should be opportunities on ways to address penalties or an
educational component.
Councilmember Knox White stated the motion was for traffic enforcement, not parking
enforcement; parking citations are issued by separate employees; he does not see
parking enforcement as part of the conversation; he agrees with writing citations for
parking problems.
The City Clerk stated the motion is to direct staff to identify traffic enforcement policy
focusing on safety related and diversion issues and working with the Transportation
Commission; reporting back on UBI, catalytic converters and anything else to avoid
crimes; while the Review Committee will take time, staff can review some other
implementation; and one addition.
Councilmember Knox White stated the addition was legislation for catalytic converters;
regarding the Review Committee, staff should bring back a report to Council on how
they would proposed to move forward.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Interim Police Chief would be
part of the staff looking into matters, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember
Knox White responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated the first part of the motion is really about traffic; he and
Councilmember Herrera Spencer were addressing vehicles whether moving or not, he
would like to amend the motion to state vehicles, not just traffic; the City has ordinances
implicated in the topic of criminalization of poverty that are vehicle related; it is not just
moving traffic issues; inquired whether the motion could be amended to vehicle.
Councilmember Knox White stated if citations are not being written, people do not have
to pay; data shows that is one of the big places of disparity; he is not supportive and
thinks the City should be looking at safety and relate to Vision Zero.
Councilmember Daysog withdrew his second.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer provided an example of a vehicle towing; stated that
she would like the matter to be addressed; inquired whether Councilmember Knox
White would reconsider including it in the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
29
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,30,"drivers more than others; the issue is about that, rather than all vehicle citations.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer raise good
points; this is not the end of the discussion; she wants to see a robust discussion of UBI
come back; the two year study in Stockton just came back with impressive results; valid
concerns raised about fees and fines impacting someone with lower economic means
can be part of the discussion.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would be happy to add a review of fines and
penalties to the motion.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended 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.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer questioned whether any of the motions address use of
cameras; stated, if not, she would move approval of staff looking into the matter and
providing an update on the status.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be repeated.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the motion is to receive an update from staff on
the status of the License Plate Readers (LPRs) and cameras.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the request is just about the status and
whether it could be off agenda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to have a conversation
about whether or not the Council wants cameras; there have been multiple meetings.
Vice Mayor Vella questioned whether the matter is properly agendized.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the report does address cameras as alternatives means of
enforcement relying more on technology.
Vice Mayor Vella stated it was part of the earlier motion, which was generalized;
inquired why a specific motion is needed on the status; stated it was part of the first
motion; questioned what Council is trying to achieve with the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
30
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,31,"In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated one of the points
of clarification of the first motion that she requested was relative to Councilmember
Knox White's comment that the City look at different regional changes being
implemented regarding non-armed response, including use of technology which is part
of the AB 550 legation.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he supports the motion, with the understanding
it is at the bottom of the priority pile.
Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter was contained as part of
the first motion.
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.
(21-175) Recommendation to Consider Options for the Alameda Police Department's
Emergency Response Vehicle. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21-176) Consider Establishing a New Methodology by which the Number of Housing
Units are Calculated for Parcels Zoned C-2-PD (Central Business District with Planned
Development Overlay). Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog)
(21-177) Consider Directing Staff to Provide an Update on a Previously Approved
Referral regarding Free Public WiFi throughout the City. Not heard. (Councilmember
Spencer)
(21-178) Consider Directing Staff to Extend Webster Street Physical Improvements/
Beautification. Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog)
(21-179) Consider Directing Staff to Review an ""Adopt a Spot"" Traffic Triangle, Traffic
Circle and Traffic Corners Program. Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog)
(21-180) Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Public Analysis of: 1) When the Brown
Act Applies to Commissions and Committees, 2) Documents and Information Released
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
31
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,32,"Pursuant to the Public Records Act, and 3) What is Privileged and How to Waive
Privilege. Not heard. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)
(21-181) Consider Addressing the Process for Potential Changes to the Jean Sweeney
Open Space Park Design Development Plan, including Public Input. Not heard.
(Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog)
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-182) Mayor's Nominations for Appointments to the Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners and Recreation and Park Commission. Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
(21-183) The City Council discussed the date to continue the meeting.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the meeting to March 30,
2021 at 5:30 p.m.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
At 11:58 p.m., the meeting was continued to March 30, 2021 at 5:30 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
32
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,33,"MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED MARCH 9, 2021 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- MARCH 16, 2021-5:59 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was
held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-149) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point, Site A, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric
Levitt, City Manager; Lisa Maxwell, Interim Community Development Director; and
Debbie Potter, Special Project Analyst; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and
Alameda Point Partners, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms. [Continued from
February 16, 2021 to March 2, 2021 to March 9, 2021].
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that staff provided information and Council provided direction; the first
motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera
Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No; Ayes: 2.
Noes: 2; Abstention: 1; the second motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:02
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Continued March 9, 2021 Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,34,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--MARCH 16, 2021-6:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was
held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-150) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Significant Exposure
to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9); Number
of Cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action); Claim Number: (2021-
0009/GHC0033180) Potential Plaintiffs: Greenway Golf Associates, Inc.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, staff provided information and Council
provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera
Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3.
Noes: 2; the case involves a claim filed by Greenway contending that the lack of an
events center at the Corica Park Golf Course has/will produce damages to Greenway in
the range of $15 million to $50 million; the City has contended that plain wording of the
contracts at the Park, both Greenway's and Jim's, do not provide for third party
beneficiaries, thus Greenway has no right to assert such a claim against the City;
nonetheless, in the interest of avoiding unnecessary litigation and to support a
negotiated solution by Greenway and Jim's on the Course, the Council authorized the
City Attorney to settle the pending claim by obtaining full releases for the City in
exchange for the City's future consent of Jim's relinquishing and transferring certain
food and beverage service rights at Corica Park to Greenway.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:30
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 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,35,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY--MARCH 16, 2021-6:59 - P.M.
Mayor/Chair
Ezzy
Ashcraft
convened
the
meeting
at
7:02
p.m.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Herrera
Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy
Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll
call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox
White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21-151 CC/21-06 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor
Agency to the Community Improvement Commission (SACIC) Meeting Held on
February 2, 2021. Approved.
(*21- CC/21-07 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the
Quarter Ending September 30, 2020. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at
7:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
1
to the Community Improvement Commission
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,4,"(*21-166A) Resolution No. 15752, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2019-21 Capital Budget
by Defunding Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in Capital Improvement
Program 960093 by $361,000 and Increasing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations
for Capital Improvement Program 91857706 by $361,000."" Adopted.
(*21-167) Resolution No. 15753, ""Authorizing the City Manager, Retroactively, to Apply
for and Receive up to $292,000 in Grant Funds from the Alameda County
Transportation Commission's 2022 Comprehensive Investment Plan to Construct Multi-
Use Pathway Connectors to Close Gaps in Accessing the Cross Alameda Trail in Jean
Sweeney Open Space Park; and Allocating $158,000 In Matching Funds, Should the
Grant Be Awarded."" Adopted.
(21-168) Ordinance No. 3297, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30
(Development Regulations) to Amend Section 30-12.2 Requiring a Distance Separation
of 1,000 Feet between Bars in Alameda to Allow No More than Three (3) Bars within
1,000 Feet of Each Other and to Require Annual Review of Conditions of Approval,
Following a Recommendation by the Planning Board.' Finally passed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Hunter bar is hoping to move into the previous
Paradise Pub; noted the City's ordinance allows for one bar within 1,000 feet of another
bar; stated grandfathering does not apply to this scenario; staff has been asked to
measure the distances between Wally's bar, Hunter bar, and Fireside Lounge; noted the
report has a supplement exhibit attached which shows the three bars are within 1,000
feet of each other.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a bar would be allowed to open within 1,000
feet of another; whether a bar could have two bars located to the south and two bars to
the north.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the ordinance provides that three
bars can exist within 1,000 feet of another; there cannot be four bars within a 1,000-foot
radius.
The City Manager stated two bars to the north and two to the south of another bar
would not be allowed under the ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog stated Wally's is the outlier and is the northernmost bar;
questioned whether another bar would be allowed to open within 1,000 feet to the north
of Wally's.
Councilmember Knox White stated Wally's has five bars within 1,000 feet and therefore
is breaking the limit of three bars within 1,000 feet rule; no three bars can be within
1,000 feet of a fourth bar.
Councilmember Daysog stated should there be a bar north of Wally's, the new bar must
be further than 1,000 feet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,5,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation [final
passage of the ordinance].
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
COUNCIL REFERRAL
(21-169) Consider Adoption of Urgency Ordinance or Introduction of Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 4-61 (Grocery Worker
Hazard Pay) to Require Large Grocery Stores in Alameda to Pay Employees an
Additional Five Dollars ($5.00) per Hour in Hazard Pay during the Novel Coronavirus
(COVID-19) Pandemic and to Include Enforcement of Emergency Hazard Pay to
Grocery Employees. (Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Knox White)
Vice Mayor Vella gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the size of stores covered under the
ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the ordinance has a square footage requirement and is geared
towards large grocery stores; the ordinance would not impact a corner store or
convenience mart; the store has to have 500 employees or more.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the ordinance has a sunset.
Vice Mayor Vella responded the ordinance is not intended to continue forever; stated
the ordinance is set to sunset either when the pandemic State of Emergency end or
when Alameda enters the Yellow Tier; there are a few clauses which provide protection;
the matter is timely and time restrictive; expressed support for the ordinance being
passed as an urgency ordinance.
Stated the matter is concerning; there has been considerable pushback against the
matter; the matter is selectively rewarding employees of large grocery stores and many
other essential workers are not being given bonuses; the matter is attacking large
companies; discussed funding sources; stated the matter is a feel-good measure and is
inappropriate: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Discussed representation; stated essential worker's risk their life every day due to
exposure to COVID-19; grocery stores are reaping increased profits; grocery workers
have a one in five chance of contracting COVID-19; urged Council to adopt the
ordinance: Becky Rhodes, Alameda Labor Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,6,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether litigation has been brought against
any of the cities that have implemented the wage increase.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated most, if not all, cities
implementing a similar ordinance have been sued; only one case in Long Beach,
California has proceeded fairly far in the litigation process; the Federal Trial Court
denied a motion for preliminary injunction; the matter is pending; no orders hold that
such an ordinance would not pass constitutional muster.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the costs of the associated risks and potential
legal proceedings.
The City Attorney responded most cases have requests for takings as damages against
the cities; stated none have been awarded; litigation is ongoing.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the
City Attorney's Office will vigorously defend any action the Council adopts.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether companies are legally required to
maintain health insurance for their employees or whether any employee benefits have
been cancelled.
The City Attorney responded there are many factors; stated the matter depends on the
company; there may be one jurisdiction which may have made an alteration with
respect to spousal coverage.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any cities have had any grocery
stores close after passage of a similar ordinance.
The City Attorney responded the Long Beach litigation involves two store closures.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired which specific stores the ordinance would
apply to within Alameda.
The City Attorney responded the ordinance will likely apply to big box retailers which
engage in grocery sales, such as Albertsons type of stores.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the draft ordinance lists the store information.
Vice Mayor Vella outlined page six of the ordinance.
Councilmember Knox White stated Lucky's, Safeway, and Nob Hill stores will be
affected; noted Target and CVS stores would not be included.
The City Manager stated that he will need to check whether Target is eligible for the
increase; noted Trader Joe's is under the 15,000 square foot requirement.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,7,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether union teamster representation for
Lucky's, Safeway and Nob Hill is available.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded there are no union representatives present.
Councilmember Knox White stated all three stores should have representation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for confirmation of representation.
Councilmember Daysog stated the matter refers to six sites; outlined locations on
Alameda and Bay Farm; inquired whether an analysis of environmental consequences
is needed; stated the matter has triggered a number of store closures in southern
California and Seattle; in the land use field, grocery stores hold a special place in
understanding policy implications and environmental consequences; the City should be
ahead of the curve in understanding the environmental impacts.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the term environmental impacts;
stated the term indicates California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is not
related.
Councilmember Daysog stated the term does indicate CEQA; an element of CEQA
includes the potential of foot traffic generating store closures; questioned the
environmental repercussions of a foot traffic generating store closure; stated the
analysis is called urban decay, which is seen in Walmart and Costco stores; questioned
the potential for others stores being affected; stated there needs to be an understanding
of impacts due to store closures; outlined lease hold issues for grocery closures; stated
the wiser course of action is to understand environmental consequences and provide
analysis.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is not related to a Walmart coming to Alameda; the
ordinance did not result in other cities' store closures; stores have been closed even
with record profits; the duration of the increase is limited and will not run as long as
other cities; the matter relates to frontline workers; discussed grocery store unions;
stated grocery workers have a one-in-five chance of getting COVID-19; noted the court
rulings on challenges to the wage increase is telling.
Vice Mayor Vella moved adoption of the urgency ordinance.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he will not be supportive of the
motion; Council needs to measure twice and cut once and understand the
environmental consequences in an analysis prior to approving; stores have closed
following the adoption of related policies.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,8,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she agrees with Councilmember Daysog;
noted low-income housing funding opportunities often question the location of grocery
stores; stated grocery workers are essential; expressed concern about the closure of
any stores resulting in ineligibility for affordable housing funding opportunities; noted
grocery workers have been eligible and prioritized for the COVID-19 vaccine ahead of
many people; stated unions negotiate; expressed concern about health insurance being
cut as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and for the City being involved in
a
negotiated contract where employers have the option to reduce or remove benefits,
including healthcare; stated many essential employees do not have union
representation, are low pay and have high risks; however, the raise is not being
considered for all essential employees; noted Amazon, postal service employees and
bankers are excluded and at high COVID-19 risk; many essential workers are women of
color; stated there are many things to think about when being asked to consider an
increase for one group.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for broadening the scope of the ordinance;
stated there is a reason the ordinance is limited to larger employers; larger employers
are able to absorb some of the costs; expressed concern for residents and those that
work in Alameda; stated Councilmembers have been receiving e-mails expressing
concern about COVID-19 exposure; assisted care providers are in line to receive the
COVID-19 vaccine; the vaccine is being distributed as quickly as possible; grocery
workers have been far more likely to contract COVID-19 than the rest of the population;
expressed support for looking out for those most vulnerable; stated the matter is entirely
appropriate and will likely be of short duration.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for any request to broaden the scope of the matter
not limit the current proposal going forward on an urgency basis.
On the call for the question, the motion, which required four affirmative votes, failed by
the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox
White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the City Attorney stated the effectiveness section of the ordinance will
be updated to strike the language ""immediate upon adoption"" and add that the
ordinance will be effective 30 days after final passage.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,9,"(21-170) Recommendation to Accept Report from the Community-Led Committee on
Police Reform and Racial Equity and Provide Staff Direction on Next Steps.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated 11 items were brought forth in the report from the Steering
Committee and Subcommittees; Council will go through the list and vote on which
matters will move forward.
***
(21-171) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of waiving the nine minute
Council discussion time limit.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a specific time limit; stated that she will not
support an open-ended discussion time.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like to know how much time is allowed
prior to presentations and public comments.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for Councilmember Knox White's
proposal; inquired how much time staff and the Committee will be presenting.
The City Clerk responded the Committee has 10 minutes to present, unless Council
suspends the rules of order; stated there is no staff presentation.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing Council 20 minutes, with 5
additional minutes if Councilmembers are reaching the limit.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll
call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:
No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing Council 15 minutes and
allowing Council to vote to add 5 minutes.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a vote would be needed to
add more time, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.
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.
***
Steering Committee Members Cheryl Taylor, Christine Chilcott, and Al Mance gave a
Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,10,"***
(21-172) The City Clerk stated a motion is needed to allow the presentation to go
beyond 10 minutes.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing the presentation to be
completed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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.
***
Mr. Mance and Jolene Wright continued the Power Point presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether bi-annual training represents an occurrence
every two years or twice per year.
Mr. Mance responded every two years.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the Committees' expectations; stated there is a lot of
analysis; questioned whether the desire is to have Council move forward to have staff
provide further analysis and frame the issues to return with a staff report and
recommendations.
Mr. Mance responded the desire is to have Council instruct staff; stated many cities are
taking similar actions; the work being done as volunteers is provided happily; noted
professional help is necessary; one of the recommendations is for Alameda to hire
professionals to continue the work moving forward; the recommendations provided by
the Committees are sound and good; the Committees do not have the collective
experience; noted the recommendation is to instruct staff to write a report regarding
implementation of professional help; another recommendation being made is to have
specific, dedicated staff implementing recommendations to ensure matters do not fall by
the wayside; discussed a 1991 commission; stated not much came from the previous
1991 commission; the truly difficult work is ensuring the changes actually occur; the
opportunity is fantastic; Alameda is a great town where people are involved; there is
opportunity for a conversation between the public and the Police; disinterested parties
need to be involved to help bridge the gap.
Ms. Chilcot stated the recommendations presented are limited; noted there are
recommendations in-full from all Subcommittees.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for a discussion related to
additional recommendations.
Urged Council to direct staff to accept all the recommendations from the
Subcommittees; stated it is important to review and remove all the laws that criminalize
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,11,"survival in Alameda; expressed support for unbundling services; stated for someone
who is experiencing a mental health crisis, it is better for a mental health crisis team to
show up rather than an armed response team; urged Alameda Police Department
(APD) Officers receive better training, including cultural diversity training; expressed
support for a community-led Police Accountability and Oversight Board: Melodye
Montgomery, Accountability and Oversight Subcommittee.
Discussed her Subcommittee experience; stated Councilmembers have the power to
take action and continue the work; outlined her experience with Police and moving to
Alameda; stated that she has questioned the system she once believed in; public safety
is not contingent on the Police force, but upon the condition of the community itself;
marginalized communities are the most under-resourced; the community is best served
when an investment is made in people, social services, housing, and community-based
programs; urged Council take action and direct staff to create a mobile health crisis unit:
Debra Mendoza, Unbundling Services Currently Delivered by the Police Department
Subcommittee.
Discussed her experience with mental health struggles, treatment programs and Police
responses; stated that she was uncertain whether she was being arrested or
hospitalized; her experience with a mobile crisis treatment team felt like a medical
emergency, which could be improved with treatment; urged Council to stop the
criminalization of mental illness and direct staff to being the process of creating a Crisis
Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) type model response team for
mental health crisis calls: Beth Kenny, Unbundling Services Currently Delivered by the
Police Department Subcommittee.
Expressed support for unbundling of services and for the CAHOOTS program; urged
de-escalation training be provided; stated that she wants her children to feel safe
around APD; expressed support for the Civilian Oversight Board: Lelia Richardson,
Alameda.
Stated the matter has been of concern for a long time; expressed support for the
recommendations provided; urged Council to direct staff to explore the opportunities
around a department of racial equity and the Civilian Oversight Board; discussed
correspondence that he submitted to Council in December 2017; noted concerns
previously raised related to oversight are being accounted for; stated a Crime Analyst
can provide facts and regular oversight can provide a feeling of safety; discussed his
experience with the Police Captain: Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda.
Discussed the rise in justifying increasing funds for Police or law enforcement; public
comments falsely equate community safety towards banded measures, such as
increased enforcement; gave a statement from Asian Americans Advancing Justice;
urged Alameda do a better job in: investing and facing its community, releasing
statements publically condemning racially based acts of violence against Asian
individuals and following verbal commitments with tangible action; stated that she would
like a victims compensation fund, an increase in language accessibility or an offering of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,12,"culturally sensitive services; urged Council continue to direct staff, resources and funds
towards the work: Amy Gong Liu, Laws that Criminalize Survival Subcommittee.
Urged Council to approve the recommendations provided; stated a lot of hard work has
been done; noted that she does not feel safe around APD; stated that she hopes to see
real change in Alameda: Nairobi Taylor, Accountability and Oversight Subcommittee.
Expressed support for the recommendations provided; stated the Citizens Oversight
Board would help with accountability and rebuilding trust between law enforcement and
members of the community; discussed the CAHOOTS program; stated that she is
impressed with the amount of volunteer hours from the Steering Committee and
Subcommittees: Meredith Hoskin, Alameda.
Discussed comments provided by previous speakers; stated that he has had the
privilege of learning about racism versus living with racism; many of the
recommendations make a lot of sense; urged Council to take the recommendations
seriously and to direct staff to implement: Seth Marbin, Alameda.
Stated the matter is the culmination of a community outcry for change; the
recommendations are reflective of a community that cares; expressed support for the
Committee making a direct ask for Council approval of all recommendations; stated the
matter may require further advancement and analysis by professionals; urged Council
to adopt the recommendations: Amos White, Alameda.
Stated that he cannot add much should the life experiences of other commenters not
show the need for change; noted APD Officers are happy to have mental health calls
responded to by mental health professionals; stated a CAHOOTS type model would be
fantastic; discussed Petaluma's CAHOOTS type model; stated a mental health crisis
team is needed; law enforcement can focus on crime; urged Council to take action:
Jono Soglin, Unbundling Services Currently Delivered by the Police Department
Subcommittee.
Expressed concern about APD's hiring plan; stated APD is actively trying to hire more
Officers; white supremacists have infiltrated law enforcement in the Bay Area and
across the country; questioned how City staff will mitigate the risks; urged Council to
move forward with clear intent to implement the subcommittees recommendations to
ensure the work continues, consider including truth and reconciliation work, and grant
APD the desire to narrow the scope of work: Laura Gamble, Alameda.
Discussed systemic racism throughout the country; stated racism is a culture; outlined
mental health calls; stated incidents are not related to the condition of the caller, but the
condition of the Officer responding; mindsets have been set; the racism of APD is a
foundational condition: Kyle Hunt.
Urged Council to create and establish a mental health crisis unit; discussed the deaths
of Christian Hall and Angelo Quinto and victims of APD; questioned who to call with a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,13,"mental health crisis; expressed concern about the lack of trust in APD's de-escalation
tactics; stated the City needs trained professionals for mental health crises; urged
Council to take action: Venecio Camarillo, Unbundling Services Currently Delivered by
the Police Department Subcommittee.
Discussed her experience moving to Alameda; stated that she is working to be a better
ally after the mistreatment of Mali Watkins; racism has created a disconnect and a lack
of trust between the Police Department and the community; a process needs to be
created for internal Police Department actions to address Officer conduct; expressed
support for the hope to build knowledge and recommend changes to policies and
procedures as needed: Emily Langworth, Review of Police Department Policies and
Procedures Subcommittee.
Stated it is critical to confront history and institutions honestly even when difficult; urged
the adoption of recommendations, which have the most potential to hold Police
accountable and reduce the interactions with vulnerable members of the community;
expressed support for the creation of a Citizens Police Accountability Board; stated
Board members should be paid for their time; unbundling services is the right thing to
do; funds should be moved from APD to contract with trained professionals and
organizations; expressed support for using APD's budget to form a CAHOOTS type
program: Laura Cutrona, Alameda.
Stated Oakland has passed a resolution to implement a macro program through their
Fire Department; mental health emergencies are best addressed by unarmed, trained
professionals; there is an opportunity to create an emergency response alternative;
expressed support for assisting neighboring cities with mobile mental health units and
crisis medics; not providing these would be a disservice; the matter will be one of the
most impactful; urged Council not to let the opportunity pass by due to misinformation:
Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Discussed her experience fielding mental health calls; stated the recommendations are
important for all; outlined the experience of her brother being wrongfully accused of
stealing his own vehicle; stated the experience should not have occurred; urged Council
to implement cultural competency trainings for Officers, a mental health crisis unit and
the additional recommendations provided: Pravda Wright, Systemic and Community
Racism/Anti-Racism Subcommittee.
Urged Council accept the report and proposed recommendations, particularly the
recommendations dealing with unbundling, oversight and the social media policy; stated
the hiring efforts of APD should weed out white supremacy: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Expressed concern about funding; stated that she has not heard funding options for the
recommendations being presented; the matter should be voted on at another time by
the entire City, not during a pandemic: Anonymous.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,14,"Discussed subcommittee recommendations; stated a Code of Conduct has been
recommended; noted the Code should reflect the community; stated all
recommendations have a reflection of the community in mind and as a collaboration;
procedural justice should be a foundation of the Police Department; procedural justice
relates to how someone is treated and spoken to; urged Council to consider a Police
Oversight Board: Julie Norris, Review of Police Department Policies and Procedures
Subcommittee.
Stated Alameda can create a Police Accountability Board; there is value of a Police
Officer doing their job with diligence and compassion; discussed her experience as a
mother of a missing child; stated that she sees those affected by Police use of force;
noted an encounter with the Police and her daughter left mental scars; urged Alameda
fund mental health crisis response teams; outlined her experience with mental health
crisis calls; urged Council bring justice and care to Alameda: Jennifer Rakowski,
Accountability and Oversight Subcommittee.
Stated that she hopes all have taken the time to go through the full reports provided;
noted the reports do not fully show the level of care and thoughtfulness behind each
recommendation; expressed support for moving forward with every recommendation
and providing the necessary resources for implementation; urged Council to begin the
process of creating a mental health response team; outlined her experience as a bi-
racial Latina woman: Teresa Whinery, Unbundling Services Currently Delivered by the
Police Department Subcommittee.
Stated that she has dedicated time to fighting for racial justice and change; she has had
to sacrifice some of her young years to ensure future young adults are able to
experience life the safest way possible; expressed concern for her actions have been in
vain; stated the community and Police need to be held accountable for systemic issues;
the community has the opportunity to change; noted that she does not get to ignore
racism due to inconvenience; urged people not to ignore racism; expressed support for
all recommendations provided: Raquel Williams, Systemic and Community Racism/Anti-
Racism Subcommittee.
Urged Council to approve the recommendations provided, particularly the
recommendations for an Accountability Review Board; stated many communities across
the United States do not have substantive community input; expressed support for a
focus on mental health and de-escalation training; urged the City to find a way to treat
people with mental health illnesses safely and with dignity; stated it is imperative for the
community to be involved in the process of creating a Code of Conduct: Perry Green.
Stated mental health crisis calls for service involving substance abuse and interactions
with people experiencing homelessness do not need to have Police involvement;
involving Police in mental health crises has led to the death of at least two people in
Alameda and permanent disability of one other; Alameda should explore a model like
CAHOOTS; urged Council to direct staff to begin the process of creating a CAHOOTS
style mental health response team; noted the majority of Police calls for service are not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,15,"for crimes in progress; urged Council to begin the process of unbundling all services
provided by the Police which do not involve a part one crime in progress, including
traffic; stated real change is owed: Erin Fraser, Unbundling Services Currently Delivered
by the Police Department Subcommittee.
Urged Council to begin directing staff to implement a Civilian Oversight Board; stated
unbundling services is critical; mental health crises do not need to have Police involved;
expressed support for the CAHOOTS program; urged Council to accept the proposed
recommendations and begin implementing the items and to act with urgency; stated
people's lives depend on these recommendations being implemented: Sarah Neubauer,
Alameda.
Expressed support for Council accepting all proposed recommendations; expressed
concern about the recommendations which will lead to increased funding for APD or
related to training; stated racism cannot be out-trained; change is needed now; some of
the recommendations can immediately be implemented; expressed support for looking
at other communities operations and pushing recommendations a bit further; discussed
decreases and re-routing of funding; noted one-third of the City budget is spent on APD;
stated resources should be focused on access to resources outside of the Police; urged
Council focus on the methods which are immediately implementable: Alexia Arocha,
Alameda.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:33 p.m. and reconvened 9:49 p.m.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft proposed Council go through the list of recommendations provided
to prioritize and add matters for discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for training to the public similar to
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) ""Know Your Rights"" training; stated there are
elements which are helpful for many; expressed support for providing Police training,
including District Attorney (DA) and detentions and consensual contact, to prevent
events similar to the Mali Watkins incident from occurring in the future; expressed
support for APD staff being present in order to work collaboratively; noted there is a
Community Paramedicine pilot program; stated Alameda has done good work in laying
the foundation for medical programs; the City has a committee with the Alameda Fire
Department (AFD) and Alameda Hospital; expressed support for adding APD and
Alameda Family Services to the existing committee; stated the meetings will be
publically noticed and accessible; expressed support for making complaints and
concerns about any City staff accessible and available to all; noted the survey provided
good information and analysis; outlined her experience as an attorney and a Latina
woman who grew up in Los Angeles; stated APD should not be held accountable for
incidents that arose in other cities or across the country; it is important to recognize
Alameda-specific incidents; expressed support for trainings, an increase in Police
presence and License Plate Readers (LPR's); and for a change in culture; noted the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,16,"community responses in the survey included related asks; stated it is important for
Council to consider how to work together with APD and other partners; many months
have passed since the Mali Watkins incident and the time for specific action is now.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether members should go down the list to
discuss matter by matter, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she has tallied
her list during public comment; stated many topics will give rise to discussion.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to add consideration of deploying the
City Attorney's Office on the topic of not criminalizing poverty; stated many issues
regarding criminalization of poverty occur at the prosecutorial stage; questioned
whether the City Attorney's Office can be deployed to engage in matters which
criminalize poverty, specific to non-moving, vehicular violations; noted oftentimes, non-
moving vehicular violations are due in part to poverty and income status; stated there
could be options for an Officer to provide the alternative to a fine or ticket should the
violation be cleared within 90-days; many matters rest at the court-level.
Councilmember Knox White stated expressed support for the Committees and staff;
noted it is not easy to perform the requested tasks; comments provided trend toward
systems and situations; the work being performed is appreciated; there is a problem
with incarceration in the country; the problem is well documented; policy makers are the
first step in the pipeline and should changes not be made, the problems will continue;
there have been a number of anecdotes stating those with Black Indigenous, and
People of Color (BIPOC) friends will not visit Alameda; anecdotes are data; arrest and
traffic citation data shows the backup for the anecdotal stories; Council needs to listen
to the anecdotes and make changes; should changes not be made, there will be
problems; changes have not yet been made since the Mali Watkins incident, which took
place almost one year prior; challenged the City and APD to consider where to go from
here; questioned whether the City will remain a place where community members
consider anecdotes as loudmouths or will the City figure out how Alameda will no longer
be a City where people are afraid to go; outlined former Police Chief actions on social
media and a 1992 report on a problem, which required training; expressed support for
training; stated training will not solve the issues being faced; expressed support for all
proposed recommendations; stated a community committee is needed whose goal is to
listen to all the people in the community and report back to the City; the committee can
report back to the City Manager's Office and may begin to discuss a truth and
reconciliation process for Alameda; expressed support for Council providing direction to
stop using the City of Alameda's communication platform through the Police
Department until a clear and defined communications strategy is in place; noted the
current platform is misinforming the community; stated there have been posts related to
APD not hiring staff, but those hired within the past six months have not been
discussed; due to the lack of information related to hiring, the community is shown that
APD is not hiring people; crime related ideas are being promoted even though crime
rates are not elevating in all areas; expressed support for Universal Basic Income (UBI);
stated the cause of violence is income inequality; no amount of policing will cause
change; discussed A Peculiar Indifference novel by Elliot Currie; stated that he would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,17,"like the City to look into joining a regional program; expressed support for looking into
catalytic converter theft control; stated the City should offer a rebate program for
catalytic converter protective cages; the City can take action to help stop theft rather
than fielding angry calls from those experiencing theft.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for UBI.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the job performed will not be a thankless job; changes will be
made; expressed support for the proposed recommendations; stated the real work gets
down to the implementation and details; noted the big picture will not matter, if the City
does not implement correctly; expressed support for shifting responsibility of all mental
health crises to other departments which are unarmed; stated that she does not want to
confine the direction to staff to just mental health crises, all health crises should be
considered; noted Oakland and San Francisco have both focused on the change; stated
Alameda has a foundational structure for the change; expressed support for looking into
addressing the potential expansion of services and a who-to-call campaign; stated it is
difficult for people to remember a long list and matrix of who to call when needed;
people have been trained for so long to dial 9-1-1 in an emergency; outlined her
experience as a representative for dispatchers; stated 9-1-1 is not going anywhere;
expressed support for looking into getting trained mental health staff or crisis
counsellors in the dispatch center or a transfer service; outlined soft hand-offs of cases;
stated Council needs to look at a model where no matter is turned away within the
dispatch structure; the solution is not easy; thinking about how to handle calls is key; the
matter of dispatch calls has been discussed by the Subcommittees at length; expressed
support for considering underlying conditions; stated addressing underlying issues is
helpful when getting at root causes; discussed a shoplifting diversion incident within a
business district; stated that she has seen cases of stolen food; programs should be
made available to ensure people have money for essential items and do not have to
resort to crime; expressed support for transitional housing, a provision for affordable
housing, and fully funded school-based mental health services; stated the
considerations are part of preventing people from having to engage in acts of survival
which are criminalized.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Committees have taken the community a great
distance from where the City had been several months back; the proposed
recommendations are specific and actionable lists, which Council can implement; noted
that he would like to separate his recommendations between what the Police should be
doing and how the Police should be doing; expressed support for a clear delineation of
enforcement of law and prosecution; expressed concern about the criminalization of
survival and poverty; stated the matter appears to be open-ended and suggests that
certain criminal acts are okay; noted criminal acts are not okay; stated the Police still
need to enforce the law and rules at all levels, including misdemeanors; expressed
support for a more fair process at the prosecutorial level; stated it is important to strive
towards working within the existing frameworks and documents in place; expressed
support for a Code of Conduct; expressed concern about the Code of Conduct being
separate from the other documents that are part of Police training; stated there is a risk
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,18,"for confusion in separating the documents and Officers knowing which policies are
enforceable; that he would like to eliminate confusion by modifying the procedures and
documents currently in place with respect to the issues being raised and adding a
highlight to the Code of Conduct; Council should proceed and recognize that
enforcement of rules and laws are needed; however, a better system is needed when
dealing with prosecution; expressed support for new changes to grow from existing
framework and documentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed appreciation for those who completed the
survey; stated the data created has been valuable.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a mail version of the survey has been sent out and
responses are still being tabulated; expressed support for going through the list of
proposed recommendations; stated one recurring theme is shifting responsibility for
mental health crisis response and the CAHOOTS model; discussed meetings about the
CAHOOTS model; stated the program has had great success and is part of the 9-1-1
dispatch system; noted the dispatchers are trained to differentiate which calls are sent
to which programs; outlined Town Halls and County study sessions; stated crisis teams
have been formed to respond to 5150 and other mental health crises calls; the County
has launched Community Assessment and Treatment Team (CATT); emergency
professionals are paired with a clinician and respond to calls; the CATT program
provides a warm handoff; expressed support for a similar program to be considered in
Alameda and directing the City Manager to find funding for such program; stated nearby
cities have worked with CAHOOTS to set up similar models; expressed support for a
robust dispatch system, which includes trained staff who can respond to mental health
calls; stated the County can be a source for mental health funding; funding is needed;
expressed support for extending the Block by Block campaign; stated the campaign is
recommended by the Committees and business districts; the Block by Block campaign
is more than cleanup of refuse and trash left by unsheltered individuals, Block by Block
staff is trained to work with unhoused individuals and are able to connect people with
needed medical and mental health resources; proposed Council reconsider directing the
City Manager to look for funding for the Block by Block program; stated the program is
not inexpensive; however, there is also a cost in not addressing the issues; a bi-annual
mental health and de-escalation training has been supported by many survey
respondents and can only yield benefits; expressed support for a full-time Crime Analyst
position under APD, which could be in charge of looking at statistics to help form the
basis of additional programs.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he will need to know the level of staffing, the impact
of funding on the types of changes desired and the cost for such programs; the staffing,
costs and sustainability will determine the worth of programs; expressed support for a
CAHOOTS model and Block by Block.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can decide priorities by triage with a number of
different revenue sources; the City does not have unlimited funds.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-16,19,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to see an analysis of how
much money the City has paid for in relation to staff hours and the rate of pay for Block
by Block street staffing; expressed concern about the amount being paid to on-location
staff; stated that she would like research on the program rate of pay; noted there are
limited opportunities for bi-annual de-escalation trainings; expressed support for training
on other matters; stated Police are professionals and should be treated as such.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to consider where the Analyst position
would be housed; good auditing includes having things exist outside of the direct
management structure; questioned whether the position could fall under the City
Manager's Office and whether an audit will look at feedback coming in to create a
system on a number of issues, not limited to APD, but all City services; expressed
support for not just looking at housing matters solely within APD, UBI and access to
healthcare; stated a number of cities support Cal Care, a Statewide single payer
system, which is part of Assembly Bill (AB) 1400; as the City is having a discussion on
underlying issues and access, Council can give staff direction to add support for AB
1400 or add it to the legislative priorities; noted by taking the stance that healthcare is a
human right and looking into single payer access, the City can eliminate a lot of
concerning funding issues.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Steering Committee came out with the recommendation
for the City to continue to hire up to the 88 sworn Officers; inquired the role of the new
Police Chief in the process; questioned whether the role will inherit tasks put in place or
provide input.
The City Manager responded based on the interviews conducted and the timeline, a
new Police Chief will arrive sometime in May; stated staff will likely be implementing
certain parts of the Steering Committee's recommendations and the Police Chief will be
involved with implementation, as well as providing input or recommendations.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is anything to add to the funding and
financing of some of the matters currently being discussed.
The City Manager responded if Council provides a few priorities, such as addressing
mental health through a different form of services, a plan or strategy can be brought
back with other priorities within six weeks and can include financing options.
Councilmember Knox White stated the City should look into how to utilize the
Community Paramedicine program to support the development of a CAHOOTS type
model; internal resources have been providing good services and should be considered;
expressed support for the use of a Block by Block or a similar program; noted a street
ambassador program can be considered to address homeless issues within business
districts; expressed support for creating buckets and space for an ambassador and
homeless programs in order to get to the end of Homeless Strategic Plan to ensure
large, expensive programs are not being implemented without proper funding; noted
economic development money for business districts can be spent on programs which
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-10-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBEF - 7, 2014--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(14-406) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As
Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)
Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 6:45 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
October 7, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-10-07,2,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ESDAY--OCTOBER 7, 2014- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Councilmember Chen led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(14-407) Proclamation Declaring October 8, 2014 as Walk and Roll to School Day.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Blanche Kim, who started the
Walking School Bus at Lum School.
Ms. Kim made brief comments.
(14-408) Proclamation Declaring October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Karen Kenney, Girls Inc.
Ms. Kenny provided pins and a handout and made brief comments.
(14-409) Proclamation Declaring October as National Disability Awareness Month.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Kelly Harp, Commission on
Disability Issues.
Ms. Harp made brief comments.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(14-410) Paul Beusterien, Bay Isle Point Homeowners Association, expressed
opposition to moving the Harbor Bay Club; urged the City Council to help the
association keep the area's recreational balance.
(14-411) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), expressed appreciation
for the Fire, Police and Public Works Departments response to recent fires.",CityCouncil/2014-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-10-07,3,"Mayor Gilmore stated Alameda is fortunate to have very responsive public safety and
Public Works Departments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that the resolution amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association salary schedule [paragraph no. 14-419 was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*14-412) Minutes of the Special and Regular Council Meeting of September 2, 2014.
Approved.
(*14-413) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,148,511.13.
(*14-414) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period
Ending June 30, 2014 Collected During the Period April 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.
Accepted.
(*14-415) Recommendation to Grant an Extension of Time of One Year, to October 2,
2015 in which to Complete the Final Map for Mapes Ranch at 2001 Versailles Avenue.
Accepted.
(*14-416) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $796,923.22,
Including Contingencies, to Chrisp Company for the Shore Line Drive/Westline
Drive/Broadway Bikeway Project. Accepted.
(*14-417) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second
Amendment to an Agreement with Pacific Municipal Consultants for Graphic Art and
Marketing Support for the Community Development Department, Extending the Term
for 24 Months, to June 30, 2016, and Adding $150,000 for a Total Contract Amount of
$224,000. Accepted.
(*14-418) Resolution No. 14972, ""Recognizing the Temporary Appointment of Juelle
Ann Boyer to Serve as Administrative Specialist III with a Working Title of Interim
Finance Director."" Adopted.
(14-419) Resolution No. 14973, ""Amending the City of Alameda Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by Revising the Salary
Range for the Classification of Human Resources Manager and Approving a Workforce
Change in the Human Resources Department to Add One Senior Human Resources
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 7, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-10-07,4,"Analyst Position."" Adopted.
The Administrative Services Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft reviewed Human Resources' information technology issues
outlined in the staff report; stated the City should look into improving technology in
Human Resources.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff has been looking for systems that could
integrate with the Finance program; funds might be requested in the next budget cycle;
options are being reviewed.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*14-420) Ordinance No. 3111, ""Amending Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code
to Address Commercial Recreation Uses, Arcades, Ground Floor Office Uses, and the
Definition of Family. This Action is Categorically Exempt pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land
Use Limitations."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(*14-421) Resolution No. 14974, ""Commending Housing Authority Executive Director
Michael T. Pucci for His Contributions to the City of Alameda."" Adopted.
Expressed appreciation for Mr. Pucci's contributions: Helen Sause, Alameda Home
Team.
Mayor Gilmore read the resolution and presented it to Mr. Pucci.
Mr. Pucci made brief comments.
Councilmember Daysog and Chen made brief comments.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(14-422) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a
Lease with Watertight Restoration, Inc. for Three Years in a Portion of Building 43
Located at 2440 Monarch Street, Suite 200 at Alameda Point. Introduced.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 7, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-10-07,5,"The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Chen moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*14-423) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a
Lease with Steeltown Winery LLC for Ten Years with Two Additional Five-Year Options
in a Portion of Building 43, Located at 2440 Monarch Street, Suite 100 at Alameda
Point. Introduced.
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
Mayor Gilmore inquired the date of an upcoming special event, to which the Economic
Development Division Manager responded October 17, 2014.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(14-424) The Community Development Director provided a handout and made an
announcement about an upcoming job fair that would be held on October 15, 2014.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted a successful job fair was held before Target opened.
The Recreation and Parks Director announced the City received a $2.2 million grant for
the cross Alameda trail in the Jean Sweeney Park.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(14-425) Robb Ratto, PSBA, expressed appreciation for the Senior Code Enforcement
Officer working on Sunday to permit businesses open after the fires; made an
announcement about an upcoming car show.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(14-426) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a recent homeless outreach effort on
September 24, 2014.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 7, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-10-07,6,"(14-427) Councilmember Daysog stated City staff should consider working with property
owners to improve the appearance of the corners of Webster Street and Buena Vista
Avenue and Webster Street and Eagle Avenue.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:59 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
October 7, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-04-12,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--APRIL 12, 2011--7:00 - P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(11-181) Discuss Options Related to the Future Operation of the Chuck Corica Golf
Complex and Provide Direction to the Acting City Manager on Next Steps.
Mayor Gilmore thanked staff for bringing all options forward; stated in some ways, the
process has been very long and drawn out, but in other ways things are moving quickly.
Ben Blake, Kemper Sports Management, gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam stated at the January 25, 2011 presentation, Mr. Blake stated that
spending $5 million to $5.2 million for a 27-hole configuration would be more prudent
than for 36 holes; $7.6 million is a rough estimate for 36 holes; inquired whether $5.8
million would be needed for graduated improvements for 27 holes or 36 holes, to which
Mr. Blake responded 36 holes.
Councilmember Tam inquired what has changed.
Mr. Blake responded the original 27-hole proposal was the most fiscally responsible
way to configure the Golf Course as well as being the most efficient to generate the
highest profits; stated the community did not like the idea; as part of a new solution,
Kemper Sports is willing to consider 36 holes.
Councilmember Tam stated the January 25th presentation did not focus on the Mif
Albright Course.
Mr. Blake stated that Kemper Sports would not be involved in the Mif Albright Course
and considers the Course to be separate.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Kemper Sports has looked at the Alameda
Junior Golf Association (AJGA) term sheet, to which Mr. Blake responded in the
negative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he couldn't calculate how a 27-hole course could
make as much money, particularly on weekends; that he is glad Kemper Sports is
considering 36 holes; inquired what Kemper Sports would anticipate for the land use
Special Meeting
1
Alameda City Council
April 12, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-04-12,2,"thereafter.
Mr. Blake responded the land could be converted to field use or go fallow.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Kemper Sports has had any dialogue
regarding the current or past Harbor Bay Isle Associates (HBIA) proposal.
Mr. Blake responded that he found out about the current initiative via the newspaper;
stated Kemper Sports has had ongoing dialogue with Harbor Bay throughout the two-
year period.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Kemper Sports has been involved in Club
House discussions.
Mr. Blake responded Kemper Sports was involved two years ago; stated drawings still
exist for the 27 and 36 holes as well as moving the driving range.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether any joint effort is being done now, to which
Mr. Blake responded in the negative.
Speakers: Tim Hoppen, Harbor Bay Isle; Peter Holmes, Alameda Soccer Club; Jim
Strehlow; Alameda; Larry Newman, Alameda; Tony Corica, Alameda; Eva Hom, North
Loop Business Group; Jane Sullwold, Alameda; Norma Arnerich, Alameda Junior Golf;
Lia Marshall; James D. Leach, Global Perspectives; Jack Boeger, Alameda; Pat Bail,
Alameda; Ron Salsig; Joe Van Winkle, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Karen Bey,
Alameda; Ed Downing, Alameda; Jerry Ghiselli, Alameda; and Alexander Stevens,
Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether reconfiguring the south course and
repositioning the Mif Albright Course for $6 million makes sense, to which Mr. Blake
responded that he would need to know the details.
Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on why Kemper Sports changed the
configuration to 36 holes.
Mr. Blake responded a 27-hole course did not fly with the community; stated Kemper
Sports wants to do what is best for the community.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the issue of not being able to get financing to
put in more upfront improvements is a Kemper Sports issue or a general golf issue.
Mr. Blake responded a golf issue; stated the golf business has been on a downward
trend for a number of years; two years ago, three companies got out of the golf course
financing business.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether anyone has been able to get financing.
Special Meeting
2
Alameda City Council
April 12, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-04-12,3,"David Sams, Golf Consultant, responded the golf business has been on a downward
trend since 1999; stated the trend for golf is very stagnant; gross revenue is down
almost 45%.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City's option for getting an influx of cash would be
through some type of bond financing or finding a golf operator who is blessed with cash
and would be willing to put cash upfront.
Mr. Sams responded having a golf operator invest $5 million in a municipal golf course
is non-existent; stated golf will come back, but it will be very slow.
Councilmember Johnson stated older golf courses need capital improvements; inquired
how improvements would be accomplished.
Mr. Sams responded some cities put away money for golf operations; stated the
majority of cities are behind; that he does not know how improvements could be
accomplished.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Sams is impressed with the Golf Course,
to which Mr. Sams responded Kemper Sports is doing a very good job.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Sams sees another way of tackling the
Golf Course without heavy revenue infusion.
Mr. Sams responded the greens have a lot of deferred maintenance; stated San
Leandro closed down its golf course and spent $5 million building a new course.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Golf Course can be competitive now, to
which Mr. Sams responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the maximum rounds would be for 18-holes on a
weekend, to which Mr. Sams responded on a busy summer day, the golf courses could
have 350 players per day.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Sams is aware that said maximum was
not met five years ago, to which Mr. Sams responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Sams stated a lot of rounds are
lost on weekdays; in 1997 and 1998, 200,000 rounds were played on the two golf
courses.
Vice Mayor Bonta encouraged Council to support the idea of exploring the HBIA
proposal further; stated the proposal is cautiously intriguing; tonight, legitimate
questions and concerns have been raised; suggested that representatives of different
stakeholder groups talk through the matter in good faith.
Special Meeting
3
Alameda City Council
April 12, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-04-12,4,"Mayor Gilmore stated that she is intrigued with the HBIA proposal also; she has no idea
whether the proposal would work; that she insists on looking at 36-holes; she likes Mr.
Blake's suggestion to hire a golf course architect; in December, the City set aside
$100,000 as matching funds for the Mif Albright and Wadsworth Foundation grants;
there has to be room for the Mif Albright Course; thresholds need to be discussed; the
other part of the equation is what would go on the Golf Course land and whether part of
the proposal would be to swap out the land for potential all weather fields on North Loop
Road; Council needs to know whether the dirt portion of the land could be used; the
issue cannot be dragged out forever; a timeline needs to be set.
Councilmember Tam stated the issue has many complex, moving parts; time is needed
to understand the HBIA proposal; commitments have been made to the AJGA; the City
has been in active negotiations with Kemper Sports; inquired what is the critical
timeframe for the City responding to the Wadsworth Foundation.
Mr. Van Winkle responded the Wadsworth Foundation has not provided a specific date
in which to respond because positive progress has been made; stated the Wadsworth
Foundation is very pleased that the Acting City Manger negotiated a term sheet.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Mif Albright Course provides opportunities to do
different things, one being housing; a lot of other hurdles would need to be addressed if
there is feasibility; the timeframe could take six months to a year; a new Request for
Proposal (RFP) would need to go out to see if there could be a better deal; the HBIA
proposal is not new; the proposal has been in the background for a long time; the AJGA
term sheet needs to be solidified.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether an RFP would not go out until July because of the
workload involved with the budget, to which the Acting City Manager responded her
time is dedicated to the budget.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Acting city Manager could turn her attention to an
RFP starting in late June or early July, to which the Acting City Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Gilmore inquired what would be the timeline once the RFP is drafted, to which
the Acting City Manager responded that the process would take several months to draft,
issue, and receive responses.
Mayor Gilmore stated that her preference would be to go out with an RFP, have the
RFP open to everyone, and be a transparent and competitive process; golf is important
to everyone, but the budget is more important to the City as a whole.
Mayor Johnson stated time should be taken to explore the HBIA proposal; swimmers
were not able to finish the water polo season; broader issues need to be addressed;
more people should be involved with the process; swim groups should be included.
Special Meeting
4
Alameda City Council
April 12, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-04-12,5,"Mayor Gilmore stated that she has a problem with the ""renovate as you go"" approach
because the process would be slow; renovations would need to be done again within
ten to fifteen years.
Councilmember deHaan stated the focus should not only be on the HBIA proposal;
urged Council to visit the Golf Course on a weekend; money should have been set
aside for maintenance; all proposals should be reviewed; the process will be long; the
proposal to build 104 homes never came to Council because the proposal was rejected
by the Planning Board; the Planning Board and neighborhood had major concerns;
questioned whether placing 104 homes on the Mif Albright Course or another portion of
the Golf Course would be a concern; stated other golf courses always have surrounding
open space.
Mayor Gilmore stated the Planning Board would have to go through the entire zoning
and hearing process if homes were considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated the process could take a year and the golfing
community would be in dire straits; an RFP could be put together in thirty days,
responses would take up to sixty days, and a decision could be made within the
following thirty days.
Councilmember Johnson stated Council has been going down a path to preserve the
Golf Course for years; the biggest change is that no one has financing for the golf
industry.
Mayor Gilmore stated community members advocate for whatever the particular interest
is at the time; unfortunately, Council has to look out for the best interest of the broader
City; due diligence needs to be done for a win-win outcome; everyone wants what is
best for the youth.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated Council should go through the exploration process first and
then decide on the RFP process; Kemper Sports could be part of the discussion for
developing the concept going forward.
Councilmember Johnson stated some people are disappointed with the Kemper Sports
proposal, but people are very satisfied with how Kemper Sports runs the Golf Course.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Kemper Sports proposal was a starting point and
subject to negotiations, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether aspects of the proposal that Council was not wild about
could be explored further with Kemper Sports, to which the Acting City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry regarding the term sheet, the Acting City
Special Meeting
5
Alameda City Council
April 12, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-04-12,6,"Manager stated Council does not have to make a decision on the term sheet tonight;
tonight, Council needs to provide direction on whether to go forward with 36 holes.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated AJGA might want to explore tweaking the term sheet; the staff
report notes the term sheet requires an operator agreement, which has not been agreed
upon yet.
The Acting City Manager stated the Leased Facilities section of the term sheet
proposes that the Norma Arnerich Teaching Center and driving range practice stalls
would be available for the Alameda Junior Golf Academy, which would be run by the
new operator; however, AJGA would need to secure someone to maintain the Mif
Albright Course.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council would assume that all interested entities would have a
voice.
The Recreation and Park Director stated bringing the term sheet back after determining
the location makes sense.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired how long it would take to craft a lease after a term sheet is
agreed upon.
The Acting City Manager responded not long; stated Mr. Van Winkle has worked on a
model.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the term sheet would come back for Council discussion
after the exploration phase, to which Councilmember Johnson responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how long the exploration phase would be, to which
Mayor Gilmore responded sixty days.
Councilmember Tam stated sixty days has been requested.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired what Council wants as a deliverable.
Mayor Gilmore responded that she would like a staff report regarding what the
consensus would be and what the 45 holes would look like in order to have a
meaningful, public discussion, and see what the proposed ball fields would look like.
Councilmember Tam stated that she would like to have all of tonight's questions
answered, in addition to those that have been emailed; she would like to know whether
stating 14.4 acres can be shoe horned into 8 acres is factual and should be considered
and how issues regarding the Kemper Sports proposal would dovetail with the Golf
Course configuration in terms of the operation.
Special Meeting
6
Alameda City Council
April 12, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-04-12,7,"The Planning Services Manager stated the HBIA proposal will be posted on the
Community Development page of the website; getting to a final decision point and doing
all of the environmental studies for the Mif Albright Course, Golf Course, and the Village
6 site would take approximately one year.
Mayor Gilmore suggested that the word ""golf"" be included in the title of the information
placed on the website.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to be provided with detailed
information on what HBIA would plan to do with the Golf Course; information received
tonight is not adequate.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated an interim plan needs to be provided on how the Mif Albright
Course would stay open the entire time, and how golf would be interrupted the least
amount of time possible.
Councilmember Tam stated it is important to be clear that Council is not making any
decisions regarding swapping the Mif Albright Course for the North Loop Road project
but is looking at whether the moving parts fit together; there is no commitment to trade
open space for development property.
Mayor Gilmore stated open space is very precious to the City because of the limited
amount; the only reason Council is willing to entertain the HBIA proposal is because of
the potential, upfront infusion of capital cash and the potential benefit to the rest of the
Alameda sporting community.
The Acting City Manager stated staff would bring the Mif Albright term sheet back to
Council after the 60-day exploration phase of the HBIA proposal; the deliverable that
Council expects to see come out of the exploration phase is the layout of how the South
Course plus the new Mif Albright Course would work as well as the athletic facilities;
Council wants a championship golf course on the South Course; environmental
constraints, finances, and capital improvements need to be addressed; an interim plan
needs to be provided; HBIA, Kemper Sports, the golf community, and other sport
groups need to be involved.
Councilmember deHaan stated AJGA should be part of the discussion.
Mayor Gilmore stated the workload sounds very ambitious; perhaps an Off Agenda
Report could be provided; Council could give direction to increase the time line.
The Acting City Manager stated the burden would be on HBIA and community
members.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Mif Albright Course property should have a
residential appraisal.
Special Meeting
7
Alameda City Council
April 12, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-04-12,8,"Mayor Gilmore inquired whether an appraisal could be done in sixty days, to which
Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Johnson stated sixty days [to accomplish all Council direction] seems
very optimistic.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council wants to light a fire under HBIA; any extended time would
be for staff.
Councilmember Tam stated the matter has a bearing on the budget; information should
be obtained in sufficient form to ensure that it would be reflected in the budget.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated the Kemper Sports portion of the proposal would be taken out
of the equation if HBIA provides the financing for capital improvements; Council would
be able to continue to think about what the proposal would look like if Kemper Sports
were present.
The Acting City Manager stated the new Kemper Sports proposal includes contributing
$500,000 upfront for improvements; unfortunately, improvements would be made over
time.
***
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 10:20 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:27 p.m.
***
BOARD REFERRAL
(11-182) Golf Commission Report to Council
Speakers: Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Adam Strue; Joe Van Winkle, Alameda;
and Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Mayor Gilmore stated the Golf Course is an asset for the entire City; in the past, some
Golf Course charges were instituted because of shortfalls in the General Fund; Alameda
Municipal Power (AMP) has made transfers into the General Fund to support City
services, mainly public safety; people want to call 911 and have police or fire show up
within the usual four to six minute time frame; the Acting City Manager has addressed
some of the issues in terms of the budget plans going forward.
The Acting City Manager stated in late July, 2010, the City adopted the Fiscal Year
2010-2011 budget and a forecast for Fiscal Year 2011-2012; the Return on Investment
(ROI) went away in Fiscal Year 2010-2011, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT)
zeroed out, and the surcharge continued to be charged for Fiscal Year 2010-2011;
initially, she was hoping that the City would have a deal by now and the Golf Complex
would be privately leased and managed, which is not the case; Council has requested
moving forward with an exploration phase; staff time would still be devoted to the Golf
Special Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
April 12, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-04-12,9,"Complex; eliminating the cost allocation entirely would not be prudent; appropriate
levels should be reviewed; a cost allocations study has not been done for a couple of
years; said study is on tap for Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the only anticipated Golf Course charge going forward
in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 would be some number for cost allocation.
The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated an Internal Service Fund
transfer would not make sense; at one time, plans were to write off the $300,000 loan to
the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (AARA); however, the loan will be
paid back this Fiscal Year.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired what is being done with the PILOT and surcharge going
forward.
The Acting City Manager responded the forecast for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 zeroed out
the PILOT and surcharge, which would continue unless Council directs otherwise.
Councilmember Tam stated the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is
audited every year; that she does not recall that specific transfers between the Golf
Enterprise Fund and the General Fund were flagged.
The Acting City Manager stated that she does not recall either.
Councilmember Tam stated the City has three major Enterprise Funds: Sewer, Golf and
AMP; the overall budget is approximately $208.6 million; the auditors look very carefully
regarding how fund transfers; the Golf Course is an asset for the entire City and the Golf
Enterprise Fund is treated the same as every other Enterprise Fund; money does not
disappear just because it moves from fund to fund; that she is not sure whether the
issue is a problem that she can immediately discern as requiring a solution.
Mayor Gilmore suggested forwarding the Golf Commission report to the City Auditor for
comment.
Councilmember deHaan suggested that AMP be included also.
ADJOURNMENT
(11-183) - There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at
10:48 p.m. in a moment of silence in memory of Jesus Campos, owner of Otaez
Restaurant
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Special Meeting
9
Alameda City Council
April 12, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-04-12,10,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
10
Alameda City Council
April 12, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-04-12,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA),
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY-APRIL 12, 2011 - -5:30 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners
Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
Speakers: Jane Sullwold, Alameda; Pat Bail, Alameda; Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(11-177 CC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: 1
Clubhouse Memorial Drive; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and Kemper Sports
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
(11-178 CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov. Code Section 54957.6); Agency
designated representatives: Mayor Gilmore and Vice Mayor Bonta; Unrepresented
employee: City Manager.
(11-179 CC/11-041 ARRA/11-021 CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation (54956.9); Name of case: SCC Alameda Point, LLC, et al V. City of Alameda
et al, U.S. District Court, case number CV 10-5178.
(11-180 CC/11-042 ARRA/11-022 CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation (54956.9); Name of case: SCC Alameda Point, LLC. et al V. City of Alameda
et al, Alameda County Superior Court, case number RG 10537988.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Gilmore
announced regarding Labor, Council provided direction on salary; regarding CV 10-
5178, direction was given to the attorneys, regarding RG 10537988, direction was given
to the attorneys, regarding Property, Council discussed price and terms of payment.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:48
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
April 12, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-04-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -AUGUST 1, 2006- - - -7:30 P.M.
Vice Mayor Gilmore convened the Regular Meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
and Matarrese - 4.
Absent :
Mayor Johnson - 1.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-386) Library project update.
The Project Manager gave a brief update.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the cost for the re-
striping and extension of Times Way would come out of Measure O
funds; stated he would like to maximize the money going to the
library branches if library construction costs are less than
estimated; further inquired whether Public Works money could be
used for the re-striping and extension.
The City Manager responded the matter could be reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan stated the impacts on other Public Work
projects would need to be considered if Public Work funds are used;
inquired whether the $1.5 million released from the State would be
going to library branches.
The Project Manager responded the $1.5 million would come back to
the City; the money already has been accounted for some
miscellaneous expenses are coming from Measure O funds, such as the
$71,000 moving cost; the move cannot be paid with the State grant.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the library branch work has
been quantified.
The Project Manager responded in the negative; stated $2 million
would not go very far.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether library branch modifications
and upgrades have been spelled out , to which the Project Manager
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,2,"responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the modifications and
upgrades were dependent on the City's needs.
The Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the former
Library Director thought that a second story could be added to the
Bay Farm Island branch library he does not think a second story is
possible; costs would go up because an elevator would be needed; a
two-thirds square-foot expansion might be possible.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when a modification and upgrade
proposal would be brought to Council.
The Project Manager stated he would like to talk to an architect
first.
Councilmember Daysog stated the West End library shelving does not
allow books to stand upright; inquired whether eligible funds would
be available for altering the shelves.
The Project Manager responded that he just started looking at the
branch libraries.
Councilmember deHaan stated he would hate to see hand downs going
to branch libraries; inquired whether all the old shelving would be
utilized in the new library.
The Project Manager responded in the negative; stated all the old
shelving in the interim library would be disposed.
Councilmember deHaan stated there is a good chance to reutilize the
old shelving.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Library Board be
directed to start public discussion regarding the branch libraries
in order to bring recommendations to Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,3,"( *06-387) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on July 18, 2006, and the Special City Council Meetings held
on July 20, 2006 and July 26, 2006. Approved.
(*06-388) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,054,736.54
(*06-389) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for the Purchase/Lease of two greens mowers, two reel
mowers, one tractor, five electric utility vehicles, one sweeper,
and one self powered aerator. Accepted.
(*06-390) Recommendation to amend Agreement with Masayuki Nagase to
modify the dates of deliverables for Library Art Work for the New
Main Library Project. Accepted.
(*06-391) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Deleting Section 2-63.10, Third Party Claims, and by Adding
a New Section 2-65, Disposition of Property Consisting of Sections
2-65.1 through 2-65.5, to Article V, Administrative Policies and
Procedures Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-392) Public Hearing to consider Introduction of Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XVIII
Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Wood Frame One and Two
Story Residential Structures to Chapter XIII (Building and
Housing) Introduced.
The Building Official gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether upgrades would be required
for hazardous plumbing, mechanical, electrical, and fire/life
safety systems, to which the Building Official responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what was the rationale for a flat
fee, to which the Building Official responded a flat fee would
provide an incentive to homeowners.
Vice Mayor Gilmore opened the public portion of the hearing.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated multiple units should be included in
the proposed program; he fears that seismic retrofitting would
become mandatory; the 88,000 housing units referenced by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) already have survived
more than a 6.9 magnitude earthquake on the Hayward Fault.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,4,"complex projects] through a fee reduction.
Councilmember deHaan stated the proposed ordinance is a major step
the Planning Board was interested in moving in the same direction;
Victorians are a concern and are in more jeopardy he looks forward
to providing an incentive to encourage retrofitting.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,5,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-393) Pat Colburn, Alameda; urged banning leaf blowers
;
outlined problems created by leaf blowers.
(06-394) Susan Battaglia, Alameda, stated leaf blowers should be
banned; childhood asthma is traced to airborne particles.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-395)
Discussion of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement. Continued.
(06-396) Discussion of Big Box Retail Policies and Regulations.
Councilmember deHaan stated he did not want to review a super
center; the Retail Impact Assessment updates are not relevant
because the City is not considering 210,000 square foot boxes; he
is open to comments.
Judith M. Kissinger encouraged Council to take a careful look at
studies that show the pros and cons of having big box retail in a
neighborhood.
Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated she provided information to Council
in December Boston study reported that a big box has a $468
million negative net revenue gain; a specialty retail provides a
net revenue gain of $326 million; a shopping center has a net loss
of $314 million; local business would give 70% more in net revenue
gain than any big box store; local economy is brought down with big
box stores.
Ashley Jones, Alameda, stated he asked the Planning Board what
would be the use for the 200,000 square-foot space; the Planning
Board did not request an answer to the question; only one Planning
Board member voted against the proposal; Council needs to ask
questions before approval is given.
Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, stated the leakage study recommended small
retail stores and noted that big boxes were not needed to contain
leakage. she questions the potential traffic and congestion
impacts; Planning Board Member Anne Cook seems to have expertise on
the matter and voted against the proposal.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated the report is a travesty to open
government; attachments are not available on the web site; he
questions the report's relevance to Alameda; studies have addressed
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,6,"what big box retail does to the Bay Area; City staff needs to be
unbiased.
Councilmember deHaan stated he placed the matter on the agenda
because discussion needs to go forward now; proposals will be
before Council and have already been before the Planning Board; the
City is trying to capture off-island sales leakage many studies
have been conducted; the June 7 Alameda Landing study specified
that the leakage was not that big and does not constitute a large
box format; the drawings show four 225,000 square foot boxes; he
would like to start reviewing the opportunity of an ordinance,
recommendation, or proposal control is needed on a level that is
manageable for the City; additional entitlements are requested and
would be a problem; the studies indicate that big boxes have an
economic impact on local business; there are wage and benefit
concerns ; he would like to have more dialogue on the matter and
would like to have the leakage study go back to the Economic
Development Commission (EDC) for further discussion to determine
what is really needed; he would like to have the matter continued.
louncilmember Matarrese stated the Economic Development Strategic
Plan Task Force (EDSP) had the same discussion in 1999 ; the
Strategic Plan states that Alameda does not want to have big box
retail; discussion was mainly focused on Walmart, the Home Depot
and COSTCO, which are warehouse stores; the Strategic Plan is being
updated; concurred with Councilmember deHaan's suggestion; EDC
review is a good idea; stated that re-establishing the goals of the
Strategic Plan is good after seven years; big boxes should be
defined; there are concerns with how employees are treated and the
drain on the public health system.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated a shopping center study was conducted in
the last two years; the study addressed the need for anchor stores
at shopping centers; several stores on the list could have been
anchor tenants but had minimal approval from Alameda residents; the
EDC needs to review anchor stores being big box stores; a big box
might not be needed to make an Alameda shopping center successful :
the two components need to be reviewed together.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the same process should be
established for the Strategic Plan; the EDC recommended the
Strategic Plan with the output of the process brought to Council:
the Transportation Commission was an outcome of the processi
traffic patterns need to be reviewed. the Strategic Plan needs to
be renewed and brought back.
Councilmember Daysog stated that big box retail discussions need to
be part of the conversations involving Alameda's economic vision,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,7,"particularly at Alameda Landing other land uses that focus on
generating jobs for young adults should be considered; decisions
need to be held on whether the City should focus on big box retail
or quality retail that residents want; he would encourage
conversation on what the City wants for current and future
residents at Alameda Landing; economic opportunities exist other
than retail, such as Clif Bar and Rosenblum Winery expansion the
data does not show a strong demand for available, household
consumer spending at big box retail; available, household consumer
spending is in quality and specialty retail; there are a variety of
options; time needs to be allowed to make the right decisions
rather than making a wrong decision that the City cannot recover
from.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City needs to decide what
sacrifices it would be willing to make if discounters need to draw
50% or more in sales from off-island spending; traffic corridors
would be impacted; the Southshore anchor tenant was Trader Joes,
which is a small grocery store; he would welcome similar stores to
the City because good service and revenue are generated he
welcomes more information on the matter.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she has heard arguments that big box
retail stores would bring in other desired retails, such as Ann
Taylor; she would like the EDC to review the accuracy of said
arguments.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the June 7 study notes that Ann
Taylor Loft, Chicos and Old Navy are willing to come to Alameda
Landing without having a stand alone Target; 40% of Walmart and
Target customers shop at both stores; discounters have more
customer outreach; more congestion would be generated.
The City Manager stated that staff would provide an update on what
is the EDSP process.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he wanted to make sure that the
process includes the Transportation Commission and the Planning
Board.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Alameda Landing process has taken a
long time; a decision should be made as soon as possible ;
revisiting the EDSP would take twelve months; Catellus and ProLogis
should be advised now rather than later if Alameda Landing would
not work out for the City.
(06-397) Councilmember Matarrese stated he saw an Alameda Landing
traffic mitigation report that went from the Transportation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,8,"Commission to the Planning Board; one of the Transportation
Commission's responsibilities are to make recommendations to
Council, not the Planning Board; the Planning Board can weigh in on
what the Transportation Commission recommends ; Boards and
Commissions should feel free to bring items directly to Council;
Boards and Commissions could be copied on reports brought to
Council.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated
the Transportation Commission had quite a few recommendations and
concerns which should come to Council on a different track;
similarly, the EDC and Planning Board should come to Council on a
different track.
The City Manager stated the intent is to seek input from Boards and
Commissions and to bring concerns and recommendations back to
Council.
(06-398) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that tonight's Council meeting
could be viewed online through the streaming video process;
requested that the Information Technology Director explain the
streaming video process.
The Information Technology Director stated streaming video enables
people to watch Council meetings live on the internet; tonight's
meeting will be uploaded on the City's website at the end of the
meeting; agenda items can be viewed individually.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-12-01,1,"519
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - DECEMBER 1, 2015- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. and 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
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(15-702) Jay Ingram, Alameda, discussed the Encinal Terminals, requested City
Council be engaged in the project moving forward.
(15-703) Dennis Owens, Alameda, suggested the City Council consider a minimum
wage ordinance; outlined other areas that have adopted minimum wage ordinances.
(15-704) Matthew Frost expressed concern over the way improvements are being done
at the Golf Complex.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Oddie moved approval 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.]
(*15-705) 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 November 3, 2015; and the Special City Council
Meeting Held on November 4, 2015. Approved.
(*15-706) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,705,478.26.
(*15-707) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period
Ending September 30, 2015 Collected During the Period April 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-12-01,2,"520
Accepted.
(*15-708) Recommendation to Accept the Special Tax and Local Bond Measure Annual
Report. Accepted.
(*15-709) Recommendation to Accept the Police and Fire Services Fee Report.
Accepted.
(*15-710) Recommendation to Accept the Development Impact Fee and Fleet Industrial
Supply Center (FISC)/Catellus Traffic Fee Report. Accepted.
(*15-711) Recommendation to Accept Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR)
Systems Audit Report. Accepted.
(*15-712) Resolution No. 15104, ""Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute an
Agreement with Moffatt & Nichol to Provide Design and Permit Services for the Encinal
Boat Launch Facility Renovation in an Amount Not to Exceed $226,302, Funded by a
Grant from the California Department of Parks and Recreation Division of Boating and
Waterways.' Adopted.
(*15-713) Resolution No. 15105, ""Setting the 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Dates.
""
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(15-714) Resolution No. 15106, ""Appointing Christopher Griffiths as a Tenant Member
of the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC);' Adopted, and
(15-714A) Resolution No. 15107, ""Appointing Suzanne Warner as Homeowner (Non
Housing Provider) Member of the Rent Review Advisory Committee."" Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates of
appointment to Mr. Griffiths and Ms. Warner.
Expressed support for the change in membership; stated that he will be looking forward
to an actual debate on the 10% rent increases with the new members to RRAC: John
Klein, Alameda.
(15-715) Ordinance No. 3143, ""Removing Certain Grounds for Just Cause Evictions by
Amending Ordinance No. 3140, an Urgency Ordinance of the City of Alameda Imposing
within the City of Alameda a Temporary (65-Day) Moratorium on Certain Residential
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-12-01,3,"521
Rent Increases and on Evictions from all Residential Rental Units Except for Just Cause
Evictions."" Adopted.
The Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Stated that she is a resident at Bay View Apartments and an Encinal High School
student; renters rights deserve to be protected: Kristal Osorio, Filipinos Advocates for
Justice.
Urged City Council to put importance on rent control now: Erin Subido, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the Bay View Apartments residents being evicted; urged the
City Council to pass the ordinance: Jay Ferih, Filipinos Advocates for Justice.
Mayor Spencer noted that she counted 60 students present in the audience.
Urged passing the ordinance to protect families: Sammy Gutierrez, Filipinos Advocates
for Justice.
Expressed concern over being able to stay in his housing; stated the community is
beautiful because it is diverse; urged the ordinance be passed: Jimmy Nguyen,
Alameda.
Questioned where evicted tenants will go and if they will have to live in tents; urged
something be done about rent increases: Bunny Duncan, Alameda.
Urged the language in the ordinance be changed as proposed; stated people live
through remodels all the time; the community values family stability: Duane Moles,
Alameda.
Expressed concern over tenants receiving fair notice: Michael John Torres, Alameda.
Expressed concern over children not having stable housing; suggested following Santa
Monica's rent control ordinance; urged making the eviction ban a part of the permanent
ordinance in Alameda: Eric Strimling, Alameda.
Thanked the Council for making the change: John Klein, Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the urgency ordinance.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
The City Attorney outlined changes in the urgency ordinance; she stated that there are
two sections within Exhibit A: Section 5 and 10; the language is being struck and
intentionally omitted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-12-01,4,"522
Vice Mayor Matarrese noted that the intention of putting the moratorium in place is to
emphasize the freeze on no-fault evictions and provide protection while staff puts
together an ordinance for Council consideration on January 5, 2016.
Councilmember Oddie stated everyone has a right to stay in their homes; Council is
united on the issue; he hopes staff comes back with a comprehensive set of reasonable
tenant protections, not just a menu to choose from; he would like to see tenants
protected above and beyond Christmas time; housing is a critical need; requested staff
finds a way to structure the ordinance to protect tenants' rights to stay in their homes.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council will fight on behalf of the residents; the Council
has to implement legislation and modify just cause evictions; the matter is not only
about the West End, but all of Alameda is at risk; he would like to look at strengthening
the RRAC process; everything is on the table and Council is doing their best to
represent the City.
Mayor Spencer thanked staff for bringing the item to Council; stated Council is united
behind the serious problem; there are excellent landlords with long term tenants, but
there are a few outliers that do not seem to get the message; the Council goal is to give
tenants time to breathe; thanked the students from Encinal High School for coming to
speak at the meeting; stated that she hopes to continue to work together as a
community; it is the Alameda way.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the Council has serious challenges going
forward; requested staff to take into account the needs of landlords; stated that she
understands the needs to renovate, however, there are better ways to go about it;
requested the City look into adding to the housing stock while addressing traffic
concerns.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:09 p.m.
***
(15-716) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Upholding Planning Board
Decision to Approve Design Review and Use Permit File No. PLN 15-0198 For the
Construction of a Five-Building Mixed Use Development Constructed with Shipping
Containers with Ground Floor Offices and Outdoor Seating at 1926 Park Street. Not
adopted.
The City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there were outdated plans on website;
requested staff to ensure all versions are up to date on the website.
The City Planner concurred; stated he would take care of it; continued his presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-12-01,5,"523
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether safeguards would go into place to
assure the City is getting the highest quality materials, to which the City Planner
responded final approval has to go to the Planning Board to review of the details.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Design Review Manual on the City's website
references North Park Street waterfront streets with an associated map; it is not a
zoning designation, it is just an area; clarified the manual states the area may provide
an appropriate setting for modern design; Council voted on the document called the City
Design Manual: North Park Street District in March 2013; the online version states the
area provides an appropriate setting for modern design.
The City Planner responded the intent of the design manual is not to prevent modern
design in any other area.
Councilmember Daysog stated the issue is not one about design, it is about process;
inquired whether the zoning says doing something other than the 9 things listed requires
a variance.
The City Planner responded in the negative; stated nothing in the zoning states that if
you are not within one block of the water you cannot do modern architecture.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the topic is not on the agenda.
Mayor Spencer stated the matter is on the agenda; requested that staff locate the
document, which will be discussed at a later time.
Marcel Sengul, Applicant, gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many units will be upstairs; stated it looks like the units are
being counted separately and not connected.
Mr. Sengul responded there are five separate structures, which are two stories each;
four would be occupied by one company each; the last unit will be a coffee shop and his
personal residence.
***
Councilmember Daysog left the dais at 8:46 p.m. and returned at 8:49 p.m.
***
Expressed concern over the location of the project; stated that he does not want to see
shipping containers in the gateway to Alameda: Dave Case, Alameda.
Expressed concern over parking and the building looking cheap; stated this is a
keystone location: Jim Smallman, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS).
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-12-01,6,"524
Expressed support for the project and change: David Cavanaugh, Alameda.
Expressed support for the modern design; urged the Planning Board decision be
upheld: Jeff Cavanaugh, Alameda.
Stated Alameda's history includes shipping containers; the project is great and would be
an asset for Alameda: Scott Koehler, Alameda.
Stated that he owns several properties on Park Street and likes the project: Bill
Gonzalves, Alameda.
Discussed the AAPS letter and the types of architecture allowed; the project is in the
gateway subdistrict and modern architecture is only allowed in 2 subdistricts, not the
gateway: Elizabeth Tuckwell, Alameda.
Stated that she supports building with containers, but she thinks the project will cause
people to oppose containers; the location is not correct: Mary Anderson, Alameda.
Stated the project is green and the process has been followed; the business community
should be supported; urged approval: Michael McDonough, Alameda Chamber of
Commerce.
Stated the gateway should reflect the historic buildings; the style of architecture belongs
somewhere else: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda Citizen Task Force (ACT).
Urged the Council not to approve the project; stated the containers are unsightly no
matter how they are masked: Maria Dominguez, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the project; expressed support for allowing new and interesting
projects: Janet Koike, Rythmix Cultural Works.
Stated a car lot is not an appropriate place to construct a historic building; the area is
bleak; expressed support for the green building and the project: Tina Blaine, Alameda.
Stated the design does not belong at the gateway to Alameda; suggested the design be
changed to keep with the history of Alameda: Mary Tigh, Alameda.
Outlined design review requirements; stated Park Street's most interesting feature is
brick buildings; expressed opposition to the project: Reyla Graber, Alameda.
Stated that she opposes the project and the location: Patricia Gannon, Alameda.
Stated that he supports the project; all adjacent neighbors support the project;
discussed a previous box car project; stated small space is needed and would be great
incubator for small business tenants in Alameda: Rich Krinks, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-12-01,7,"525
Submitted and showed pictures; expressed concern over the design: Anthony Sloan,
Alameda.
Stated his business is next door and he looks forward to the project being completed:
Arthur Mercado, Alameda.
Stated the project will be a great entry for Alameda; another gateway project should be
done to blend with the project: Kyle Conner, Alameda.
Stated the Downtown Business Association (DABA) Board unanimously supports the
project; discussed the Planning Board hearings; stated shipping containers are being
used all over the world: Robb Ratto, DABA.
Discussed historic buildings torn down years ago; stated that she does not appreciate
the looks of the building in the location; discussed facade projects: Nancy Gordon,
Alameda.
Submitted information; discussed visioning processes: Former Councilmember Doug
deHaan, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the project; she works with tech companies which need
incubator space: Yael Amyra, Alameda.
Stated that his business down the road is an incubator for artist; the area is industrial;
the project is wonderful: Chuck DiGuida, Bridgehead Studio.
Stated that she is against the project; urged the Council to rethink notification;
suggested that the City Planner have a column in the newspaper about projects: Janet
Gibson, Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified the guiding principles of the strategic plan; noted
the key word is revitalization; stated when the City lost the revenue from the car dealers,
it provided an opportunity for new businesses; development is incremental; some of the
most innovative projects have been developed the last few years; the economic strategy
is innovative and there is a market for it; she appreciates the historic aspect, yet if being
too fixated on the past could cause the City to miss out on opportunities in the present
and the future; the corner property is industrial and does not have Victorians; the project
already went through the process and merits the support of the City; she supports the
project.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the project is consistent with the General
Plan, zoning, and the Design Review Manual; stated the Design Review Manual
contemplates certain design attributes; the Park Street waterfront district is south of
Blanding Avenue; there is inconsistency with the Design Review Manual; zoning for the
area, is under Municipal Code Section 30-4.25 for North Park Street District; the
challenge that needs to be met is whether the project is consistent with the Alameda
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-12-01,8,"526
Municipal Code; he does not see consistency; there was a lengthy process in creating
the gateway district, which helped to shape the buildings; Councilmember Daysog
moved approval of the City Council finding that the three issues have not been met, and
therefore, denies the project.
Councilmember Oddie requested staff to address the key issues.
The City Planner responded that from a technical standpoint, the project meets the
General Plan and zoning and is consistent with Design Review Manual; the manual is
only a guideline; the way to regulate design is through Design Review.
Councilmember Oddie stated Councilmember Daysog indicated if the issue is black and
white, the Council cannot approve it.
Councilmember Daysog clarified that was not what he said; the hearing de novo and the
issue is not black and white.
The City Planner inquired whether Councilmember Daysog does not like the design or
is it a question of the zoning.
Councilmember Daysog responded the issue is the process; there is a commitment to a
particular architectural style.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry about the vision would be for all four
corners, the City Planner gave a brief presentation of the gateway project vision.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to correct the idea that modern
architecture can be built, which is not accurate according to the Design Review Manual;
the project is not in the correct zoning district.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired which zoning designation is on the Blanding
side of the project, to which the City Planner responded the entire project is in the
gateway district.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what is the vision for the gateway, to which the City
Planner responded the vision is striving for excellent design in all areas; stated the goal
is to incrementally improve the entire district on all four corners.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if something beautiful is built there would it be out of
place, to which the City Planner responded that there is no beautiful design in the area
except for the bridge.
Councilmember Daysog noted the parcel is difficult to build on.
Councilmember Oddie stated the issue comes down to opinion; other projects had
derogatory terms attached when first built; then, eventually, everyone begins to love
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-12-01,9,"527
them; people should be careful about demonizing projects; it sends the wrong message
if Alameda makes property owners and developers go through a lengthy process then
yanks it from them at the end; the project reduces greenhouse gas emissions; he feels
what is important is what the neighbors think; most of the businesses are supportive
and think it will be an asset to their businesses.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the site is difficult; the major constraint is that it is a
gateway; that he was attracted to the project; the feedback from the community is that
the design does not belong there, but there were no objections to the use from the
community; if the design is changed, the community would like the project better.
Mayor Spencer expressed her concerns about the project; stated the Park Street
Strategic Plan should have been shared with the owner at the beginning of the project;
the Strategic Plan cannot be disregarded as just guidance; the document specifically
calls out the intersection of Park Street and Blanding; the City cannot have a 10-month
process and then, discount the report as just guidelines; the City should not depend on
members of the community to bring the matter to the City's attention; the project has
potential and she likes the green aspect; she is concerned there are no elevators; she
will not be able to support the project.
Councilmember Daysog moved denying the project because approval of the findings
have not been met.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether changes to the design would make the project
more palatable.
Councilmember Daysog responded that the project has to follow the Design Review
Manual and gateway district plan; there is a framework in place on how to craft a
project.
Vice Mayor Matarrese requested the design move closer to the criteria; stated that he
supports the use and the placement; stated the simple question is, does the City really
want to put containers there; suggested going back to the design manual.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like see more analysis from the City
Attorney and the City Planner on language.
Mayor Spencer stated that a motion is needed to continue past 11:00 p.m.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of continuing the meeting].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-
5.
***
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-12-01,10,"528
Councilmember Oddie suggested amending the motion to refer the matter back to the
Planning Board based on Council comments for redesign.
Councilmember Daysog agreed to amend the motion.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is looking for a significant redesign; every Planning
Board member should read the strategic plan guidelines; the design does not reach the
mark.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Councilmember Oddie inquired that if the containers are camouflaged, would the design
fit in better; stated he is trying to give as much direction as much as possible.
Mayor Spencer responded if there is a way to manipulate the design so that the project
does not look like stacked shipping containers; suggested reaching out to people who
have concerns.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the developer should decide whether or not to use
containers at all or start over with different materials.
Councilmember Oddie stated a sizeable amount of people did support the project; the
neighbors cannot be discounted.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the property owner should have the ultimate say.
Councilmember Oddie responded that he does not want to send the owner back to
change something, then have the project rejected again.
The City Planner stated giving the applicant clear guidelines would be helpful because
the design will still be modern; inquired if Council has a problem with a modern design.
Councilmember Daysog responded modern architecture is a style; stated the urban
design manual allows specific types of architectural design styles.
Mayor Spencer stated that she has no problem with modern design; the project should
reflect the high degree of craft that is indicative of Alameda's past and forms the
foundation for its future.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the staff could fix the design manual flaw.
The City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated staff will go back to the Planning
Board to continue dialogue regarding the manual.
Councilmember Daysog stated the issue is not what style is appropriate, it is the
process.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-12-01,11,"529
The City Planner stated staff will clarify the manual.
Councilmember Oddie stated 2008 was 8 years ago, the community changes.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what architectural style is the Perforce office
building.
The City Planner responded the building is not in the gateway district.
Councilmember Daysog stated the building is in the district that allows modern design.
The City Clerk restated the motion.
The City Planner clarified the motion should also include that the Council confirms the
Use Permit findings.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 11:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(15-717) The Interim City Manager announced the Public Works Department is offering
5 free sandbags for upcoming storms; discussed the Fire Department receiving a Class
1 Insurance Services Office rating.
The Interim City Manager announced the Holiday Tree Lighting would be held on
Saturday.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(15-718) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination to the Rent Review Advisory Committee.
Not heard.
(15-719) Mayor Spencer discussed the trip to Dumaguete, Philippines; stated the sister
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-12-01,12,"530
city memorandum of agreement was finalized; thanked the Dumaguete Mayor
Sagarbarria; stated the community was very welcoming.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:20 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
December 1, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 6, 2018- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(18-055) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.9); Case Name: Myers, Jason V. City of Alameda, et al; Court: Superior
Court of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: RG15777911.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding existing litigation case name: Meyers, Jason V. City of
Alameda, et al - direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:26 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
February 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,2,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY- -FEBRUARY 6, 2018- 6:59 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft,
Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -
5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk announced the Audited Financial Statements [paragraph no. 18-057
would not be heard.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissioner 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.]
(*18-056CC/18-003SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC
Meeting Held on January 16, 2018. Approved.
(*18-057CC/18-004SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year 2016-17
Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Reports. Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk and Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting of the
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
February 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,3,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 6, 2018- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,
Vella, and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(18-058) Proclamation Declaring February 2018 as Black History Month.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Betty Williams; Margie
Sanford; Rosie Parks; and Cindy Acker, Child Unique.
Ms. Williams made brief comments and showed a Proclamation from former Senator
Don Perata, newspaper articles and photographs.
Ms. Acker made brief comments.
(18-059) Proclamation Declaring February 6, 2018 as Audrey Lord-Hausman and
Richard Hausman Day.
Mayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Ms. Lord-Hausman and Mr.
Hausman.
Ms. Lord-Hausman and Mr. Hausman made brief comments.
The Councilmembers made brief comments.
Commended Ms. Lord-Hausman for her work on the universal design ordinance: David
Burton, Alameda.
(18-060) Mayor Spencer did the daily reading for the Season for Nonviolence on
struggle.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(18-061) Tim Anderson, Renee McLaughlin, Mitchell Dunn, Joan Boucher, Renan
Dincer, and Josh Gordonson Maker Farmers, submitted information; discussed the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 6, 2018
1",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,4,"farm, Upland community and tiny houses; requested assistance from the City Council to
help establish and permit the uses.
(18-062) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT), submitted information;
stated ACT supports affordable housing and recommends increasing affordable housing
requirements.
(18-063) Paula Rainey, Alameda, submitted information on Little Palestine by the Bay
event and invited everyone to attend.
(18-064) Ken Peterson, Alameda, expressed support for the Black History Month
proclamation and discussed climate change.
(18-065) Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda, announced Black History month events;
encouraged everyone to attend.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*18-066) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on January 2, 2018.
Approved.
(*18-067) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,294,180.61.
(*18-068) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Award a Contract in the
Amount of $60,000 to First American Transit for the Discounted Taxi Program Serving
Seniors and People with Disabilities. Accepted.
(*18-069) Resolution No. 15344, ""Approving Receipt of Revenue from the Caltrans
Adaptation Planning Grant Program for Fiscal Year 2017-18, for Preparation of the City
of Alameda Climate Adaptation Plan."" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(18-070) Recommendation to Accept Alameda Free Library Fiscal Year 2016-2017
Annual Report.
The Library Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese recognized the Student Connect Program; stated that
program is the best program.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,5,"Councilmember Oddie suggested a fix it clinic similar to other libraries, which reuses
items that would otherwise go into the landfill.
The Library Director stated that the Earth Day committee is discussing a fix it clinic.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Student Connect Program could be
made available to all high school students.
The Library Director responded the program is still in the pilot stage, but staff is looking
into adding other schools.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she hopes all high school students will have
access to the program.
Vice Mayor Vella thanked the Library staff for all they do and the programs offered.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the report.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(18-071) Recommendation to Accept Report on Alameda Crime Data, Statistics, and
Trends from 1988 through 2017.
The Police Chief introduced the Crime Prevention Specialist and gave a Power Point
presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many cameras for the Sharing Electronic Evidence (SEE)
program are around Alameda, to which the Police Chief responded that he is does not
have a number; stated people need to volunteer to participate in the program.
Mayor Spencer commended the Alameda Police Department for the Shop with a Cop
events.
The Police Chief continued the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired about vehicle break-ins due to a key fob extender.
The Police Chief responded a device allows criminals to try to unlock cars with a key fob
extender; suggested taking precautions to prevent access to vehicles.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether specific information is asked regarding the type of
cameras individuals have to be registered in SEE
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 6, 2018
3",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,6,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the data is available to show how many crimes are
committed by people outside of Alameda.
The Police Chief responded that he does not currently have said information; the ratio is
approximately 48% from outside of town.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how long cases are kept open when there is no video or
witness to help solve cases.
The Police Chief responded cases are left open; stated cases can be suspended, but
can always be reopened; violent crimes are always left open; if there is a statute of
limitations, a report will still be done to show who committed the crime.
Expressed concerns with the fear based policy and how residents call in about
suspicious people might be the same people advocating for policy and the police forum;
urged Council to have regular reporting by race, gender and geography to allow people
to see that people in different areas encounter law enforcement differently: Rasheed
Shabazz, Alameda.
Outlined the way a criminal might access a vehicle using a key fob extender: Dr. Jeremy
Gillula, Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the code can be copied when someone clicks to lock
the car, to which Dr. Gillula responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the report.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(18-072) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or Her Designee, to
Negotiate and Execute Purchase Agreements not to Exceed $500,000 for the
Acquisition of Thirteen Fixed Location Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR)
Systems; and
(18-072A) Resolution No. 15345, ""Amending the General Fund and Technology
Replacement Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18."" Adopted.
The Police Chief gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired who sets the retention policy, to which the Police Chief
responded that he does.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether setting the retention policy is within the role of the
Police Chief's discretion, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,7,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is a way to limit the access to the information.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Brian Rodrigues, Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC), stated
sharing of information with other agencies is only done at the discretion of the official
custodian of the data; in response to Senate Bill (SB) 54, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) has been cut off from the shared data.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what the policy was prior to SB54.
The Police Chief responded prior to SB54, the policy for Alameda Police Department
(APD) was to share information with all other agencies; as soon as he realized ICE
could have access, he addressed the situation.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is a way to know if ICE accessed APD's
information.
The Police Chief responded that he does not believe so.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether APD receives a notification if another jurisdiction is
accessing the information.
Mr. Rodrigues responded it is not possible to look backwards to see who has viewed
the information previously.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired if there is a way to change the retention time.
The Police Chief responded the retention time can be set according to the Police Chief's
request; stated that he would like to leave the retention policy at six months.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired why policy sets the retention at six months.
The Police Chief responded in the event the crime is reported at a later date; stated six
months is a compromise from one year.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how quickly the data is accessible through the ALPR's.
The Police Chief responded it depends on the type of crime.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether data shows how the ALPR information has assisted
in solving crimes.
The Police Chief responded that he does not have said data; stated it is difficult to
measure the crime that does not occur because people know Alameda has cameras.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 6, 2018
5",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,8,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there will be signage stating Alameda has ALPR's.
The Police Chief responded signage can be done.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the money for the ALPR's is not spent on
more police officers and training.
The Police Chief responded the money being spent on the ALPR's is from salary
vacancies; stated spending the money is not preventing APD from hiring another officer.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is challenging to hire new officers, to
which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are retirements coming up in the
Police Department.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; discussed the difficulties with trying to
keep up with the rate of retiring officers.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the camera information could be used
to monitor the businesses people frequent or places worship.
The Police Chief responded that is not the intention of APD.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the request is for fixed cameras at the
ports to the City, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated fixed
cameras cannot follow someone around; only a mobile unit could do that.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the audit would capture said
information, to which the Police Chief responded the audit would capture the number of
hits received and the number of inquiries made into the system.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether APD is able to guarantee that ICE
would not have access to APD data from an ALPR.
The Police Chief responded that he is 100% certain that ICE cannot access the data
from him; stated someone could take a photo and share the information with other
agencies but he will ensure anyone working for APD will not share information.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is an overview photo that is also taken of the
vehicle or just the license plate.
The Police Chief responded the cameras APD purchased are designed to only take a
photograph of the license plate.
Brian Shockley, Vigilant Solutions, stated two images are taken; an inferred image of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,9,"the license plate and a color overview image which does include the area surrounding
the license plate; the second image is used for investigations where the Officer may
need to identify the make and model of the vehicle.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the image captures parts of the vehicle, to which Mr.
Shockley responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired about the cost for the physical purchase versus the
data.
The Police Chief responded part of the contract is for data storage.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether other vendors can be considered and how
going with another vendor would work with the existing cameras.
The Police Chief responded there are other vendors; stated the staff report done in
2013 was a sole source purchase from Vigilant; APD checked with other departments
and he feels Vigilant is the best vendor.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the City's data is protected due to news reports
of ICE accessing Vigilant's information.
The Police Chief responded the data that Vigilant provides to ICE is private data only,
not law enforcement data.
Mr. Shockley stated the contract with ICE includes access to private data only.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how the City can guarantee the data will not be shared
with ICE.
Mr. Shockley responded in terms of the data security, Vigilant meets or exceeds the
security of any law enforcement agency or financial institution.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there are ways to be notified if data is accessed
or if anyone demands access to the data.
Mr. Shockley responded the data is not Vigilant's data; stated requests for data would
be forwarded to the Police Chief.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, Mr. Shockley stated the Police Chief
would get his personnel to run the report; Vigilant personnel does not have access to
the data.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether an option is to purchase the cameras, but
return for more discussion at a later date.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 6, 2018
7",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,10,"The Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what the scenario would be in the event that ICE
requests information for a criminal investigation.
The Police Chief responded that he has not been asked by ICE for information yet;
stated that if he received a request from ICE asking for assistance in a criminal matter,
he would request more information and want to see a warrant; he would also report the
request to the City Manager; ICE would need to ask for the data.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the request would need to be about a
suspected criminal or someone who has already been convicted of a violent crime.
The Police Chief responded the most likely scenario would be a suspect identified in a
criminal offense and a vehicle associated with the suspect; stated having a search or
arrest warrant signed by a judge for a criminal matter is in compliance with SB54 and
Sanctuary City laws.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the City of Alameda was on the list of cities that
received letters from the federal government.
The Police Chief responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the cameras will be on 24 hours a day, 7
days a week and indiscriminately track every license plate that goes past.
The Police Chief responded the cameras photograph the license plates indiscriminately.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether deleted data can be recovered, to which
the Police Chief responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the data is backed up.
Mr. Shockley responded there are backups, but the backups honor the same retention
policy.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether an agency that is not authorized by
Alameda could access to Alameda's data.
Mr. Shockley responded not through Vigilant System.
Mr. Rodrigues responded not through NCRIC; stated someone could possibly obtain the
information through printing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is more concerned with someone obtaining
the data electronically.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,11,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how ICE is related to car repossessions and
financial institutions.
Mr. Shockley responded there is no connection.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the contract with ICE is recent, to which
Mr. Shockley responded the contract originated in 2018.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vigilant notified APD of the contract.
Mr. Shockley responded a notice was sent out to all California Law Enforcement
Agencies immediately following the announcement of the contract; stated the contract
itself cannot be discussed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes Vigilant put the Police Chief at a
disadvantage by not giving him a heads up about the contract.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether data shows the cameras are effective.
The Police Chief responded the Piedmont Police Department has had a 37 to 38% drop
in property crime since the installation of the cameras.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the reduction in crime has been due to the
deterrent factor or if people have actually been apprehended.
The Police Chief responded that he believes there is a deterrent effect if people know
there are cameras.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Police Chief is willing to look at another vendor.
The Police Chief responded that he is willing to look at other vendors.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the monthly or annual cost.
The Police Chief responded the cost is approximately $500 per camera per year.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Alameda currently has four cameras from Vigilant, to
which the Police Chief responded four patrol cars have three cameras each.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether all 12 cameras were purchased from Vigilant, to which
the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the cameras would be compatible with another vendor;
whether license plates are already being captured elsewhere, such as FasTrak; and
whether said information is shared with law enforcement.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 6, 2018
9",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,12,"The Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired what other cities are capturing license plates.
The Police Chief responded several cities have them.
Mayor Spencer inquired about hacking data.
The Police Chief responded that he is unaware of any hacking incidents.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there are examples of cameras helping people.
The Police Chief responded most of the APD's successes have been property crimes.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether anything is preventing one agency from sharing the
data with another agency.
Mr. Rodrigues responded if a law enforcement agency has access, it could run
individual queries that are subject to rules, including who information can be shared
with.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the IRS has access to the data and could they share
it with other law enforcement agencies.
Mr. Rodrigues responded in the affirmative if that law enforcement agency is conducting
an investigation.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is anything stopping the IRS from sharing the
information, Mr. Rodrigues responded such actions would be punishable by law,
including loss of employment or worse.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is an option to immediately delete the overview
photo.
Mr. Rodrigues responded eliminating the imagery would be compromising the
effectiveness of the tool.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, Mr. Rodrigues descriptors, such as color, are
not present, which makes the photo relevant and is used in criminal investigations.
The Police Chief stated there are situations, such as stolen license plates, which require
the description of the car.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the technology has been used in the past, to which
the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
February 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,13,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there have been more than one case of stolen
license plates, to which the Police Chief responded there are many.
Mr. Shockley stated there is not an option to immediately delete the overview images;
law enforcement would be at a severe disadvantage if the overview photo is deleted; in
the event of duplicate plates, stolen plates, make and model of the vehicle is needed;
provided an example of a success story from a contextual image.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how ALPRs can help officers in the field who are
about to make a traffic stop.
The Police Chief responded an alert notifies dispatch to inform officers if the vehicle was
involved in a crime.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Police Chief has identified areas of
APD's policy that need to be modified for fixed location cameras and to ensure data is
not shared with ICE.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated regardless of the decision tonight,
he will change the policy to ensure data is not shared with ICE.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the same policy reference would be in
the contract with Vigilant.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated that he would be willing to include
language that states: ""sharing the data with another agency outside of APD's
authorization would be cause for immediate termination of the contract.
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 10:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:08 p.m.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft returned at 10:09 p.m.
***
Stated a reason he moved to Alameda is because it is safe; he would be upset if the
Police Department needed to use the readers to solve a crime and the City did not have
it; discussed Police resources: Michael Robles-Wong
Stated that he is concerned about Vigilant Solutions not releasing Alameda's
information; suggested getting said agreement in writing: Jeremy Gillula, Electronic
Frontier Foundation.
Expressed concern over the cameras; urged funds be spent on other policing methods:
Vida Gillula, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the cameras following the cannabis restrictions the City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 6, 2018
11",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,14,"adopted: Phillip Redd, Alameda Cannabis LLC.
Expressed concern over the cameras having unintended consequences and the cost in
respect to the crimes that would be solved; stated that he supports readers on cars, but
opposes fixed readers; urged the matter be deferred: Jeff Gould, Alameda.
Discussed information not being private and car break-ins; urged Council to vote for the
readers; requested Council make a motion to allow more time: Former Councilmember
Lil Arnerich, Alameda.
While Mr. Arnerich continued to speak, Councilmember Oddie moved approval of
allowing more time.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which failed because a vote was not
taken.
***
(18-073) Mayor Spencer stated a vote is needed to consider the remaining items: the
referrals; noted no Councilmember made a motion to do so.
***
Urged Council to support the Police Chief's request: Mike Fennelly, Alameda.
Expressed strong support for ALPR, which a majority of her neighbors support; thanked
the Police Chief for addressing neighborhood concerns: Susan Solomon, Alameda.
Stated the readers are the key to smart crime solutions; the Police Department should
have all possible tools: Bill Garvine, Alameda.
Expressed concern over retaining data for six months and data leaks; stated information
is subject to subpoenas: Rebecca Jeschke, Alameda.
Submitted his comments stated that he did not want to live in a gated community, which
the cameras are a move towards; he is against the proposal: David Teeters, Alameda.
Stated Alameda Progressives opposes spending funds on 13 ALPRs; this is not the
time to increase surveillance: Cheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives.
Stated the proposal is fatally flawed and lacks restrictions on how the data can be used;
Council should table the matter until another vendor is found and restrictions are in
place; Vigilant should release its contract with ICE: Matt Cagle, American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) of Northern California.
Stated that he opposes the readers; the Bay Area should not be creating this
information: Ivar Diehl, Berkeley.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
February 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,15,"Stated Alameda is only not sharing data with ICE because of the media; urged looking
into a different vendor; discussed crime data; stated 0.3% of the data leads to solving
crime: Mike Katz-Lacabe, Center for Human Rights and Privacy.
Stated ICE has had intermittent access to data; Vigilant asked clients to sign non-
disclosure agreements, which is bad practice; agreement is needed in writing that
Vigilant will not release Alameda's data: Tracy Rosenberg, Media Alliance.
Stated Alameda residents have been focused on oversight and use of the data, which
are legitimate cause for concern, but mass surveillance is not justifiable for Police
activities: Ruth Smiler, Alameda.
***
(18-074) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to go past 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Stated that he has not seen that mobile readers have worked and is concerned about
the stationary readers working; expressed concern over data leaks: Dan Wood,
Alameda.
Stated that she is opposed mobile readers; requested data only be kept for 24 hours;
urged Council not to authorize the purchase: Donna Eyestone.
Stated that he has a lot of concerns about the proposal; policy should be decided on
fact: Brendan Sullivan-Sariñana, Alameda.
Stated her family comes to Alameda a lot; cautioned voting to add a layer of
surveillance: Anonymous.
Stated no one can go anywhere without being recorded; cameras are everywhere
because they are effective; law abiding citizens do not care if they are not doing
anything wrong: Kevin Peterson, WHOA.
Urged Council to review the contract and do its due diligence: Genevieve Southwick.
Stated Alameda's crime rate is low; the Police response time is low; greater attention
should be paid to repaving streets; he does not want his information scanned and held
for six months: Eron, Alameda.
Stated crime is up; discussed crime in his neighborhood; he has not heard data has
been misused; expressed support for giving the Police Department the tools needed to
do their job: Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 6, 2018
13",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,16,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not convinced that Vigilant is the right
contractor for Alameda; she would like to look at other vendors and include language in
the contract to ensure the data is not shared; inquired what the process was four years
ago.
The Police Chief responded that he made a draft policy, the Council made suggestions
and the draft was published; stated the policy is a living, modifiable document.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how often audits would be done with the
ALPR's.
The Police Chief responded that he can look at the record; stated four audits have been
done so far.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there would be reporting back to
Council and public.
The Police Chief responded that he can report back in the interval Council requests.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Police Chief would look into
something other than a single source contract
Councilmember Matarrese raised a point of order; stated he objects because questions
should be brought back to the body and the body will direct the City Manager.
Mayor Spencer stated all Councilmembers should make statements, then reassess
where Council stands.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the process would be to look at other
potential vendors.
The City Manager responded if the Council direction is to look at other vendors, staff
would do a Request for Proposals (RFP) and return to Council for direction.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is concerned with other agencies having access to
Alameda's data; she would like the City to be notified if another agency requests
Alameda's data; she would like specific language in the event of Vigilant receives a
subpoena or warrant for Alameda's data; she is looking for the data that shows the
cameras will reduce crime or help solve cases; she has concerns with Vigilant being the
vendor; a more robust conversation is needed in terms of the data.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not trust Vigilant; he is in favor of the
concept, but would like to hear more from the community and the ACLU; he would like
to look at other vendors; he is offended by any implications that Alameda is targeting
Oakland; he would like a deeper analysis of the data to show that the cameras work to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
February 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,17,"deter crime; he is concerned with chain sharing of data and the retention period; he
would like to see what affect the cameras have on the business district and people
wanting to come spend money in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Alameda has the finest police force in the Bay Area;
he cannot vote for cameras that violate the U.S. Constitution; he would like to see the
statistics that show the effectiveness of the data.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the cameras violate the Fourth Amendment.
The Assistant City Attorney responded there is no reasonable expectation of privacy
when people are on the roads.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether it is the Assistant City Attorney's legal opinion that the
readers do not violate the Fourth Amendment, to which the Assistant City Attorney
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney has any concerns with
ALPR's.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that he has concerns with the firewall and the
fact that Vigilant is doing business with ICE; stated policy can be crafted to address
security concerns.
Mayor Spencer stressed the significance of the rising trend in the more serious, Part 1, ,
crimes; inquired whether the locations are the best for new cameras.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated placing the cameras at the
entrances and exits of the Island is neutral.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether it is the Police Chief's professional opinion that
purchasing the cameras is the best way to utilize the $500,000.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative, given the department vacancies; stated if
he had Police Officers ready to start working, the answer would be no.
Mayor Spencer stated the number of serious crimes needs to be reduced; she supports
the cameras being utilized; she is concerned with using Vigilant as a vendor; she would
prefer doing an RFP; she would like annual reports with more data.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there are any circuit court cases on GPS.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired which circuit court has addressed ALPR's
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 6, 2018
15",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,18,"The Assistant City Attorney responded the Sixth Circuit.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the Ninth Circuit has addressed ALPR's.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated that he had limited time to
conduct more research.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there is a 2009 Ninth Circuit case from San Francisco dealing
with ALPR's misreading license plates; stated the Ninth Circuit is holding that
technology alone cannot be the basis for a stop; inquired whether APD has something
in the policy that specifically addresses said issue.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the Officers have to independently
verify the hit on the license plate.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how the Officers conduct the verification.
The Police Chief responded that the Officer verify the make and model of the vehicle
with dispatch.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether data is exempt from the California Public Records
Act due to the data being investigative reports.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the California Supreme Court indicated that is not acceptable
and sent the matter back down to the Superior Court in 2017.
The Police Chief stated said case was appealed and is pending being heard by the U.S.
Supreme Court; the issue is a records issue, not technology or data storage; the issue
is whether the data is releasable under the California Public Records Act.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the consensus among the City Attorney community is
that ALPR records should be treated as investigative reports just like any other police
record and should not be disclosed.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City of Alameda is following said policy, to which
the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the process should be if the Council wants
to go with another vendor.
The City Manager responded Council could direct staff to allocate the funds for
purchase of ALPR's and to move forward with an RFP; the RFP would include specific
language on the City's policy; the contract would be open to any contractor, including
Vigilant; the criteria will be based on Council input.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
February 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,19,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether the funds can be allocated tonight, to which the City
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the second part would be the RFP and the terms of the RFP.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see a revised policy with
Council's input and the contract language.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether or not the budget could be disconnected from
the contract with Vigilant.
The City Manager responded the funds can be set aside; stated choosing the vendor
would require an RFP.
Councilmember Oddie suggested there be a workshop to gather comments.
The City Manager stated setting aside the funds for the use does not commit future use
of the funds; stated if the RFP comes back and does not meet the criteria, Council can
approve or deny the matter at that time.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Council could approve or deny the contract in
the future, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of allocating the fund savings identified in
the report to the Information Technology (IT) fund for a system; stated the system can
be debated after.
Mayor Spencer stated there is a resolution listed and the motion could be to adopt the
resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would do said motion [moved adoption of the
resolution].
Councilmember Oddie stated he is open to seconding the motion.
The City Manager stated the resolution only addresses the funding, not the vendor.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council had a chance to review the resolution that
Councilmember Matarrese is referencing; read the title of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Vella clarified the funds are for any technology.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the type of technology used can be debated at a later
date.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the technology does not have to be ALPR's.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 6, 2018
17",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,20,"Councilmember Matarrese stated funds can be used in a different way.
Councilmember Oddie stated he is okay with the suggestions by Councilmember
Matarrese and seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether someone would like to go over the proposal for the
next motion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of directing the City Manager to issue an
RFP for vendors and to direct the Police Chief to revise the use policy and contract
language.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to return to Councilmember Matarrese's
original motion and make the direction broader to evaluate and debate different
technologies.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the use of the technologies goes back to the policy
and standard operating procedures.
Councilmember Oddie stated there may be another tool that could be used.
Mayor Spencer stated the RFP would include ALPR's and any other possible data.
Councilmember Oddie stated the language could read, technology, including, but not
limited to, ALPR's.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Police Chief is up to date on current
technology.
The City Manager stated language can be added; she would rather have the option of
an RFP or Request for Qualifications (RFQ).
Councilmember Oddie stated the flexibility is acceptable.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether direction is sufficient.
The City Manager responded that she would prefer a motion.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would prefer to have a more robust conversation
before an RFP is done.
The Police Chief stated more dialogue needs to be done before an RFP or RFQ can be
put forward.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there were recurring themes at tonight's City
Council meeting: data storage, security, if the data can be shared with other agencies,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
February 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,21,"such as ICE, the length of data retention and the constitutional issue.
Vice Mayor Vella made a substitute motion to approve having more discussion about
the policy and giving more direction before the parameters of the RFQ or RFP are done.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Police Chief would also
prefer to have more discussion.
The Police Chief responded that he can go forward if can be advised of the must haves.
Councilmember Oddie stated the public should be heard.
Mayor Spencer stated there have been meetings for the past four years.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the must haves are: specifying what uses of the
ALPR system will not be permitted, such as the apprehension of a wanted persons,
which begs the question, wanted by whom and for what reason; modifying language to
indicate no cooperation with ICE to identify undocumented individuals and no private
companies; language specifying that APD will not use any hot lists that include
individuals that were sought simply because of their immigration status; scheduling a
report to the City Council every time an audit report is done; including a provision that
no information would be provided to ICE solely because of immigration status; language
that confirmation of the current status on a hot list for license plates that is otherwise of
interest specifying that it is never to assist ICE in immigration services; and more
information about the data center; data retention should be reviewed and language
should be added to highlight specifically that APD ALPR information should never be
shared with ICE in searches related solely to a person's immigration status.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the policy could include the data not being subject to
public information requests.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the City Attorney's Office and staff have heard
the comments from Council and the public; the City Attorney's Office and the Police
Department can work together to prepare an RFP that can be brought back at a future
Council meeting and for public comment and Council review.
Vice Mayor Vella also inquired whether the discussion would include amending the
current policy that is in place.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there could be other concerns; the list outlined by
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft is not exhaustive.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 6, 2018
19",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,22,"Vice Mayor Vella called the question.
Mayor Spencer requested the motion be repeated, to which the City Clerk repeated
Vice Mayor Vella's motion.
The Assistant City Attorney stated Vice Mayor Vella could adopt his statement as the
motion.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of having the City Attorney's office work with
The City Manager stated staff would come back with a draft for Council consideration
before it goes out.
Vice Mayor Vella continued the motion of a draft potential RFP or RFQ and a draft
policy that would be reviewed by Council prior to its issuance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion is similar to the prior motion, but the
Council will be working against what is being prepared by the City Attorney and the
Police Chief so Council will not be free forming, which is going against what has been
prepared off of the comments tonight; seconded the motion.
Vice Mayor Vella stated it is a new motion and new second and she withdraws the
previous motion.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion includes some direction to have
additional public input other than agendizing the draft RFP to the Council, such as a
town hall.
Vice Mayor Vella stated, as part of the process, the matter is going to have to be
agendized, which means the public will be noticed; there will be another meeting on the
matter for the public to come and comment; prior to the meeting, the public could reach
out to the City Attorney's office, the Police Department and Councilmembers, which she
would encourage as part of the transparent process, to add comments or concerns.
Councilmember Oddie stated the public should be sure to talk to Councilmembers if
they have concerns.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(18-075) The City Manager provided an update on the North Housing Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
February 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,23,"(18-076) Janet Gibson, ACT, stated ACT has been advocating for a senior housing with
progressive assistance; discussed using developer impact fees for affordable housing
and rental assistance.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(18-077) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process.
(18-078) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Information on the Citywide Dockless Bike
Sharing Program and Return to Council with Additional Safety Requirements. Not
heard. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella)
(18-079) Consider Banning Motorized Commercial Vehicles, Including Robotic
Commercial Vehicles, from Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft Used for
Deliveries. Not heard. (Councilmember Matarrese)
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(18-080) Councilmember Oddie provided information on StopWaste.org.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:37 a.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
February 6, 2018
21",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY--JANUARY 16, 2018- -6:59 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft,
Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -
5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*18-015CC/18-001SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC
Meetings Held on December 5 and 19, 2017. [City Council and SACIC]. Approved.
(*18-016CC/18-002SACIC) SUMMARY: Issue Certificate of Completion to Wind River
Pursuant to the DDA.
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Issue a Certificate of Completion to
LVA4 Alameda WRW, L.P. and LVA4 Alameda WRW II, L.P. pursuant to the Disposition
and Development Agreement (DDA) with the former Community Improvement
Commission of the City of Alameda. [City Council and SACIC]. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk and Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting of the
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
January 16, 2018
1",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,2,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 16, 2018- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,
Vella and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(18-017) Mayor Spencer announced the rent increase matter [paragraph no. 18-040]
was withdrawn.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(18-018) Mayor Spencer read and presented a proclamation to Jim Franz.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(18-019) Andrew Blyholder, Porsche Club of America, submitted a letter and requested
events at Alameda Point be permitted.
(18-020) Sharon Aminy, Eden I&R, outlined Eden I&R's services and thanked the
Council for its support.
(18-021) Denise Sicat Wong, Filipino Advocates for Justice, discussed the situation at
470 Central Avenue and urged Council to pass a moratorium.
(18-022) Emily Hills, Alameda, discussed her living conditions, lack of response by her
landlord, and requested that the City provide assistance.
(18-023) Matt Lang, Alameda, stated that he is a tenant; expressed concern over
evictions; asked the Council to help.
(18-024) Brad Hirn, Alameda Renters Coalition, further discussed Ms. Hills tenancy;
stated she received an unlawful detainer; outlined issues with the landlord; stated
immediate intervention is needed.
(18-025) Lily Conable, Encinal High School, announced a Political and Proud event to
encourage women and girls to be involved in politics and advocate for their rights.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced the Transportation Choices Plan [paragraph no. 18-030],
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,3,"Parcel Map resolution [paragraph no. 18-033 and final passage of the ordinance
[paragraph no. 18-036 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
The City Clerk noted the salary amount in the salary schedule resolution [paragraph no.
*18-034 is the correct amount, rather than the amount in the staff report.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*18-026) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on December 19, 2017.
Approved.
(*18-027) Ratified bills in the amount of $10,910,812.64.
(*18-028) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to
an Agreement with Ninyo and Moore to Add the Amount of $15,900, for a Total
Agreement Amount of $138,504, and to Extend the Term to February 28, 2018 for
Geotechnical Testing and Inspection Services for Estuary Park. Accepted.
(*18-029) Recommendation to Accept the Work of GoodLand Landscape Construction
Inc. for Estuary Park Site Improvements Phase 1, No. P.W. 02-16-01. Accepted.
(*18-030) Recommendation to Adopt Draft City of Alameda Transportation Choices
Plan.
Stated that she supports the staff recommendation to remove the proposed bus lanes
on Island Drive: Dawn Jaeger, Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners Association
(CHBIO).
Stated that he supports the plan as amended with removal of the proposed bus lanes
on Bay Farm Island: Charles Hodgkins, CHBIO.
Stated that she would like to be involved in the shuttle exploration project with staff: Pat
Potter, Bike Walk Alameda.
Stated everyone can be proud of the plan; suggested a shuttle continue to be explored;
discussed changes in traffic in the Tube: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog,
Alameda.
Expressed his gratitude to Council for having staff revisit the shuttle matter and to staff
for working on making the shuttle the top priority; clarified the suggestion is not the final
blue print; urged approval: Tony Kuttner, Greater Alameda Business Association.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,4,"Mayor Spencer requested clarification on the priority of the shuttle.
The Base Reuse Director responded the shuttle is listed as a high priority; stated staff is
balancing all of the high priority projects with other deadlines.
Mayor Spencer stated there are 12 high priorities listed under near term completion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the importance of meeting with stakeholders
ahead of making a proposal; stated that she would like specific numbers for the benefits
to AC Transit and riders regarding the changes being made to the Westline Drive bus
lane; requested staff seek feedback from Harbor Bay Farm residents on what would
work best.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is thankful to staff for moving the shuttle up to high
priority; the City needs to ensure lower wage earners in the area are not harmed.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed appreciation for including Bike Walk Alameda and all
community partners; stated that she would like staff to be careful on how resources are
allocated.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Miller Sweeney multimodal Bridge is not
a high, rather than a midterm, completion priority.
The Base Reuse Director responded the bridge is a high priority; stated the priority is
midterm due to the price and time it takes to design a new bridge.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would be looking to receive
funding from Regional Measure 3.
The Base Reuse Director responded the project is a County project; staff will look at all
possible funding sources.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the completion date will be closer to 3
years, rather than 8 years.
The Base Reuse Director responded closer to 8 years.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is not happy with AC Transit being on time only 80% of
the time; commuters need to arrive to work on time; the community was surveyed and
would like a shuttle service; expressed concern with the bike share program not
providing helmets to youth and parking the bicycles in the middle of the sidewalk; stated
that she would like staff to work with community members to make the plan successful.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of adopting the draft City of Alameda
Transportation Choices Plan.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,5,"Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*18-031) Recommendation to Award a One Year Contract, with the Option of Two One-
Year Extensions, in the Amount Not to Exceed $274,378, Including Contingency, to
BKF Engineers to Finalize the Design of the Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway and
Atlantic Gap Segments of the Cross Alameda Trail (between Main Street and
Constitution Way). Accepted.
(*18-032) Recommendation to Award a Contract for an Amount, Including Contingency,
not to Exceed $367,940, to Schaaf & Wheeler for the Preparation of Engineering
Documents for the Upgrade of the City of Alameda Sewer Pump Stations, Phase 4.
Accepted.
(18-033) Adoption of Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 10275 - A Parcel Map for
the Proposed Subdivision of the Parcel at 1700 Harbor Bay Parkway (Hampton Inn and
Suites) into Two Parcels. Not adopted.
Stated the issues being raised by the opposition are not related to the Parcel Map; the
matter is not a union issue: Zack Wasserman, Applicant's Attorney.
Stated the applicant needs to separate the parcel to get financing; submitted a handout
to Council: Ty Hudson, Unite Here.
The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the issue came before the Planning Board in August
2014, to which the Planning Services Manager responded the issue came before the
Planning Board, but not Council, at said time.
Mayor Spencer inquired why the issue is coming before Council now and not in 2014.
The Planning Services Manager responded the project has been approved; stated the
applicants are pulling building permits; what is currently before Council is the request to
split the parcel into two lots.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired why the parcel needs to be split.
The Planning Services Manager responded the financing criteria requires the hotel to be
on its own lot.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the Planning Board ever looked at the subdivision of
the lots.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board did review the
subdivision of the lots.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,6,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the item would still need to be approved by Council,
to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the
Planning Board made a recommendation three years ago that the Council approve the
parcel map.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how the project site is not subject to the 0.5 FAR [Floor
Area Ratio].
The Planning Services Manager responded the suggestion that Planning Board
Resolution 1533 lifted the language of Bay Edge Road and made it applicable to the
entire business park is not correct.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is the FAR.
The Planning Services Manager responded FAR is the ratio of the building gross square
footage to the site.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the building would look like in a lower FAR versus a
higher FAR.
The Planning Services Manager responded the lower FAR means more land compared
to a higher FAR having more building compared to land area.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the definition means pertaining to the current project.
The Planning Services Manager responded the approved plans for the current project
have an FAR of 1.32, which means the amount of hotel building is 1.32 of the lot area;
the proposed lot area is approximately 4,000 square feet, the proposed building area is
53,000 square feet.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the height issue is what is being raised, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff is submitting that the ratio does not pertain to the
height concerns.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the parking concern is being addressed.
The Planning Services Manager responded the project meets the parking requirements
set forth in the zoning requirements.
Councilmember Oddie requested clarification of Exhibit D, page 5 Planning Board
Resolution 1203, Condition 44.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,7,"The Planning Services Manager stated Conditions 44 and 46 references the FAR limit;
stated staff's opinion and how the City consistently applies the standard is that the 0.5
FAR limit pertains to the area between the lagoons and San Francisco Bay, and does
not apply to the other portion of the business park.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the condition does not apply to the business
park portion even though the section refers to Tract 4500, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council can deny the request if a majority believes the
conditions are not consistent with the General Plan, zoning or parking.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Council's discretion is very limited;
stated under the Subdivision Map Act, the Council must approve the parcel map if the
findings can be made; if any one of the findings cannot be made, Council must deny the
parcel map; staff's position is clear; the findings can be made set forth in the draft
resolution; the recommendation is that Council approve the parcel map.
Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support the request; community members have
legitimate concerns regarding the height and parking.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the table shows the FAR that are applicable to each
area and the hierarchy described in the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of [the resolution approving] the
recommendation approved by the Planning Board, approving the Parcel Map and
proposed subdivision at 1700 Harbor Bay Parkway.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella expressed concerns with the lack of clarity in the
Development Agreement (DA) and how it is being interpreted.
The Planning Services Manager noted the Abbot Lab building also exceeds the 0.5
FAR.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff has the resolution for the Abbot Lab building.
The Planning Services Manager responded that he does not have the documents with
him.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the approval is based on the table in the
exhibits, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the proposal is not consistent with the General Plan' she is
opposing the request.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,8,"Councilmember Oddie stated that he concurs with Vice Mayor Vella; requested that
staff return with a DA that is clearer.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. Abstentions:
Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.
[The matter was opened for reconsideration after final passage of the ordinance
[paragraph no. 18-036].]
(*18-034) Resolution No. 15340, ""Amending the Management and Confidential
Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Salary Range for
Park Maintenance Supervisor Effective January 16, 2018."" Adopted.
(*18-035) Resolution No. 15341, ""Providing Written Confirmation of Previous City
Council Authorization of a Portion of the City Base Allocation and Required Match
Amount for Site A Eden Affordable Senior Project for Application to County Rental
Housing Development Fund."" Adopted; and
(*18-035A) Resolution No. 15342, ""Providing Written Confirmation of Previous City
Council Authorization of a Portion of the City Base Allocation and Required Match
Amount for Site A Eden Affordable Family Project for Application to County Rental
Housing Development Fund.' Adopted.
(18-036) Ordinance No. 3208, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Deleting
Section 30-4.17C ""G Special Government Combining District,"" and Amending the
Zoning Map to Ensure Consistency Between the City of Alameda Municipal Code,
Zoning Map and the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Community Reuse Plan for the
North Housing Property Located on Singleton Avenue on the Former Naval Air Station
in Alameda in Order to Convey the Property to CP VI Admirals Cove, LLC, Habitat for
Humanity, and the Alameda Housing Authority. [The Proposed Zoning Amendments,
which Remove the 435-Unit Housing Limit, Would Not Result in Any New Environmental
Impacts or More Severe Environmental Impacts Than Those Previously Identified with
the Adoption of the Community Reuse Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 2009
Addendum, and the Housing Element 2012 EIR Addendum]."" Finally passed.
Stated that he supports the project: Austin Tam, Alameda.
Stated removing the cap is not a good idea: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.
Stated retaining the cap would increase the chances of developing affordable housing:
Joseph Woodard, Alameda Citizens Task Force.
Urged Council to make affordable housing a reality for all Alamedans: Katie Derrig,
Operation Dignity.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,9,"Stated the cap is against the City's Housing Element; urged Council to support the
proposal to alleviate the housing crisis: Toni Grimm, Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC).
Thanked Council for removing the cap and supporting affordable housing: Liz Verela,
Building Futures.
Stated the notice in the paper that stated that Carmel Partners requested the cap be
removed, which is incorrect: Irene Dieter, Alameda.
Urged Council to not impose a new cap: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.
Urged Council to support the project to provide much needed housing: Gaby Dolphin,
Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not agree with the statement that
removing the cap will reduce the number of affordable housing; she is ready to support
the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the project needs to be 30 units per acre for
affordable housing; the City needs leverage to trade with a developer to receive more
affordable housing; he would like to replace the resolution language with 15 units on the
parcel that will be privately owned and make it 30 units on the parcel from the Housing
Authority and Habitat from Humanity to deliver affordable units.
Mayor Spencer requested clarification regarding how staff can obtain a higher
percentage of affordable housing.
The City Manager stated if the parcel is sold and a new developer requests to build
more than 15 units per acre, staff could request additional benefits from the developer;
staff can request additional affordable housing units or any items that would benefit the
community.
Councilmember Matarrese stated affordable housing is expensive to build and he would
like to ensure the value the City is giving the private owners is leveraged.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she raised the point previously and staff stated it would be
possible but difficult to do; she would like to remove administrative road blocks to
affordable housing; she is in support of moving forward on the project.
Councilmember Oddie requested clarification on a hypothetical; inquired whether
Carmel Partners could purchase the property then sell it in the future and the developer
could tear the entire structure down and build something else.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the hypothetical pertains to the
private property, not the Housing Authority parcel.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,10,"Councilmember Oddie stated that he disagrees with Councilmember Matarrese's
comments; he plans on supporting the item.
Councilmember Oddie moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired whether Carmel Partners could sell the
property and not rehab the units.
The City Manager responded Carmel Partners could sell or remodel the property.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether, now that the cap is removed, Carmel Partners could
reassess the value and decide to either proceed with the rehab or sell the property at
the increased value.
The City Manager responded Carmel Partners has a right to build 30 units per acre.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Carmel Partners could do something different than
rehabbing the property because they will own the property, to which the City Manager
responded in the affirmative; stated the request would go through the normal process of
having community input and appearing before the Planning Board and Council.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether nothing legally binding Carmel Partners to rehabilitate
the units, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether maximizing the number of units would have significant
more retail value to Carmel Partners as a private developer.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer requested an outline of the community benefits that will be received
from Carmel Partners.
The City Manager responded the two primary benefits are the connection of Singleton
and Mosley Avenues, which adds access to Estuary Park, and cleaning out the storm
water and upgrading the storm drain; stated other terms are still being discussed.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the community will still receive all the benefits if
Carmel Partners does not rehab the units.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the community would still receive the benefits if the
property was sold to a different developer.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,11,"The City Manager responded the community would most likely receive more benefits if
the project was a not remodel; stated a new project with a higher density would be
reviewed just like any other project and additional community benefits would be
requested if there is an additional profit margin.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the developer would have to agree to the terms.
The City Manager responded the process is a negotiation with the ultimate approval
being either the Planning Board or City Council.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Tim Lewis Communities (TLC) contributed to Jean
Sweeney Park.
The City Manager responded TLC donated $2 million to Jean Sweeney Park.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would still have a say in the
terms if the property went to another developer.
The City Manager responded only certain actions trigger the item returning to Council;
stated Council could always call the item for review.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether one advantage to building new
developments is having new infrastructure, to which the City Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated an advantage to the current project is that the units will be available
sooner.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the 25% housing requirement at Site A
was a requirement of the U.S. Navy, to which the City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Carmel Partners has indicated to staff that they plan
on redoing the plan and building 30 units, to which the City Manager responded in the
negative; stated Carmel Partner's plan is to remodel the current units.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of calling the question.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion to call the question, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella
- 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmember Matarrese
and Mayor Spencer - 2.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:08 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:12 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,12,"(18-033 REOPENED) Resolution No. 15343, ""Disapproving Parcel Map No. 10275 - A
Parcel Map for the Proposed Subdivision of the Parcel at 1700 Harbor Bay Parkway
(Hampton Inn and Suites) into Two Parcels."" Adopted.
The City Attorney stated an issue needs to be clarified on the Parcel Map matter.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the map act requires the City Council to either
approve or disapprove the Parcel Map if findings are made.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Council could move for reconsideration, to which the
Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of reconsideration.
The City Attorney stated the motion needs to be done by one of the abstainers.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of reconsideration.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese moved [adoption of the resolution] approving of the Parcel
Map.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which failed by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2. Noes: Councilmembers
Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3.
The Assistant City Attorney stated to disapprove the Parcel Map, Council needs to
make a finding that the map is inconsistent with the General Plan.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like the findings to enumerate the multiple
reasons the map is inconsistent with the General Plan.
The City Attorney stated if Council wishes to take action tonight, it needs to be based on
the findings to disapprove the Parcel Map not being consistent with the General Plan; if
Council would like staff to work through other findings to disapprove the matter, it will
have to be brought back.
Mayor Spencer stated the reasons should be enumerated.
Councilmember Oddie stated there is a problem with the General Plan and the
Development Agreement (DA).
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,13,"Vice Mayor Vella stated the findings are that the map is inconsistent with the General
Plan and there are issues with the DA; the findings should be clear.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not believe the matter needs to return to Council;
the findings can be made that the map does not meet the list in the General Plan.
The City Attorney stated only one finding needs to be made.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Oddie's request for
clarification of the DA is the same thing as saying the findings are inconsistent with the
General Plan.
The City Attorney responded Councilmember Oddie is suggesting changes could be
made and the matter could return with clarifications to make compliance with the DA
and General Plan clearer and more consistent.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the requirement would be an amendment to the
General Plan because the relevant finding is that the proposed map is not consistent
with the General Plan; suggested making some changes to revise the resolution; stated
the title should delete the word ""approving"" and replace it with the word ""disapproving.""
Mayor Spencer stated the first two findings do not adhere to the General Plan.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the first two findings speak to the same topic.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is no design in front of Council; inquires how the
second finding can be included if there is no design yet.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the finding is referring to the design or improvement
that is on the map, not the actual design that would be approved by the Planning Board.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the improvement could be the division
of the parcel, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated
both findings one and two are inconsistent with the General Plan.
The Assistant City Attorney read the changes to be made.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution as revised.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(18-037) Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Housing and Community
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,14,"Development Needs Statement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2018-19.
The Housing Authority Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.
Submitted survey results regarding the needs of community, facilities, social services,
businesses, job services and housing services: Jennifer Hastings, Social Service
Human Relations Board (SSHRB).
Urged Council to address the homeless issues in Alameda: Liz Varela, Building Futures.
Urged Council to fund programs to serve Alameda's most vulnerable: Audrey Hyman,
SSHRB.
Urged adoption of the needs statement; stated legal services for people with housing
issues should be adequately funded: Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie agreed with Mr. Shabazz that funds should be set aside to assist
people with housing issues; stated he is happy to move forward with approval.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she concurs with Councilmember Oddie; she supports
setting aside funds to assist the public with legal needs regarding housing issues and
being proactive to meet needs.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like the survey to break down the moderate
versus the high need responses from the community; stated transfer tax money could
also be used for affordable housing.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the needs statement for the CDBG
Annual Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(18-038) Recommendation to Accept Report on Interim Inspection, Testing, Preliminary
Analyses and Reporting Services for Rehabilitation of Piers 1, 2, and 3 at Alameda
Point.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what makes up the chemical deterioration.
Sam Yao, Simpson Gumpertz and Heger (SGH), responded the Bay water and sulfates
caused the chemical deterioration.
The Assistant Community Development Director continued the presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,15,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the severe and major deterioration is
shown by the different colors on the presentation, to which the Assistant Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the difference is between major and
severe.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the description is on page 5
of the presentation; continued the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the funds will be out of Base Reuse and future
lease revenue.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
funds will depend on who the partner is on the piers; continued the presentation.
Gayle Johnson, SGH, continued the Power Point presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff would schedule the work if the City is interested
in doing the replacement, to which staff responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Alameda is an Island with a working waterfront
and she cannot wait to see the kind of tenants that the City will attract; she is prepared
to accept the report.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of accepting the report.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the most alarming thing is that he
saw the City's MARAD ship at the Port of Oakland; being birthed there, not in Alameda,
reduces revenue; he believes the report is timely, extensive and necessary in assessing
what to do with the property.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the cost of the dredging is the reason the MARAD ship
was moved.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the cost of dredging have
gone up; stated the City does not have commercial activity which would help fund the
cost; lobbyists have gone to Washington D.C. to try to bring resources to Alameda and
make it a non-issue for MARAD for years; staff has been working on the issue.
Mayor Spencer thanked staff for the report.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,16,"On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(18-039) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the referrals.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would be agreeable to limiting
the speaker time to two minutes.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the limit can only be done on the referrals and not oral
communications.
The City Clerk responded oral communications has been limited in the past.
The City Attorney responded there is no prohibition on limiting speaker time for oral
communications/non-agenda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved to limit public comment on the remaining items
with more than five speakers.
The motion failed for a lack of second.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft is proposing to hear all
of the referrals.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support going past 11:00 p.m.
Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider any remaining items.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of hearing the tobacco referral [paragraph
no. 18-047].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft second the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer requested a friendly amendment to the motion to add
the rent fee [paragraph no. 18-049].
Councilmember Matarrese accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested a friendly amendment to the motion to limit
items with more than five speakers limit to two minutes.
Councilmember Oddie requested the friendly amendment to the motion be to limit all
speakers to two minutes.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese accepted the friendly amendment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,17,"On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Vice
Mayor Vella - 1.
(18-040) Recommendation to Review the Rent Increase Concerns at 3315 Willis Lane
and Consider Whether to Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter Encouraging the Owner
to Comply with the Rent Review Advisory Committee's (RRAC) Decision. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(18-041) The City Manager stated that she met with Wilma Chan's office to review ways
to have a warming center for the homeless; next steps were identified and the matter
will be coming to Council; new art in City Hall will be up for three months; then, another
lottery will be done to display art from additional local artists.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(18-042) Erik Strimling, ARC, discussed the rent increase case that was not heard
[paragraph no. 18-040]; requested a rent cap for Alameda; stated Alameda needs a
moratorium.
(18-043) Catherine Pauling, ARC, stated legal protections for tenants are needed;
requested that the City contract with a tenant legal group to provide a resource for
tenants.
(18-044) Anthony Brown, ARC, stated that he is an Operation Dignity resident; residents
living at Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) deal with a lot of safety and maintenance
issues being brought up and ignored; the tenants are afraid due to retaliation; requested
protection for tenants.
Mayor Spencer requested staff to look into safety concerns and habitability at APC and
provide an update of who suffered injuries or was impacted from the water concerns.
(18-045) Nyiah Andrews, APC Tenant, requested immediate intervention and
protections from retaliation for reporting uninhabitable living conditions; stated eviction
proceedings were started due to her reporting uninhabitable living conditions.
Mayor Spencer inquired what can be done regarding unlawful evictions at APC to allow
Council time to review the allegations; stated that she has brought the issue regarding
maintenance not being done to staff's attention in the past.
The City Attorney stated staff will reach out to APC and find out the status.
Mayor Spencer stated the inquiry would be regarding the unlawful eviction and
retaliation; inquired what would be the pathway to do a moratorium on the evictions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,18,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is satisfied with the City Attorney's
answer to have staff look into the matter and determine the next step.
The City Manager stated staff has the contact information from the last two public
speakers and will reach out to them to see what can be done.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(18-046) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process.
(18-047) Consider Directing Staff to Draft an Ordinance Requiring the Licensure of
Tobacco Retailers, Including a Ban on the Sale of Menthol Cigarettes and Other
Flavored Tobacco and Enacting an Annual Fee. (Councilmembers Matarrese and
Oddie)
Councilmembers Oddie and Matarrese made brief comments regarding the referral.
Urged Council to support the referral; submitted and read a letter from Peralta
Community College: Marlene Hurd, Merritt College Tobacco-Less Club.
Urged Council to ensure tobacco retailer licensees' are not granted to pharmacies: Bob
Gordon, Alameda County Tobacco Control Coalition (ACTCC).
Urged Council to remove flavored tobacco and menthol from tobacco retailers: Philip
Gardner, African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council (AATCLC).
Stated banning does not work; statistics show that education ensures better control over
underage sales of tobacco: Teresa Harborth, Alameda.
***
(18-048) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00
p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3.
Noes: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.
Stated tobacco is killing the African American community; urged Council to make the
right decision: Kwesi, AATCLC.
Submitted information; showed packages of flavored tobacco and discussed how the
packaging encourage underage tobacco use: Vy Vo, ACTCC.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,19,"Note: Vice Mayor Vella left the dais at 10:58 p.m. and returned at 11:00 p.m.
Urged Council to support strong tobacco retail licensing for the City of Alameda;
distributed candy samples to show similarity to the tobacco packaging: Rosalyn Moya,
Alameda County Tobacco Free Coalition.
Expressed concern with the marketing of tobacco products to youth; urged Council to
restrict the sale of flavored tobacco: Rachel Gratz-Lazarus, Alameda.
Urged Council to create strong laws to protect youth from accessing flavored tobacco
products: Kelsey Norman, ACTCC.
Urged Council to protect youth in the retail environment and support the licensure:
Limairy Rodriguez, ACTCC.
Stated banning the products from retailers will not solve the problem and would only
create a black market: Yazeed Dames, Alameda Retailer.
Stated that he opposes the measure; the City will lose tax dollars; discussed flavored
tobaccos being used for cannabis: Raed Abdallah, Alameda Retailer.
Discussed Senate Bill 1400; stated other cities are working with retailers to devise a
program and work together and find a solution: Bob Sekhon.
Stated retailers do not sell to minors; the black market and adult family members give
tobacco to minors; the tobacco tax goes to education of youth; urged Council to give the
tax a chance to work: Ann Sekhon.
Urged Council to have a plan to reduce youth access to tobacco: Serena Chen,
Alameda.
Stated licensing allows for cities to decide the standards for retailers selling tobacco
products and holds retailers accountable: Paul Cummings, Alameda County Public
Health.
Urged Council to limit access to flavored tobacco products: Lizzie Velten, American
Heart Association.
Read a poem he wrote about addiction to tobacco in the Black community: Rasheed
Shabazz, Alameda.
Stated that he is a retailer and does not sell to minors; urged Council to allow the
tobacco tax initiative to work: Paul Sekhon.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,20,"Vice Mayor Vella stated the public health cost is too much of a risk; she would like to
know how many other licensing fee structure are coming before staff and what
department the licensing will be through to understand the impact on the department;
how many man hours will be associated with the licensure is an important calculation;
allowing flavored tobacco in certain shops will create a monopoly and be difficult to
enforce.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like staff to inform Council where
the item would fit in with all the matrix of other work, like homelessness; any ordinance
will have an enforcement mechanism, which needs to be taken into account; the health
and well-being of youth is important; she supports directing staff to return to Council
with an ordinance.
The City Manager listed the items that are higher priority ahead of the tobacco referral.
Councilmember Oddie stated more discussion needs to be done before an actual
ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the priority is less urgent than homelessness and rent
control; staff should be given direction; he is confident that the City Manager will work
with staff to put the item in its proper place; he would like more discussion with the
community and Council.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like data based discussions, with input from
Alameda's youth, on where they are purchasing tobacco products; she would like to
have more education at the School District; data needs to be recent.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of moving forward with the referral with
consideration of the Council comments.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(18-049) Consider Directing Staff to: 1) Determine Whether Council Can Enact an
Ordinance to Pass Through a Portion of the Housing Program (Rent) Fee to Tenants; 2)
Clarify the City's Collection Efforts for Landlords who do not Pay the Fee by December
31, 2017; and 3) Clarify that the Fee May be Passed Through as Part of a Rent
Increase. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella)
Mayor Spencer made brief comments regarding the referral.
Stated ARC would like to be involved with staff on the issue; questioned what the fee
will cover and whether enforcement will be considered: Catherine Pauling, ARC.
Vice Mayor Vella stated staff should be directed to review the data which has been
collected; inquired whether there are people that staff has not heard from or who are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,21,"refusing to pay; what are the numbers and what is the plan for enforcement; requested
clarification regarding a separate ordinance relative to the fee and what would be
included or the scope of that ordinance; stated that she would like different community
groups involved in the discussion; inquired what the fees will go towards and the
specific breakdown; is there value in drop in clinics; stated how other cities are
structuring fees should be reviewed.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not believe Vice Mayor Vella's comments are a
part of the referral.
Vice Mayor Vella stated her original proposal has been the impact relative to Ordinance
3180 and can there be a stand-alone ordinance for some clarification regarding the fee;
stated her proposal is a part of the referral.
Mayor Spencer read the referral.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is requesting clarification and would like to direct staff
to look into whether the ability to draft an ordinance is even possible.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she cannot support the referral; the staff
report states the work will be done by the spring of 2018 and she does not see the
urgency of directing staff to accelerate the matter.
Councilmember Oddie stated the City should look at some type of legal services or
support for the community; the fee is not considered rent so he does not agree with
making the fee go into the base rent.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of not directing staff to do the points in the
referral.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is advice regarding the pass through
is included in the frequently asked questions on the City website.
The City Attorney responded the landlord has to pay the full amount of the fee, but can
pass along half the fee to the tenant as part of the 5% rent increase.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the report on fees will include any clarification
relative to Ordinance 3180 instructions that were given in terms of splitting the fee.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated staff has to return with an audit of
the fees.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired if staff is monitoring whether or not there is a pass-through.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,22,"The City Attorney responded there is a laundry list of fixes for Ordinance 3180 to make
the program work better; stated staff will come back to Council with suggested changes.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is the legal basis for the matter returning to Council if
Ordinance 3180 has been rescinded.
The City Attorney responded Ordinance 3180 did not address the establishment of the
fee itself, which was done by resolution.
Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification on the fixes to Ordinance 3180 that will return
to Council.
The City Manager responded staff will return to Council after the year [from the
referendum] is up.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff is saying there will be two presentations from
staff and the one in the spring is relative to an audit.
The City Manager responded the one is spring is the Nexus study.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the other presentation will not be until a year from
the date the ordinance was rescinded.
The City Attorney responded that she is unaware of the timing but she envisioned all the
items returning at the same time.
Mayor Spencer stated the items go outside the scope of the referral.
Councilmember Oddie stated dredging is outside the scope of piers and yet dredging
was discussed.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2. Noes: Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor
Spencer and - 2. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of the referral.
Vice Mayor Vella second the motion with a friendly amendment that Council direct staff
to provide clarification on what can and cannot be done.
The City Attorney stated that she answered the question; the fee can be collected.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Ordinance 3180 clarified administration of the fee.
The City Attorney stated Vice Mayor Vella is correct; but the clarification is not in play;
staff would return to Council after the year mark.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,23,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella would like that to be a friendly
amendment to the motion, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the motion.
Vice Mayor Vella clarified that she does not want to look at the new fee structure for the
next year without knowing what Council could be considering relative to administration
of the fee.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is requesting to know
said information by the spring, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director stated that prior to July 1st, staff will update the
fee study; she is hearing there might be an interest in looking at what are the
components of the work activity that goes into administering the program; pass-through
has to wait for one year from the date of the referendum; if the ordinance is incorporated
in the City Charter, staff and Council's abilities may be determined in November and
Council could be precluded from doing the pass-through.
Mayor Spencer requested clarification if the City Attorney's position is that if the Charter
amendment passes, there cannot be a subsequent action by Council in regards to pass-
through.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Spencer agreed to withdraw the referral.
No vote was taken on the motion.
(18-050) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Information on the Citywide Dockless Bike
Sharing Program and Return to Council with Additional Safety Requirements. Not
heard. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella)
(18-051) Consider Banning Motorized Commercial Vehicles, Including Robotic
Commercial Vehicles, from Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft Used for
Deliveries. Not heard. (Councilmember Matarrese)
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(18-052) Mayor Spencer noted that she and Councilmember Matarrese attended the
Martin Luther King ceremony held in City Hall.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,24,"Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-04-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 16, 2019- 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Note: Councilmember Vella recused herself from the Liability Claim and
left the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(19-210) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.9); Case Name: Zachary Ginsburg V. City of Alameda; Court: Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case No: RG15791428
(19-211) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City
Negotiators: Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), and Executive
Management Employees (EXME); Under Negotiation: Salaries and Terms of
Employment
(19-212) Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claim; (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54956.95); Claimant: Jeffrey Cambra; Agency claimed against: City of Alameda
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced that regarding Existing Litigation, the Council unanimously voted to
authorize settlement of a claim for plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $125,000 with
the City paying $25,000 and $100,000 to be paid from the Alameda Municipal Power
Enterprise Fund; regarding Labor, direction was given to staff by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, and Vella - 4; Noes: Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft - 1; regarding the Liability Claim Liability, Council authorize settlement of the
claim with no financial consideration involved by the unanimous voice vote - 4, with
Councilmember Vella absent.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:55
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
April 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-04-16.pdf