body,date,page,text,path
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2008-12-03,4,"|
Special Minutes of the SSHRB, December 3, 2008 Meeting
Deleted: DRAFT UNTIL
Page 4
APPROVED
Wright - Previously we've been creative, but according to recent interpretation from HUD there needs
to be economic development / neighborhood development, and it cannot be planning and
administrative costs. There is a need for a strong training component.
Wasko - The Finance Project Program does substantial trainings that work with agencies to put
together business plans to look for funding. Put a package together collaboratively.
James - When I first got involved with the Koshland grant they were able to bring all these things
together and it was much more vibrant.
Wright - We have stricter parameters now but we will work on being creative.
Biggs - If we will encourage collaboration, then we should have a way to support that.
Villareal - The last bullet addresses the need for collaboration, on the other hand if we look at other
paragraph - that paragraph could address the emphasis on collaboration.
Nielsen - The need she is trying to address is hard to gather data on, but still important. Is there a way
to emphasize that its really bad and emphasize the need to think creatively?
Villareal - It is this further collaboration effort that we can build better collaborations.
Motion - Wasko and Villareal will draft the needs statement including the discussed changes and
review each others edits. M/S Soglin, Nielsen and unanimous. Staff provided a deadline.
President Wasko will attend the Council meeting on January 6, 2009 for the public hearing.
3-C. WORKGROUP STATUS REPORTS: Item held to an upcoming meeting.
4. BOARD / STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Member James had the opportunity to attend joint
meeting of the ACCYF and the Alameda Services Collaborative luncheon. He stated this was a good
opportunity to see agencies and is interested in seeing different sites and programs.
Member Biggs visited the Food Bank during their turkey handout. They had 50% increase in people
getting turkeys this year, and there were many first timers.
President Wasko stated she attended the Hospital Faire and all the gifts from China were present.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Jim Franz wanted to remind the Board of the Shelter in Place,
Emergency Preparedness training happening Saturday, December 6th at Immanuel Lutheran Church.
6.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn at 7:53 p.m. M/S Villareal, Soglin and unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Deleted: DRAFT UNTIL
Terri Wright
APPROVED
Acting Secretary, Social Services Human Relations Board
TW:sb
G:SSHRB\Packets\2008\DEC08\MinutesSpecial
F: SSHRB\2008\Agendas Packets",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-12-03.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2008-12-03,3,"|
Special Minutes of the SSHRB, December 3, 2008 Meeting
Deleted: DRAFT UNTIL
Page 3
APPROVED
Hurst - Housing, job training and sustainability, and financial resources.
Wasko - Thank you and maybe we can engage volunteers to recreate the domestic violence task force.
Julia Brown, Women's Initiative for Self Employment (WISE) and Deepa Patel - They are currently
receiving funding from Alameda's CDBG program and these funds are help with their pre-training,
and expect to start full course work in January. There is a need to support social enterprise because
they of the possibility of job loss. The funding of micro enterprise is one of the only areas where there
is job growth.
Patel - Started her business with $150.00 after losing a job during the dot.com bust. She was without
family support and no where to go, but knew she wanted to help others. She worked with a law firm
on a project and it was suggested she becoming a consultant. WISE has helped her tremendously to
grow her business, get a car and has been in business for 5 years, she has one contract employee and is
looking for another. Without WISE support her business would have folded last year.
Wasko - Congratulations on your business success and thank you for sharing your experience.
Liz Varela, Executive Director, Building Futures with Women and Children (BFWC) - She would like
to piggyback on what Mr. Franz said on maintaining the safety net services. BFWC truly works well
with other safety net providers. The women who come to Midway are in many times in grave danger if
they were unable to get shelter.. Midway is a great place to help people rebuild their lives. Varela
handed out a story about women from their website. She supports the idea of starting the domestic
violence task force again. Where there are funds lacking we should make up for in relationships.
Wasko - Thank you Liz, and to all the speakers.
Biggs - Given the shift in Federal administration, what does the future entail?
Wright - HUD just lost their Regional Director. It's hard to know with the economy.
Wasko - Pete Stark holds community meetings, CDBG people could talk to him about the formula.
Spark is very responsive.
Wright - it would be great to remove CDBG public service cap in times of extreme hardships.
Wasko - Our next task is to rewrite the letter particularly with focus areas.
Villareal - Let's not remove the ""strengthening,"" perhaps something like - to continue to ensure
they're doing all they can to better serve clients, or - strengthening and preserving would be a good
way to, or - to strengthen
Biggs - Perhaps make reference to the unprecedented strain.
Nielsen - Broaden definition of 'at risk', people who have never before needed services until now?
Soglin - Separate safety net paragraph and say primary emphasis in on safety net.
Wasko - Do we currently fund collaboration?
Jones - Red Cross is funded for the Services Collaborative.
James - At the last meeting there was an emphasis on ""collaborative'.
Wasko - Soglin was suggesting collaboration in his comments.
Soglin - Prioritizing safety nets, then other issues.
Biggs - Can we be creative about technical assistance funding to grant writing?",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-12-03.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2008-12-03,2,"|
Special Minutes of the SSHRB, December 3, 2008 Meeting
Deleted: DRAFT UNTIL
Page 2
APPROVED
Wright - There is a level of duplication in the total, two service providers may count the same
individual, but these are low numbers.
Biggs - Can the language stating ""strengthening safety-net services' be changes to providers are trying
to maintain the services they have, preserving or maintaining the safety-net?
James - How about ""strengthening the current' safety-net?
Wasko - Yes.
Public Comment - Speakers:
Jim Franz, Director, American Red Cross - Alameda Service Center: We have almost reached a time
when we have to re-define the term ""at risk"". Recently, he spoke with a single mother who last year
was making a great wage and providing for her family and is now on unemployment and her mortgage
is behind as she was asking for assistance. Last year at this time they had served 800 meals for
Thanksgiving and thought it was extraordinary. This year it was 930. People asking for assistance
from the utility program continues to grow. The PG&E program is almost out of funds. The same
holds true for the rental assistance program. Shelters throughout the bay area are in trouble due to the
emergency shelter budget (EHAP) being eliminated at the Federal level. We expect to see pockets of
poverty to move to central Alameda as we hear landlords aren't able to be as lenient as they used to be
because they have to pay their mortgages. Food, rent and childcare are the basic needs this agency is
battling.
Wasko - Thank you for all the work you do.
Laura Hurst, Family Violence Law Center (FVLC) - Here to ask for support to increase funding for
domestic violence services. We are finding that victims are too scared to get a restraining order. They
would like to house a domestic violence advocate in our police department as this would increase
prevention in homicides and families from becoming homeless.
Wasko - Is the FVLC thinking about shifting their funding?
Hurst - No, there is a need for both and additional funding would augment legal services of other
counseling and other services.
Wasko - Is there a waitlist? We are trying to assess needs.
Hurst - Not sure there is a waitlist, but they often find that departments are under reporting domestic
violence.
Biggs - How many individuals have you served this quarter and how much is for advocate?
Hurst - FT is $40k., PT advocate would be enough in Alameda. She doesn't have the numbers from
the past quarter.
Soglin - In places without an advocate, does training help?
Hurst - Yes. We've trained all Alameda Police officers, and also doing county-wide patrol officer
training.
Soglin - What are the ways APD supports domestic violence and how are they organized?
Hurst - The violent crimes unit coordinates with us and because of staffing levels they prioritize felony
cases.
Wasko - Does the City still have a domestic violence task force?
Wright - No, but staff has been trying to work with FVLC to coordinate with APD and we are
considering reconvening the domestic violence task force.
James - What are the other needs of people being victimized?",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-12-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,11,"zone residential areas: Madlen Saddik, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.
Stated that she is in favor of the Encinal Terminal project; stated only two of her 14 employees
live in Alameda due to the lack of affordable housing; the project offers much needed affordable
and middle housing and will help meet RHNA numbers; expressed support for the public access
to the waterfront; urged Council to move forward with the project: Kelly Lux, Alameda Chamber
of Commerce.
Expressed support for the Encinal Terminals project; stated that she supports public access to
the waterfront; the current conditions are dangerous and the project is a wonderful use of the
space: Michelle Morgan, Alameda.
Expressed support for the land exchange and development of the Encinal Terminals site; stated
the site is key for residential development, which will further Alameda's ability to meet the RHNA
obligation; the City will receive a useful waterfront; the site is ideal for waterfront residential
development and a public shoreline; expressed support for a water shuttle landing; urged the
project showcase waterfront design; urged Council to approve the land exchange and
development proposal: Betsy Mathieson, Alameda.
Expressed support for the project; urged Council approve the Tidelands exchange; discussed
the consequences of not approving the project; stated the City is coming out ahead in the
exchange; he supports the kayak launch and public trust idea; he would like to see the
developer increase the density by replacing the townhomes with mid-rise buildings; expressed
concern about parking: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Questioned whether the planning for the project has taken into account other potential units
being built in Marina Village of it the project is being considered in a vacuum; stated the project
has the potential to transform the area; the project gives the City a good chance at meeting the
RHNA obligation; expressed support for the project; urged Council approval: Bill Pai,
Community of Harbor Bay Isle.
Expressed support for the project; stated that he applauds the emphasis on the RHNA
obligation, Housing Element and ramifications of non-approval; discussed his experience with
the RHNA obligation process; stated HCD has changed its stance on non-compliance with
RHNA; HCD has already taken action against cities for non-compliance and will likely impose
fees; urged Council take the project and run with it: Matt Regan, Bay Area Council.
Expressed support for the project; stated there is no real reason to reject the project; discussed
the shape and value of the project site; expressed concern about not supporting the project;
stated the vote for the project should be unanimous; the City is not losing anything of value; the
project provides benefits to many; he supports a water taxi for the site: Josh Geyer, Alameda.
Stated the project offers workers career pathways, apprenticeship opportunities and healthcare
benefits; an agreement has been made; he supports the partnership; the project is well thought-
out and will play a vital role in the City; it is important to support the land exchange and title
settlement agreement; the project will directly improve the lives of hundreds: Vince Sugrue,
Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 104.
Stated approval of the project is important to Alameda historic preservation; the project will
provide 589 housing units which can be applied towards RHNA; if the project is not approved,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-07-07,16,"zero to one vehicle includes children.
Mr. Daisa responded in the negative; stated the statistic is actually 50% of households.
Mr. Daisa stated providing a rapid transit system that serves the entire residency and
employees achieves an additional 4% ridership, or 6% or even 8% more ridership from
existing residents or employees; the percentages can reduce the cars in the tubes and
bridges by 600, 900 or 1200 in each peak hour, which is equivalent to increasing the
capacity of the tubes by 15% to 30%; if 8% can be achieved, 30% capacity can be
gained in the tube, which is the equivalent of adding a lane to the tubes; there is a way
to gain capacity through transit operations; the ferry service is in two phases; phases
one and two of the development use, the current Main Street terminal ferry service the
new ferry terminal is constructed in phase three and the two systems from Oakland and
from the Seaplane Lagoon are bifurcated; SunCal has done a financial analysis and will
talking to staff and WETA tomorrow; showed maps indicating the existing system and
the system after phase three to five; stated an onsite full time TDM Coordinator position
Is included
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is a kiss and ride
zone.
Mr. Daisa responded a spouse or significant other drops you off, kisses you goodbye
and says go make money and I will pick you up when you get back; continued the
presentation; stated BRT is not just another bus and is really a light rail train on rubber
wheels; new vehicles, new systems and new technology make BRT work; BRT targets
choice riders, not transit-dependent people who always use transit; choice riders are
people who own cars but want to choose to use a good, comfortable form of public
transportation because it works for them and is attractive; BRT have dedicated lanes on
either on the inside or the outside of the street; in SunCal's proposal, lanes are probably
on the outside; BRT has very nice stations, which are attractive, comfortable, high-
amenity facilities and use real-time technology like BART, so riders always know how
long the next bus will be to the minute; BRT has fast boarding; tickets can be purchased
before getting on the bus and there is loading at both doors; the buses can trigger the
signals to move through signals faster; if a dedicated lane is not being used, buses can
bypass congestion at the worst intersections and get a jump on cars; SunCal has a
pretty comprehensive pedestrian, bicycle and trail network that integrates and connects
with the existing Alameda system and provides facilities for the rest of the Island at the
recreational and transportation level; TDM is a series of programs, measures,
incentives, or even disincentives to change peoples' travel behavior; a whole series of
programs have been around for decades; TDM works great in some circumstances, and
does not work great in others, which is why projects have to have a menu and need
flexibility to apply appropriate measures and adjust measures over time; SunCal
proposes a tier series of measures, which is simply a menu; SunCal would work with
staff on implementing measures at different tiered levels; measures will be monitored
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
15
Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf
GolfCommission,2020-07-14,3,"young golfers in, as well as discussions with the junior golf board. The goal is to use
the later part of the afternoon to allow juniors and other golfers of any age to allow
them to play only three holes with an instructor.
7-B
Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
Amy Wooldridge stated that Jim's on the Course had reopened the outdoor patio, but
then had to close last Saturday due to Alameda County being added to the State's
watchlist. The restaurant is still open for takeout at this time.
7-C
Recreation and Parks Director Report
Amy Wooldridge stated that they are moving forward with an agreement amendment
with Jim's on the Course which will go to City Council on September 15. Once it's
published to the public, it will be discussed at the September 8 Golf Commission for
their feedback to be brought to the Council.
Last Tuesday, City Council awarded the parking lot repair project to Redgwick
Construction, and are now coordinating with Greenway and the City Manager, working
on the required utilities to get the best possible product. The funds were set aside in
2018-2019 from citywide projects in the Capital Improvement budget, not the golf
fund.. Amy was asked when the project would start, and she stated that she would let
them know when she finds out.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
A moment of silence was held in honor of Nancy Wehr prior to adjournment
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - September 8, 2020
Greenway Report
Jim's on the Course Report
Recreation and Parks Director Report
10.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:10 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
3
Golf Commission Minutes-Tuesday, - July 14, 2020",GolfCommission/2020-07-14.pdf
GolfCommission,2011-02-23,13,"you're fertilizing so many times, you would be able to do that from one year to the
next, but when a $25,000 pump breaks down and you add $20,000 to the cart barn,
so you have over $100,000 with no money budgeted to do that, it's just more
deferred maintenance is what it is."" Lisa Goldman: ""The cart barn allows you to
make more in revenue, right?"" Mr. Lillard: ""Right, because you can send the carts
out twice.""
Bob Sullwold: ""In evaluating getting into a 30-year lease with Kemper, there are
responsiblities here. Number one, why is there this over budget number? The other
possibility is they are not operating as efficiently as they promised they would. The
expenses are higher because they're doing a bad job managing the enterprise. You
need to know the answer to that before you decide to do business with that
enterprise.""
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance Department
showing a surcharge payment for January 2011 of $5,749. The year-to-date total to
the General Fund is $58,562 for FY 2010/2011.
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Status Report on Long Term Lease and Mif Albright Negotiations including Golf
Commission recommendations, if any
Update on Golf Complex Finances
10.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown
Act.
13
Golf Commission Minutes-Wednesday, February 23, 2011",GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2016-12-14,9,"you guys to think about, that signage really is a big disability issue. It's relatively cheap to do, and it
could have a big impact on everybody's lives here. Thank you.
Elizabeth Kenny: Thank you very much. If you could just state your name into the mic when you
talk. Thank you.
JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: Hi, my name is JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko, and I am a member of this
community of disability people, and you brought up an amazing point that I had not really processed
through. My disability is muscle spasms, and when I get really stressed, or the weather is cold, heat
and ice are paramount to my quality of life and it never occurred to me that if the energy went out,
where would I go? I would just panic at home. But going to the police department, fire department,
the hospital to have that bit of information. I've been plagued with this for 20 years and it's just really
vital to have that and so I appreciate that you provided that. And the other concern I have, when that
information came out about providing information, being a person with a disability and wanting to
have somebody know that I need help. Maybe some objectives on why are people afraid about
providing that information. People pay for services that seniors and people that live by themselves
that they pop a button and emergency, your calls are checked in.
JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: There's creative energy and there's got to be a way to overcome that
obstacle, because yes, I was intimidated and even in my complex I've talked to you a few minutes
ago. Ilive at the Willows, 201 units. There was a point where the office asked us to submit information
about ""In the time of an emergency, provide us with what you needed."" And I didn't trust our
management, so I did not submit my information. And there were some valid issues about why I
didn't trust them, but as a society and a community, that bridge has to be made, because I need to
know where I go. At that time, my husband worked the graveyard shift, so I was home by myself at
night, he was sleeping, if anything ever happened during that time. There were a couple times when
I had to call the police and it was really scary, because I was like, ""Well, I can't get to the door because
I'm immobile and so how are we going to make this happen?'
JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: And everybody has issues and there's got to be a way to invite people. It's
a small group and there's got to be a way to just bridge that gap. Somehow to do it through the
newspaper. Next Door is really good. Is that a bell telling me I'm done? Okay, but Next Door is really
helpful to communicate with my neighbors about challenges that come up. It's really important to
overcome that just because they say no, don't shut it down. Think outside of the box.
Sharon Oliver: So, we literally only had about four people register, and then a year or two passed,
then we went, ""Are they still out there?"" And then we couldn't reach them. Then it was like, ""Well,
then the list is old."" If we had hundreds of numbers, it would have been a different thing. We know
we have got to update this list but we couldn't even get a hold of the four.
JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: I know, that's true.
Sharon Oliver: Yes, so we were like, ""This doesn't have enough buoyancy to move forward.""
JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: Well, how about at the Senior Center? It just occurred to me, I'm dealing
with some issues that our community, and inside the condo perhaps could reach out to the Senior
Center and to get help. There was a point in our community in our society that the Gray Panthers
were alive and well. And it's like what happened to that community of people? Does everybody know
who the Gray Panthers were?
Beth Kenny: Are.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-12-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-05-04,12,"yield the desired result; expressed appreciation for the information provided by Mr. Katz;
questioned whether the applicants completed the improvement work or whether the
applications were merely submitted without work; stated that she would like to know the
status of the repairs; she is concerned the formula not achieving the goal of maintaining the
property; one of the not well-liked criteria is that repairs may be amortized beyond 15 years
in order to keep the rent increase less than 5%; she would like to know some examples with
real numbers of what the amortization looks like; 50% of the City's population lives in
rentals; expressed support for staff returning with permit data for non-rentals; if non-rental
repairs are low, then the issue is not rental property related; the CIP might be working and
rental properties might have a similar repair rate; the goal is to maintain and to keep tenants
in properties; Council is trying to move forward to find the right spot.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Mr. Katz stated of the nine submissions, one
has been conditionally approved, one has been closed by the owner, one is still pending,
and six have been denied.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the reason for denial.
Mr. Katz responded that he would need to go back and review the individual cases to
determine the reason for denial; stated it is most likely due to the various eligibility
thresholds for CIP applications.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the response is instructive; part of the challenge is that Council
will soon be engaged in budget hearings to discuss the City's use for American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) funds; some of the funding will be directed to helping tenants and
landlords to ensure the City is avoiding displacement; the City is also mindful of landlords
suffering hardships due to COVID-19; Council will know more when there has been a
chance to discuss and provide direction; Council is mindful of renter's concerns; expressed
support for more detail being provided; questioned whether there is a way to incentivize
landlords to perform necessary repairs; stated the program is elaborate and has many
details; expressed support for a one-page executive summary document at the beginning of
the CIP document; stated the information will go a long way to help people understand the
process; expressed support for the document beinguser-friendly;stated the program is very
complicated, which is one of the reasons the program is so infrequently used ; questioned
whether enough information and direction from Council has been given for a motion to be
made.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of giving direction to staff to come back by the
end of the calendar year in working to address the varied comments from Council to allow
for enough time before a program goes into effect.
Councilmember Knox White stated a question has come up that some buildings have long
and short term rentals; language should be clear that money spent on units being used for
short-term rentals, similar to AirBNB, does not count towards the CIP; expressed support for
any substantive maintenance cost benefitting one or a small section of a building and
leeway being given by the Program Administrator to assign and assess the pass-through to
ensure tenants not receiving the benefit of the improvements are not paying for the
improvement.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
May 4, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-14,2,"years. Many options have been presented regarding modification of the Posey
Tube and freeway exits on 1880. Caltrans has determined that one option, to cut
through the Posey tube and create a ""hard"" right turn upon exiting the tube, is not
feasible and was rejected because the tube is not a tunnel and enabling
motorists to make a hard right turn could result in an increase of rear-end
accidents.
Another option considered was creating a new on-ramp at 6th and Market
Streets. Although not as effective as the previous option this option is good for
transit (bus/BART) connections and provides multiple options for vehicles. This
study has a greater impact on Oakland since some property owners will be
impacted by any proposed solutions. It will probably be 10-20 years before any
construction will begin. It is challenging for cities to continue to rely on ""building""
their way out of traffic problems. Short-term successes in Alameda may be seen
through project development conditions of approval.
City Councilmember's from Alameda and Oakland meet quarterly to discuss
transportation issues. This is an ongoing effort and will be a long process.
Boardmember Ezzy Ashcraft commented that transportation is a regional not just
a local problem. We need to continue to pursue opportunities to get people out
of their cars.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Andrew Thomas advised the Board of a pending design review item for a location
(Kohl's) at Alameda Towne Centre (ATC).
President Cook asked how the design fits in with the Master Plan Amendment.
Andrew Thomas responded by saying Alameda Towne Centre's (ATC) Planned
Development Amendment (PDA) allows for expansion of floor area. ATC can
introduce new tenants through the design review process but cannot increase
tenant space (square footage).
President Cook requested the item be placed on the agenda for the next
Planning Board meeting on April 28, 2008.
President Cook inquired about the status of Clif Bar.
Andrew Thomas responded that Clif Bar was concerned about the lack of food
choice options in the area and their employees' ability to bike to work.
President Cook mentioned the board would like to hear about these concerns
from Staff and not from reading it in the newspaper.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Page 2 of 7",PlanningBoard/2008-04-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-05-08,16,"years to check in.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the key tenants indicated they want
the proposal to move forward to have development that supports their businesses.
(12-218) Councilmember Johnson moved approval of considering the performance
evaluation on the closed session agenda [paragraph no. 12- after 10:30 p.m.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he can support Vice Mayor Bonta's suggestion to
give further direction to the City Manager to take a last look and have staff come back
with options.
Mayor Gilmore questioned whether the City Manager could come up with other options.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Councilmembers would be willing move
forward if questions are better addressed.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is not opposed to entitlement and getting
something moving; she is concerned about going forward on a wing and a prayer.
Councilmember deHaan questioned whether Council would go forward with a different
option.
Mayor Gilmore reiterated her concerns.
Councilmember Johnson questioned whether status quo is risk free.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she is willing to accept a certain amount of risk.
Councilmember deHaan discussed reuse of buildings.
Mayor Gilmore moved approval of directing staff to support existing tenants, help them
to grow their business, look for long term leases, be opportunistic if opportunities come
the City's way, and check back in one and a half to two and a half years; and having a
discussion if something changes in the State legislature.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, with amendment to look at potential bonding
for infrastructure to increase revenue from existing tenants.
Mayor Gilmore agreed to amend the motion.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether bonding would be for maintaining
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
May 8, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,17,"years and now has a change in use the Old County Health Center is
back in public use; the process should move forward.
Councilmember deHaan stated everyone is saying that it is time to
get the community involved in understanding the opportunities to
use the Carnegie Building and reviewing the feasibility of what has
to be done to bring the building up to the necessary working level ;
the Planning Department would be a great asset in making the
determination.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of allocating $90,000 for a
feasibility study to see how a One-Stop Permit Center would work
and to determine what needs to be done to complete the necessary
improvements.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Manager stated the process would be initiated; staff would
come back to Council for approval if funds are not sufficient.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the Americans with Disabilities Act access is
important and should be part of the feasibility analysis.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Vice Mayor Tam; stated a
process needs to be established on how to engage the public.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the public needs to be asked about
the Carnegie Building use and one-stop permitting details.
Councilmember deHaan requested that a community input process be
established to consider other possible uses of the building and to
determine what type of individuals to involve and to establish a
timetable.
The Planning and Building Director stated proposals would be
solicited; a Contract would be brought back to Council for
approval ; a detailed, public outreach process would be provided.
(07-013) Ordinance No. 2957, ""Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA-
06-001 Substituting Office, Retail, Health Club, Residential and/or
Mixed Uses for Approximately 77 Acres of Previously Entitled
Office/Research and Development Uses. "" Finally passed;
(07-013A) Ordinance No. 2958, ""Approving Development Agreement
Amendment DA-06-0002 to the Development Agreement By and Between
the City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation, Dated
June 6, 2000, as Amended. Finally passed;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-10-03,12,"year.
Mayor Johnson requested that the matter be brought back to Council
in six months to make sure that the fee schedule works as intended.
Councilmember Daysog read the resolution paragraph addressing
administrative adjustments.
Mayor Johnson stated the intent is to make fees more predictable;
she hopes that the fee schedule works as intended.
Councilmember deHaan stated past, hard issues have been tackled,
particularly the flat rate; he hopes that a proper estimate can be
given for time and materials.
The Building Official responded efforts are made to provide proper
estimates; deposits should cover the full project.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the percentage for local fees
on new residential construction.
Te Building Official responded a Bayport home is valued at $350 to
$400 based on square footage. fees are about 4% of the value.
 ouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion should
include direction to bring a report back to Council in six months
to make sure that the fee schedule works as intended, especially
with feedback on commercial fees.
The City Manager clarified that the fire inspection and alarm fees
are not included in the resolution.
Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan agreed to amend the motion to
incorporate Councilmember Matarrese's comments and clarification
that fire inspection and alarm fees are not included in the fee
schedule.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-504) - Jimmie Lee Marks, Alameda, stated he was representing the
Encinal Alumni Association: the end of 3rd Street has no name ;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
October 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf
GolfCommission,2008-11-19,4,"year-to-date total to the General Fund is $58,587 for fiscal year 2008/2009.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Update on monthly pass sales
Update on marketing for weekday play
Update on the rate increases.
11. ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at 7:32 PM.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 4
11/19/08
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2008-11-19.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2015-02-26,2,"year, it will be held at Alameda High School and the committee would welcome participation from SSHRB
Members. The Oakland / East Bay Gay Men's Chorus (OEBGMC) is scheduled to perform, and other event
components are currently being discussed. It was also suggested that the Board / ATAH might help organize a
Gay Pride Month event in June, which would include the reading of a proclamation.
The discussion returned to Member Williams' idea to have a table at the Park Street Spring Festival coming
up in May. It was agreed that a brief survey, asking passersby to share what they perceive to be our
community's needs, should be developed. It was suggested that we could hang our SSHRB banner and add
balloons and food to help draw attention to the booth. Staff shared a copy of a SSHRB brochure that had been
used in the past. Members would take turns staffing the booth during the two-day event. Member Williams
offered to create a draft survey and work on updating the brochure.
Member Blake left at 8:00 p.m.
A motion was made to:
1. Reach out to the AHMDC and offer the Board's support in planning and executing its event.
2. Explore holding a Gay Pride Month event in June, which would include the reading of a proclamation.
3. Develop a community needs survey, update the SSHRB brochure, and participate in May's Park Street
Spring Festival.
M/S Williams / Hyman Unanimous (6-0)
President Biggs continued the discussion of future activities, reminding the Board of the commitment to
undertake a second homeless count in late July.
Member Williams shared information regarding Berkeley's Bay Area Rainbow Day Camp, a program whose
mission is ""To empower gender expansive youth to practice gender self-determination in order to live
authentically and joyfully within their communities"" She asked that the Board help get the word out regarding
this program, and consider supporting them in other ways. Member suggestions included asking ARPD to
include information regarding the program in its flyers or on its website, distributing its flyer at the Park Street
Spring Festival, and helping them raise funds, possibly with an OEBGMC concert in June.
While the camp is in Berkeley, it welcomes all gender expansive youth, including those in Alameda.
Questions included how we the Board might identify the number of gender expansive youth in Alameda, if
other agencies are aware of this program, and if there is a process to refer youth to the program.
Member Sorensen reminded the Board that the Jam at Neptune Beach in June is also an opportunity
to
publicize SSHRB and conduct the survey.
A motion was made to:
1. Have a presence at the Jam at Neptune Beach event in June similar to the one being planned for the
Park Street Spring Festival.
2. Explore opportunities to publicize and support Berkeley's Bay Area Rainbow Day Camp for gender
expansive youth, including holding a fundraiser in June to create camp scholarships for Alameda
youth.
M/S Hyman / Sorensen Unanimous (6-0)
4.
BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
2",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2015-02-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,7,"year reprieve; suggested a Town Hall meeting be held regarding the
ferry system in three to four months; stated that some riders feel
out of the loop regarding ferry issues; noted that a Town Hall
meeting would provide a better sense of timetables for improving
ferry services and costs issues; suggested a more formal way of
communicating with riders be developed by the Transportation
Commission or an adhoc committee that reports to City Council.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog;
suggested that the Town Hall meeting occur soon; stated that the
city cannot afford to lose the ferry service; traveling across the
Bay Farm Island Bridge would affect commuters and is unacceptable:
stated that informing commuters that everything will be done to
keep the ferry in service is an urgent matter and maintains
credibility for transit solutions at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is in favor of having the Town
Hall meeting sooner, but that it is important to collect
information for presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not see any advertising for the
ferries; noted that fuel cost issues should be investigated; stated
that the City will not lose the ferry service; that there is a
long-term possibility that the Water Transit Authority will operate
the
ferries; the City needs to continue operating successfully
until then; there should be a Council briefing on the state of the
ferries and then a public workshop.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the maintenance issues are
important; noted if the ferry is out of service, commuters find
other means of commuting and it is difficult to get them back once
habits have changed.
Councilmember Daysog suggested that the Council Meeting be the Town
Hall meting.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there was a fare box increase of
25% and 40% is needed; the capacity of the ferry service and
parking limitation is a difficult dynamic to solve; that the
Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service was successful because parking
spaces were increased and ridership improved.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has never seen the parking lot full;
noted that more riders are needed; stated that ridership went down
significantly after the dock closure.
The Acting City Manager stated that staff worked very hard and came
up with a solution that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.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,2006-04-18,4,"year funding; allocation adjustments would need to be made based on
the funding received.
Councilmember deHaan stated some projects are long-range, such as
the Woodstock to Webster Street Project.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated only social
service contracts are on the two-year funding cycle.
Councilmember Daysog stated the two-year funding cycle provides an
element of stability for non-profits; he supports the two-year
funding cycle.
Mayor Johnson stated she is happy the Woodstock to Webster Street
Project has CDBG funding; the Council supports the project and
feels strongly about moving forward as quickly as possible.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the SSHRB for recommendations;
stated the SSHRB would be tapped to monitor the progress; decreased
funding is a possibility next year.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1. ]
(06-207) Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Master Fee
Resolution No. 12191 to Adjust Appeal Fees to the Planning Board
and City Council; and
(06-207A) Resolution No. 13945, ""Amending Master Fee Resolution No.
12191 to Revise Fees Charged for Appeals to the Planning Board and
to the City Council. Adopted.
The Building and Planning Director provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that San Jose's flat fee is $1,925 plus time
and materials; she does not like the current system and would
prefer a flat fee; cost recovery is not an issue for her; detailed
accounting would need to be provided to the appellant if the City
were to charge for time and materials.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how many appeals were filed in
2005, and whether the time charged was for salary or hourly
employees.
The Planning and Building Director responded that 13 appeals were
filed in 2005; stated the average cost was $1,061; the $100 per-
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-03-20,7,"year assumptions.
Ms. Mayer stated the information will be included in the budget workshop.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the transfer tax includes the recent transfer
tax from Site A.
Ms. Mayer responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the amount will be added in.
Ms. Mayer responded the transfer tax will be added; stated the actuals were based on
June through December 2017 and Site A had not occurred.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired when the budget workshop would be, to which the Acting City
Manager responded the end of May is the possible date.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired where public employee raises are posted.
The Human Resources Director responded the salary schedules are posted on the City
website.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether retail stores closing is being taken into consideration
moving forward with regards to sales tax.
The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Mayer continued the presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why there is an increase in expenses in year
2041.
Ms. Mayer responded the increase is based on actuarial science.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the information assumes staffing levels.
Ms. Mayer responded the information is based on the City's employment base at the
time of the actuarial evaluation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the $203,000 expenditure for Council
referrals, the cannabis program and the North Housing Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) would be paid by the cannabis licensing and application fees.
Ms. Mayer responded the expenditure funds upfront cost before the fees are collected.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the $75,000 for the Emergency
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
March 20, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-03-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,7,"year and they are around $400,000 short. She asked staff if they considered phasing as part of
the project.
Staff Payne replied staff should have the funding without seeking additional grants. A large
number of monies would come from Measure B Bicycle/Pedestrian pass through and Vehicle
Registration Fee pass through monies.
Staff Naclerio replied that the City is looking to construct this project within the grant deadlines.
Until the bids come in, the City will not know what funds are needed. The City recently
received Vehicle Registration Fee monies. If used, then City would have to reduce its
resurfacing project funding.
Commissioner Schatmeier echoed the tremendous effort made by staff to pull all of the
community's comments together. He spoke about a public comment regarding signage. He
wondered whether the Commission would see appropriate wayfinding signage included in the
project.
Staff Naclerio said signage requested by tonight's speaker is not included in the project
currently.
Commissioner Schatmeier questioned the bus shelters on Webster Street and Park Street. He
assumed that the shelters were funded and maintained by the business association.
Staff Naclerio replied no.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if the City maintains the shelters.
Staff Naclerio replied yes the City erected and maintains them.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the bus shelters should be constantly maintained or they
would detract from the project.
Commissioner Vargas encouraged staff to find additional funds for the project. He considered
safety as an important factor for the project as well as personal safety while riding a bike and the
bicycles themselves.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
Page 7 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,6,"wrongly laid-off on the basis of not having an equal opportunity through the process.
Mr. Wong thanked the Board for their time and hopes they will make the right decision.
Ms. Marcia Tsang, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator in charge of Fee Classes
and Facilities Rentals, agreed with what Ms. Blumkin and Mr. Wong had stated. She highly
recommends that the Board review how they selected current program coordinators and
she believes it was not a fair process after hearing from the supervisor and managers that
they used to work with and what they had been told in the office and how the process was
done.
President Peeler invited Chris Low, Senior Management Analyst, to provide his information.
Mr. Low stated that he was providing information on the recent work force change
implemented in ARPD, the subsequent recruitment and selection process, and personnel
appointments to Recreation Services Specialists.
Part of what has already been presented by Mr. Gossman, Ms. Blumkin, Mr. Wong, and
Ms. Tsang is that yes, on March 2, 2012 the Human Resource Director informed Linda
Justus, ACEA President, advising her of the City's intent to recommend and implement a
reorganization of ARPD which included eliminating four Recreation Program Coordinator
positions, creating a new classification of Recreation Services Specialist and finally
recruiting and appointing three individuals to that new classification. Implementation of the
work force change and filling of the Recreation Services Specialist positions would be the
first steps of reorganizing ARPD toward a model of maximum cost recovery with no effect
on front-line services.
The parties met and conferred, in good faith, regarding the impacts of the reorganization on
April 17, 2012.
The initial information to ACEA was on March 2, 2012. On April 3, 2012, the City Council
approved a work force change in ARPD by amending the ACEA salary schedule to include
the salary range for Recreation Services Specialist. A number of folks who are in
attendance today also attended that Council meeting.
As a result of Council's action, on April 4, 2012 a promotional recruitment was posted. The
Human Resources Department received six applications. Application materials were
scrutinized to make sure that the folks who applied did meet the minimum qualifications for
the Recreation Services Specialist and all were invited to participate in the selection
process, which they did.
The recruitment closed on April 11, 2012 and on April 12, 2012 the applicants supplemental
questionnaire responses were redacted of any personal identifying information and sent to
two external subject matter experts to be evaluated objectively. One of those individuals
was named previously and she is with the East Bay Regional Park District. The second
person who was not identified works for the Hayward Area Recreation District.
Page -6-
G:Personnel\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-06-14,2,"written communications had attachments that had not been included. He requested that
for future meetings that the attachments please be included with the written
communication.
Zac Bowling thanked the HAB for their recent decision about the proposed development
at the McKay property. He believed the decision was thoughtful and the HAB had
considered all the facts and the true historical nature of the site. He also acknowledged
that his friend Alfred Twu wrote a children's book ""RHNA: The House that Makes New
Friends"" that explained California's housing needs and development.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-1015
Public Hearing on the Alameda General Plan Update.
Director Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4973464&GUID=3EA90382-
595E-46CF-ACBO-EC556F65D2AC&FullText=1.
President Teague reminded both boards that this was not an action item. He then opened
the public comments.
Brendan Sullivan said he was pro-building and pro-housing. He wanted the General Plan
to provide a clear strategy for prioritizing locations for RHNA mandated units. He
recommended Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront as possible development sites.
He also encouraged the City to get the Navy to lift the Alameda Point Housing
Development Cap. He believed that upzoning historical neighborhoods should be a last
resort.
Carmen Reid asked that they not increase the two-story height limit. She believed that too
many height increases in historic areas would degrade the area's sense of time and place.
She also believed height increases in historic areas would encourage the disruption of
architectural character. She believed it was very important for Alameda to maintain its
historic character because it is the main attraction for living in and visiting Alameda.
Zac Bowling mentioned an email he had submitted, he also echoed the comments made
by Dylan Parson, Renewed Hope, and Bike Walk Alameda. He said since this plan spans
20 years it did a good job for the first 15 but was concerned with the nature of RHNA
whether the City can actually catch up to the housing demand. He agreed with the
proposed plans around Park St and the transit corridors and that the height increases
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 14
June 14, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.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
PlanningBoard,2016-06-27,6,"would use. He said they would not have grey water systems but would have purple pipe
installed with the project.
President Knox White asked why some of the smaller streets have trees on only one side.
Staff Member Thomas said that the street plan has been separated from the buildings and
would be coming back for its own review and approval.
President Knox White opened the public hearing.
Karen Bey thanked the developer and team for a great project. She said she encourages
approval of the designs for Blocks 6,7, & 10.
President Knox White closed the public hearing.
Board Member Sullivan said she was concerned with the California pepper trees and how
they would be handled. She said the wooden panels on Block 7 did not look integrated
and would not age well.
Board Member Mitchell said he likes the changes to Block 6. He said Block 7 has a good
design and is okay with the wood paneling. He said he has some concerns with how the
utility boxes are ultimately handled. He said he liked the flexibility of the spaces in Block
10. He said he wanted to make sure there was drinking fountain access. He said he is
ready to see all three move forward.
Board Member Köster thanked the teams for all the work they have put into these
buildings. He said he liked the design of Block 6. He said as you turn the corner there
could be some more differentiation between units on Block 6. He said he liked how Block
Approved Minutes
Page 6 of 9
Planning Board Meeting
June 27, 2016",PlanningBoard/2016-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,2,"would take longer to define. He noted that such changes to the Building Code could take
a long time, following a lot of community discussion.
Board member Lynch suggested that there were avenues available to the leadership of the
City that may be explored in addition to this effort. He noted that some cities that have
adopted green principles and policies without having a green building ordinance. He
suggested that the City leaders explore executive orders, in light of ordinances being
passed, that while moving forward with public buildings, that they shall meet a certain
threshold. He noted that department heads can issue policy papers that as new permits
come forward, that define what they would be looking for that would be consistent with
the Uniform Building Code as the process moves forward.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
8-A.
PLN07-0059 (Use Permit) - BurgerMeister 2315 Central Avenue. The
applicant requests a Use Permit for extended hours of operations from 11 am - 2
am Monday through Sunday pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(a), and use of an
outdoor patio for up to 24 seats pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(b). The site is
located within a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theater Zoning District. (SW)
The Zoning Administrator has referred this item to the Planning Board.
This item was moved to the Regular Agenda.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was enthusiastic about the theater project in
general, and believed that this restaurant would be a positive addition. She was concerned
about extending the hours of operation to 2:00 a.m. She noted that the restaurant's
website identified three other San Francisco/Daly City locations, all of which closed by
10 or 11 p.m. She understood the late closing was related to the theater, but was not sure
that families would be out that late; she also inquired how late AC Transit operated in
that area. She suggested that a closing time of 11:00 p.m. or midnight would be more
appropriate for the Park Street district.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding the closing time for La
Pinata, Board Member Lynch replied that it was open until 3:00 a.m.
Ms. Wolter noted that the applicant requested the closing time.
The public hearing was opened.
Page 2 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2015-10-14,5,"would take a little bit more time; stated the criteria in Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-
92.9 was met.
Mr. Klein responded the language specifies the response has to address by whom,
when and how the request will be fulfilled.
Commissioner Dieter stated that she is reading Section 2-92.9, which states a request
to inspect or obtain copies of public records that is submitted to any department or
anybody shall be satisfied no later than 10 business days unless the requester is
advised in writing within three business days that additional time is needed to determine
whether the request for records is likely to comprise a voluminous amount of separate
and distinct writings.
Commissioner Bonta inquired if Section 2-92.5 is being referenced, which indicates a
request for information to any agent of the City requires the agent to respond to said
request within three business days by providing or explaining how, when and by whom.
Mr. Klein responded in the affirmation; stated said Section is the one in his complaint.
Vice Chair Foreman stated that he thought the issue was frivolous when he first looked
at it; however, the more he reviews it, the more he is a little bit concerned; he
understand Mr. Klein received the documents in time; Mr. Klein is not complaining about
that; he is putting himself in Mr. Klein's shoes; a response was due in three days; the
response came in on the third day, which is perfectly okay; the response is clarification
is needed; Mr. Klein wrote back less than two hours later asking the Attorney to tell him
what is unclear; in hindsight from the 16th, Attorney Cohen could have very easily met
the three day requirement and still could have asked for the extension; that he does not
have a problem with staff asking for the extension; these are emails and over 400
pages, which might include privileged material; he has no problem whatsoever with the
extension; if he were in Mr. Klein's shoes, he would say the Attorney is dragging his
feet; he does not know why the Attorney was dragging his feet; it may be totally
innocent; maybe he was just going away for the weekend, but he is dragging his feet;
that he does not want the public or anyone asking for documents to feel like they have
to drag the documents out of the City; he is concerned because clearly the three day
timeline could have been met.
The Assistant City Attorney stated when a complaint has been filed under the
ordinance, the Commission hears the evidence and arguments and has to render a
formal written decision on the matter; staff needs the Commissions direction.
Commissioner Tuazon stated the way everyone communicates now with text and email
is so easy to just write something that causes more questions; if he asks somebody a
question through email, the response comes back with more questions or creates more
problems instead of addressing the issue; people need to be very careful when
answering an email; he is not saying that Mr. Cohen was reckless here; however, he did
not address the whom, when and how.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 14, 2016
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-07-21,7,"would read: ""residential property means any housing unit including a room or group of
rooms designed and intended for occupancy by one or more persons, or a mobile
home"".
Councilmember Oddie inquired what data will Council receive in December.
The Community Development Director responded Council would receive a quantitative
study about impacts of rising rents for Alameda renters; stated the consultant will look at
impacts by tenure, gender, age, and ethnicity; Council could direct staff on next steps in
terms of policy recommendations, based on the quantitative data.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the analysis could include a moratorium if wide-
spread rent increases are found, to which the Community Development Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to see a wide range of policy options for
Council to address the issue.
The Community Development Director stated the ordinance requires staff to report
annually; staff will have data points in 12 months.
Councilmember Oddie stated it makes sense for Council and the community to have
more input in selection of members RRAC members; he would like a public application
process with public interviews.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Oddie about the
selection process; stated good, workable solutions are found if the Council and
community work together.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved introduction of the rent increase ordinance with the
modification to remove the definition of a housing unit and to include the definition of a
residential property as stated by the Community Development Director [""residential
property means any housing unit including a room or group of rooms designed and
intended for occupancy by one or more persons, or a mobile home""].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
***
Councilmember Daysog left the dais at 9:01 p.m. and returned at 9:02 p.m.
***
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance creating the RRAC.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-07-21.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,2020-05-06,4,"would not be comfortable trying to overturn the will of the voters with a democratic process
by writing into the Charter something that would usurp the political voice of the
constituents; the right to vote is very sacred and should be upheld to the highest extent
possible; there have been a number of cases of political intrigue that have happened over
the years; Alameda's Charter needs to stand up to Constitutional muster and Council
needs to be thoughtful about what goes into it; being a Charter City there are a number
of areas where Council can legislate, but there are also areas that are precisely and
explicitly carved out under the Constitutions of the United States and State of California;
suggested removing gender terms; stated language should be changed throughout; she
is willing to support Vice Mayor Knox White's proposal; the term ""influencing"" is overbroad
and important to deal with as there are a lot of things that are not ill-intended that could
fall under influencing.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he concurs with Councilmember Vella's comments; the
issue is two and a half years old; he wants to frame his remarks about moving forward;
he appreciates the language proposed by Vice Mayor Knox White, but wants to focus on
what he thinks is the most important sentence in that the City Council may further
implement the section by ordinance, resolution or its Rules of Conduct; the Code of
Conduct needs to be brought back in order for the public to see the big picture; it outlines
the levels of inquiry and discipline; keeping both together are critical to having the public
understand that Council takes the issue seriously; implementing the recommendations of
the Grand Jury in a way that improves City government is important; the Constitution
exists to control the worst impulses of politicians; the Constitution has a due-process
clause; one of the weaknesses in the alternative proposal is that there is a mechanism to
remove someone just based on an accusation; he appreciates the statements made in
the Jenkins report; quoted some of the language; stated an extra statutory recall provision
is not appropriate; care needs to be taken in the future not to vest political power because
there could be the tyranny of the majority; Council needs to protect the rights of any future
Councilmember and the rights of their constituents; he looks forward to the Code of
Conduct.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she concurs with Councilmembers Vella and Oddie and
does not favor a recall election be a part of the modification; care should be taken to be
non-partisan as possible; it should not be up to a City Council whether or not to pursue a
special election; in addition to usurping the rights of voters to choose, special election
costs need to be recognized; staying away from selective enforcement is important; she
prefers a simpler and straight forward method of drafting regulations so it is easily
understood and not ambiguous; addressed issues raised by public comment about the
timing of the special meetings; stated direction was given to Council in July, 2019 at a
public meeting with ample opportunity for public comment; the three Councilmembers
who were able to vote accepted the findings of the Grand Jury and agreed to investigate
and make amendments so the Charter delineates specific types of misconduct that
constitute a violation, as well as outline an enforcement process; the Vice Mayor's
proposed language changes do so; Council respects the right of the voters; Charter
provisions need to be amended by a vote of the people; Council plans to meet in June to
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 6, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2014-11-24,2,"would need additional support for users of the ferry. Mr. Ernst replied that all future
landscaping will be drought-tolerant, and said that two crosswalks had been added to
accommodate people coming from the ferry, and existing shuttles would be used to bring
workers to the site.
Board Member Tang liked the plans presented, and especially the color of the building.
Board Member Burton said the building was attractive and a positive addition to the VF
campus. He asked if the wooden deck could be continued all the way to the ground. He also
noted about feedback from BikeWalk Alameda, and asked that bike parking be located in
front of the front entrance.
Board Member Knox White asked about some of the doors on the building plans, on North
Loop Rd.
Mr. Ernst indicated that the door was a required emergency exit. He asked Mr. Thomas
about clarification about bicycle parking in the Draft Resolution.
Vice President Alvarez appreciated that VF Outdoors is expanding their presence in
Alameda.
President Henneberry agrees with everyone's remarks.
Board Member Burton motioned to approve with modification to the condition of approval for
bicycle parking recommended by Board Member Knox-White. Board Member Knox White
seconded the motion. The motion carried, 5-0.
7.B. 2014-1091
PLN14-0305-2350 Harbor Bay Parkway - Applicant: Mina Patel. The applicant requests
approval of Final Development Plan and Design Review to allow the construction of
105-room, five story hotel. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 155332 In-Fill Development Projects.
The Board motioned to continue this item at the Staff's request
7.C. 2014-1094
Parcel Map 10263- 2531/2533 Clement Avenue-PLN14-0363-Applicant: Clement
Avenue Property, LLC. A proposed parcel map application to subdivide a 6,749 square
foot property into two parcels, located approximately 153 feet southwest of the intersection
of Clement Avenue and Broadway. This project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 155332 In-Fill Development Projects.
Staff requests a continuance to the Planning Board Meeting of December 8, 2014.
Board approved continuance.
8. MINUTES:
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 3
November 24, 2014",PlanningBoard/2014-11-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-06-15,9,"would make the City less competitive.
Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the average public safety retirement benefit for
2% at 50.
Mr. Bartel responded the benefit would depend upon retirement age; stated currently,
the average pension benefit is approximately $100,000 and would drop by
approximately 10%; the benefit would be substantially less by retiring at 50; generally,
fire fighters retire closer to 55; police retire between 53 to 54.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any other municipalities are looking at different
retirement plans other than PERS; further inquired what would happen to PERS [if cities
withdrew from PERS].
Mr. Bartel responded very few; stated the challenge of pulling out of PERS is that
withdrawal is very expensive; PERS has an efficient percentage of the City's assets
going toward expenses; PERS administrative expenses are low; going to another plan
would be amazingly more expensive; withdrawal costs would depend upon the
withdrawal method; withdrawing and taking all asset liability would result in taking the
City's market value of assets, not actuarial value of assets; the City would be 65%
funded instead of 90%; PERS population is one-third State, one-third non-certificated
school employees, and one-third public agencies; schools would not have the ability to
pull out of PERS; the State would not pull out; one-third of assets would be pulled if all
public agencies pulled out and PERS would still do just fine; the City would have the
responsibility to provide the current benefit formula for current employees; withdrawal
would be expensive and painful; that he is not aware of an efficient way to withdraw.
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10-292) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14453, ""Authorizing Collection of
Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax
Bills."" Adopted.
The Public Works Director provided handouts and gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Opponent (Not in favor of resolution): Pom Il Song.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the
hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated what has been done in the past has worked.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-04,4,"would make a motion to have staff review the issue and bring it back on the next
agenda.
The City Clerk responded said process is how referrals have been done in recent
history.
Mayor Gilmore inquired the status and timing on the Bill.
Mr. Oddie responded the Bill has passed the Assembly and is currently in the Senate;
there is time.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council should stick to the process.
Councilmember Chen concurred with Mayor Gilmore; stated staff should review the
legislation and come back with a recommendation to the Council.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of staff reviewing the resolution with the Council
consensus of supporting AB1324, make any adjustments and bring it to the next
possible meeting.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 4, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-07-01,18,"would like to review the fee structure, particularly the $5 Junior
fee; the Golf Course supports junior programs and seniors; the
General Fund anticipates a $500,000 shortfall next year; the RFP
process would take six months to a year; once something is
contracted out, it is never gotten back; he was hoping to get more
information on marketing and capital improvements for the existing
operation.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of seeking both operation and
management proposals.
Councilmember deHaan stated full time management is needed in the
interim period; some improvements can be made on a daily basis with
current staff.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Councilmember deHaan's motion was
to issue a RFP to secure a long-term and interim operator.
Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative stated that he
wished the original report had been included.
The City Manager stated staff recommends a RFP for a long-term
operator and an interim operator for operations and management.
Mr. Singer stated the recommendation is for both operation and
maintenance [to be contracted out ] because the maintenance cost
structure is the biggest problem.
The City Manager stated just doing management is not cost
effective; the interim operator could reduce costs immediately and
the [RFP] process would take 60-90 days.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she would second  ouncilmember deHaan's
motion with an amendment; stated more discussion is needed on
whether there should be a passive park, recreational specific
activity such as the Skate Park, or a national class tournament -
type facility; said discussion should be tabled; that she is
conscious that the General Fund will be impacted very soon with
respect to potential shortfalls in rounds of golf for the next two
years; that her amendment to the motion would be to proceed with
the RFP for an interim operator in order to stop the hemorrhaging
and directing staff to work with the Golf Commission on the Master
Plan and seek community feedback on a long-term vision.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would accept the amendment to
the motion regarding engaging the public to review uses of the
property.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff is being instructed to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
July 1, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,9,"would like to restore the course; stated Greenway Golf wants to change the south
course into a links course on the theory that a links course would drive traffic and bring
in more golfers; Council needs to make a psychological and financial determination;
Council needs to determine what would make golfers happy and which golfers would be
happy.
Mayor Gilmore stated the issue goes back to how to increase revenue; a links course
might provide a marketing edge because of being new and different; some local golfers
might be unhappy but having the convenience of driving five minutes to the Golf Course
cannot be beat.
Mr. Sams stated playing conditions are important; however; the most important thing is
where golfers' friends play; many residents play with non-resident friends; golf courses
have lost a lot of resident players because non-resident rates went up so high; both
firms do an outstanding job maintaining golf courses.
The City Manager stated the whole process has been different because plans for the
Golf Course have been kicked around for at least six years; staff intends to bring a
report to Council for a decision on May 15th
Councilmember deHaan stated that he understood that the next step would be to submit
the proposals to the review committee.
The City Manager stated the proposals would be presented to the review committee
[prior to May 15th].
Councilmember Tam stated the process started because Council wanted to find a way
to preserve the golfing experience with a municipal golf course for residents and youth;
Council had to find a way to generate revenue in order to preserve the golfing
experience; having a golfing experience that benefits residents is important; that she
would like to see a lower rate for residents and preserve lower rates for youth and
seniors; the golf issue is similar to what the City experienced with the theater; people
commented that they would be happy with just one screen and that multiple screens
were not needed; however, multiple screens were necessary to make marketing viable;
that she will rely upon staff to advise which option would be the best for the future.
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 10:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
*
Vice Mayor Bonta thanked KemperSports and Greenway Golf for good presentations;
stated both presentations are strong; the chart presented by Mr. Sams is excellent and
clarifies projections; that he would like to have staff provide a similar chart comparing
""green"" management; ensuring that both companies would have the ability to fulfill
promises is important, particularly on delivering front end capital improvements;
Greenway Golf has a distinct vision, which is new and bold; that he has no idea whether
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,27,"would like to have a six month review; she does not want to bog
down the process; the right amount of money needed for urgent
matters should be set; the Charter also allows the Council to
delegate the authority to other boards and commissions; the Council
should consider delegating the hiring of outside counsel for
Alameda Power & Telecom to the Public Utilities Board.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not feel there is over
spending in the City Attorney's office.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is not suggesting changing the budget
amount she is trying to follow the Charter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the budget began with focus on the
General Fund; special revenue funds, capital projects, debt
service, and enterprise funds also need to be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that all the funds are intermingled to
a
certain extent and have impacts on each other.
Board Member deHaan moved adoption of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Resolution.
Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the Community Improvement
Commission Resolution.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the City Council Resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-031CIC) - Recommendation to approve the Determination that
planning and administrative expenses incurred during FY 2004-05 are
necessary for the production, improvement or preservation of low-
and moderate-income housing.
Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
12
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.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
PlanningBoard,2007-02-12,12,"would improve, and that some consequences would follow noncompliance of specific
Board requests.
Member McNamara inquired about the Big Box Retail Study, and noted that she had not
heard anything further. Ms. Woodbury replied that no meeting had been scheduled yet,
and that no funds had been budgeted to hire the consultant. City Council believed that
many retail and leakage studies had already been held, and requested that staff compile
existing information for the committee. After that, it would be determined whether there
were any gaps in the information, and whether further study would be needed.
Member Kohlstrand suggested moving Staff Communication to follow Oral
Communication. Ms. Woodbury noted that could be agendized as an amendment to the
Rules and Procedures.
b.
Future Agenda Items.
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anland
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the March 26, 2007 meeting. This meeting was audio
and videotaped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
February 12, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-09-30,7,"would have to coincide with the BRT proposal and it now seems the proposal will get done
whether the redesign gets done or not. He proposed that the plan be its own separate priority
project, especially since it is a huge priority for moving people around the west end.
Boardmember Burton said he seconded Boardmember Knox White's comments about Lincoln
Avenue. He felt we do not know what is going to happen 20 to 30 years out. Also, he asked
about the $1.5 million dollars used for the proposal and wondered how it should it be spent. He
felt the report did not refer to great projects of that scale and it is not fair for the Commission and
the Board to ask for direction when they had not received concise options for projects that would
fit within that framework. He would like to see more work done there.
Boardmember Zuppan referred to the illustration and neighborhoods that are within the outer
boarders of the City that have no transit service. She said the Clement Avenue option should be
considered more and staff should look at pockets where the City is developing. Moreover, she
was concerned about the lack of examples shown for the money that would be used. Lastly, she
agreed with AC Transit's opinion to reserve or set aside lanes in both directions and it is hard for
her to believe that there would not be a need, especially at major intersections.
Boardmember Tang said he was concerned with the bus only lane and wondered if the City
would implement limited service hours within the BRT lanes.
Colin Burgett replied the BRT lanes would be open 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
Nathan Landau replied limiting the hours of bus only lanes, similar to San Francisco would
create tremendous enforcement problems.
Boardmember Alvarez-Morroni said she was concerned with the funding deadline.
John Atkinson replied that the remaining section of the grant is being passed through by BART
and consolidated until November 2014. It should go through the construction process by that
time, but they could go to the federal agencies to extend the deadline. He explained that Phase I
was extended twice, so there is a possibility.
Page 7 of 11",TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.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
PlanningBoard,2013-06-24,5,"would bring a lot of traffic in the tunnels that would impact her neighborhood. This doesn't
feel like the right direction for Alameda.
Jerry Serventi, WABA Design Committee, commented on the excitement of the
development. He asked that landscaping be the first sight from the tube and it should
say 'this is Alameda'.
President Burton closed the meeting to public comment.
Board member Knox White commented that this plan has been in the works for 18 months
and without being rushed the board should take the time it needs to approve a good
design. He further commented on the jaywalking issues and feels the lack of pedestrian
and bike traffic coming onto the site is inadequate. He commented on guidelines in the
General Plan and worries they are not making it into the project plans. There haven't been
real talks with CalTrans on what can happen in planning. He asked if there was a need
for the entire 7 lanes on Stargell and Webster. He stated it doesn't seem it be reasonable
this will be back in two weeks. He expressed concerns that the transportation study staff
report doesn't address pedestrians and thinks the City and applicant have more work to
do. He does not support beer and wine at the gas station.
Vice President Henneberry stated this is the City of Alameda, not the city of Target or city
of In-and-Out Burger and the signage should reflect this. He asked staff if the Safeway at
Southshore is 24-hour, and he agrees this site should not sell alcohol. He asked for public
safety to address comments on fast food, banks and late night hours leading to crime.
Sgt. Ron Simmons, APD Traffic Division, responded by saying whenever there is
something new it draws more people to the area and leads to more crime due to the fact
there are more people. He cannot comment on a preference for one business over
another.
Vice President Henneberry asked about the hours for the operation of the In-and-Out
Burger use permit. He asked for the hours of operation for Jack-in-the-Box on Webster.
Mr. Kennedy stated hours of operation being open at 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. This is their
standard.
Board member Tang asked if late night hours could be compared to other times as far as
sales.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni asked about crime at In-and-Out Burger sites. She
further asked about moving it to the Mariner Square Loop side of the development instead.
She asked about the signage issues and is the company opened to a different look.
Mr. Kennedy stated they hire security if incidents arise. He stated they are always willing to
work with the developers to look at different areas in the site plan. Where it is currently has
a larger drive-thru lane. He commented that older stores with older signage are being
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 8
June 24, 2013",PlanningBoard/2013-06-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-01-15,10,"would be the result on the calculations by assuming a 4.5% medical
inflation rate after 10 years.
Mr. Bartel responded healthcare becomes 100% of the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) if healthcare continues to grow in the high single or
low double digits and general inflation is 3% the scenario of
doing nothing means having natural market forces controlling
healthcare costs which results in private sector entities dropping
healthcare coverage the end result would be 50% of the population
uninsured something would need to be done; the actuarial accrued
liability might be 30% higher if the grade is increased from 4.5%
to 6% accounting standards suggest that an evaluation every two
years for agencies that have more than 200 participants.
Mayor Johnson stated a two-year evaluation is fine, but the chart
should not go out as far as it does based on a 4.5% medical
inflation number; assuming that the federal government will adopt a
national healthcare plan is very optimistic.
Mr. Bartel stated that he is reluctant to project beyond a ten year
period in terms of actual dollars; he cannot predict what will
happen ten years from now.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Pay-As-You-Go could be much
more expensive than pre-funding with a fund that starts having
a
return from investments.
Mr. Bartel stated Pay-As-You-Go is similar to how social security
is funded today; a check is written when the payment is due; social
security has a trust fund; the trust fund will run out in
approximately 15 years; tax dollars will not be sufficient to pay
for expected benefits; social security is funded by a quasi pre-
funding; CalPERS and private sector retirement systems require that
money be set aside so that there is money in a trust and the money
will be there as people retire; the City has entered into a
contract with CalPERS to pre-fund benefits.
Councilmember deHaan stated many municipalities have addressed the
issue.
Mr. Bartel stated that he has performed approximately 150
evaluations; he predicted that four out of five of his clients
would not do any pre-funding four or five years ago; he was wrong;
the majority of his clients do not have the budget ability to pay
the full Annual Required Contribution (ARC) immediately; he is
convinced that most of his clients will either phase into paying
the full ARC or adopt a standard of putting something aside so that
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf
PlanningBoard,2020-10-26,9,"would be the Alameda Municipal Power Solar Proposal and a residential project on Santa
Clara.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
12.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Billy tried to speak but unfortunately they were having technical difficulties.
13.
ADJOURNMENT
President Curtis adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 9 of 9
October 26, 2020",PlanningBoard/2020-10-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,21,"would be reviewed by the Planning Board and Transportation
Commission before first phase development is approved; an annual
reporting process also would be required to evaluate how the
program is doing; flexibility is necessary for the TDM Coordinator
to respond to user demand.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether
the Transportation Commission and Planning Board could set trip
reduction goals and a measuring methodology.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the
business deal provides Catellus with some security as to the
program cost; $425,000 must be provided to the TDM program for
operations each year; the City does not have the ability to come
back in three years and unilaterally request $600,000
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired who determines how to use the
$425,000.
The Supervising Planner responded the Planning Board and
Transportation Commission have the ability to review the TDM
program for the first phase of the project; stated the program
would be up and running once the first phase development is
approved; the manager would oversee the use of the money.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether recommendations would be
brought to Council.
The Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated the site
phase is at the Planning Board approval level.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether
shuttle use would be contemplated in the TDM program.
The Supervising Planner responded the idea was to establish a
funding source for an annual operation and allow some flexibility
for how best to use the money.
***
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog moved to
continue the meeting past midnight.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
10
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-06-19,18,"would be reviewed at mid-year.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether some
capital improvement funds could be used for the Meyers House to
make the facility more available to the City.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the Meyers House is
partially funded through a trust fund established by the Meyers
family stated the Recreation and Park Department subsidizes
approximately $20,000 to $25,000 per year for the upkeep to the
grounds and house.
Mayor/Chail Johnson stated eventually roof repair would need to be
done.
The Recreation and Park Director stated a long-term plan needs to
be developed.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she was on the Planning Board when
the City Council accepted the Meyers House; a condition was that
the Meyers House would not cost the City money.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the
maintenance cost, to which the Recreation and Park Director
responded $50,000 to $60,000 per year.
Vice Mayor/Board  Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the City
is subsidizing over half of the cost, to which the Recreation and
Park Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated previous
discussions addressed not using the grounds more because of the
lack of restrooms.
The Recreation and Park Director stated no outdoor restroom
facilities are available; the Meyers House is in the middle of a
residential neighborhood; rentals take place a couple of times a
year for wedding ceremonies and teas; parking is limited.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated residents are subsidizing the Meyers
House; it is important to find a way for residents to enjoy the
facility.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what are the
hours of operation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
7
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-12-07,11,"would be provided, not a final lease document.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she does not have the sense that Council is
requesting a document but wants business terms in the larger context to know whether
the Mif Albright Course fits; an executable document is not needed.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note:
under Council Communications, Vice Mayor deHaan amended his vote to abstain.]
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(10-593) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointments to the Housing
Commission; Planning Board; Public Art Commission; and Transportation Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Dorie Lofstrom-Perez to the Housing Commission; Karen
Lee to the Public Art Commission; and Thomas Bertken and Jesus Vargas to the
Transportation Commission.
(10-594) Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he reconsidered his vote on the Mif Albright
Golf Course [paragraph no. 10-592 and he would abstain.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:40 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
11
December 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-12-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,24,"would be maintained by the developer and whether the MSD would be
paid for by the project and would not be a burden of the City or
residents, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated a commitment has been made to reutilize
some of the buildings even if Clif Bar is not a tenant. inquired
whether there is a market for the buildings.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded that
Clif Bar is the identified tenant for the adaptive reuse; Catellus
could continue the demolition of the warehouses if Clif Bar went
away and there were not a replacement tenant ; currently, Catellus
is not going in said direction but is looking at preserving more
warehouses.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see some
ensurance if the project performs better than expected; a trigger
point needs to be established for getting additional funding if
$425,000 is not enough; he would like to see some type of trigger
point that shows an evaluation would be done against the agreed
upon criteria after a defined period of time that allows additional
money to be allocated up to a certain percentage for the TDM
Program if the project is performing better than the Performa.
The Supervising Planner stated the commercial development agreement
could be brought back to Council in two weeks with Councilmember
Matarrese's suggestion.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated it is
important for the motion to have as much specificity tonight for
the purpose of having the ordinance adopted in two weeks.
Mr. Marshall inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese was making a
connection between the project being more successful than
anticipated and some additional burden on the TDM Program or
whether the thoughts were independent.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the connection is that there will be
more traffic if the project is wildly successful.
Mr. Marshall stated the challenging aspect is how to measure the
TDM Program; a cap was established to understand the financial
impact to the developer; an escalator is in the drafted document
which is not insignificant : the developer seems to be hit twice
with a percentage increase and an escalatori suggested that the
escalator be deferred until the adjustment is made; additional
language would need to be added to the underwriting to explain the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-04-01,6,"would be informed if a project has to be delayed.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the local action plan spans departments,
while the telecom issue is just an Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T)
issue; inquired whether one project might be delayed if staff is
shifted to another project.
The City Manager responded said example could occur; AP&T is
working on more than one project.
Vice Mayor Tam stated AP&T staff is needed to work on reducing the
carbon footprint inquired whether the same staff person might work
on the telecom issue and the formation of the local action plan and
whether said staff working on the telecom issue might delay the
formation of the plan.
The City Manager responded one could impact the other depending on
workload; stated moving forward with the local action plan does
require some of the same people [as the telecom issue]. having some
of the same people work on multiple projects has been incorporated
in the time estimates.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there are a variety of issues from
addressing the financial issue at AP&T to renovating Rittler Field,
and Lincoln and Krusi Parks; said items do not belong on the same
ranking sheet; getting a measuring mechanism for each item would be
a far more productive use of time; the department work plans are
excellent; some projects are interdisciplinary and can be separated
out; the next step should be to get Microsoft Project or some other
type of project tracking tool and assign due dates and resources;
Council would need to make decisions about priorities if resources
become impacted because more requests are added; finishing easily
taken care of projects, which might be of less importance, might
become important in order to get the project off the list.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the list is composed of
items Council has directed staff to complete, to which Ms. Perkins
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the presented workload should be
looked at objectively and resources should be allocated; there are
a finite number of projects; some projects might be five years out
because there are too many tasks for the current staff; said
information needs to presented to Council and Council can make
adjustments.
Ms. Perkins stated Councilmember Matarrese's description is exactly
how staff views their responsibilities to determine how to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-05-31,6,"would be engaged about doing a public-private partnership.
Councilmember Johnson noted the City would not be locked into the direction without
questions being answered first.
The Acting City Manager stated Frequently Asked Questions information could be
prepared.
Mayor Gilmore stated community input should be solicited on the front end for the next
budget; community members should consider how they would prioritize core services
and provide suggestions; the City needs to build a budget based on the services the
community values.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:02
a.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
6
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
May 31, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-05-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-17,20,"would be difficult to do later, to which the Redevelopment Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Chair Johnson inquired whether other canopies could be added later,
to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he likes Alternative #1;
inquired whether either alternative would have an effect on the
ability to get a tree easement or put a vine trellis/mural on the
northern wall.
The Redevelopment Manager responded architecturally there would not
be a problem.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a financial
impact.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the easement would have to be
negotiated with Longs; stated that she does not know whether there
would be financial implications.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether vines could be planted
without obtaining an easement.
The Redevelopment Manager responded external planters become a high
maintenance issue because the plants tend to die.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired what would be the option for making
the northern side look decent.
The Redevelopment Manager responded vines take five to seven years
to grow; stated an alternative would be to architecturally retrofit
the northern elevation in the future; additional funding would be
required; another alternative would be to do a temporary vinyl
mural : a mural could be placed on the three, middle bay windows to
break up the façade and cover the slope.
Chair Johnson stated hopefully more contingency money would become
available and other options could be explored.
Commissioner deHaan inquired why the marquee canopy price changed
drastically.
The Redevelopment Manager responded that she speculates the
original bid was not correct; stated staff would negotiate to
reduce the cost if the Commission decides to pursue the option.
Commissioner deHaan stated the northern elevation treatment changed
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
April 17, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,15,"would be brought before the Board in the form of the Target PDA.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised there was nothing new to report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member
Kohlstrand).
Member Kohlstrand noted that there had been no meetings since her last report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board
Member Cunningham).
Member Cunningham was not in attendance to present this report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Thomas reviewed recent City Council action on Development Projects.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anlable
Andrew Thomas
Secretary, City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the January 8, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,21,"would be better reviewing the best way to spend money for the
community as a whole is important.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is glad money is being
invested in the website which can be used as a tool to measure
successi the internet has become the first search avenue; that he
would like to receive an interim report and not wait until the end
of the year to see how things are going; the City needs to be agile
because of the current, unsettled financial environment; milestones
need to be established.
Following Ms. Marr's comments, Commissioner Tam stated the City is
spending $250,000 in advertising between the four associations;
having a coordinated effort in getting the most bang for the buck
is important.
Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Chair Johnson inquired whether Economic Development would work with
the associations to pool resources.
The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated efforts are being made to collaborate a holiday event also.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote - 5.
(*09-44 CIC) Recommendation to Approve and Appropriate a $200,000
Brownfields Subgrant Agreement to Assist in the Fleet Industrial
Supply Center Fire Cleanup. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(09-422 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance
Amending Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 30-17 (Density Bonus
Regulations) to Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of
Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Allow Density Bonus Units
and Incentives or Concessions to Developers that Voluntarily
Provide for Affordable Housing Units as an Element of Their
Residential Development Project. Not introduced; and
(09-45 CIC) Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 04-127
to Reduce the Inclusionary Unit Requirement Policy for Residential
Developments in the Business and Waterfront and West End Community
Improvement Project Areas from at Least 25% to at Least 15%. Not
adopted.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-09-25,3,"would be added back; the Tubes and facilities previously accommodated the flow of
14,000 jobs; before 1997, when there were 14,000 jobs, there was not the current and
proposed development in Oakland or sea level change issues as well other issues
raised by speakers; requested staff to provide a contextual framework.
The City Planner stated the State has established a very prescriptive way to do an EIR;
staff and consultants will ensure additional information and context is available to the
community, Planning Board and Council; the greatest number of jobs and population
was in 1994; a lot of cars left Alameda Point every day; the Navy had ways of managing
trips through staggered shifts, but traffic was still bad; staff's approach is to determine
what the community can manage and to use different methods; new techniques have to
be found for people traveling back and forth to new jobs at Alameda Point; a portion of
the redevelopment at Alameda Point would get the City back to the jobs and population
20 years ago; transportation is one of the most interesting challenges; positive things
are on the horizon, which other communities are doing; employers run shuttles because
employees do not want to drive; companies at Alameda Point today want to start
running shuttles; Marina Village is looking at doing a shuttle study; the younger
generation is not rushing to buy cars, which will be part of the solution moving forward.
Councilmember Tam noted the City's population only increased by less then 1% in the
past 10 years.
The City Planner stated people feel like the population has been growing faster because
of driving habits; a challenge is getting the community to change driving habits; the City
has been working with regional transportation agencies, such as the Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA) and BART regarding options and solutions; trips have
be to reduced and alternatives are needed, such as a BART extension, which the City is
still working on; BART recently attended the Planning Board meeting and wants to
review the option.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Bay Area recently had a couple of opportunities to
do trial runs of alternative means of transportation, other than cars, during the BART
strike and Bay Bridge closure; the ferries saw tremendous increases in ridership; people
will use other means of transportation; the ferries and AC Transit stepped up
operations; the City Council and Planning Board receive lots of emails from people
concerned about proposed developments and the impact of automobile traffic;
encouraged everyone to think about their personal habits and ask themselves whether
everything is being done to minimize car dependency; the public's help is needed;
options reviewed for Alameda Point should be applied to the greater community as well.
Mayor Gilmore stated transportation demand management plans and ways to minimize
the impact of new development assumes the problem is Alameda Point; however, how
the rest of the Island gets around is going to have to change; everyone should be
thinking about taking shuttles and BART; the solution is going to have to be Island wide.
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Planning Board
September 25, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,11,"would be a shame.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does rely on staff recommendations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated staff should be considering the equity aspect for the
program; many suggestions have been provided about rotating slow streets; she has not heard
of anyone volunteering for more car traffic; many people are happy to have less car traffic; the
concern of increased car traffic is legitimate; the issue of equity is valuable; expressed support
for staff taking the matter to heart.
Councilmember Daysog stated slow streets barriers prevent through traffic; some streets want
the barriers and have reasons just as valid as any other street.
On the call 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.
(21-849) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to
the Agreement with Kittelson & Associates to Increase Compensation by $270,906, for a Total
Aggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $345,876 to Continue Providing Technical Services
Related to Roundabouts.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the work being performed includes rendering
videos.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the contract is currently trying to
identify where roundabouts can physically and practically work; stated the next step would be to
narrow down the limited locations and start conceptual designs for the specific locations; then,
staff can work on graphics and videos.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the contracted amount includes providing the
rendering video or whether the contract includes more preliminary work, to which the Planning,
Building and Transportation Director responded the work is more preliminary.
Mike Alston, Kittelson & Associates, stated that he has been working with staff on roundabout
work throughout 2021; advanced alternatives are included further down the line; a task for
visualization is included in the proposed scope of work.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the additional money covers visualization, to
which Mr. Alston responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether visualization will be included for each
roundabout.
Mr. Alston responded the visualization is included for certain locations where a roundabout
would be viable; once enough is known, the scope includes the task to visualize the proposed
concept; multiple videos for roundabouts will not be made; however, if a viable location be
identified, staff will develop a design for the location; if the location is presented to the
Transportation Commission and Council, the visualization will be prepared.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,29,"would allow Catellus to explore a change in the current DDA.
The Development Services Director responded that the amendment
would allow Catellus to explore re-entitlement of the existing
property.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a public
process that would allow people to comment, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he wanted people to be aware
that the matter would be publicly noticed and that Catellus would
be given a year to provide more information.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions Commissioner deHaan
- 1.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 2:45 a.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
2
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-01-28,8,"worse than the conditions in front of the College of Alameda. He noted that Otis and Park was
also a difficult intersection for pedestrians, even though it was an LOS C. He noted that Encinal
and Park, which was a busy intersection and was not a good place to park, which was an LOS B.
He believed that the City should step away from LOS D. He understood where the transit
numbers came from, and suggested that a percent change along a segment would be more
meaningful. He believed it would be difficult to come up with a specific number, and that change
in the current level of service would be more meaningful in keeping the transit schedule.
Commissioner Schatmeier requested further clarification on how a level of service could be
assigned to transit, and noted that length of the corridors were an issue. He did not know what
the baseline was, and noted that a bus could travel through Alameda at midnight than during the
peak hour because there were not as many passengers, and not as many cars on the streets.
Staff Khan noted that staff would examine peak period conditions, and noted that any ADA delay
of the bus was not part of the discussion; that discussion meant travel time, and subtracting dwell
time from the transit travel time. If a project increased the travel time with more cars, and if LOS
was already E or F, staff would examine what else could be considered.
Commissioner Krueger believed the length of the corridor had to be considered, and that the
automobile arterial segments discussed the average travel speed, which must take the length of
the corridor into account. He believed that should be taken into account for transit as well, and
that the effect on the travel speed should be considered.
Staff Khan stated that was correct, and that staff was looking at segments of approximately one-
half to three-quarters of a mile.
Staff Khan noted that when staff examined it, they had not run the arterial analysis at that point.
He noted that it looked at signalized intersections, and that they inquired whether the model
could be run on a street without signals. He noted that they may want to resort to the intersection,
and that they were discussing the issue with Dowling.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired why the City would be tolerant of degradation of the LOS for
automobiles, and believed there were impacts that should be described and responded to.
Chair Knox White agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's comment, and noted that he would
like to identify the impacts.
Staff Khan noted that the Commission would like to examine:
1. Degradation for pedestrians, bikes and transit by a letter grade; look into how the
thresholds were set, particularly D versus C, as well as for pedestrians and bikes;
2. The baseline for transit LOS D should be defined and addressed;
3. Travel speed is a better measure for transit than delay;
4.
The intersection LOS should be evaluated for automobiles; and
5. Why the degradation of the automobile LOS should be allowed to degrade.
8",TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2013-04-11,2,"world strategies. Through this focused action, it hopes to empower the Greater Bay Area
communities to stand up and say ENOUGH child sexual abuse!
Ms. Kudarauskas explained that she would like to present the PP at a meeting on Non-profit EDs
in preparation for the launch. Campaign materials will include trailers that hopefully can be run
at the Alameda Theatre.
Member Robles-Wong enquired about the campaign's capacity to reach non-English speaking
Alamedans.
Ms Kudarauskas shared that there will be the opportunity to train multi-lingual presenters. We
will check to see in which languages the PP is available.
Motion recommending the Board co-sponsor the Enough Abuse Campaign in Alameda, in
partnership with Alameda Family Services.
M/S Wasko/Villareal Unanimous
3-B. WORKGROUP PROGRESS REPORTS - Information - 30 minutes
Assessment and Awareness Workgroup
President Wasko said she was prepared to put together a ""Survey Template"" but wanted feedback
from others regarding whether or not it was needed. The consensus was to provide basic information
as opposed to a complete ""How To"" package. The next survey conducted by the Board will most
likely be one dealing with Human Relations.
Resource Sharing Workgroup
Member Biggs announced that there was a meeting of non-profit EDs on March 20. President
Wasko was there to suggest collaborative grant application opportunities, but the group expressed
that they would like more time to gel as a group before taking on collaborative projects. They plan
to meet again soon.
Alamedans Together Against Hate Workgroup
Member Villareal shared that ATAH met a few weeks ago and is in the process of drafting a letter to
the Scouts that might also be shared with the media.
He also announce plans for the upcoming 4th Annual Harvey Milk Day Celebration. Jim Franz has
joined Henry as co-chair for the event.
4.
BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA - Information - 10 minutes
Member Robles-Wong announced that he is helping coordinate the Asian Pacific Island Cultural
Festival at South Shore on May 19. One of the roles he is playing on the committee is recognition
of Asian Pacific Island former armed forces members.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Information - 3 minutes per speaker
6.
ADJOURNMENT
B\PACKETS\2013\A 013\MINUTES April 2013.doc",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2013-04-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-19,13,"workshops should include a wide range of individuals and should be
noticed and open.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing the Fire
Marshal and other Department Heads, including the City Manager and
Planning and Building Director, as needed, to take the matter back
to a workshop open to the public and publicly noticed to resolve
issues raised and bring other issues to the forefront, particularly
to look at the equity and value, the threshold amount, and the way
that the worth is calculated and projected across the project as
well as looking at the on-going operating costs versus the benefit
of the revised code.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that stakeholder
comments should be noted and compared to what staff thinks is
needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated the cost of follow up needs to be
placed in the equations.
The Fire Marshal stated one and two family dwellings do not have
on-going maintenance costs; inspections are performed by the
homeowners.
Mayor Johnson stated examples should include costs for different
types of structures.
Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on whether garages are
part of the square foot determination.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether garages are exempted for single-
family homes and duplexes.
The Fire Marshal responded garages would be required to have a
sprinkler if attached to the dwelling.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a detached garage would need to have
a sprinkler, to which the Fire Marshal responded only if the garage
is more than 300 square feet.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(06-474) Ordinance No. 2952, ""Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain
Property Within the City of Alameda from Open Space (O) to
Community Manufacturing Planned Development (CM-PD) by Amending
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,4,"workshops and stakeholder interviews, and to get a read of the
community to help Development Services direct resources.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the information from the last
two meeting has been summarized and is available, to which the
Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan requested said information.
The Development Manager noted the information has been provided to
Dr. Manross to assist him with developing questions.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he would like to see the questions
once developed.
The Development Manager stated an Economic Development Commission
(EDC) subcommittee would assist with drafting the questionnaire.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be done with the data.
The Development Manager responded the data with be reviewed,
analyzed and presented to the EDC.
Dr. Manross stated the information gathered would be tested in the
community; there would be a return on the investment.
The Development Services Director stated the survey would be an
update to the EDSP, which provides the foundation; the survey would
ensure the EDSP stays valid.
Commissioner deHaan stated results should be presented to the
community; his concerns are ensuring results of meetings held are
included and the crafting of the questions; there is no hidden
agenda for funding streams.
Ani Dimusheva, Alameda, stated the best way to get the opinion of
the community at large is to talk to the community; suggested
holding a town hall meeting once a month at cafes throughout town;
stated a study is not needed.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation,
with the change to cap the budget at $17,000 to allow staff and the
consultant to determine how to proceed stated that he would hope
for a higher sample size; however, increasing the time is
acceptable.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
4
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,27,"workshop during a regular Council meeting; it is untrue that Council must discuss
priorities at a workshop retreat; Council can start by reviewing prior Council priorities
and set the matter as a regular agenda item; all Councilmembers are available the first
and third Tuesday of the month.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that Council discusses priorities at workshops in order to allow
for a focus and deliberation on only the priorities; workshops have previously lasted
several hours; expressed concern about having full agendas; stated taking away from
the business of the City or ensuring the discussion does not occur at 11:00 p.m. is the
reason to have a separate workshop; she will not be supporting the motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he found the referral reasonable; the idea of having
a workshop during a Council meeting starting at 5:00 p.m. is reasonable; Council has
held workshops in areas which were not accessible or generally open to the public.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the motion be re-stated.
The City Clerk stated the motion is to approve the referral to have the priority setting
workshop held at a regular City Council meeting.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(22-093) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-094) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department
Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22-095) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the Vaccine Task Force's booster clinic at
Mastic Senior Center.
(22-096) Councilmember Daysog discussed the City Council/School Board
Subcommittee meeting; stated the School District will be placing a bond measure on the
June ballot.
(22-097) Councilmember Knox White discussed the AC Transit Interagency Liaison
Committee meeting; stated AC Transit Line 78 to the Seaplane Lagoon for the 1 year
pilot program is coming to the end; the pilot program cannot be extended; public
hearings will be held.
Councilmember Daysog noted AC Transit is also working with the City on a bus pass for
low income senior citizens and those with disabilities.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
27",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-08-02,2,"works; she is not convinced either way whether outside legal counsel is needed or
whether it could be done in-house with City Attorney staff; if the Commission is not
satisfied with the product, then the alternative could be tried; all attorneys are trained to
argue multiple sides of any issue; she would like to see a neutral memo first.
Commissioner Reid stated the Commission's task is to ask what is the best way for the
OGC to serve the public; the OGC needs to ensure that someone who is bringing forward
a complaint receives the best chance of being heard and understood; suggested having
outside, independent counsel for the next few meetings to see what that would look like;
stated the complaints heard this year already took the other approach with the City
Attorney's office drafting resolutions, which had a lot of confusion; she would like to try
the outside counsel approach, but would like to know a cost estimate first.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she does see the two paths as the most desirable; she
is leaning towards the option of what the City Attorney's office proposed because it is an
incremental step; there has actually never been a neutral memo come from the City
Attorney's office; everything has always been viewed by everyone writing it as an
advocacy piece; the City Attorney's office prefers to structure it with the Chief Assistant
City Attorney providing advice to the Commission and having outside counsel when
necessary; suggested leaning into trust and seeing what that looks like; the memos would
be put forth publicly; the Commission would be very aware if they are not neutral; she
would also like more guardrails in place and a commitment that the OGC would be
receiving an instructional memo.
Chair Tilos stated that he would be supportive of trying out a restructured process of
having a walled-off Chief Assistant City Attorney, along with providing a neutral memo; it
would be a marginal step towards building trust between the OGC and City Attorney's
office.
Commissioner LoPilato stated it is also possible to do both options, which would be a
good trust exercise and be improvement to the support of the Commission.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she appreciates all the comments; she
echoes Commissioner LoPilato's comment that the City Attorney's office has never
provided a neutral statement, summary, memo or jury instructions; she understands the
Commission's point about wanting some explanation of the case; concurred with
Commission Chen's comments that attorneys are trained to both write advocacy pieces
and to frame issues neutrally; she can definitely do both and it is something her office
would entertain in the context of supporting the Commission in its adjudicatory capacity;
she envisions that there would be support in terms of a neutral statement of the cases;
generally speaking, the City Attorney's office is in charge of handling legal advice and
representation in house; from time to time, outside counsel is hired for a variety of
reasons; she does not know what the cost would be to use outside counsel.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated it sounds like everyone,
including the Chief Assistant City Attorney, is in alignment for the first piece regarding the
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
August 2, 2021
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-05-02,11,"working with to increase ecommerce; DABA is also working to expand its social media.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated DABA, in conjunction with
Rythmics, has submitted a grant to secure funds to support an art program that will
include an art contest to decorate vacant store fronts, abandon buildings facades and
fencing to improve the overall look of the downtown district.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is looking forward to different events that raise
money; the street closures are an inconvenience to people who use AC Transit.
Mayor Spencer thanked staff and everyone involved in the collaboration.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(17-295) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/HOME Partnership Investment Program
Action Plan; and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related
Documents, Agreements, and Modifications at Funding Levels Approved by Congress.
The Housing Authority Director of Housing and Community Development Director
(HADHCD Director) gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the 23 affordable housing units that
were created under non-housing community development, are in a particular
development.
The Community Development Director responded the 23 units are for TriPointe
inclusionary housing units at Alameda Landing.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what services were provided to the 273
homeless clients.
The HADHCD Director responded the programs that specifically target homeless are
Alameda Point Collaborative which provides job training
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why WABA was not consulted regarding the
economic development and business strategy on the West End.
The HADHCD Director responded that she concurs outreach should also be to WABA;
she will make sure the email list is updated to include WABA.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the statement: ""no CDBG funds will be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 2, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,13,"working with the Architectural Resources Group (ARG) to assess the
building; ARG has worked with engineers and other specialists to
determine what needs to be done to bring the building up to code
and to repair, reverse and restore some of the damage that has been
done; a lot of seismic work has to be done, such as reinforcing the
concrete façade marquee area that is only held up by four redwood
posts; fire sprinklers have to be installed; the electrical and
plumbing work has to be redone the water in the basement is a
combination of a leak from a storm drain as well as ground water
intrusion.
The Development Manager stated that the lobby carpet was replaced;
the mezzanine carpet is torn; the lobby mirror, mezzanine mural,
and light fixtures have been removed; the curtain has suffered
water damage; the floor of the auditorium has been built up buffer
walls have been installed along side walls; holes were made in the
auditorium ceiling for lighting; there is significant water damage
along the alley due to a storm drain.
Councilmember deHaan stated the retail revenue would be received
from the historic theater; inquired whether retail revenue would be
received from the Cineplex.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative. stated
that the developer is building the Cineplex with his own financing
and would receive the rents from his own retail space.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the rent revenue was
significant to the developer to make the project work.
The Development Services Director responded that the funding is
part of the picture; the Cineplex retail is only 3,400 square feet.
The Business Development Division Manager stated the revenue from
the retail space counts toward the percentage rent the developer
will pay.
Councilmember deHaan stated one of the seven auditoriums in the new
Cineplex has 78 seats; the historic theater balcony accommodated
150 seats; inquired what is the concern with renovating the
balcony.
The Development Services Director responded that the DDA allows the
developer to use the balcony at a later point at his own expense if
he chooses; the spaces are not soundproof, provide 62-64 seats each
and would be used to show boutique films.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex building could
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-05-18,3,"working with staff to organize and train the new volunteers. Also
mentioned was that the old Junior Golf Resources container on Clubhouse
Memorial Road has been removed.
4-B
General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and
operational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.
Covered in the Head Golf Professional's report.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
Mrs. Arnerich reported that a tree ceremony is being held next weekend
and mentioned that a number of trees on the right side of #13 on the Earl
Fry Course are dying and need to be replaced. Mrs. Arnerich also thanked
the players in the Commuter's Golf Tournament that donated their prize
gift certificates to the Junior Golf Club.
5.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
5-A
Long-Range Planning and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.
Report previously discussed.
5-B
Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Secretary
Gammell.
Commissioner Gammell reported that security has been fine over the past
month and the Driving Range is doing well. Also reported was that the
redesign of the Mif Albright Course looks good.
5-C
Maintenance Status of Golf Complex and Capital Improvements, Vice
Chair Santare.
Vice Chair Santare reported that the two major Capital Improvement
Projects (CIPs) are currently the Clubhouse project and the Urban Runoff
project. Also reported was that the golf courses are in good shape with the
exception of some dead areas of grass. The question was raised
concerning the Ladies tee on #14 of the Earl Fry Course and where it is
suppose to be. The Head Golf Professional stated that the tee is located at
the very front of the tee area before the water feature. The complaint was
that the tee is often on the other side of the water, in the area where the
yellow (drop area) tees are.
5-D
Golf Complex Financial Report
The total revenue from golf on the three (3) courses was down 22% for the",GolfCommission/2005-05-18.pdf
PlanningBoard,2014-06-23,2,"working on this park plan for two years. The Commission have been involved in all of the
community input processes. He stated the design can provide something for everyone in
the community from active use, to passive use.
Mr. Damian Mason, Alameda Backyard Growers, spoke on adding more details to the plan
and design. One of those ideas was to reuse the cattails, but then to clean the
contamination of oil on the site. He provided sketches of the community garden plots, tool
storage, and composting.
Ms. Ester Burlingame, lives next to the park and is supportive of the design plan. She
questioned the 24' of path and the need for it being that wide. She is concerned the path
may become a road in the future.
Mr. Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, reported being in support of the park and the
plan. The company will contribute $2 million to the project. He wanted to clarify the
company's role in the park is strictly funding.
Ms. Amanda Soskin, resident stated she is hopeful this plan and park is approved. She is
concerned with parking at the park, and not on the streets. She reiterated Ms.
Wooldridge's comments on safety and maintenance.
Mr. Doug deHaan, spoke in favor of moving the plan forward and approve it. He wanted
to recognize the champions of the committee who have worked tirelessly. He
commended Ms. Wooldridge for her role.
Closed public comment.
Board Member Alvarez-Morroni thanked the public and Mr. Sweeney and stated this to be
a wonderful tribute to his wife. She asked Ms. Wooldridge about the lighting of the park.
Ms. Wooldridge reported there are two aspects for lighting, the cross Alameda trail will be
lit and the pathway will have ground lighting. There is a Park Monitor program in place
that will help. The large path will be for patrol vehicle use.
Board member Zuppan stated being excited to see this back, and remembers Jean
Sweeney being before this Board. She hopes there will be some kind of tribute to her.
Ms. Wooldridge reported there will be educational markers throughout the park.
Board member Zuppan is pleased but encouraged the City to fully look at the long term
costs for maintenance costs. She thanked all who volunteered.
Vice President Henneberry is pleased to see the BMX path gone from the plan. He
supports approval.
President Burton supports the great connections to the adjacent neighborhoods on the
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 9
June 23, 2014",PlanningBoard/2014-06-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,6,"working on a comprehensive strategic plan and there has only been
one accident each of the last four years, Council should postpone
review until information from the strategic plan is available.
The Public Works Director stated there is a concern that since all
way stop warrants are met , the City might open itself up to
liability.
Mayor Johnson stated there would be many more four-way stop signs
if the City studied every intersection to determine whether
warrants are met.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about whether the City
Attorney wished to address liability, the City Attorney stated not
in public; holding the matter over would not be a problem.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he travels on Sherman Street; a
number of accidents are probably not reported; that he has
witnessed accidents ; lateral corridors are impacted when vehicles
travel to the South Shore area; vehicles travel 40 mph down Santa
Clara Avenue; crossing the intersection is a challenge; hopefully,
traffic can be diverted [off of Sherman Street] at some point.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has data on whether
peak traffic on Sherman Street has changed; stated there are
probably younger families in the Gold Coast now; Sherman Street
traffic volumes might be increasing because it is probably easier
for workers to commute down Sherman Street rather than traveling
down Constitution Way and Eighth Street.
Mayor Johnson stated analysis of Councilmember Daysog's idea would
be interesting to review and is why the City needs to pay attention
to the impacts of stop signs; Constitution Way should handle more
traffic; the City should be encouraging drivers to use Constitution
Way; the City should review whether drivers are discouraged from
using Constitution Way because of the traffic controls.
Councilmember Daysog stated Constitution Way narrows down to one
lane at Eighth Street there is a bottleneck on Eighth Street at
Santa Clara and Central Avenues at commute hours, which makes it
more convenient to use alternate routes, such as Sherman Street.
Mayor Johnson stated the convenience created could be a result of
the City's traffic controls and roadway configuration and is the
reason the City needs to be strategic and design how people get
around and off Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan stated Sherman Street becomes a bypass to get
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-06,10,"working hard to get the program up to speed; expressed support for AFD beginning
negotiations with the Felton Institute as soon as possible; stated that she would like the
process to begin streamlined due to multiple agencies being involved; the program is a
pilot and the City should determine what the program will look like; the recommendation
does not exclude Alameda Family Services or any other agency from applying; she
would like to act with expediency and many Councilmembers have voiced a preference
for the Felton Institute to be engaged with the program relative to providing mental
health services; an RFP does not need to be issued and would cause unnecessary
delays at this point; expressed concern for engaging in hypothetical scenarios to end up
with what is currently being proposed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Felton Institute currently has
patients in the City of Alameda.
Mr. Gilbert responded in Felton Institute currently serves clients within Alameda County;
stated the office holds a separate clinic where mental health professionals deal with
emergency crises in Alameda County; an early psychosis program is housed in the
Alameda office.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether everyone in Alameda would be able
to receive services within the City of Alameda.
Mr. Gilbert responded in the affirmative; stated the Felton Institute does not currently
have staff working outside of a contract; the Felton Institute is an agency working with
Alameda and other counties; staff can be allocated based on the funding.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is critical to offer mental health services
within the City of Alameda; it is not appropriate to ask those seeking mental health
services to travel to different cities for service; it is important to offer mental health
services within the City of Alameda.
Mr. Gilbert stated if the City pays for services, the services can be provided; clinical staff
is working at the Atlantic Avenue office location on an early psychosis program, which
requires additional professionals; a training center is also available at the Alameda
location; the Felton Institute is not currently contracted nor funded with the City of
Alameda to provide clinical support services.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the information kept in mind
by Councilmembers; expressed concern about negotiating with one agency that does
not appear to have current services within Alameda; questioned the cost for choosing
one agency.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated none of the locations referenced by AFD are within
Alameda; outlined the CAHOOTS model; stated that she is working on a proposal to
use a floor or two of Alameda Hospital for other mental health uses similar to the
CAHOOTS model.
Continued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-05-04,23,"working conditions; she was impressed with how the situation played out; the
communication was respectful; the change speaks volumes for the company; she is
satisfied with the due diligence performed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was Mayor at the time of the change in
employment for ACI workers; every Councilmember supported the change, which was
overwhelmingly supported by the community; she has looked at the numbers; since 2006,
the rate for the smallest bin was $45 for the quarter; the annual rate of inflation since 2006
has been 1.89%, which would bring the cost up to $59; however, the current cost for the
smallest bin is $132.20 per quarter; the result is a compounded interest of 6% per annum
over time; the graph only shows the past four years; the rate increase has been more; if
there is a 5% increase each year, the resulting fee would be $188 per quarter; the increase
is a problem; people have a problem paying the fee; there are 15% lower rates for those
that qualify as low-income or are senior citizens; the 15% reduction could help people in
need; expressed support for Council looking at a higher percentage in reduction for low-
income and for ACI making the discount clearer on the website; discussed ACI's website;
stated many seniors and low-income qualifying people might not know about the discount
process; she would like ACI's website to clearly indicate the discount; she appreciates the
work performed; expressed concern about profits and ACI being a private company; stated
it is impossible to know what the profits truly are; the percentage rate is high; many people
are not earning a 6% increase over time; when long-term contracts are presented, clearly
showing the numbers is important; expressed support for a one-page document clearly
showing the formula; stated that she does not expect anyone to review a 30-page analysis
document to figure out the contract increases; 5% is a significant increase; there is not
enough consideration for the affordability of a 5% increase; the contract should have gone
out for bid.
The Assistant City Manager stated the rate changes over the past 15 years have included
positive changes, such as recycling and compost programs and Senate Bill (SB) 1383;
SB1383 deals with food waste recovery and composting; the programs are the right thing to
do from an environmental perspective; the programs do have costs and are seen in rate
changes over time; the 5% is a maximum and not a set number; the rate adjustments will be
fully vetted and discussed in the context of the calculations mentioned earlier.
The City Manager stated that he would like the discounts re-stated and clarified for the
public.
The Assistant City Manager stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer is correct; the 15%
discount is available by contacting ACI; there is a rate stabilization portion of the agreement;
Council is presented with delinquent accounts on an annual basis; there are not many
delinquent accounts; Council has the opportunity to make decisions about how the City
moves forward with said accounts.
Councilmember Daysog stated the crux of the matter is the question of extending on a no-
compete sole source contract to ACI or if Council should open the matter up to a
competitive bid process; there are a number of other outfits which might be able to deliver
services to Alameda; in order for him to evaluate the question and judge how to make the
best decision, he needs to know that there is solid data provided to support the decision one
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
May 4, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,14,"worked through details to provide a good deal for Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated the City has worked hard to get where it is today; the
City has gone through several renditions of the DDA and has had to amend it over the years in
order to adjust to changing conditions and the market; expressed support for the work that has
brought the project to its current state; stated that she will be supporting the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supported the project in 2015; expressed
concern about the project building units for the middle class to purchase; stated the possibility
continues not to occur; affordable housing units being offered are rentals, not for purchase;
housing units for sale are very expensive; homes will cost over $1 million and will not provide
housing for the middle; discussed the cost of rental units at Alameda Point; stated inflation is the
highest it has been in 40 years; Council is being asked to trust that staff will confirm affordable
housing units will be built since the units are not being tethered to market rate or requiring a
financial investment; the approach is wrong; expressed concern about aspects of the project;
stated members of the armed forces will not be able to afford the housing units; the middle class
will not be able to rent or purchase at Alameda Point; affordability is a problem; the City needs
to offer housing for the middle to purchase; expressed concern about the units lacking rent
control; stated rents will increase; the City continues to leave the middle behind, which is
a
problem; expressed support for a public arts center; stated the matter is related to finding ways
to house the middle; she will not continue to support the matter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the former Alameda NAS being active, operating military base;
stated people who were not active military did not visit the base; Alameda Point did not feel like
a part of the rest of the City; an important part of redeveloping Alameda Point is making it a
place that seamlessly feels like a part of Alameda; the opening of Waterfront Park joined
hundreds of Alameda residents at a place with potential; the City has been able to accomplish
so much; discussed the ribbon cutting for Corsair Flats and Starling; stated APP has worked
with the City to accomplish so much; she has every faith APP will move forward and reach the
finish line; discussed a meeting with the Veterans Administration (VA) related to the Alameda
Columbarium; stated that she has been able to share the developments at Alameda Point and
the progress made to help veterans; the stakes are high; the City would lose much if it does not
move forward in keeping the project alive; changes to conditions and demands are occurring;
projects must adapt; expressed support for the project.
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.
(22-354) Recommendation to Provide Direction on a Proposal to Develop a Guaranteed Basic
Income Pilot Program; and
(22-354 A) Resolution No. 15909, ""Appropriate $4,600,000 of American Rescue Plan Act of
2021 Funds for a Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program."" Adopted.
The Development Managers gave a Power Point Presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
14",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-13,8,"work with the project as a whole. Staff would be happy to work with the applicant in this regard.
Vice President Cook wished to ensure that the applicant did not take a design that worked well in a
different setting and insert it into a waterfront setting that may not be as appropriate as it could be. She
would like the Board's comments to be addressed without compromising the building standards set by the
City.
President Cunningham noted that the Board could vote on this item as presented, and the applicant could
appeal it to the City Council, or that the project could be continued and brought back to the Board at the
next meeting. Mr. Grayson requested a continuance.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the Board would hear comments on the Draft EIR on the Northern Waterfront
at the next meeting. President Cunningham requested that this be the first item on the agenda; Mr. Garrison
confirmed that as a continued item, it would be the first item on the agenda.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of February 27,
2006.
AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
February 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,19,"work out at the proposed location, the location can be revoked; emergency housing is needed
for people now which calls for less consideration of other factors; concentration of services at
Alameda Point is a problem; the proposed site is only three units; housing must be provided for
single people, not just families; urged Council to move forward with the sites and provide
adequate staffing: William Smith, Alameda.
Stated the Island needs to share in the responsibility to help the unhoused population; all of
Alameda is a family neighborhood; concerns were raised about bringing in crime and unsafety;
people are part of the community when they receive services and care; expressed concern over
the comments: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Expressed support for comments provided by speakers Smith and Anderson; stated that he is
sympathetic to people who live at Alameda Point where services are being concentrated; people
either have inherent value and the right to dignity or not; the determination of value is not
dependent on being a member of a family or not; people have value and deserve dignity: Josh
Geyer, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess 9:42 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:58 p.m.
(21-753) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing 5 minutes for Jonathan
Russell, BACS, to give a presentation.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.]
Mr. Russell gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated concerns from residents have related to a lack of
communication for the project; inquired how BACS will work with neighbors to
communicate, and the anticipated communication model.
The Community Development Director responded staff has scheduled a community
meeting on November 29th to share ideas and answer questions; stated the information
is posted on the City website; the meeting will be the initial opportunity for staff to
engage with the community; staff can provide an additional community meetings if
needed; if the program moves forward, community members will have easy access and
a continued line to communicate concerns with BACS.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the meeting was scheduled, to which the
Community Development Director responded staff just put the meeting together in order
to address concerns.
Mr. Russell stated BACS believes the program is a community conversation and needs
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
8",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2011-10-13,2,"work for them.
Chair Restagno stated that he thought it was a maximum of 30 days. Mr. McEachern
stated that even the 30 days is a problem due to the timeline. The other issue is that
there are only two locations allowed to hang the banners. Director Lillard stated that
there are three locations which are Krusi, Lincoln, and Washington Parks. Mr.
McEachern stated that in the past they have tried to recruit more girls from the west end
and they used to put a banner on the fence at the pump station on Ninth Street, but are
not allowed to use that location any more. Director Lillard stated that they could use the
fence on Central Avenue at Washington Park. Mr. McEachern stated that they would
like to use Ruby Bridges but according to the policy they are not allowed to do so
anymore. Also, the fence at Krusi is 300 feet long and to be able to only have one - six
foot sign at a time is a little restrictive.
Last year there was a softball tournament held at Krusi Park for the first time and there
were over 300 people from outside of the city who attended. At that time, there were
three banners made with the ARPD/AGSA logo on them to go on each field. In the fall,
when AGSA has their regular season they would like to leave the banners up on each
field, off the diamonds, and leave them up through the season (January-June). Director
Lillard stated that if the banners are on the fields it would not be a problem. AGSA can
do that which is similar to what Alameda High School does at Lincoln Park.
Chair Restagno stated he did not think that there was a limit to having only one banner.
Director Lillard stated that ARPD is trying to limit it to one banner in case there were
multiple organizations.
Chair Restagno stated that with the locations being Washington, Lincoln, and Krusi
Parks that would only leave Ruby Bridges that was not being used. Mr. McEachern
stated that in the past they have also used the AP Multipurpose Field. Chair Restagno
stated that he and the Commission are open to looking at what is reasonable.
Commissioner Delaney stated that it would seem logical for AGSA to outline in writing
what their requests are and then bring it back to the Commission for a decision. That
way there will be something in writing and guidelines to move forward.
Mary Anderson, Alameda resident, stated that she did not get to the two public
meetings in June where the Park Master Plan was presented and asked if she could
have a copy. Director Lillard stated that the draft will come before the Recreation &
Park Commission at their November meeting. Ms. Anderson asked if there was any
information online. There was reference to an online survey. Director Lillard stated that
the consultants have completed the online survey. He stated that Ms. Anderson could
still submit items to the ARPD Office and staff can get the information to the
consultants.
Ms. Anderson asked for clarification if the Commission will be talking about the Land
Swap tonight. Director Lillard stated that he will just be providing the Deal Points.
Ms. Anderson asked if the fields are obtained out at the Cowan land how will that affect
plans for fields at Alameda Point. Director Lillard stated that in the Draft Park Master
Plan, preliminary release, it shows a shortage of fields right now and predicts an even
more severe shortage in 10 years. ARPD will need every location that they can find.
There will be fields needed on the old Beltline property and some out at Alameda Point.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
2
Minutes - Thursday, October 13, 2011",RecreationandParkCommission/2011-10-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,6,"work done in the business park being reversed by the presence of this development. He
noted that staff estimated that these homes would need to sell for at least $650,000 for the
City to break even on its cost to service the new development. He was not convinced the
homes would sell for that amount, and believed there may be a major financial deficit that
would not favor the City. He did not believe the development would be compatible with the
Master Plan and the zoning, would compromise the City's Master Plan for economic
growth, would drive future business away, would damage existing investors, and would
reduce employment and economy, thus having a negative impact on revenue streams to the
City. He believed this plan would only benefit the developer.
President Cook noted that Seth Kostek, Santa Clara Systems, Inc., 2060 North Loop Road,
and Clinton Abbott, Allergy Research Group, 2300 North Loop, ceded their time to Mr.
Grant.
Ms. Susan Davis, Donsuemor, Inc., 2080 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition to this
project. She noted that they relocated to this business park in February 2007 from
Emeryville, where they had been for more than 20 years. She had witnessed the intrinsic
incompatibilities that came with residential encroachment on businesses, which had been
initiated by that city to create a vibrant live-work community. She noted that she had been
asked to contribute her ideas to the city's vision, which she noted was very supportive of her
business remaining in Emeryville. She noted that in reality, those zoning choices regarding
truck routes, business operation hours, loading/unloading areas, and location of idling trucks
ultimately led to her business leaving Emeryville. She chose Alameda because of this
business park, which provided what her business and employees needed. She noted that
Alameda provided a good quality of life for her employees.
Ms. Diane Smahlik, Ettore Products Co., 2100 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition to this
project. She noted that this business park was the ideal location for their company and its
employees. She believed that Alameda was a wonderful location, but did not believe that
putting housing adjacent to manufacturing was a good idea, and that there could be more
than 400 people in the neighborhood. She noted that while retail and residential may be able
to co-exist, that manufacturing and residential was not a good mix. She was very concerned
about the liability regarding the truck traffic, as well as graffiti and theft.
Mr. Brent Salomon, Allergy Research Group, 2300 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition
to this project. He noted that they had originally been located in an industrial park
in
Hayward, but that the area changed in the mid-90s. They left that environment in 2003,
arriving in Alameda, which was a very good move for them. He was opposed to the
proposed proximity of the residential neighborhood to the manufacturing area. He noted that
the CC&R vote was controlled by the developer, and that the businesses did not have a
voice in that decision.
Mr. Jim Grimes, Peet's Coffee and Tea, 1400 Park Avenue, Emeryville, spoke in opposition
to this project. He noted that Peet's moved into this business park because of what it offered,
and he noted that it was a model business park for other communities. He preferred this
business park because of its proximity to existing transportation, as well as the presence of
Page 6 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,13,"work and research done by Alameda Junior Golf.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates efforts made; the entire golf
complex will be discussed as a whole; a proposal has been submitted by good people
with a lot of expertise; a critical part of the golf course includes having a par 3 for
beginners, a driving range, 18 hole courses, and a clubhouse; that he wants to see how
to make everything work together.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:58 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
*
(10-125) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Enter into
Negotiations with Kemper Sports Management for the Long-Term Management and
Operation of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Ben Blake, Kemper Sports Management, gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the golf course has 36 championship holes; 111,000
rounds are played per year; inquired what is the capacity percentage.
Mr. Blake responded in 2003, 160,000 rounds were played, which was 67% [capacity].
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the projection is that rounds will remain flat
for the next four years because of the Metropolitan Golf Links.
Mr. Blake responded rounds will be flat or slightly up; stated the hope is to get to a level
of 130,000 rounds.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much would need to be charged to have
everything work out well.
Mr. Blake responded that he thinks that the same rates could be charged with 27 holes
to still make the numbers work; operating costs are lower; a lot of land needs to be
maintained; the irrigation system is in disrepair; operating costs will go down with
improvements.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the price differential by keeping the 36
holes; further inquired whether the current $30 charge would rise to $45 with capital
infusion, Mr. Blake responded a round would cost closer to $50.
The Interim City Manager stated currently, the average round [fee] is $30; $38 per
round is needed [to cover costs]; putting $500,000 into capital each year would increase
the cost to approximately $48 per round; figures are based on 120,000 rounds; both
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-04-01,2,"wondering which programs will be cut; she hopes that the School
District has strong support for the proposed measure in June.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council would be voting on
the matter at the next Council meeting.
The City Manager responded Council would be voting on the matter at
the first Council meeting in May.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the resolution would be to support
and endorse Measure H, to which the City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the May Council Meeting
date was okay with Mr. Schaff, to which Mr. Schaff responded in the
affirmative.
(08-131) Presentation by the Secretary of the California Department
of Food and Agriculture and the Director of the Light Brown Apple
Moth Program on the Apple Moth.
A.G. Kawamura, Secretary of the California Department of Food and
Agriculture, gave a brief presentation.
Dr. Bob Dowell, Director of the Light Brown Apple Moth Program
(submitted handout) gave a Power Point presentation.
Opponents (Not in favor of aerial spraying to eradicate the Light
Brown Apple Moth) : Carolina Rogers, Alameda; Stuart Dodgshon,
Alameda; Chloe Ashley, Alameda; T'Hud Weber, Alameda, (submitted
petition) ; Simi Sikka, Fremont (submitted handout) ; Stanley
Schiffman, Alameda; Jane Kelley, Berkeley; Tom Kelley, Berkeley
Bernard Clark, Alameda Helen Kozoriz, stopthespray.org Michael
John Torrey, Alameda; Mary Jane Pryor, Alameda Victoria Ashley,
Alameda; Jim Hoffman, Alameda; Rebecca Hall-Crosby, Alameda Irma
Marin-Nolan, Alameda; Cathy Kordetzky; Daria Schwarzschild,
Alameda; Maria Morales, El Sobrante; Frank Egger; Constance Barker,
Environmental Health Network of California; Lynn Elliott-Harding,
Oakland.
Council requested that the matter be placed on a future Council
agenda for action.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-07-25,8,"wondered if there were any other natural synergies in terms of job centers throughout the county.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked about the corridors (one in red and blue) depicted for BRT and
Rapid Bus. He was curious about beginning the line at Alameda Point and going to Fruitvale
BART station for both cases. On the aerial shot, there is a red line going through the tube to
Oakland and another aerial shot of the blue line showing that as well. He wanted clarification on
what was being depicted there and if it was intended to work in conjunction.
Staff Khan explained that the BRT would be brought before the Commission in September after
further analysis. Staff reviewed the two corridors because the General Plan included the need to
connect Alameda Point with the 12th Street BART and another connection to the Fruitvale
BART Station.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that when he was originally presented with this information,
there was a study on the AC Transit Line 51 and how that line could be sped up. He does not
know what happened to that presentation, but there was talk to convert Line 51 to a rapid bus.
So, he wondered if the two corridors would supplement Line 51 or replace it.
Staff Khan responded that they have been talking about Line 51 for both Berkeley and Alameda.
AC Transit received $10 million from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) three
months ago from their Transit Performance Initiative Program funded from federal sources.
Alameda is analyzing Line 51 to see how to reduce delays along the corridor. Also, AC Transit is
interested in analyzing whether the corridor should continue on Santa Clara Avenue or move to
Lincoln Avenue, but the analysis will be discussed in September.
Commissioner Schatmeier commented that the BRT is further away from the center part of the
island and essentially located on the north end of the island along the Beltway and Clement
Avenue. He felt that should be acknowledged and discussed later. Furthermore, an analysis of the
cost and benefits from each alternative should be discussed.
Staff Khan responded that the red and blue lines presented in the report are just the corridors and
they do not represent identified BRT or Rapid Bus service.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained that staff has a lot of statistics on ridership and behavior in
the City and they make decisions on deploying transportation not on transit demand, but by
funding availability. So, when analyzing the cost and benefits, he would like staff to be cautious
and recognize the limitations of the travel model so that they recognize the benefits that may not
be measured numerically or by the travel model.
Staff Khan responded that inclusion of Transportation Demand Management and enhanced
transit service measures could double the base line numbers based on the data.
Commissioner Schatmeier exclaimed that the numbers are standardized and they do not
recognize the ideas that he was talking about.
Commissioner Vargas said the plan does not point out Bay Farm since it is a City of Alameda
Page 8 of 11",TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,4,"wondered how Public Works staff could market or visibly guide pedestrians to the remaining
crosswalks.
Staff Naclerio explained that they developed a Safe Route to School maps for all the schools.
They would enhance those maps to direct students to the existing marked crosswalks. He
mentioned that Caltrans would have to approve the removal of the crosswalks as well as any
other improvements that they are recommending. Also, he mentioned that the Bayview Home
Owners Association could promote the use of the crosswalks through their newsletter.
Commissioner Bertken stated that all indications of the original crosswalks would be removed to
indicate to pedestrians that they should not cross there. He brought up that a barricade could be
included to prevent pedestrians from crossing. Ultimately, he wondered how staff would handle
the process.
Staff Naclerio explained that they would remove and black out the crosswalks and remove the
signs. He did not recommend installing barricades.
Commissioner Bellows moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5B.
Resident Appeal of Public Works Staff's Decision to Not Install an All-Way Stop
Control at the Intersection of Robert Davey Junior Drive and Channing Way
Staff Naclerio presented an overview of the staff report.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if they received public input about the proposed mitigation of
extending the bike lane stripes.
Staff Naclerio replied that staff has not and they would use this meeting for community input
about the proposal.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comment.
Red Wetherhill, Harbor Bay Resident, veteran architect, felt that the City of Alameda and the
state were using the wrong criteria, which moves vehicles first and foremost. He felt vehicles
travel way too fast when exiting off of Channing Way with a blind corner and vehicles go
quickly around the bend on Robert Davey Junior Drive. He wanted staff to continuously observe
the area because it is a problem for pedestrians. He mentioned that 15 to 20 years ago, residents
submitted a request for a stop sign for this same intersection. They received a run down from a
""technocrat"" that the average speed was 32 miles per hour (mph), and the street did not qualify
for a four-way stop. He then asked if the maximum speed limit was posted as 25 mph, then how
could the City count it as an average of 32 mph. Ultimately, he felt that staff was bandaging the
problem by modifying the crosswalks instead of policing more stringently along Robert Davey
Junior Drive.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-06-01,20,"without transit and traffic solutions; job one is paying for transit solutions; the project will
not be successful if there is not enough money to pay for transit solutions.
Councilmember/Board
Member/Commissioner
Matarrese
stated
the
first
recommendation in the staff report is to direct the Planning Board to provide an advisory
recommendation on the OEA; that he has no faith that any amount of money would
solve the issue of getting people who are in the 4,800 housing units on and off the
island; having the Planning Board provide an advisory recommendation is important;
financing can be reviewed in parallel because financing needs to be based on the
project.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff is
assuming that SunCal would provide a complete application by the Planning Board
meeting, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the
negative.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated generally, the Planning
Board provides a recommendation to Council based on a complete application; a work
session or scoping session would take place if an application is incomplete; a formal
vote would not be taken; a policy determination would be needed without a formal
application; making a policy determination is the Council's job.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the application on file is not
deemed complete yet; the matter is an advisory recommendation.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what the Planning Board
would be reviewing if the application were incomplete.
The Planning Services Manager responded the application includes a General Plan
amendment and rezoning for the property; stated Council cannot take action on
entitlement without an advisory recommendation from the Planning Board; Council's
action would be to either deny or not deny the request and let the process continue;
staff wanted to provide Council with the option of extending or not extending the
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) or not given the timeframe of the ENA; staff
thought it was important to get advice from the Planning Board before the hearing;
having a completed application is not required in order to get the Planning Board's
advice.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a Planning
Board recommendation is required for General Plan amendments or rezoning, to which
the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a determination couldn't
be made without a completed application.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
9
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-21,18,"without any input from the City and, therefore, will be contractual and not subject to
unlawful detainer.
Councilmember Oddie expressed concern about agreements being substituted for
leases; noted there is unequal bargaining power between landlords and tenants;
outlined a tenant being subject to eviction.
The City Attorney stated the landlord cannot require a tenant to enter into an
agreement; noted the agreement must be made voluntarily; should a landlord require
such agreement, the requirement would violate the fair housing law.
Expressed support for the extension of repayment; stated this action is a necessary
component of the recent declaration of racism as a public health emergency given the
disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of Color due to systemic racism in
terms of work, health and housing; many renters are confused about their rights under
the various ordinances; urged greater effort be made to inform tenants of legal rights
and resources available; outlined communication difficulties; urged a mailing be sent out
in multiple languages and no agreement be encouraged: Catherine Pauling, Alameda
Renters Coalition.
Discussed experience staffing a tenant-landlord counseling line; stated phones lines are
flooded with calls from those unable to pay rent; noted leases are being broken; paying
debt is quickly becoming overwhelming: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Urged Council to vote yes on the extension of the repayment period; stated the need for
tenants to have protections is growing; urged Council to consider the strategy of
translating the unpaid rent into consumer debt as adopted by other cities and counties:
Grover Wehman-Brown, East Bay Housing Organization (EBHO).
Expressed support for the matter; discussed experience as a renter and artist in
Alameda; stated showing compassion to residents is important; urged Council to vote
yes: Kevyn Lauren, Alameda.
Urged Council to vote yes on the extension; stated it is important to protect renters:
Alexia Arocha, Alameda.
Comment read into the record:
Stated property owners are not the bankers of tenants; stated it is up to the City to pay
rents through subsidized payments: Rosalinda Corvi, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance, giving direction to staff to
return with an ordinance which will allow the City to treat any side agreements and
unpaid rent as consumer debt.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,27,"without a vote of the people under the new revision of the law; inquired whether Mr.
Faye would dispute that the State density bonus law applied in Alameda.
Mr. Faye responded the issue is the implementation of the density bonus provisions;
stated given the prohibitions on certain kinds of attached dwellings because of Measure
A, Charter Article 26, the ability to modify the City Charter to implement the law was not
enacted by the City until the middle of December; the election would have been moot
had that been enacted sooner and had the State law provisions that caused the City to
enact the modification to the Code in the middle of December.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City has a fundamental disagreement with Mr.
Faye; the City has a different understanding of the applicability of the State's density
bonus law; Mr. Faye believes that the State density bonus law did not apply in Alameda
until December.
Mr. Faye stated that is not what he is saying; Measure A prevents certain kinds of
attached dwelling units; in order to modify the City Charter, Council enacted an
ordinance in the middle of December and implemented State law that permits the City
Charter to be amended by Council, not requiring a vote of the people; the election would
have been irrelevant had the particular provision of the Code been changed before the
project proponents submitted signatures.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is any difference in how State law would
have been applied before December; requested an explanation from the City
Attorney/Legal Counsel; also requested an explanation of the application of the State
density bonus law.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated when the Council discussed
the density bonus in December, the City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that State law
nullified Measure A for the City and State law trumps the Charter.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she said State law pre-empts the Charter;
density bonus is a matter of Statewide concern; it does not mean that Measure A is set
aside; in order to implement bonus market rate units, someone could need and request
a waiver of the multi-family restriction; the same was true before December and has
been true for twenty years.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the ordinance was tailored to
Alameda; discussions involved exempting the 15% requirement if there is inclusionary
housing; inquired whether said issue was unique to Alameda.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether said issue is in
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
7
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-13,7,"with two comprehensive documents: the Master Plan that showed the applicants' long-
term plans for the site, and a comprehensive up to date EIR.
No action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was copied on a letter from StopWaste.org
to the Planning Director with respect to the pursuit of green building ordinances. She
requested that the City follow up on this issue at the next meeting.
Mr. Thomas advised that an RFQ had been released to advise staff how to proceed with
various ordinances, which would help staff return to the Planning Board with as many
options as possible. Staff was considering the full range of options, such as requirements
for new civic buildings and changes to the Building Code. Staff would provide a more
formal update at the next meeting. He assured Board member Ezzy Ashcraft that staff
would move as expeditiously as possible.
President Cook noted that she had received literature about APA publications and APA
membership. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would look into that issue.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch noted that because there were more buildings along harbor Bay
Parkway, he had noticed a great deal more trash. He suggested that the City consider
more trash cans, and inquired who managed the trash collection in that area. Mr. Thomas
noted that he would find out.
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board
Members Cook/Kohlstrand)
Mr. Thomas provided an update on this item, and noted that the last meeting on October
24, 2007, had been well-attended. SunCal had made the same presentation that had been
made before the Planning Board; they presented the project's history and the consultants
presented their thoughts. The geotechnical consultant emphasized the Bay mud issue, and
the flooding constraints were discussed. The topo maps were in the process of being
revised because they were outdated. The consultant stated that Alameda Point had sunk
somewhat. He noted that the audience received Peter Calthorpe's presentation very well.
He had emphasized sustainability and regionalism for Alameda Point, and kept future
generations in mind. He noted that there was no interaction after the presentation. He
noted that the next meeting would be held at the O Club on December 13, 2007, and they
planned to address a range of development scenarios.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Page 7 of 8",PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-10-17,23,"with the studies.
Councilmember Matarrese stated funds need to be allocated for the
model : ; inquired whether the policies need to be tested using the
new model.
The City Engineer responded Council would need to adopt the
policies in order to have a General Plan amendment; the traffic
analysis needs to be done if policies are adopted.
The Public Works Director stated Council would be giving direction
to begin the analysis of the policies as well as the previous
policies; information would come back to Council through the
Planning Board and the Transportation Commission with a
recommendation as to whether or not there are certain intersections
that Council may want to accept a higher level of service because
of the recognition of the encouragement of pedestrian or bicycle
access or transit; Council would be allocating the money to begin
the analysis.
louncilmember Matarrese stated the policies are not policies but
are a test suit of data or parameters that are going to be run
through a model to see what happens at the end of the model.
The Public Works Director stated the policies might eventually
become the approved policies.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether currently the policies are
not policies, to which the Pubic Works Director responded in the
affirmative.
The Transportation Commission Chair stated the Transportation
Commission's intent is that the policies are specific policies that
would be tested before the policies are being adopted; the
Transportation Commission was hopeful that the Council would accept
the policies as guidelines for reviewing EIRs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he wished to modify his motion.
The Public Works Director stated the current General Plan needs to
be used to review the EIR; the policies could not be used as
guidelines if the policies are not consistent with the General
Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated the next step would be to amend the General
Plan if Council likes the way the policies work.
The Public Works Director stated the process would be to amend the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
October 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-03-09,8,"with the new buildings, but suggested that the houses could be reconfigured to incorporate
more open space into the area. There are other, less gracious issues with the design of
the houses that also need to be addressed, including the small private balconies on some
of the units. Board Member Burton also said that Alameda does not need any air
conditioning units for the houses, and suggested that it would help the developer's plans to
exclude them in the houses.
Board Member Köster said he agreed with Board Member Burton's comments. He said
that the walkability of the community is an important factor in the neighborhood. He said
that the density could be lowered a little bit in order to increase the open space on the site.
Board Member Köster asked if some ground-floor commercial space could be incorporated
into the new buildings if possible.
Board Member Knox White said that there was too much asphalt and not enough open
space in the proposed development. He said that he is confused by the size of the
housing, and questioned if the sizes of the proposed housing is appropriate for the
neighborhood. He suggested building a through street and building housing along that
street instead of having four cul-de-sacs.
Vice President Alvarez said that the major entrance to Eagle Avenue needs to be moved
closer to Mulberry Street. The architecture on Eagle, Willow, and Clement Avenues are all
different from each other, and the developers need to marry the three different
architectural styles in this new development. She suggested that the neighbors concerned
about parking organize themselves as they did at the Del Monte.
Board Member Burton said that the two-story buildings along Willow Street are nicely
integrated with the existing neighborhoods, but the townhouses with the first floor
bedrooms are not truly in-line with universal design guidelines.
President Henneberry said that there is unanimity that this is a good project for the City,
but it is not ready in its present form. He said he looks forward to seeing an update of this
project.
8. MINUTES: None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
9-A. 2015-405
Zoning Administrator and Design Review: Recent Actions and
Decisions.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
11-A 2015-1341
Report from the Alameda Point Site A-Ad-Hoc Subcommittee
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 8
March 9, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-03-07,13,"with the inequity and would like to see the policy change implemented sooner rather
than later.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter is no longer a referral, it is Council
direction; he saw a flaw in the Oak tree situation in that the requirement of a stated
reason was not present; the policy needs to be tightened up and Council has the
opportunity to do that now; he does not agree with having two Councilmembers call an
item for review; there has to be a mechanism of appeal that does not require two
Councilmembers; the City has very strict guidance not to pre-judge evidence that comes
from the review.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated having two Councilmembers call an item for
review does not mean they are pre-judging an issue; saying an issue deserves a
second look might yield a different result or make the project better after the second
review; making the appeal process financially available to citizens is important; she
strongly believes if people opposing a project do not have the financial resource to call
for an appeal, that they could approach a Councilmember who could recruit a second
Councilmember to call the project for review; these are reasonable questions with
reasonable answers.
Vice Mayor Vella stated she thinks there is a lot of presumption that more than one
Councilmember is on board; it is not a huge ask to send the same request to multiple
Councilmembers, as part of the due diligence when involved in a project; she is inclined
to support the change, which is feasible, will strengthen the process and ensures there
is merit to the calls for review.
Mayor Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the referral; it is important to look
at the facts; the Planning Board makes approximately 44 decisions a year,
approximately 10% of the cases are called for review; changing the process would also
be a Brown Act violation as Councilmembers can only speak to one other
Councilmember; issues are worthy for Council to weigh in on; the Planning Board
members are appointed, not elected by the people; the Council's opportunity to weigh in
is a call for review; the only way to do the due diligence is for issues to come to Council;
it is important for Council to protect said ability.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not suggesting Council does away with
the process; more deliberation is needed; the call for review for the cell phone project
was an exercise of a lot of time spent, when State regulations prohibited change;
Council would have known if a second opinion was given.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Council considering revising the
call for review process to appeal Board and Commission decisions by requiring that two,
rather than just one, City Councilmembers initiate a call for review and state a reason
for the appeal.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
March 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-03-07.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-10-08,4,"with the grocery tenant and Marina Village. Alameda Landing has the only direct
transportation to center.
He is concerned about the effect the new center will have on the Marina Village center.
Board member Köster added that hopefully the center will complement the future retail
development at Alameda Point.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that competition can be a healthy thing, but would
not like a retailer to hurt Marina Village Shopping Center. She stated that she would like
to see different tenants than those at South Shore. She feels that the West End can
support another grocery based on the planned future development.
Board member Henneberry stated that regarding the closure of Luckys at Southshore,
the company at the time was selling off and closing any stores that were not making a
profit. It wasn't the Safeway that put them out of business.
President Zuppan agreed that we need to stress to the City Council that the new
retailers not harm current businesses in the area. She asked about the Urban Decay
Study and the effect of the new center on Marina Village merchants.
Ms. Herman stated that it was unlikely there would be closures because of this center,
but also looked at Alameda as a whole.
President Zuppan thanked the participants for the components of the report. Concerned
with the switch to non-taxable and suggested looking for taxable retailers. She stated
that it would be good to see a sales tax break out reported to City Council.
7-B. Public Hearing on an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for 69
residential parcels and a Tentative Map at 1551 Buena Vista Avenue
(APN72-384-21). The Planning Board will consider approval of an
InitialStudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Marina Cove II, 69 residential
parcels and a Tentative Map within the area bounded by Ohlone Street, Buena
Vista Avenue, Clement Avenue and Entrance Way (currently occupied by the
Chipman Company). The site is zoned R-4-PD, neighborhood residential with a
Planned Development overlay. Applicant is requesting a continuance to the
meeting of October 22, 2012.
7-C
Planned Development Amendment: Sign Program application - PLN12-
0280- 433 & 501 Buena Vista (Summer House Apartments). Review an
application to amend the Planned Development in order to create a Sign
Program for the Summer House Apartment Complex. Applicant is requesting
a continuance to the meeting of October 22, 2012.
8. MINUTES:
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 5
October 8, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-10-08.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-03,3,"with the design, he found that it was overkill; he did not see the safety hazards there. He hopes
the Commission supports the recommendation of the staff. However, he is dumbfounded to see
that this project had legs and he does not understand it.
Gordon McConnell, Fairview Avenue resident, stated he attended two out of the three public
meetings. Public Works were not responsive to the residents' views, and the overall public
consensus of the second meeting was to do nothing. He called into question the integrity of the
City Manager and the grant application. He stated there was an initial meeting with residents to
develop minor traffic calming measures but not to the extent that the Public Works Department
proposed.
Paula Kaneshiro explained that she did collect signatures to end the project and one of the things
that she appreciated was the fact that residents wanted some type of traffic calming on their
street. She also questioned why Public Works continued with the project when the public stated
they did not want the project to continue. Finally, she said it started as a traffic calming effort
and she does not understand why the City went out for a Safe Routes to School grant.
James Tham stated this project is doing the wrong thing. The intersection is already safe and he
has traveled through the intersection by bike, foot and car for the last 40 years. He felt the City
should have been frugal with their money and not waste with staff work hours. Thus, he believes
the project is wasteful and other projects should require much more attention than this one. He
encouraged the Commission to look at the Public Works Department and review their business
plan.
Jim Anglom has lived near the project for more than 30 years and he does not want to see the
project proceed. The project would bring reduce property values and parking spaces.
Furthermore, he believes additional improvements to the intersection would create complications
and a liability to the City.
Commissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments or questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Bertken stated he believes the public provided plenty of information for the
Commission to proceed with a decision. However, there was one question about a public
statement regarding secret meetings between City staff and a select number of individuals.
Matthew Naclerio replied that staff is prohibited by the Sunshine Ordinance to conduct meetings
involving a decision to proceed with a project without public notice. However, initial meetings
were conducted with residents who brought forth the petition, which is standard procedure.
Staff Khan replied City staff does this for other projects when they receive a petition and they
talk to the petitioners and then they go to the community about everything staff is proposing.
Commissioner Miley applauded the public for coming out to speak about the project and it is
important to receive public opinion. He questioned how the City prioritized its projects and he
knows that staff is working on the list currently. He asked if this type of project falls within the
priority list and if not, then why not.
Page 3 of 5",TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-09-21,2,"with the Risk Manager and they are appropriate to post. It was mentioned that
people might not know what the phrase ""pace of play"" represents. The General
Manager responded that the volunteer marshals on the tee explain the pace of play
policy to the customers. The General Manager also mentioned that the Complex
is
looking at purchasing clocks to place on the courses to help with the pace of
play. The clocks will be on #1, #6, #12, and #18 of the 18 hole courses and when
the golfer arrives at those holes the clock should read their tee time if they are
playing at the correct pace. The suggestion was made to have a prize for golfers
who play in less than 4 hours, possibly a ball marker. Also suggested was to
include the phrase ""keep up with the group in front of you"" in the golf carts.
After discussion the following changes were made to the policy board:
To make your experience enjoyable the following rules apply:
1.
All players and spectators must check in at the Pro Shop before
starting play.
2.
Do not enter water hazards or sloughs.
3.
AED Medical Response units are located at EF #9, JC #5, Pro Shop
and Driving Range buildings.
4.
Please cooperate with golf course marshals at all times.
5.
Observe all pace of play policies. Please play ""ready"" golf.
6.
90-degree cart rule in effect at all times, unless otherwise specified.
7. No spectators allowed unless approved by professional staff.
8. Players under the age of 10 years must be accompanied by an adult or
have approval of professional staff.
9. Golf or tennis shoes only. No multi-purpose athletic cleats allowed.
10. Proper golf attire required.
11. Please observe appropriate cell phone etiquette.
12. No coolers. Outside alcoholic beverages are prohibited.
13. Players and spectators use golf facilities at their own risk.
14. Failure to follow all the rules of this Golf Complex may result in your
removal from the facilities.
The Commission approved the amended Policy Board unanimously.
3-B
Approval of the Revised Golf Course Management Practice Regarding a Policy
Allowing Handicap Golfers Access to Fairways in Golf Carts. (Action Item)
The General Manager reported that the original Management Practice #2
regarding the Medical/Disability Flag Access was put in place on
November 9, 2004. The revision is to reflect the addition of the blue flag
to identify the handicap golfers. The revised Management Practice #2 is
as follows:
Purpose
Page 2 of 6",GolfCommission/2005-09-21.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,17,"with the Neptune Park pathway.
John Knox White explained that he hoped there are upcoming path improvements through
Neptune Park because there are some real configuration issues.
Staff Naclerio replied if the nexus is with the In and Out Burger development that is not coming
to the Transportation Commission it should be discussed at the Planning Board because the
Commission does not have the authority to look over those permits.
Lucy Gigli replied the reason she felt the urgency to bring the topic up because the City is
reviewing the design of the Neptune Park pathway after they approve the IN and Out Burger
development.
Commissioner Miley made a recommendation to have this topic on the agenda for the next
meeting to have an understanding with visuals of the proposal of In and Out Burger and how that
relates to Marina Village Parkway and Neptune Park because that is a transportation issue.
Staff Naclerio replied the Planning Board will make a decision on the In and Out Burger
development, which also includes a Safeway gas station and a Chase Bank on July 22nd. The
Planning Board's meeting is two days before the Transportation Commission's meeting.
Alex Nguyen recommended that staff plan to bring the topic back to the Transportation
Commission at the next meeting because there is no certainty that the Planning Board will make
an approval at the next meeting. So, the timing would give the Transportation Commission time
to make comments.
Staff Vargas replied that the Commission should leave it to staff to bring the topic to the
Commission as a potential agenda item.
Staff Naclerio said staff will present what they know at the time of the packet about the In and
Out Burger development and that would include the approved alignment for Neptune Park. Then
staff will update the Commission on whether the Planning Board approved or continued that item
again.
8.
Adjournment
10:04 pm
Page 17 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,6,"with the City's obligation under the Municipal Storm Water permit, and through the
Clean Water Program to control the runoff into the Bay. Staff recommended that the no-
parking street sweeping signs be installed on this block in accordance with City policy,
and to comply with the requirements of the Federal EPA Clean Water Act.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that both the appellants and the letter mentioned casual
car poolers, as well as Transbay bus riders. He inquired how many of the current parkers
were in that category. Staff Bergman replied that was anecdotal, and that hard numbers
were not available at this time. Staff did have boarding and alighting data from the Trans-
Bay bus at that location. The morning boardings were slightly over 100 per day, and
about 200 in the evening.
Commissioner Ratto inquired whether the 1200 block of Regent Street was signed for
street sweeping. Staff Bergman replied that it was, as was the 100 block.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger regarding the duration of daytime
parking, Staff Khan replied that the parking occupancy survey was conducted at the time
the sweepers would go through. Commissioner Krueger suggested it would be useful to
know how many cars were there for the entire four hours.
Commissioner Krueger requested further information on the amount of debris in the
gutter. Staff Khan noted that the City was trying to determine parking impacts where
street sweeping was installed, and based on that, staff recommends the restrictions, and
identifies the conditions of the affected streets. Staff found that there was no scientific
way to determine the condition, but qualitative analysis observed an accumulation of
debris in the storm drain inlets. He noted that the mechanical broom was much stronger
than by hand. He noted that removal of debris by hand also increased the suspension of
particles into the air, as compared to the sweeper, which vacuums the debris into the
containment chamber.
Open public comment.
Mr. Rabin, appellant, noted that the area was used by carpoolers all day. When he arrives
home from his night shift at the hospital, he frequently had no place to park, and that cars
parked on his corner all day long. He noted that he had to move his car to a spot two
blocks away, and added that this was an ongoing problem for him. He understood that
street sweeping was a necessity, but believed that manual sweeping would be better than
the street sweeper. He noted that the vehicle emits hydrocarbons, stirred debris around,
and left a trail behind it. Some residents have complained that their cars have been
sideswiped, and others believed that it was a revenue-enhancing practice through the
Page 6 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-01-11,8,"with the Attorney General's findings and that this leads him to believe that there is
insufficient information to make a decision.
Ms. Faiz, City Attorney, pointed out that the Guidelines issued by the Attorney General are
not binding law, just guidelines.
Board Member Kohlstrand asked whether the Board could approve an outright ban when
the policy direction from the City Council is still unknown.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Board could continue the item, while the Board awaits
policy direction from City Council and staff gathers more information.
Staff stated that the Board could continue the item, but that the Council is awaiting the
Board's response to assist them with making their decision.
Vice-President Autorino motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham to extend the
meeting until 11:10 pm. Motion passes 7-0.
President Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the difference between medical
marijuana co-operative and collective dispensaries.
Ms. Faiz, City Attorney, clarified the respective code sections.
Board Member Cook asked whether the Planning Board could request an extension of the
moratorium to allow sufficient time to consider whether to revise the ordinance.
Staff suggested recommending approval or denial of the proposed ordinance.
Vice-President Autorino stated the Board should ask for an extension of the moratorium
and develop an ordinance that would allow and regulate the dispensaries, as opposed to an
outright ban. He also added the Board should ask the Council for direction.
Board Member Cook suggested that the Planning Board, staff of the Police Department,
Social Services, and the City Attorney work together to develop an appropriate set of
regulations if the Council extends the moratorium to allow further consideration.
Board Member Lynch stated that the City Council should be asked whether or not a
moratorium should be extended and if it should be extended, what type of regulations
should be developed.
The Planning Board recommended that the City Council refer the matter back to the
Planning Board for further deliberation and hearings to allow time for preparation of a draft
ordinance that might allow a limited number of dispensaries in carefully controlled locations
and under certain limited conditions.
Vice-President Autorino motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham, to
recommend that the City Council reject the ordinance banning medical marijuana
dispensaries within the City of Alameda, refer development of an ordinance that allows
medical marijuana dispensaries in Alameda back to staff and the Planning Board, and
extend the moratorium prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries to allow for sufficient
Page 8 of 9",PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-30,24,"with the Alameda Health Care District; stated there is a proactive tone in keeping Alameda
Hospital open; the Board of Alameda Health Care District has voted to allocate $250,000 for
the upcoming fiscal year for community paramedicine; discussed an update from Dr. Mini
Swift.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Continued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
March 30, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-09-20,20,"with something that will work for both sides.
Councilmember Daysog stated he is satisfied with the City Attorney's response and is
willing to move forward.
On the call for the question the motion, carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(16-472) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-4.25(d).iii.b Related to Setbacks for Side
Street Property Lines on Corner Parcels within the North Park Street, Gateway Zoning
District. The proposed amendments are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor
Alterations to Land Use Limitations. Introduced.
Stated the Downtown Alameda Business Association (DABA) supports the project;
urged approval of the zoning amendment: Robb Ratto, DABA.
Stated that he and the architect are present to answer questions: Marcel Sengul,
Applicant.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved the amendment [introduction of the ordinance], with
insertion in Section 1 of "" for outdoor seating or other public spaces"" to read "" other
non-automotive public spaces.""
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the next sentence clarifies that the space is non-
automotive.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the wording does not exclude parking spaces; the wording
could be interpreted to allow a parking space.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the amendment is good.
Councilmember Oddie stated there is no harm in adding the amendment.
Mayor Spencer stated the amendment is added clarification.
Councilmember Oddie stated the project will make the gateway into Alameda a great
entry.
Vice Mayor Matarrese restated his motion to approve the amendment [introduction of
the ordinance] with the insertion of "" other non-automotive public spaces.""
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,22,"with setting an amount to cover the interim period and bringing the
authority to hire outside counsel to the City Council, without
limitation on dollar amounts.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should not be a special meeting for
$3,000 if the City Attorney needs to hire a transactional attorney
or if there is a tax question that comes up through the Finance
Department.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that if a dollar amount were not set, the
Council would be involved in a $3,000 decision to hire a tax
attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated Council could discuss a dollar limit; if the
Council had known about hiring Linda Tripoli to give an opinion on
vehicle allowance, Council might have paid more attention to the
issue; the Council should know who is working for the City, what
people are being hired to do and why; that she does not have
problem with a limit if the issue is minor.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that, if the Council wants to know who is
being hired, the question comes down to timing; inquired how
quickly the Council should be informed after legal counsel is
hired; stated there is a proposal for quarterly financial reports
on the cost of outside counsel, including who the outside counsel
is for each matter.
Mayor Johnson stated in a lot of cases the Council could give
approval before outside counsel is hired; a lot of the hiring does
not need to be immediate; regular Council meetings are twice a
month; the City Attorney can hire someone and bring the matter to
Council for approval at the next meeting in cases when there is not
time; the Council does not want to have special meetings all the
time; that she does not like the system that is in place now; the
Charter states that the Council consents to the hiring of outside
counsel; Council is currently consenting to hiring over $800,000
worth of outside counsel through a line item budget allocation; the
Council needs to exercise more oversight Council can discuss the
level of consent that should be set; it is a change from what has
been done the past 16 years; the Council needs to exercise more
oversight than in the past.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated that she is
unclear of how the Mayor proposes to do so; the City Attorney
provided a proposal inquired whether the proposal could be
reviewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-05-24,8,"with respect to the street grid pattern and traffic impacts during peak travel times. She finds
that the public access to the waterfront is too small and insufficient and, in essence, seems
to privatize this public space. She recommended that the applicant consider other locations
for the multi-family structure.
Board Member Zuppan supports the redevelopment of the blighted site, but is very
concerned about the lack of public parking and the sense that this development appears
closed-off to Alameda with access to the public park restricted. She favors that Blanding
Avenue and Elm Street be continued through the development and that there be vehicular
access to the waterfront. She supported Board member Cook's recommendation from the
last meeting to include opportunities for commercial ventures along the waterfront.
Board Member Lynch requested that information be provided on the feasibility analysis so
that the Board can properly evaluate the density bonus proposal.
President Ezzy Ashcraft is supportive of the sustainability concepts of this development.
She favors a continuation of the existing street grid pattern through this development and
public access to the waterfront park along with providing parking for visitors to this park.
She is supportive of the need to separate vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian travel paths,
but is concerned about having to many street intersections along Clement Avenue.
Following Board member comments, the President noted that a lot of input had been
provided by the Public and the Board and emphasized that this information should be given
careful consideration when the final site plan is developed. No additional action was taken
by the Board at this time, but it was noted that this project would need to come back to the
Board at a later meeting date for consideration.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:45pm
Planning Board
Page 8 of 8
Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010",PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-10-02,4,"with motion detectors.
The City Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated said system
is more expensive; the system would have been ordered if current
facts were known.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether in-pavement lights would be
placed between Santa Clara Avenue and Central Avenue.
Mayor Johnson responded that said lights have already been
installed.
Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that he would like to see in-
pavement lights at the intersection of Main Street and Ralph
Appezzato Parkway.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that hopefully money
will be available to install embedded lights.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(07-483 - ) Recommendation to adopt the City of Alameda Ferry Short
Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Year 2008/2018 and receive an update on
the Water Emergency Transportation Authority Legislation.
The Ferry Services Manager and Public Works Director gave a brief
presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore requested background on the Golden Gate
Bridge Transit District; inquired how many ferries are run by the
District.
The Ferry Services Manager responded that the Golden Gate Bridge
Transit District is the largest ferry service on the Bay and
carries approximately two million passengers per year; stated the
District has five boats.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the legislation was to ensure a
coordinated emergency response effort; inquired why the largest
provider [Golden Gate Bridge Transit District] is excluded.
The Public Works Director responded that he does not have an answer
tonight, but that he will look into the matter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
October 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf
PlanningBoard,2014-07-14,2,"with minimum 4' fence.
President Burton opened the public comment.
Mr. Richard Neveln, resident, commented that the plan should be expanded to include an
area for model aviation, board games and a concession stand with bait for fishing. Also,
the park should connect to a bus stop with a shelter.
Ms. Lucy Gigli, President Bike - Walk Alameda, mentioned an email she sent prior to the
meeting, and thanked staff for the extra bike racks in the design. She asked for a couple
minor changes to the bike parking design to maximize use. She stated that Thompson
Field does not have any bike parking.
President Burton closed public comment.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni commented that there are game tables on the drawing and
she appreciates the comments regarding bike parking.
Board member Tang asked about the cost for bike racks and questioned if more can be
added later if necessary. He asked about the maintenance for the synthetic turf and could
the field be used for different sports such as bocce ball for the elderly.
Ms. Wooldridge commented that the racks are not that costly but they need to be bolted to
a hard surface, and should be placed at prime entry points to the park. She stated the
field maintenance is comparable to that at other fields and bocce ball can be incorporated
if wanted.
Board member Knox White commented on the future look of the plan, and the road leading
into the park being small in contrast. He would like to see the main entry be Mitchell
Avenue when it is constructed. He appreciates the bike parking additions.
Mr. Thomas commented that Mosley Avenue curves, but referred to Mitchell Avenue, once
constructed, as the major road connecting to 5th Street. Eventually Mosley Avenue will be
a neighborhood street. The design can be amended as the development around the park
is completed.
Board member Knox White commented on the need for bike riders to see their bikes once
they enter the park and moving some of the bike parking could be a great change. He
commended Ms. Wooldridge for securing the grant for the project.
Vice President Henneberry commented on this being a good design and having two park
plans come before the board in two meetings is a great thing.
President Burton stated he agrees with the Bike Walk Alameda comments for defining bike
parking locations and he agrees with the Mitchell Avenue design ideas. He likes the idea of
a concession stand.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 4
July 14, 2014",PlanningBoard/2014-07-14.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-09-28,3,"with making the interior circulation areas that of a neighborhood scale,
not a large shopping center. He likened it to walking through a gallery
or museum, not a plaza or square.
Mr. Savinar concludes the presentation by explaining that his client is
one of the most aggressive print collectors in the United States. The
client wants the collection at South Shore to be family-oriented and
appealing to the masses, but not watered down; however, he has
rejected some pieces with ""edge.' C Huston reiterated her desire for
originality in the pieces. She went on to state that opportunities for
innovation can be used in subtle ways through material and scale for
instance.
After the presentation, the PAC discusses South Shore further. A2CM
Johnson stated that the $150,000 does not all go towards the public art
piece. After the administrative and consultant fees, approximately
$97,500 will be left for actual pieces. Mr. Savinar should consider that
transportation and recognition plaques are included in the amount.
CM Rosenberg stated that the Laursen work would most likely have a
positive outcome after PAC review. CM Wolfe expressed his desire to
see how the Laursen panels would be placed throughout the center.
B. Update on Library Project - (Oral Report)
Secretary Bailey stated that the PAC received documents in their July
Agenda Packets that gave further background information on the
ongoing library project. This includes a memo sent to the Mayor and
City Council by Susan Hardie, retired Library Director. It explained the
background of the Public Art process, including the approval process
carried out by the PAAC on July 21, 2004.
Secretary Bailey added that funding for Masayuki Nagase's eight
medallions, Cadence of the Water, has been secured. The medallions
have the highest priority, because they are required to be installed
during construction. She also shared that an article had been featured
in the Alameda Journal on Tuesday, July 26. It pictured Masayuki
carving giant stone, similar to that which will be used for the library.
C. Update on Bay Ship and Yacht - (Oral Report)
Secretary Bailey explained that the Planning & Building Department
received a letter from Cris Craft, Chief Engineer representing Bay Ship
& Yacht, on August 5, 2005. He questioned whether the Public Art
Ordinance applied to their project, since they are the tenants and their
PAC Meeting
3
Minutes
September 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-05-08,10,"with infrastructure.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding debt, the City Manager stated
the other way has not worked for sixteen years; the underlying property issues are more
important than entitlement risk, but cannot be impacted; entitlement risk is the thing the
City can deal with.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she agrees entitlement risk is the one thing the City can
control, however, she disagrees that the previous projects failed because of entitlement
risk; the projects failed in large part because they did not pencil out.
The City Manager stated part of the reason the projects did not pencil out is because
the City was going through the entitlement process with community interest burdens;
the base reuse process Statewide caused people to come up with laundry lists that do
not match the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) needs of developers; the City cannot correct
said conflict; the proposed plan is a way to address said conflict in a democratic way.
*
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:03 p.m. and returned at 9:05 p.m.
*
Expressed concern about spending money for a project that does not pencil out,
bringing capital to the project, backbone infrastructure and predevelopment costs, and
signing a contract: Karen Bey, Alameda.
*
Councilmember deHaan left the dais and returned at 9:17 p.m.
The City Manager noted that the development advisor may do brokerage on the pads,
but cannot bid on any of the projects.
Councilmember Johnson stated the developer would need capital partners, not the City,
requested staff to clarify.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the City would have entitlements
and would engage a developer to do construction; the City would not take on any
infrastructure risk.
Councilmember Johnson noted the City did infrastructure for Catellus Bayport project,
but should not be doing so now; stated staff has done a conservative financial analysis;
there are long term tenants with short term leases; the plan is well thought out; Fort Ord
in Monterey has been done piecemeal and projects have been done in wrong locations.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is conservative; questioned where the City
would be if going forward with one pad does not work; stated going forward with multiple
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
May 8, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-12-15,4,"with direction that the Interim City Manager find out what is
supposed to happen [as required by the ordinance] and return to
Council with an update.
Mayor Johnson stated [ the motion should include] that the Public
Art Commission should look for a project.
Councilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion with a caveat noting that
staff is reviewing all Boards and Commissions; inquired when the
review would come forward.
The Interim City Manager responded the matter probably would be
addressed in February.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(
*09-508) Recommendation to Conduct the Affordable Housing
Ordinance Annual Review Consistent with Section 27-1 of the Alameda
Municipal Code and California Government Code Section 66001 and
Accept the Annual Report. Accepted.
(09-509) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and
Authorize a Call for Bids for the Webster Street/Wilver ""Willie""
Stargell Avenue Intersection Project - Landscape and Irrigation
Improvements, No. P.W. 06-09-18.
The City Engineer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the bid is for landscaping and
irrigation; inquired whether the project is using bay friendly
landscaping that does not require irrigation.
The City Engineer responded the Bay Friendly Guidelines were
followed; stated the required number of points was achieved;
irrigation is used to establish plants; all plants are bay
friendly.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry about whether the
irrigation would be temporary, the City Engineer stated the
irrigation remains in the event plants die.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
December 15, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-12-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,23,"with cuts.
Mayor Johnson concurred.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there is not a need to go through each
department, especially departments not losing actual employees.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in creating a
profile for Alameda's budget the International City Management
Association (ICMA) has certain ratios on the number of police
officers and fire fighters; inquired whether ratios were available
for the public works, planning and recreation departments; stated
ratios might indicate additional funding is needed for
a
department; a standard other than ICMA could be used; that he would
like to know where the City should be.
The Acting City Manager inquired whether louncilmember Daysog was
requesting information on ideal staffing levels.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; noted Alameda
County uses said standards to produce its budget.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda County uses ICMA standards,
to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated standards are useful for touching
base, but historic review of staffing and service levels is very
valuable because it is reality; the City has certain realities,
such as being an island which has advantages and disadvantages that
must be taken into account.
Councilmember Daysog concurred that historic data is good, too;
stated ICMA standards probably correlate to what staff is
requesting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated in addition to presenting information
from departments losing a staff person, departments with a large
number of vacant positions that interface with the public, such as
public safety, should also be discussed at the next Council meeting
so the public would be aware of changes in service.
The Acting City Manager noted there would be reductions in force in
Development Services, which is funded through sources other than
the General Fund.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a reduction in
positions at Alameda Power and Telecom, to which the Acting City
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,6,"with buttons supporting Proposition 81; stated she attended the
Annual California Library Association and School Library
Association Legislative Day in Sacramento; Proposition 81 is a $600
million Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act Proposition
81 is not polling well; the City could benefit from State bond
funds to renovate the two branch libraries or build another branch
library ; noted over 3 million native English speaking Californians
are functionally illiterate; urged adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what underlying revenue stream would
pay for the Bond.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft responded the indebtedness is taken on by the
State; stated Proposition 81 has the same structure as Proposition
14.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the New Main Library would not be
possible without Proposition 14; support is needed for Proposition
81; the West End has an old branch library and Bay Farm Island has
an undersized branch library.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(06-235) Resolution No. 13950, ""Supporting a ""Buy Alameda""
Philosophy. "" Adopted.
The Acting Assistant to the City Manager provided a brief
presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the centralization for
purchasing goods and supplies is being handled by the Finance
Department, to which the Acting Assistant to the City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether hiring a buyer was
anticipated.
The City Manager responded expanding the responsibilities of
existing staff is being considered.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how the 5% preference would work on a
$10,000 purchase.
The Finance Director responded written proposals would be requested
on large purchases; a local vendor would have the advantage if they
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-01-03,11,"with an employee present; the Alameda County Fairgrounds requires guns to be
tethered; his biggest concern would be smash and grab or middle of the night thefts,
which is why cameras and safes would be required.
Mr. Michaan stated the firearms would be displayed in closed glass cases, similar to
jewelry; workers staffing shows would unlock the case, show the item, take it back and
lock the case; one item is shown at a time; noted the building does not have windows,
so there is really no way to have a smash and grab; further stated the vault was
approved by ATF, is metal lined and has a secondary alarm system.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the vault is fixed to the floor, to which Mr. Michaan
responded the vault is a small, high security room which he built to house multimillion
dollar items.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the protocol for displaying guns
is addressed under Condition 10, which requires a security plan to be submitted to the
Police Chief; read the condition.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether security measures are needed because
the firearms are still operable, to which the Police Chief responded that he would
assume so.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Mr. Michaan has run the auction house
for 15 years without ever requesting to sell firearms, to which Mr. Michaan responded in
the affirmative; stated the opportunity arose since Greg Martin approached Michaan
Auctions; Greg Martin split from Butterfields and ran an auction house, which was sold
with a non-compete clause; the non-compete time has expired and Butterfields sold its
property in San Francisco; Greg Martin approached Mr. Bradly with the opportunity,
which would allow Michaan's to expand.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding high capacity guns, Mr. Bradley
stated that he is not aware of any older guns with high capacity.
Vice Mayor Vella noted as time passes, the date of guns older than 50 years would
change and move towards the age of multi chamber guns; inquired whether or not the
application would object to restrictions on said guns.
Mr. Bradley responded some of the guns might have 10 round clips.
Mr. Michaan noted ammunition would not be sold; stated the date of 50 years old can
be set as of the current date; the Police Department would be provided a list of the guns
to be sold; if the Police Department objects to a specific gun, Michaan's Auctions could
tell the consigner the particular gun could not be accepted.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Mr. Michaan would be amenable to a set, non-
moving date, such as January 1, 1967, to which Mr. Michaan responded in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-05,12,"with an analysis; stated that she does not have enough information to decide whether or not she
would support the program.
Councilmember Knox White stated the motion is to have staff come back with a budget request
for a program; Council could approve the budget request in order for the program to launch.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the motion; stated the matter is worthy;
she would like an outline for similar programs from other jurisdictions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
The Police Captain stated that he currently does not know of any programs and will do
research.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for initially limiting the program to one cage
per household; stated the opportunity will allow for one working car per household; the program
is one way to prevent thefts; however, units are still stolen after cages are installed; the cages
are not an end-all for catalytic converter thefts.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is hesitant to limit the cages to one per household due to
multiple people each needing a car to get to work; inquired the cost per cage.
The Police Captain responded the cost ranges between one hundred to a few hundred dollars
each; stated costs depend on installation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would be supportive of directing staff to come back to
Council with a proposal; the motion sounds like a program is being put into the budget.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the direction is for staff to provide a budget proposal with options; the
matter is not a preemptive blank check budget request.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council will have a menu of options to select from.
Councilmember Knox White responded the motion is for a budget proposal; stated staff can
bring multiple options; staff will bring something that is actionable during the budget discussion.
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.
(22-221) Recommendation to Discontinue the Alameda Loop Shuttle; and Authorize the City
Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Three-Year Agreement with AC Transit, Substantially the
Same as Exhibit 4, for an Amount Not to Exceed $673,000 to Provide a Free AC Transit Bus
Pass Pilot Program for Seniors and People with Disabilities as Part of the City's Paratransit
Program.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.
Stated that he would like Council to reconsider the recommendation of discontinuing the
Alameda Loop Shuttle; many seniors were not using public transportation during the pandemic
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.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,2014-12-02,23,"with a modification to be consistent with the Del Monte Master Plan ordinance which
limits 380 units and maintain all the public benefits.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstentions:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(14-506) Resolution No. 14990, ""Approving and Adopting an Amendment to the City Of
Alameda's Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2014-2015."" Adopted.
The Assistant City Manager and Interim Finance Director gave a Power Point
presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the additional 5% means increasing the
reserve by 5%, to which the Interim Finance Direction responded in the affirmative.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Manager stated
contributions could go toward paying off long term unfunded liabilities, including Other
Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and PERS Smoothing, which is an increase in the
premium; staff would be required to return to Council for approval on such a proposal.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would support setting aside $3 million for OPEB
and PERS obligations.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether allocating funds for the Emergency
Operation Center (EOC) is premature.
The Public Works Director responded with the breakdown of the funds for the EOC
training and supplies: 1) training for all employees; there are 33 employees for each of
three shifts; the City would contract with California Specialized Training Institute run by
Office of Emergency Services (OES); 2) laptops, the EOC is currently structured in the
basement using old technology; new EOC software would cost $125,000, including
maintenance and configuration; the total cost would be $255,705.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft thanked the Public Works Director for his oral report; stated
other departments were able to itemize expenditures in the staff report; the public
deserves to be informed about where money is being spent; that she would like to have
seen the information included in the staff report.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied with the way the staff report
characterizes the $250,000.
Councilmember Tam commended staff for their economic acumen for having a surplus.
Mayor Gilmore stated it is refreshing to have a budget surplus of $11.5 million; thanked
and congratulated staff.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
December 2, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-04-26,15,"with Vice President Saheba that developers had to be specific about everything else and
that they can also be specific about the proposed art.
Director Thomas said it would be part of the Design Review Approval for the project. He
then discussed the process and when the staff could bring something back to the Planning
Board. They would not be approving the art because that would still be with the PAC.
Board Member Ruiz asked if the Community Development Director's role would be struck
out in this iteration.
Director Thomas said it would.
Staff Member Butler said if they were talking about location then the PAC was fine with
that. She then said they could add that it be the Planning Director who it would go back
to.
Board Member Hom and Director Thomas said it depended on the conditions.
Staff Member Butler and Director Thomas discussed the language in the provision about
moving the location of the on-site art and what wording was unnecessary and what the
role of the Director needed to be.
President Teague suggested striking a part to cause the process to fall in line with how
other changes are handled.
Board Member Hom agreed and said letting the regular process to govern made sense.
He was in favor of simplifying and deleting parts of the wording.
Staff Member Butler was concerned that with the new iteration it would not come back to
the PAC at all.
After much discussion, it was decided to continue this item to the next meeting to revise
the language.
Board Member Curtis wanted the language to give the most flexibility to the board to get
things done quickly.
Board Member Hom wanted language that made it clear that money in the in-lieu fund
was meant for maintenance for public art on public property.
Staff Member Butler also said they would clarify the language around the City Manager's
expense limit.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 15 of 18
April 26, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-01-21,14,"with Tetra Tech, Inc. for Post Construction Project Closeout and Second Amendments
to Agreements with BKF Engineers and Park Engineering, for the Cross Alameda Trail
(Main Street to Constitution Way) Project, in a Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed
$145,633. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(20-041) Recommendation to Accept the Alameda Free Library Strategic Plan, 2020-
2025.
The Library Director made brief comments.
Ruth Metz, Ruth Metz Associates, gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there will be expansion of the West End
branch library.
The Library Director responded the property is land-locked and the surrounding
properties are privately owned; stated the walls cannot be pushed outward; the West
End branch library was renovated in 2010; a larger library presence is needed as
Alameda Point develops; the goal is to establish a library branch at Alameda Point;
noted the West End branch could be repurposed into something else or become the
new seed and tool library; the building can always be found useful by the library
program; physical expansion of the building is not possible.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether expansion of operation hours and activities
would be possible.
The Library Director responded in the affirmative; stated there is no way to install sound
barriers within the building; many programs are hosted after-hours as to not disturb
patrons wishing to participate in quiet activities; a goal is to increase operating hours at
all three library branches; increasing hours will return during the budget process due to
expansion of staffing needs.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated library use continues to grow and expand; the library has
remained relevant during changing times.
Acting Mayor Knox White inquired whether the tracking of visits only includes web visits
or visits to the reference desk, to which the Library Director responded all web visits.
Acting Mayor Knox White stated moving the library catalog to Alameda Point at a larger
building could yield a different structure for the West End branch.
The Library Director stated there is the possibility to move the West End branch to
Alameda Point; there is the possibility to build a brand new branch; in order to establish
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 21, 2020
2",CityCouncil/2020-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-02-21,14,"with No Extension Options with Williams-Sonoma, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, for
Building 169, Suite 102 Located at 1680 Viking Street, Alameda Point. Introduced. [In
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is
Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c - Existing
Facilities.]
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
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 3 year lease with no extension options with Williams-Sonoma, Inc. a
Delaware Corporation, for Building 169, Suite 102 located at 1680 Viking Street,
Alameda Point.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated there are 10,000 visitors every month and that
is how people are finding Alameda.
On the call for the questions, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(17-133) The City Manager announced there have been concerns about the number of
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) vehicles on Webster Street; there is
a customs office at Mariner Square and the vehicles are just employees going to lunch
and not for any other reason.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(17-134) Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda, invited the public to a presentation on the
Struggles of African Americans for Housing in Alameda on February 28th at the College
of Alameda Student Lounge.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(17-135) Consider: 1) Directing Staff to Provide an Update on the Negotiations between
the City and the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) at the March 7, 2017
City Council Meeting; and 2) If a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has not been
Reached between the City and FAAS, that Council Provide Direction to Staff on the
Terms of a MOU between the City and FAAS. (Mayor Spencer)
Mayor Spencer made brief comments.
Stated she was looking forward to robust discussion about FAAS; similar to the
discussion on oak trees: Swati Shah, FAAS.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
February 21, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-06-05,6,"with Municipal Auditing Services and the business associations.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of authorizing collection of
delinquent business license fees via the property tax bills.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07-265) Public Hearing to Resolution No. 14100, ""Confirming the
Business Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 and
Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement
Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. Adopted.
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponent Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution confirming
the BIA Report and authorizing levying the annual assessment fee.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(07-266) Public Hearing on the proposed fare increase for the
Alameda/Oaklar Ferry Service and recommendation to authorize the
City Manager to execute a one-year extension of the Blue & Gold
Fleet Operating Agreement with the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service,
adopt associated budgets, and approve the proposed fare increases
for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service;
(07-266A) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a
one-year extension of the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating
Agreement with the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry, and adopt the
associated budgets;
(07-266B) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a
second amendment to the amended and restated Ferry Services
Agreement with the Port of Oakland to extend the term for one
additional year at a cost of $79,1591 and
( 07-266C) Resolution No. 14101, ""Authorizing the City Manager to
Apply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Funds, Including Five
Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 5, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-09-15,3,"with Measure WW; a legally binding contract could not be provided
until completion of a full review next year.
Mr. Rasmussen stated the number one question asked right now from
other cities is whether projects are consistent with Measure WW.
Mayor Johnson stated knowing what can and cannot be done is
important i that she has heard that there is more certainty about
the project funding.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City would have to control
and manage the project.
Mr. Rasmussen responded control and management would be the City's
fiduciary responsibility.
Mr. Collins stated EBRPD would enter into a contract with the City
and would look to the City to provide assurances that the project
would be properly constructed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether EBRPD would require the City to
manage the project.
Mr. Collins responded EBRPD would require the City to be the
project administrator stated EBRPD would be satisfied if the City
elected to retain an agent to fulfill the requirements.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City would be required to
comply with requirements imposed on projects that received public
money, to which Mr. Collins responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the facility would have operating
requirements.
Mr. Rasmussen responded the facility would need to be available for
public use; stated school use after school hours would not be
allowed.
Mayor Johnson requested an explanation of school use.
Mr. Rasmussen stated the facility would need to be available to the
public after 3:30 p.m. on week days and all day on Saturdays.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would have on-going
obligations.
Mr. Rasmussen responded that he assumes operation would be turned
over to the Boys & Girls Club; stated EBRPD would have to review
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 15, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-09-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-11-15,7,"with Macks Craic Inc. (dba Mack5) for Construction Management Services for the Cross
Alameda Trail through Jean Sweeney Open Space Park and to Appropriate $160,000 to
the Cross Alameda Trail Project Budget from the General Fund Available Fund Balance.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the funds are only for the Cross
Alameda Trail within the park; inquired whether the funds will cover the gap between a
few segments of the trail.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the funds are for both; stated a portion
covers the gap; Public Works is additional funding to ensure the gap is completed
above and beyond what is proposed under the grant.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is being done for the gap.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the proposal includes: green paint on the
road and a protected two-way bike lane.
The Base Reuse Director stated options are still being reviewed; one definite plan is a
protected two-way cycle track.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Transportation Commission is
looking at a crossing path being added in the area.
The Base Reuse Director responded staff is looking at a mid-block crossing; stated the
Housing Authority is seeking grants for said project; funds from Measure BB will also be
utilized for dedicated transit lanes; staff is trying to accommodate a crossing as part of a
later phase.
Mayor Spencer stated that she met with Housing Authority and Public Works staff and
they are working on the details of the proposed project; there is housing at
Independence Plaza and seniors have a difficult time crossing the street; stated solving
the problem is important.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to issue a
notice to proceed with the project.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he strongly supports the project.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 15, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-15.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2015-04-09,3,"with Alameda Backyard Growers.
Encinal Boat Ramp design will go to bid soon.
Longfellow Park received a grant to help replace the playground poured-in-place surfacing.
Jackson Park Bench will begin renovation soon. The community raised $6,500 and staff is
working with contractors to get estimates.
CIP funds will repair pathway asphalt on Shoreline Park, and irrigation at Neptune Park later
this year.
Chair Delaney commended Amy's staff on the annual Egg Scramble. He asked about how the
effectiveness is evaluated by program. And did any staffers go to the CPRS conference? Director
Wooldridge stated that evaluation surveys are provided to participants and parents for most
programs. She reported that we received some complaints from parents on the egg scramble due
to bad parent behavior, so staff is reviewing other options. Most recreation staff went to the annual
CPRS event for one-day and Shawn Smith attended the full 3-day conference.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL: None
9. ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: Challenger League presentation, Mastick's annual report
10. SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, May 14, 2015
11. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Delaney adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m.
3",RecreationandParkCommission/2015-04-09.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-07-28,11,"with AC Transit on this issue. He also wanted the city to create educational materials on how
pedestrians should dress when walking around at night.
Chair Soules reminded everyone that school started on August 6 and that meant many people
figuring out new morning commutes. She encouraged everyone to reach out to bring awareness
in the community to help everyone stay safe. She then thanked Vice Chair Nachtigall for her
hard work as Vice Chair.
Vice Chair Nachtigall thanked everyone and said it had been an honor. She concurred with
everyone being aware of children going to and from school and parents figuring out school pick
up and drop offs.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:38 p.m.
TC Meeting Minutes
11
July 28, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,26,"wireless hotspots for years in order to help people who do not have internet access;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
18",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-05-28,6,"windows. He said they need the remaining space to support the modules when they are
shipped. He added that they have ten foot ceilings in the rooms. He said it is not feasible
or desirable to increase the window size further.
Board Member Rothenberg asked what the purpose of ten foot ceilings would be.
Mr. Leach said they have a narrow bay design to maximize views of the water and that
the increased height is appreciated by the customers and requested by Marriott.
Board Member Saheba said the concern is the amount of solid on the exterior, not the
amount of glass on the interior.
Board Member Teague moved approval of the 35 foot setback. Board Member
Rothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Board Member Saheba moved approval of the parking lot configuration. Board
Member Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Board Member Teague moved approval of the building structural design with the
requirement that the exterior palette materials and colors return for further review.
Board Member Curtis seconded the motion.
Board Saheba said he is supportive of approving the footprint and height of the building.
Staff Member Thomas said he is hearing that at least one commissioner would like to keep
the size of the windows open for discussion, and to see how the ground floor clerestory
windows will look. He said that it is not uncommon for developers to submit building plans
and then revise them during the plan check process.
Board Member Curtis said that if there is a structural reason why the windows cannot be
any larger they would possibly be putting in an impossible condition.
Staff Member Thomas said the ground floor is not modular construction and therefore the
developer believes that adding the clerestory windows there will not present an
engineering problem. He suggested approving the building massing, but bringing back the
architectural elevations.
President Sullivan asked if the suggestion would approve the articulation on the front
which is very different from the back of the building, and said she could not support that.
Staff Member Thomas said there are short rooms and long rooms which can be adjusted
to change the articulation.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 11
May 28, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-05-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-04-28,10,"windows in a normal prototype store, and that there were store windows at the store
entrance, as well as within the store, containing mannequins. He did not believe it would
be possible to create additional store windows. He noted that they wished to put their best
foot forward in the Centre, and did not believe the PowerPoint presentation did justice to
the colors and articulation that had been presented. He assured the Board that they would
be able to present what the Board needed to make a decision.
Board member McNamara expressed concern about the massing and bland color of the
building, which she believed was already an eyesore. She liked the landscaping efforts
throughout the center, and believed that it would be continued in this part of the project.
Mr. Kyte noted that Harsch was very protective and critical of the center's design. He
believed that the landscaping and the trellises on the south side of Bed, Bath & Beyond
would have sufficed. He noted that they knew how to create a pedestrian amenity, and
that they knew how to get people to flow through the shopping center, as well as to stay,
linger and enjoy the experience. He noted that they would make every piece of this center
right before it was completed.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed there was a solution to the Board's desire for
display windows, as well as landscaping and the trellis. She believed that the Board's
expectations were placed very high by the previous phases of the center. She did not want
to see long expanses of wall, and that the public wanted a beautiful place to shop. She did
not want to see a warehouse on the corner of the development. She inquired whether
there were restrictions on the truck hours.
Mr. Pool noted that Mervyn's had the same width with a recessed dock, and described the
shift of the dock area in order to increase the sales area. He noted that the Mervyn's door
accommodated two trucks. Mr. Kyte added that trash compactors were also included.
Mr. Pool expressed concern that the posters that were initially very attractive in an initial
presentation before the City may become yellowed and curled in the window. He noted
that it may be a function of training of managers for poster maintenance. He noted that
they wanted to put the entrance on the west side, but that Harsch did not allow it. He
believed that the illumination and the trellises would improve the presentation than
depending on Kohl's to use existing design programs. He was concerned that the lack of
a national, regional or local program for shop windows would lead to a shopworn look
over time.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding truck hours, Mr. Pool
replied that they would probably be less than Safeway's. Kohl's had two or three
deliveries weekly, with the exception of the holiday season.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding the concrete, Mr. Pool
described the transition from colored concrete to the asphalt in that area.
Page 10 of 17",PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2013-05-13,5,"window schedule. She would like to see more visual interest in the vast spaces. She
agreed the color choices should be left to the homeowners, but still have some level of
consistency. She would like to see ideas for garden planting and landscaping together.
She agreed on places for sitting, and street lights pointing downward, and more share of
the street to bicycles and safety. She had a hard time with the fixtures in the
landscaping, and fitting into the neighborhoods, its a bit hodge-podge. She loved the fact
that landscaping is bay friendly.
Board member Knox White asked about the process.
Mr. Thomas stated he has prepared a list as they move forward for conditions and
approvals.
Board member Henneberry asked about the downward facing lighting and didn't this
Board approve that previously.
Mr. Thomas requested the Board adopt with the conditions being the Fifth Street
elevations coming back, and color palette. Additional conditions being made but not
coming back to the Board would be the HOA would not regulate colors, the Singleton
cross-section be amended, the affordable housing portion, on block D make the changes,
there is already a condition of approval on the lighting, bike parking, make sure benches
are incorporated, and downward lighting, and the windows for SFR have no sandwiched
grids. Specific issues on AS-1, AS-1.5, AS-1.1.7, more vertical variation in landscaping,
Street C is a private street, but will connect.
Board member Knox White requested specific changes to the bike lane being increased.
Mr. Thomas noted the change.
Vice President Burton commented adding a foot to the bike lane could add an additional
foot to the front yard on residences.
Mr. Thomas explained there is a 20' easement on the multi-use path on the western
boundary. He asked if the request is to make it 10' asphalt for bike path and 5' on each
side for landscape. The extra foot for bike can be from the landscape sides.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni asked if there was a window schedule would this make
the decision easier.
Board member Knox White agreed with Vice President Burton that it makes sense to add
the foot to the property owner's front yard setback.
Board member Knox White motioned to approve the Resolution as commented by staff
and the Board.
Board member Köster seconded the motion.
Motion carried 7-0.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 10
May 13, 2013",PlanningBoard/2013-05-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-03-03,17,"will review how much affordable housing will be included, to which the Project Manager
responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Project Manager stated staff and
UPP are committed to involving Council in the process.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is flexibility to focus and evaluate
Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) and move forward separately on the 200 APC
replacement units.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated a
phasing plan could be created to move APC units forward without the rest of the
neighborhood.
Expressed support for UPP; urged moving forward: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point
Collaborative.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the City should take advantage of spending tax dollars
that do not come from the General Fund; that he would to include a site planning
alternative that caps the number of units to what exists today and preserves the
neighborhood surrounding the big whites; the specific plan will be the foundation of how
the site is zoned and what is built.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is pleased Alameda received the MTC
Grant; staff intends to address sustainability issues in Main Street Specific Plan; she
loves the urban agriculture element of the plan; inquired how and when does the
Council offer input on development and evaluation of the alternatives; stated that she
would prefer a process similar to Site A; she is looking forward to seeing item go
forward.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is torn on the item; it would be ideal to put off more
housing until Site A moves further down the road and Council has opportunity to
evaluate traffic; on the other side, there are 200 substandard units that need to be
rebuilt and relocated; the housing has the same infrastructure issues as commercial
tenants at Alameda Point; that he likes the Vice Mayor's suggestions for site planning
alternatives; if the APC was not included in the project, he would not be voting on the
Main Street Plan tonight; he would like to see alternatives but does not want to hold up
the process.
Councilmember Daysog stated moving forward with the Main Street Plan helps APC
and is a vital part of Alameda Point; that he supports the staff proposal.
Mayor Spencer stated that she attended the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC)
meeting where attendants expressed the need for more affordable and below-market
rate housing; she would be willing to endure more traffic on the Island for affordable
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 3, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-10,27,"will get people to submit proposals; questioned what the timeline and process would be
if there are no applicants.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Matarrese's approach;
stated waterfront property is diminishing on the Island; Council has heard arguments for
more square footage for maritime uses; artist studios are permitted in other areas of the
property and around the City; throughout the City, uses that do not need to be on the
water are on the water, such as Recreational Vehicle (RV) storage; the developers can
request a modification; she disagrees with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion to
eliminate open space; she would like to keep the public open space along the Bay Trail;
she is excited about the project; discussed housing development; expressed support for
and discussed the 50/50 rental/for sale housing mix, the environmental aspect of the
project, and the RFP/RFQ process; stated the project opens the waterfront to all.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he thinks the project is exciting and was made better;
he would like page 49 to say at least 50% rental, instead of ownership; expressed
concern over modification being made by Councilmembers voting against an item.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern over housing ratios; stated that she does not want
an extra step slowing down housing; flexibility should be built in for where the market is
going to ensure the project comes to fruition; the project is going to be a win for the
maritime community, neighbors and future waterfront residents; there is intent to have a
modern, efficient boatyard; hopefully, community members will make the RFQ/RFP
successful; the project is an alternate way to fund necessary infrastructure, deals with
mid-century sea level rise and creates a funding mechanism for the future; hopefully,
the developer will continue to work with the City on traffic mitigation, such as additional
crossings; she is ready to support the project with the minor changes, including removal
of artist studio space in the commercial core.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella want to eliminate the housing
ratio to allow the market to decide, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded that she
understands there was a lot of discussion to have the ratio in the Plan.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the developer has to come back
to the Planning Board for all of the phases; the Planning Board could be given the
authority to adjust the ratio; the development process will take five to ten years and the
market will change.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he remains concerned about the lack of rental
housing.
Mayor Spencer stated that she wants the percentage included in the Plan; she supports
the 30% for workforce/middle-income housing, which is critical and was not achieved at
Site A; 50% should be for sale; she likes the mix; she would like to hear more on
Councilmember Matarrese's proposal to eliminate the green space.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-06,47,"will continue attempting to sell the tent; Mr. Geanekos might not be able to recoup the
costs.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what will happen should the costs be able to be
recovered.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded Council may request staff to draft a
provision to stagger the rent recovery provision outlined in option B should Jims on the
Course be able to sell back the event tent.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a provision to stagger rent recovery.
Expressed support for the third amendment; stated that he is excited to continue
partnering with the City to improve the golf course; city staff, Jim's on the Course and
Greenway Golf have worked hard to find a path forward that works for all parties; he
and Mr. Geanekos are committed to working together in a manner which is mutually
beneficial and in turn, benefits the City; having more food and beverage options at the
course will bring more patrons thus increasing business for both Greenway Golf and
Jim's on the Course; having expanded offerings will provide an opportunity to bring in
other Alameda food vendors during tournaments; the amendment will allow Greenway
Golf to bring larger tournaments to Corica Park; outlined a ranking of 12th best course
provided by Golf Magazine; discussed the annual golf tournament; stated having more
choices at Corica Park will enable the annual tournament to come home to the City's
golf course; discussed letters of support; stated that he hopes the amendment will allow
Greenway Golf to host bigger tournaments in the coming years; urged Council support
the amendment: Umesh Patel, Greenway Golf.
Discussed operations of locations; stated many first job opportunities are provided at
Jim's; the golf course has undergone many transformations since 2006 and the only
stable factor has been Jim's on the Course; prior to 2006, a food and beverage cart
provided limited service to golfers only; he has since invested large sums of money to
improve kitchen facilities and dining areas; the full service restaurant can serve
hundreds of customers per day; the revenues paid to the City since 2006 have
quadrupled to roughly $100,000 per year; Jim's has been a stable revenue stream to
the City with zero City investment; Jim's has done everything in its power to fulfil
contractual obligations to the City related to the events center; the City, Greenway Golf
and Jim's have come to an agreement to bring closure to the matter; Jim's has agreed
to relinquish a portion of the food and beverage exclusivity in exchange for contractual
stability and needed rent relief; urged Council bring the chapter to a final closure, and
vote for option B; discussed the event tent structure: Tom Geanekos, Jim's on the
Course.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the matter; stated the Golf Commission had unanimously
supported option B.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting option B for both
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-03-16,2,"will be used for the best interest of the golf patrons and staff of the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex. The schedule will be posted prior to each season;
November through March and April through October. The seasonal
schedule is subject to review annually. The number of marshals on staff
will vary depending on the needs of the business. Staffing will include a
cart attendant, a tee marshal for each course, and at least one (1) roving
marshal for each course. Volunteer marshals shall work six (6) hours each
week November through March. Volunteer marshals shall work eight (8)
hours each week April through October. Volunteer marshals shall sign the
Marshal Shift Log Book at the start and end of each scheduled shift.
Volunteer marshals shall make every attempt to arrive on time for their
scheduled shift. It is the responsibility of the marshal to find a suitable
replacement when on leave. The work activities will include monitoring
the pace of play: Monday through Friday tee times before 9:00am, the
round should be 4 hours or less, after 9:00am 4.5 hours or less. On
Saturday, Sunday and Holidays tee times before 8:00am, the round should
be 4 hours or less, 8:00am - 11:00am, 4.5 hours or less, and after 11:00am
5 hours or less. The marshal's are to record one (1) finishing time each
hour in the pace-of-play logbook and enforce CCGC golf course and
USGA rules book policies regarding safe play and etiquette. Volunteer
marshals shall receive the following Golf Complex benefits, playing
privileges, including cart usage, Monday through Friday anytime. On
Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays after 12:00pm and/or as business permits.
Playing privileges, including cart usage, will be allowed Saturday,
Sunday, and Holidays with a paid group. Mif Albright course and Driving
Range privileges anytime as business permits (Limit 1 bucket per day).
Employee food discounts during scheduled work shifts. (Approval of
L&H). A Pro shop discount of 20% on non-sale soft goods. Special
Orders cost plus 5% with prior management approval. The suggestion
was made to have a contract with the volunteers stating what is expected
of them and the benefits they are to receive. The Golf Commission
approved the revised Management Practice for Golf Complex Volunteer
Marshal Program unanimously.
3-B
Update on Golf Complex Clubhouse Capital Improvement Project (CIP).
The General Manager reported that he met with Acting City Manager, Bill Norton
yesterday to discuss the project. The General Manager brought the layouts that
Commissioner Wood prepared showing the Poplar Creek clubhouse design placed
over the footprint of the current clubhouse at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
The layout shows what the design would look like and how it would function at
the Complex. No definite price has been determined to purchase the Poplar Creek
clubhouse plans from the City of San Mateo. The General Manager also spoke
with the City of Alameda's Finance Director to discuss financing for the project
and a potential timeline. A local accountant, John Ritchie, will be updating the
golf complex financials and developing a business plan for the new clubhouse",GolfCommission/2005-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-04-20,19,"will be reconfigured along Atlantic Avenue near Clement Street that will travel down to Grand
Street; the designs expect that traffic will drop; staff has done a great job of explaining why
roundabouts are going to help traffic flow through the Central Avenue corridor; the roundabouts
will help to improve cut through traffic; expressed support for the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether maps showing an open Sherman Street are available.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the presentation includes
alternative designs; stated slide 31 shows different ways of providing access to Sherman Street;
staff has taken Council direction from 2016 as well as the Vision Zero policy and has come
forward with the safest alternative; staff has looked at a number of different ways to design the
roundabout at Sherman Street; the City does not currently have the money to build the
roundabout at Sherman Street; with the funding available, the City can currently build two of four
roundabouts; staff recommends building two roundabouts at the most dangerous locations first;
Council may have a discussion at a later time regarding the two other roundabouts.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the other roundabouts are considered safe in terms of
professional engineering standards.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the safest option is proposed;
stated the other options provided are safe, but not as safe as the one recommended; the worst
case scenario is to leave the intersection as-is.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the project has been before the Council a number of times and has
been through numerous renditions with public input and comment; there have been a number of
workshops on the matter with many designs; there is an eye specifically for safe multimodal
transit; the project is the embodiment for Vision Zero; if Council is serious about implementing
the policy, roads and infrastructure must be made safer for everyone, including pedestrians and
other modes of transit; the inclusion of roundabouts is important; outlined living in London and
the experience of bicycling through roundabouts; stated that she experiences more fear pushing
a stroller down Central Avenue than her time spent in London; Central Avenue is essentially a
freeway; the goal for the roundabouts is to calm traffic; roundabouts will reduce vehicle speed
and improve safety; expressed support for the recommendation; stated that she is proud of the
work being done; Council needs to value human life and safety; Council must support and
implement the project as presented.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is mostly behind the project and is fully behind Vision Zero;
she loves roundabouts and the Central Avenue project; expressed support for the roundabout at
Encinal High School; stated that she likes three of the four roundabouts; expressed concern
about the roundabout at Sherman Street; stated that she cannot support the closure of Sherman
Street; the intersection being closed had the lowest amount of accidents; the design shows
closure of the street as not possible due to the triangular parcel; questioned whether the City
could acquire more land in order to create a proper roundabout; expressed concern about
people using the two nearest parallel streets, which are next to a school, in the event of
Sherman Street closure; stated the Sherman Street roundabout is not ready for prime time; she
is ready to support the project without the Sherman Street closure; an extreme treatment for an
intersection that is unwarranted is not something that she can support.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has many concerns; expressed concern about
the lack of roundabout simulations; expressed support for consultants using simulations, not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
April 20, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,13,"will be provided; expressed support for the needs of the paratransit program
participants' being met.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded staff is providing a recommendation
for Eden Information and Referral, Inc. (Eden I&R) to provide a TNC concierge program;
stated Eden I&R will act as the third party provider that will book trips for community
members as well as providing monitoring and evaluation of trips; Eden I&R will help
users through the process from beginning to end; the program targets the most
vulnerable population; the program is replacing the former taxi subsidy program; the
program is risk-averse and is the right time to provide the service.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the work of Eden I&R.
Alison DeJung, Eden I&R, stated Eden I&R has been operating a similar TNC program
for the City of Hayward for a little over one year; most of the other cities in Alameda
County provide a similar program for profit called Go-Go Grandparent; the program is a
natural fit and provides the same callers with third party assistance and scheduling; the
approach is holistic; there are valid questions and concerns about liabilities with Lyft and
Uber; the City Attorney for the City of Hayward offered to connect with the City Attorney
for the City of Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not always had the best
experience in using Uber; she would like to know how the drivers are being vetted and
monitored; questioned whether there is a way to provide feedback from the consumer
after each ride if a bad ride is experienced; expressed concern about the term of the
contract.
Ms. DeJung responded the concern over the feedback loop has come up in City
Commission meetings; Eden I&R's goal for the transportation division is to implement a
more robust feedback loop from clients.
Lobsan Barrera, Eden I&R, stated the difference between Eden I&R and those using
Uber and Lyft on their own is the attention provided; the program provides extra security
for the client; the average pickup time in the transportation department is 12 seconds;
Eden I&R has special health accounts, which differ from normal accounts; Eden I&R is
only supplied with 4.0 out of 5.0 star rated drivers; any issues that occur during the ride
are reportable to Eden I&R by dialing 2-1-1; the issues are relayed to Uber and Lyft;
responses from Uber and Lyft are provided within 20 to 30 minutes; many success
stories over the year have been provided from the City of Hayward; Eden I&R staff does
not solely focus on patching rides, but also reviews and supervises the ride of each
client from beginning to end; any discrepancies or suspicious activities are revewied to
ensure and confirm the safety of riders.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated some jurisdictions do not use third party
providers and work directly with TNC's; staff is adding the extra layer of security for the
most vulnerable population.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
5",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-18,16,"will be difficult without management to oversee it; the immediate objective is to complete
the back-log of fire inspections; the bigger picture is that it will be harder to expand and
be fully functional without management.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the inspection fees are the same for a non-sworn and
sworn inspector, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is an independent analysis of other agencies
which indicate whether or not sworn or non-sworn positions is a good way of conducting
the inspections.
The City Manager responded the Human Resources Department contacted the other
cities; using non-sworn inspectors works for the City of Fremont, but they have a bigger
department; there are more factors which determine whether cities select sworn or non-
sworn inspectors.
The Fire Chief stated non-sworn Fire Inspectors do not have training or equipment and
cannot be sent to an emergency.
Mayor Spencer stated nine Fire Fighters live in Alameda, which is 10% of the total;
other cities require Fire Fighters to live in the city in which they work.
The City Attorney stated the resident status was a requirement in the past; the
requirement is not legal.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Manager stated Alameda does not
require Fire Fighters live in a close radius to the City; having such a requirement would
cut back on the quality of candidates.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is the difference in the estimated post-employment costs
of sworn versus non-sworn.
The Human Resources Director responded there is no additional cost; everything,
including benefits, is included in the total salaries.
Mayor Spencer stated additional revenue is estimated at $400,000 per year; inquired
where is the difference going to come from.
The City Manager responded $170,000 from the General Fund would make up the
difference.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there would be no encroachment into General Fund
with a non-sworn inspector, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Stated the matter should be part of a budget discussion; the City is facing pension costs
and retiree medical costs; if the matter is not addressed in this budget cycle, each city
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
April 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,2,"will be allowed to speak. The Board agreed on three minutes for each speaker.
Mr. Riddle stated that the City recently instituted the Sunshine Ordinance. One of the
provisions provides that for any item on the agenda, at the same time that the agenda is
provided, all documents given to the Board should also be made available to the public.
The ordinance is still in the process of being implemented and staff is still coming up to
speed on the issue. In this case, given the appellant process that is involved, that has not
happened. If anyone has an objection regarding documents given to the Board in less than
the seven days required they should raise their hand now, in which case it would be Mr.
Riddle's recommendation to the Board to continue this matter to such a time as seven
days have passed to review the documents. If there is not an objection, Mr. Riddle would
view this issue as the Board can proceed to hear the appeal.
Mr. Gossman stated that the Union has documentation for the Board to review. The Union
had previously contacted the Human Resources Department and requested information
and also listed some concerns that they have regarding the testing. As of today, the Union
has not received any written response from the City. There are eight questions, requests
for information from the City. Mr. Gossman has received three answers; test scores, how
long the list would stay open, and the rankings of the list. There is some information, he
still has not received from the City regarding the request from over three weeks ago.
Mr. Riddle stated that if Mr. Gossman would like to explain that information to the Board
and if the Board believes that he should have that information and that they (Board) would
like to have that information, then the Board can make that decision.
Mr. Riddle stated that there are documents that are already in existence and have either
been provided to the Board or will be provided tonight and whether or not folks have an
objection to that happening tonight rather than 7 days ago. If you do, then he recommends
that the Board continue the matter to ensure full compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance if
anyone here objects to that happening. The City is also providing information this evening
as well as the appellants which may contain some of the information that Mr. Gossman is
asking for.
City Attorney Kern stated that what we have to discuss tonight and additional information
the City is willing to present to the Board, the Union Representative, and the public as well.
We can go forward on that basis and the City has no objection. The appeal that has been
filed was not included in the packet that was to be made available publicly seven days in
advance, did not happen. The City is comfortable with moving forward, having the Board
hear it, and providing additional information that has been put together and subsequently,
sharing the information with everyone. If the Board feels that they need more time to look
at it or want us to provide additional information then of course the Board can order us to
do that. The point here is whether we move forward just for the Sunshine Ordinance and
whether we were comfortable that there was adequate noticing of this meeting so that we
can move forward.
Mr. Riddle stated that for clarification the agenda was sufficient and was posted in time.
Page -2-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,8,"will accommodate 6th through 8th graders. She recently has taken on the principal position at
Encinal High School, but she is not new to administration. Her goal as an instructional leader is
to keep students, staff and families safe. There are 1,100 students and they share the campus
with a charter school. Whenever possible, she is outside to help youth cross the street along with
two other administrators. At this point, her community needs help and there is an active parent
and the Police Department has stepped up to support the cause. Yet, there is only one resource
officer that is assigned to the youth and the officer has other duties within the City. She
explained that Mr. Juhala has a very clear plan, and she would like the Commission to consider
his thoughts. She also explained that she has worked with Staff Payne and corresponded
frequently with her by email. Since starting at Encinal High School, what worries her is the fact
that she has sent three electronic alerts to families about students being struck by vehicles.
Commissioner Vargas explained that staff received a ten-page document proposal authored by
Mr. Juhala.
Jerry Juhala is the parent of an Encinal High School student and since October 2012 he
volunteers as a crossing guard. He felt that the biggest issue was the congestion caused by cars
entering into the school and the backup of vehicles trying to turn left onto Third Street from the
east and westbound directions of Central Avenue. He mentioned that the City's plans to include
an additional painted line in the crosswalks and the street divider was a good idea. However, the
City's plan to include wheel stops and paint on the southwest corner will only increase
congestion in the area since cars will not be able to get around a driver who wants to turn left
onto Third Street. Additionally, he believed the City's decision to include a painted island near
Taylor Avenue will back up cars heading towards the school as westbound drivers now have less
space when trying to turn left or right onto Third Street. Thus, he came up with five alternative
options which include: 1) make a dedicated left turn lane from westbound Central Avenue onto
Third Street; 2) create a permanent barrier to block traffic from entering and exiting Taylor
Avenue; 3) combine alternative 1 and alternative 2; 4) do not allow left hand turns onto Third
Street going north from Central Avenue, which would be coming from the school; and 5) create a
right turn only lane on Taylor Avenue.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if they looked into Mr. Juhala's suggestions.
Staff Naclerio replied he reviewed his comments and suggestions. At this point, staff is trying to
create a quick interim solution to address the current problem. He believed the solutions
proposed are viable and the next steps would be to meet with the community at large and the
school. He suggested the Commission move ahead with staff recommendations because traffic
must be calmed within the intersection and staff's goal was to queue vehicles to slow them down.
Commissioner Vargas asked Principal Brown Garcia if the City's proposal might create
additional safety issues or changes to the drop off locations.
Roxanne Brown Garcia replied the options made by Jerry are the most viable for them. She
understands the City has limitations, but she would like City staff to meet with her stakeholder
groups and discuss options that work for everyone involved.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,8,"wiggle room in case a problem arises; inquired whether a 15%
contingency is adequate.
The Development Services Director responded staff recommends
reducing the contingency to 5% for the garage and 13% for the
theater ; stated $250,000 has been budgeted for soil conditions;
testing has been done; she hopes to add back the contingency after
construction has started; she feels adequately protected.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated $5 million was to be set
aside for the catalyst Webster Street project; the money is out of
the budget now; inquired how the project would be funded.
The Development Services Director responded there are a number of
ideas for funding the project; stated $13.5 million was raised to
retire the Marina Village infrastructure obligations; the Marina
Village project had a repayment of $2.5 million to the General Fund
load; $2 million was given to the Library Project another $2
million has been used in the operation of the theater project;
staff has requested that the $1 million coming back from the
Library project be distributed back to the theater project; other
opportunities include replacing cash reserves and renegotiating the
Catellus Project which has uncommitted tax increment and land
proceeds.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the West End
generated all the bond funding.
The Development Services Director responded 48% came from Business
Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) and 52% came from the West
End.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog moved approval of directing
further analysis of Scheme 2.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated various schemes were
revisited because other options needed to be reviewed; the schemes
need to be revisited in case the City is unable to value engineer
the project back in line; possible cost savings are obvious and
provide for more leeway in case there is a problem.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog and deHaan -
2. Noes : Councilmembers/Commissioners Gilmore and Matarrese and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 3.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
8
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-12-14,6,"wider travel lanes. Fernside Blvd. has seven to eight foot bike lanes since it has the space. It
depends on the user and needs of the road. It is why we call these guidelines because staff needs
to use judgment based on the street conditions. We do not allow less than eight feet for parking
lanes. The streets are mostly 36 feet, which means two ten feet travel lanes and two eight foot
parking lanes. We want to maintain at least eight feet of parking lane and see where we can
increase the bike lane width.
Commissioner Bertken questioned if the guidelines will go to the Planning Board. He asked
about having a public hearing on the guidelines. Once the City Council adopts the guidelines,
then the staff follows the guidelines. Some items affect properties and developers.
Staff Khan replied that the entire document will go to the Planning Board. The TC is a public
hearing because this meeting is following all the rules of a public meeting.
Commissioner Bertken - Usually the usual routine is to announce it as a public hearing.
Commissioner Moehring - BikeAlameda has discussed this document as a larger group even
though only a few representatives are attending the meeting this evening. Obaid said that he
would take the TC member recommendations to the next level.
Commissioner Bertken - He expressed concern that the meeting does not quite cover the
ordinance details.
Staff Khan replied that some portions of the guidelines will become an ordinance such as parking
ratios and those items would be separately dealt with at the Planning Board or the City Council.
Commissioner Bertken - He wanted to know which pieces would be subject to the City Council
and would have more detailed review.
Staff Khan will announce the date of the Planning Board meeting. Two different actions will be
taken by the City Council - to approve the guidelines and to adopt City ordinances on specific
items in the guidelines for parking and shower requirements.
Commissioner Moehring - She wanted to know if the TC members will be making a
recommendation to accept the guidelines.
Commissioner Vargas - He is fine with providing input over the next few months.
Commissioner Bertken - He wanted to know if this document will come back to the TC in a
revised form.
Staff Khan - He stated that staff could bring it back as a second draft.
Commissioner Moehring - She stated that staff should bring back a second draft redlined copy at
the January meeting.
Page 6 of 9",TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-11-21,13,"why there have been changes in the crime rate.
The Police Chief stated the data should include the month of December to have the full
year of 2017 included.
The City Manager stated the matter could be on second meeting in January.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS CONTINUED
(17-697) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee
Resolution No. 12191 to Add New and Revise Existing Recreation and Park Fees.
Continued to December 5, 2017.
(17-698) Public Hearing to Consider: Amendments to the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plans for Fiscal Years 2010-2011 through 2016-2017;
Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents,
Agreements, and Modifications; and
(17-698A) Resolution No. 15324, ""Amending Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 CDBG Fund
Budget to Include Prior Fiscal Year Unspent Entitlement and Program Income
Allocations."" Adopted.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the funds were unspent.
The Community Development Director responded more income was received in Fiscal
Year 2016-17 than projected.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where the extra income is from.
The Community Development Director responded from the repayment of the revolving
loans; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired about the use of the ranch house at 2815 San Diego Road.
The Community Development Director responded transitional housing for refugees;
continued the presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the use of 2815 San Diego Road is
direction from a referral, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the definition of refugees is; stated that she thought
Council's request is for immigrant housing, not refugees.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 21, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-21.pdf
GolfCommission,2006-05-17,4,"why the Chuck Corica Golf Complex is building a new clubhouse when
the golf courses are in need of so much drainage improvement. The
General Manager reported that he has contacted Kyle Phillips, the world-
renowned golf course architect who worked on the Alameda Point project,
to set up a meeting to discuss areas of the golf courses that can be
redesigned to help the drainage. The idea is to put together a long-term
improvement plan for the drainage problems on the courses and get some
insight for a scope of work.
5-D
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,
Commissioner Sullwold.
Vice Chair Wood mentioned that the mats at the Driving Range are in
need of more rubber tees.
5-E
City Council and Government Liaison, Commissioner Swanson.
No report given.
5-F
Front Entrance Beautification Project, Vice Chair Wood.
Vice Chair Wood reported that he met with a structural engineer regarding
the Fire Tower building at the front entrance of the Chuck Corica Golf
Complex. The engineer came up with an estimated weight for the
structure and stated that there was no problem holding up the building or
even adding additional weight. The main concern would be seismic
issues. Vice Chair Wood also reported that he had met with Karl
Danielson of The Dahlin Group to discuss what could be done to improve
the tower. The General Manager stated that the contract with Dahlin has
been approved and signed and they should be working on the cost
estimates. When the cost estimates are completed they will be brought to
the Golf Commission along with the financing package and proposed fee
increases for approval. Vice Chair Wood also stated that the City of San
Mateo should have a lot of background information regarding the
construction of their clubhouse, including price and any add alternatives.
The General Manager stated that the City of Alameda has not yet
purchased the plans for the clubhouse from the City of San Mateo and
once that is done all of the other information will be included.
5-G
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course.
The General Manager stated that Erik Alterman has been hired as the new
Manager for the restaurant.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)
Page 4 of 5",GolfCommission/2006-05-17.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
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,8,"whole framework comes into place they would be able to provide a solution for everyone.
Eric Schatmeier spoke as an Alameda resident and said he was in opposition to the staff proposal
for three reasons: 1. The plan is inconsistent with the three elements the Commission specified
should be a requirement for approval for any future plan; 2. The plan is technically flawed and
incomplete and 3. He felt the plan was developed in a vacuum. He explained that in the proposal
staff focused on one of the three elements included in endorsing the last plan and he wanted to
emphasis the other two, which are maintenance and growth of ferry ridership and the provision
of adequate parking at the ferry terminal. He felt if the plan is implemented in January 2017 as
proposed there is a real danger of reversing ridership gains the ferry has achieved and pushing
usage down that would result in eliminating 100 daily parking opportunities and then charging a
fee for the few scarce spaces that would be left. He said the fee represents $40 to $80 per month
added to regular ferry fares that are already higher than comparable BART and AC Transbay bus
fares. He explained that he did not know of any demand modeling that would not predict the loss
of ridership because of raising the fare 20-40%. The staff report explained that parking charges
encouraged customers to look for alternative ways to get to the ferry station, but analysis,
ridership surveys or demand modeling did not back up this assertion. Also, he said the plan does
include what ferry customers who do drive would be willing to pay to park, what will result
when various fee levels are implemented, or if there is a contingency plan to determine what the
City and WETA would do to get ferry riders back if the program is scrapped because it failed.
He stated that the Commission did not approve a principal that said provide adequate parking or
shuttle services. The Commission focused on parking because the unfortunate reality is that
shuttle services are not adequate alternatives. He provided a press release from Marin County
where Golden Gate Transit under pressure of exploding ferry ridership implemented the Wave
Shuttle service to meet peak period boats. The article said two of the three routes were being
discontinued because of low ridership. He pointed out that the Golden Gate Ferry boats are
double the size of Alameda's boats and run almost triple of the frequency, so how could the
shuttle service work in Alameda. He said as a user of transportation he would love to get people
to use public transit for their entire work trip, but many will not and if commuters opt to give half
their trip to public transit than he called that a win. He felt the plan was devoid of details
regarding the number of shuttle vehicles that would be deployed, how many motorists could park
at the satellite parking areas, what capital resources would be available and how the parking
charges would cover parts of the plan's costs. Furthermore, he said with the issue of planning in
a vacuum the plan involves multiple constituencies, but the plan ignores ferry riders who should
be part of the conversation. He believed the riders may react negatively and vent their anger at a
public meeting or they will quit riding the ferry altogether. Ultimately, he felt the plan as
implemented and written would be counterproductive to the City and state's transportation goals
and the Commission should insist on something better.
Kevin Connolly thanked Jennifer Ott and Liam Garland for their hard work on this piece of
planning. He emphasized that this plan is currently in the concept phase and the devil is in the
details and he acknowledged the HOAs and their work. He explained that ridership is booming
and a person not getting in their car to commute is a positive thing. He expected initially that
ridership may flatten or reduce and there will be some short-term pain, but the activity is not
sustainable and impacts the surrounding neighborhoods. He said alternative options are
necessary and building structure garages is not an option, but satellite parking is potentially an
option that must be paired with shuttle service. He explained that WETA ferry service operates
Page 8 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,17,"who were qualified to take the test. Or, would all of that be involved. City Attorney Kern
stated that what Mr. Riddle was trying to explain is that the City Council as the legislative
body decided to do this reclassification and restructuring. Then there is a testing process
and what is being appealed is whether this testing process was set up fairly and
administered fairly.
Mr. Peterson stated that it could not be fair if two people did not qualify to take the test.
City Attorney Kern stated that is part of the administration but the idea is not for this Board
to go through and look at all of the applications and decide who they would have chosen.
Mr. Peterson stated that he is not saying that, he is saying that two of them should not have
been allowed to take the test because they did not have the qualifications. City Attorney
Kern stated she hears what Mr. Peterson is saying so they can look at
Mr.
Peterson stated that is a fact
City Attorney Kern stated apparently there was a Human Resources review, there was a
supplemental question review, and the oral review and through all of those they apparently
determined that the people met the minimum qualifications. Mr. Peterson stated apparently
someone did not do their job. Apparently does not cut it.
City Attorney Kern stated she does not have the applications in front of her. President
Peeler stated sir, (Mr. Peterson), the Board is not arguing whether he is right or wrong.
If
the Board decides to investigate all of that would be included and asked Mr. Peterson to let
the Board continue.
Mr. Tsang asked who would do the investigation. City Attorney Kern stated the City
Attorney's Office would hire a third party, someone from the outside. Mr. Tsang asked if
they (City Attorney) would be paying them. Ms. Kern stated yes.
Ms. Blumkin stated that they heard the first time was going to be a fair process. You were
going to go outside and that did not happen, so how can we trust that they will not do it
again.
City Attorney Kern stated that it is up to the Board. She is the City Attorney with the City
Attorney's Office and we
Ms. Blumkin stated she is trying to save their jobs.
City Attorney Kern stated she was not trying to save anybody's job. The City Attorney's
Office would be willing, because they have attorney client privilege, be willing to hire
someone outside who would, independently of any direction from her office, go and talk to
the people and come back and report to the Board on how the process went forward. It is
not up to the public group to decide, it is up to the Civil Service Board to decide.
Mr. Peterson stated that they need to tell the Board what they think. City Attorney Kern
stated they can tell the Board what they think but let's let one person speak at a time.
City Attorney Kern stated that if the Board would find this useful she is willing to do it. The
Page -17-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,48,"who live in my old neighborhood on and near Crist Street. Those that spoke
primarily in opposition to having the playground were residents living in the
immediate vicinity of the park, residents living within the 300' radius the city
designates as the neighborhood needing to give approval. So, not all who spoke
were from the immediate neighborhood (within the 300' radius), and many were
from outside the immediate neighborhood, thus giving an inaccurate appraisal of
the situation. I have printed out an updated map of Jackson Park and its
surrounding residential neighborhood showing those residences opposed to having
a playground built in the park. This map illustrates the overwhelming opposition
this neighborhood has to the addition of a playground in Jackson Park.
I addition I am including a copy of the Conceptual Master Plan of Jackson Park,
drawn up twenty years ago, in hopes that the city would see fit to implement some
of the improvements included in this plan, as well as seeing to much needed
deferred maintenance this park sorely needs.",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.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,2016-11-01,7,"which would impede the City's ability to move forward with the Site A development; the
City would have to buy Pacific Pinball Museum out of the year left on their lease; staff
believes the proposal is the right thing to do under the circumstances.
Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais.
The Base Reuse Director stated there is not a lot of leverage when the tenant has a
legal right to stay in a building and the City needs them to move to facilitate
construction; the project gives the City more per square foot than before for a larger
space; there were no users interested in the property; the lease can be terminated after
a year.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Pacific Pinball Museum has twelve months left on the
current lease, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
City will be earning five times more than before.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City can unilaterally terminate the lease after one
year, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated with 90
days' notice.
Mayor Spencer stated the information was not in the report; in the future, including the
information is important to keep the public informed.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he will support the project due to the fact that the
lease can be terminated in one year; he understands the predicament the City is in; the
lease is in the best interest of the City.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is any other tenant currently interested in
the location, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the negative.
Mayor Spencer stated that she will support the lease; the City needs to ensure people
are aware that the lease can be terminated after one year.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to be consistent in the policies and
not using buildings for large displays and uses that create minimal employment
opportunities; she is willing to support the lease.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.]
The item was re-opened after the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan [paragraph
no. 16-571]. .
(16-571) Provide Comments on the Draft Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan for
Alameda Point.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,3,"which would come from the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). This has been
identified as a priority at the county level; the next step is to compete for funds at the state level.
Alameda stakeholders have indicated that two of their high priorities are the horseshoe access
ramp onto northbound I-880 and direct access onto southbound I-880.
Commissioner McFarland asked if there is a weave problem at the proposed off-ramp on
northbound I-880 and the existing on-ramp getting onto I-980.
Staff Hawkins answered that the weave distance was evaluated and is not a problem.
Staff Hawkins stated that we will need to weigh congestion relief benefits against the estimated
costs, and this will impact on project phasing.
Commissioner McFarland asked what environmental document is required.
Staff Hawkins answered that the next step would be the environmental analysis and the project
study report, if we go forward with all the project elements. Hopefully this could be done in two
years.
Commissioner Parker asked about the direct route from I-880 down toward the Broadway on-
ramp, how that relates to the existing Jackson Street ramp, and whether it is possible to use the
existing ramp to access the tubes.
Staff Hawkins stated that using the Jackson Street exit would require drivers to travel through the
produce district to get to the tube. They tried to have direct access from the Jackson Street ramp
into the tubes, but that would have precluded access to Jack London Square or Chinatown.
Commissioner Krueger asked if AC Transit is involved in any of these discussions, as the
transbay buses would be impacted, as well local buses on Broadway.
Staff Hawkins said that the analysis has accounted for the required turning radii of the buses, but
that AC Transit has not been actively involved in discussions of the design. The study team has
talked about identifying queue jump lanes to enhance access to the Webster tube.
Staff Hawkins agreed that it is a good time to involve AC Transit in the project discussions.
Public Comment Opened
Melody Marr from the Alameda Chamber of Commerce asked who the stakeholders are for the
project.
Staff Hawkins responded that the stakeholders included City of Alameda, City of Oakland,
Caltrans, Port of Oakland, Chinatown, West Alameda Business Association, Signature Properties
(which has a project in Oakland), Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority
3",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-04-23,10,"which would be detrimental to the shopping center; Safeway agreed with that assessment
as well. They believed the plan has progressed well, and acknowledged their effort to add
the sidewalk.
Mr. Bill Smith, 724 Central #9, noted that he had spent 20 years redesigning bicycles,
and continued to work on alternative vehicles. He discussed charging stations for electric
bikes and automobiles.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the applicant for their decision not to sell
alcohol at the gas station. She appreciated the support of the east-west sidewalk. She did
not believe the gas station for South Shore Center should be supersized, and noted that
the previous gas station had fewer pumping sites. She noted that it was also busier, and
meant more cars in the shopping center. She proposed that there be no more than 12
fueling stations with six pumps, and she liked the biodiesel proposal. She noted that the
Dublin station had 12 fueling positions, and that there were usually fewer than three cars
waiting to fuel. She inquired whether the hours for refueling from the big tanker trucks
could be limited to off-peak hours, and whether the station should be a 24/7 station. She
agreed with Mr. McKay's suggestion in his email that any light generated should be
designed so it did not adversely impact the adjacent neighbors, and that additional
landscaping should be added along the Otis Drive side of the lagoon to further shield
neighbors on the other side of the lagoon.
Board member McNamara noted that she had used the Dublin Safeway fuel center often,
and enjoyed the orderly flow of traffic, which was a one-way flow. She remembered the
gas lines of the 1970s, and noted that similar events may negatively impact the
surrounding streets; she inquired how long the monitoring would continue. She added
that traffic queuing was a serious concern for her. With respect to the emails on lighting
impacts sent by residents of Laurel and Powell, she would like to know which
landscaping view would be supported. Mr. Garrison explained the perspectives and scale
of the illustrations. Mr. Thomas noted that the preliminary landscaping plan was on page
PL-1, which was more reliable and specific than the perspective illustrations.
A discussion of the photometric plan ensued.
Board member McNamara expressed concern about the refueling times, and inquired
about the anticipated refueling timeframe. Mr. Garrison replied that the CEQA document
noted that truck deliveries were generally prohibited during the late night hours by the
AMC (11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). He noted that the specific truck delivery times had not
been identified.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the applicant be asked whether they would be willing to limit
truck deliveries to early morning hours.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 23, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.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
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,14,"which were responsive to the PRA request that were not produced prior to the complaint;
she would add that the Commission makes no findings whether there was a violation of
the PRA with respect to producing records from a Councilmember's personal account on
the basis that, with the evidence presented, the City took steps to obtain the records but
ultimately no analysis was able to be conducted as to whether there were any public
records.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Vice Chair LoPilato stated the reason the motion is
not concise is that the Commission needs to write the reason of decision statement, which
should include all the basis for the findings; it can be a tighter motion, but the Chief
Assistant City Attorney needs sufficient basis for the decision.
Vice Chair LoPilato moved approval of sustaining the complaint on the basis of the
violation that the City failed to produce records from the Agency Nextdoor account.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry regarding the cure and correct, Vice Chair LoPilato
stated the Commission could address recommendations on both issues; suggested
seeing if there is consensus on the sustained part first.
Chair Tilos stated he would be agreeable without a cure and correct.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she thinks there is a very specific cure and correct the
Commission could issue with respect to the finding; the cure and correct can be discussed
after everyone is aligned with the finding.
Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call
vote: Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Montgomery: Aye; Reid: Aye; Chair Tilos:
Aye. Ayes: 5.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated to ensure the scope is narrow and case law is not being
manufactured, a reference should be made that the City Attorney's office referred to a
record produced on October 28th; the Commission relying on that as opposed to the
Commission making an independent finding of law as to whether or not it was a record is
significant; further recommended that the City consider maintaining an index that is
accessible to the City Clerk and City Attorney's offices of all social media accounts
maintained as an official communications channel of the City; stated the City should
evaluate whether comments should be disabled on the City account, as comments could
increase the likelihood of a Brown Act violation on a platform which appears not to be
carefully monitored by the City.
Chair Tilos concurred with Vice Chair LoPilato's statements and recommendations
Vice Chair LoPilato stated the Commission could offer up Recommendation 1 to be
included with the decision; separately, the Commission should consider practical training
that might be useful for Board members and Councilmembers, which could be done
through the implementation report and is an action the Commission should take to
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
14",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,6,"which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated that he did not want to shop
for a boat before receiving approval to accept the grant funding.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether accepting the grant funding requires the City to pay
the difference in cost at some point, to which the Police Chief responded in the
affirmative; stated the difference would have to come from the General Fund or
additional grant funds could be sought.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Council is being asked to approve a range, to
which the Police Chief responded in the negative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether an open ended dollar range may come back to Council
at some point.
The Police Chief responded the purchase would have to come back to Council.
The City Manager stated if the boat costs $90,000, the State would pay $80,000 and the
City would pay $10,000.
Mayor Spencer inquired why the report does not include an estimate for the cost of the
boat.
The Police Chief responded that he did not want to shop for a boat until the grant was
approved; stated a boat could not be purchased without the grant.
The City Manager stated the Police Chief will go shopping after he receives acceptance
from the State; the transaction is not completed until the matter returns to Council to
approve the amount above $80,000; if the Council does not authorize spending the
funds, the City would walk away from the grant.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City is not committing to the difference, to which
the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Submitted a letter; stated a coalition was formed to clean up dilapidated boats;
approximately $8 million was spent on the cleanup; agencies involved made it clear
maintaining the estuary would fall on the cities; the County opined that the estuary is the
responsibility of Alameda and Oakland; expressed support for purchase of a boat that
can operate in various weather conditions: Brock de Lappe, Alameda Marina.
Expressed support for the grant: Mark Omel, Ballena Isle Marina.
Stated what was cleaned up is starting to creep back; getting a boat is urgent; boats
floating around involve criminal elements: Chris McKay, Oakland Marina.
Stated the police operations in the estuary are highly important; enforcement
responsibility appears to fall on the Police Department; urged approval: Tom Charron,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,4,"which the Planning and Building Director responded in the
affirmative.
The Planner III stated concerns were raised about the height of
Building 300; the Applicant redesigned Building 300 to lower the
height; concerns were that Building 500 was plain and did not have
some of the architectural details of the other renovated buildings;
the Applicant added murals along the center courtyard as well as
additional windows, trellises and landscaping; the changes were
well accepted by the Planning Board; one of the Planning Board
members who voted against the project in November voted for the
project in December.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Opponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Dorothy Reid, Alameda; Tim
Erway, Alameda; Holly Sellers, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,12,"which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
units are part of an affordable project.
The Development Manager stated any affordable housing helps keep people housed
and prevent homelessness, which is a key part of the Plan.
Ms. Wehrman stated a list was not created; action steps are to complete analysis;
regarding locations, proximity to amenities is included for housing sites.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated lists being presented should be clear to the
public; data related to Alameda's unhoused population is useful; questioned whether the
goals are related to Alameda or would be recommended for any city; stated that she
would like to spend more time on what the goals mean for Alameda; everyone supports
the first goal, but she needs to know what it looks like and how it is going to apply to
Alameda; the Plan is very general and should include more specific asks; she is
concerned about providing housing and services that is based on the data; the goals
are vague; Council should be weighing in and making decision about specific
properties; inquired what Council is being asked to approve.
The Community Development Director stated staff has been exploring specific projects,
including scattered sites, emergency transitional housing, the bottle parcel and the
Marina Village Inn, and will come to Council in the near future; staff is gearing up for
Homekey project and funds; a provider has to be selected; the City needs a partner to
do the projects.
The Economic Development Manager stated the specific action steps included in the
Plan are generalized; staff will return with more specifics.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is a Housing Authority in Alameda;
inquired whether the City is creating its own Housing Department, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated State and County
funding is available to the City; staff is looking at opportunities available to the City.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Housing Authority used to be part of the
City and really still is since the Board is selected by Council; the Housing Authority was
separated to make it more efficient, able to apply for grants, streamline processes and
end up with more money available for the cause; she would like the Plan to include
working with the Housing Authority; she supports the Housing Authority; she has
concerns about staff duplicating efforts; there should be increased conversations with
the Housing Authority to ensure as much money as possible goes to the cause; there
should not be more City Hall staff as opposed to the Housing Authority, which provides
the same service; her preference would be for the City to work with the Housing
Authority.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the objective is to have broad goals for staff to follow while
exploring different solutions to the problems; issues, such as housing, do not have a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
11",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-07-12,13,"which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the items are related but
not bound.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the City would continue to have an operational golf
course with 45 holes while the [Harbor Bay] project goes through the regulatory
process, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many votes are required under the Charter since
the proposal involves a land transfer.
The City Attorney responded a written memorandum on the matter would be provided.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the clarification would be provided prior to
September, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager noted the direction tonight only requires three votes; it may be that
the land transfer may require four votes depending on the reading of the Charter.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the vote tonight does not bind the City to anything
other than directing staff to go forward and negotiate, to which the City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Councilmember
deHaan - 1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:29 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
13
July 12, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-07-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-06-19,11,"which the City Clerk responded one day.
Vice Mayor Vella stated drafting an argument should be done publicly; the goal is to have
all Councilmembers put out something that is united.
The City Clerk stated the subcommittee could have more time if a special meeting is
scheduled and the agenda would not have to be published until July 3rd.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the point is the published document might not be the final draft;
this is Council's ordinance that is being challenged; she is fine with the process.
The City Clerk stated if Council authors a rebuttal argument, it will not have the same
luxury of coming back at a regular meeting; a decision would have to be made regarding
the rebuttal.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the decision on a rebuttal argument could be resolved
at the July 10th meeting, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated he is fine with having a special meeting to give more time,
but he will not volunteer to be on the subcommittee; who will sign the argument should
be decided today.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, Mayor Spencer stated that she does not intend
to sign anything until she can review the language; she was not given the same
opportunity last time.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Matarrese and Vice Mayor Vella
would be a great team.
Councilmember Matarrese and Vice Mayor Vella agreed to be on the subcommittee.
Stated that she is happy that Council would write an argument; a number of laws are
changing at the State level; discussed the need for data collection: Catherine Pauling,
Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of directing the subcommittee to draft a
ballot argument in opposition; inquired whether the subcommittee would also draft the
rebuttal.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he is fine with drafting the rebuttal; Councilmembers do
not have to sign the argument if they do not like it.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Councilmembers would have the first right of
refusal to sign both, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City Clerk could lay out the structure and notify
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 19, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-02,4,"which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is currently an existing plan for what will be built.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 2, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-01-02,5,"which the Acting City Planner responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager stated the amount was not cumulative because the City has a
certified Housing Element. 2,400 units plus an additional 1,500 to 1,700 units would
have been required if the Housing Element had failed to pass; the Housing Element is
five years late; even if 2,400 units are not built, the amount goes down to 1,700.
Councilmember Chen inquired how the City would have future developers comply with
capacity requirements.
The City Manager responded the limit will probably not be reached in the next 12 to 18
months; the City will receive the deeds for Alameda Point, which has additional land that
can be designated for housing; the City does not control financing, markets, demand
and macroeconomics.
Following Mr. Spangler's comments, Councilmember Daysog stated Alameda needs to
move forward with the Housing Element; encouraged embracing non-Measure A
compliant multi-family housing; stated the project should not get caught in the crossfires
of the East Bay Regional Park issue.
Councilmember Tam stated the project provides a balance of affordable housing in an
era without redevelopment funding; to penalize the site for the actions that the East Bay
Regional Park District has taken to undermine the Housing Element is not appropriate.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
[Absent: Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.]
*
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 8:12 p.m. and returned at 8:15 p.m.
(13-008) Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Housing and Community
Development Needs Statement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Annual Plan for FY 13-14.
The Community Development Program Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Stated the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) recommends all funding be
given to safety net services: Cyndy Wasko, SSHRB.
Outlined services provided by the Family Violence Law Center and urged Council to
consider funding the Center: Elena Ortiz, Family Violence Law Center.
Thanked the City for supporting the Alameda Food Bank: Anna Crane and Hank
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 2, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,14,"which the Acting City Manager responded the meeting would be very late.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about a date shortly thereafter, the Acting City
Manager responded March 1st is the next meeting.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the matter could be added to the March ARRA night, to
which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that she would
check to see if Kemper is available.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a special meeting could be held, to which the Acting
City Manager responded Council could be polled.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether February 16th would work.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Clerk could poll for February 16th
Councilmembers indicated availability.
Mayor Gilmore stated the preferred date is February 16th; March 2nd would be the
alternate date depending on Kemper's availability.
Mr. Van Winkle inquired whether Wadsworth's attendance could be considered since
the company is a critical member of moving forward.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding a reason to do so, Mr. Van Winkle
stated Wadsworth is going to advise Junior Golf how it will work, including renovation;
renovation plans need to work together; waiting until March 2nd might allow Wadsworth
to attend.
Mayor Gilmore stated Wadsworth could be invited either date.
Councilmember Tam suggested Mr. Van Winkle share the plans with Wadsworth.
Mayor Gilmore stated the Council direction is to bring the matter back on February 16th
or March 2nd
Ms. Sullwold inquired whether she could request that information on the Kemper
proposal be provided to the Golf Commission, to which Mayor Gilmore responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether more direction could be given on the
information that would be provided back; that he is not sure everyone wants to go said
direction, but both options [27 and 36 holes] should be reviewed; data would be
provided to the Golf Commission; that he would like to understand what will happen to
the other 9 holes if the 27 hole option is chosen; he wants to know costs and needs to
understand water runoff; he wants said feedback at the next meeting.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2014-05-27,3,"which should be required. She asked about Phasing. She liked the Pubic Art
presentation. She wanted to know where the low-income units will be. She further
wanted sea level rise be addressed with this development.
Mr. Thomas stated the phasing will be all built within a year. This site will be above the
flood plain even with sea level rise, and this is a condition of approval.
Board member Knox White commented on the Universal Design units needing kitchens,
there are two designs but seems this could be better designed. In multifamily units the
parking issues need to be addressed and connect with the Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan. He thought the buildings could vary more across the seven
designs, and some look identical and are side-by-side.
President Burton agreed the Universal Design issue could be looked at more closely, but
wasn't sure how much could be done. He suggested looking at a parking solution. He
commented on the site level where the fire access is a bike and pedestrian connection, but
looking at the plan its stated as only turf-block. The streetscape is odd with a clumping of
trees, and asked if this was intentional. The multifamily housing has a wedge on the plan,
and he doesn't understand what is going on there, and looked like individual units are
prominent but wants to see an overall sense of a building. He asked if there are any
setbacks in the windows, and the three different types of siding were questioned. He
further asked about elevations throughout the project.
Mr. Thomas commented on the multifamily buildings, and the ones facing the water, and
the flow of building design with the Del Monte development.
President Burton requested the design come back to the Board.
Ms. Kathleen Livermore, City Staff, talked about the ground floor accessibility for the
additional 24 units in the development, and commented that If kitchens are added
downstairs, a parking space per unit will need to be omitted.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni stated aging in place suggests all living space at the
ground floor level, kitchen, bath and bedroom, or a lift in the building. Having a kitchen on
the second floor doesn't help the first floor living space.
Mr. Thomas stated that staff will go back to Lennar and the architect, he also read the
2012 Resolution approved by Council. He stated the concept was accommodating the
disabled buyer.
Board member Zuppan stated this includes doors and grab bars, and not just an option at
buying, but for people aging in place.
Board member Knox White motioned to continue the item.
Board member Zuppan seconded.
Motioned carried, 5-0
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 5
May 27, , 2014",PlanningBoard/2014-05-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,9,"which probably would not be feasible South San Francisco and
Berkeley are new ferry services.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether existing service is a focus
of the WTA.
Mr. Castleberry responded the WTA does not have any authority over
Alameda services; the WTA's only legislative mandate is on new
services.
Councilmember deHaan stated there are benefits and disadvantages in
being first with a new service; inquired whether schedules are the
WTA's forte.
Mr. Castleberry responded the WTA looks at schedules as low fruit;
schedules can be done at a fairly low cost to make the mode better
for the riders.
Councilmember deHaan stated he appreciates the WTA's efforts to
help market the City's ferry services i inquired whether the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) would always be a
player for the WTA's funding stream.
Mr. Castleberry responded MTC administers Regional Measure 2 funds
MTC would touch 90% of the WTA's operating funds.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the WTA would be better at
working with MTC for farebox relief.
Mr. Castleberry responded MTC reviews and evaluates services
separately; MTC does not evaluate bus companies on a route-by-route
basis; the WTA believes marketing is not just for one route, but
for both.
Councilmember deHaan stated he thinks the City could do the same
thing as the WTA.
Mr. Castleberry stated that the WTA would put all resources in the
farebox relief because the farebox ratio is unfair.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she thinks that staff does a wonderful
job of running the ferry services; she needs incentives from the
WTA, such as having more access to funds and having the opportunity
to improve the ferry services, before considering turning the ferry
service over; she does not see any reason to turn the ferry service
over to the WTA; inquired whether route timing would be systemized;
stated that she is interested in having ferry connections to buses
and trains for the South San Francisco and Redwood City ferry
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-03-04,6,"which led to excessive bank erosion; the award of a contract had to
be suspended until a Council meeting could be held; further erosion
occurred; the intent of the proposed revision is to mitigate a
similar situation.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired what was the cost [to repair the erosion].
The Public Works Director responded $150,000 at the time and
approximately $300,000 to $350,000 later.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a twenty-four hour notice is needed
for an emergency Council Meeting; someone could start the work for
$75,000 and then a Council meeting could be called to get approval.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that the sub-committee has requested the City
Attorney's office to reference the definition of what constitutes
an emergency which is taken directly from State law.
Mayor Johnson inquired when an emergency would end; stated normal
requirements could be in place after a certain number of days of
the expenditure.
The City Manager stated the City Attorney could review restrictions
in terms of number of days or require that the matter come back for
Council confirmation by the next regular Council meeting.
Mayor Johnson stated that defining when an emergency ends is
necessary.
Councilmember Matarrese stated inserting language to have the
matter come back for Council confirmation is a good idea; a quorum
may not be available; the intent is to be able to address a
catastrophe.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City Manager has authorization up
to $75,000; inquired whether past emergencies have warranted a City
Manager to make decisions immediately.
The Public Works Director responded there have been numerous sewer
backups; stated the situation at Washington Park was just under
$75,000, but could have been more if the large Palm tree was lost.
Councilmember deHaan stated things could change ten years from now;
the $75,000 threshold has been in place for many years; the numeric
value does not have a lot of value.
Mayor Johnson stated that the dollar amount should be set by
ordinance, not the Charter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
March 4, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-17,5,"which is where ABAG becomes involved; ABAG is the regional governing entity for the
Bay Area; ABAG works with all the cities to allocate the units among the various cities;
Alameda is no different than any every other city; all cities are concerned about traffic
and have difficulty accommodating more housing; ABAG comes up with formulas on
how to distribute units; the formula is very complicated and takes into account regional
policies such as reducing greenhouse gases, preserving farmland, and access to
transit; ABGA gave Alameda just under 2,100 units; the Housing Element was written
for said number; the State sent Alameda a letter in 2009 indicating the City failed in the
last round and received a penalty, which added 374 units.
Councilmember Johnson stated Alameda previously appealed an ABAG number and
won at the ABAG level, but ultimately lost at the State level.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding challenging the number, the
Planning Services Manager stated the City has not done so since 2006; challenges are
very difficult; some other city has to accept the units if ABAG takes the housing units
away from Alameda; ABAG has to allocate all units and cannot tell the State the number
is too high.
Discussed legal options under State and environmental law: Ken Peterson, Alameda.
Discussed complicated language and public noticing of the Housing Element; and
protecting Measure A: Mary Anderson, Alameda.
Following Ms. Anderson's comments, the City Attorney explained the State's authority
over housing; stated the government has a hierarchy with most power at the federal
level, then, the State, then, local levels; California has Charter cities and general law
cities; general law cities are created pursuant to statute and can only do what the
legislature authorizes; Charter cities have more power; the State constitution allows for
Charter cities as long as matters in the Charter are of municipal interest; for matters of
Statewide interest, the State preempts the Charter; regarding the Housing Element, the
State has stepped in and said providing housing is of Statewide concern; therefore, the
State directs what the City has to do; staff has been trying very hard to protect as much
of the interpretation of Measure A as possible while still conforming with the
requirements of State law; the overlay is being done to prevent losing all of Measure A's
provisions; a density bonus ordinance had to be passed because the matter was a
Statewide concern; the City passed a density bonus ordinance and still maintained
Measure A; the City has to take a similar action [on the Housing Element] because
Measure A could be found unconstitutional if challenged, since it does allow the City to
comply with State law.
Discussed ways to get around State law and unit size designation for tax purposes: Bill
Stallman, Alameda.
Urged the Council to adopt the ordinance: Helen Sause, Housing Opportunities Make
Economic Sense (HOMES); Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES; Doug Biggs, Alameda Point
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 17, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-17,4,"which is the City Attorney's recommendation; having an open process allowing
everyone to apply and be considered is good; there should be time to allow the
investigation to occur.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(17-603) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code;
Number of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)
(17-604) 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 the City Clerk
announced that regarding Litigation relating to allegations made in City Manager Jill
Keimach's October 2, 2017 letter to the City Council, which did not identify the Mayor or
any individual City Councilmembers as being accused of potential wrong doing, the City
Council unanimously voted to follow the City Attorney's advice to cause an independent
investigation of allegations arising out of the October 2nd letter from the City Manager;
and regarding Performance Evaluation, the City Council voted unanimously to follow the
City Attorney's advice to postpone all three performance evaluations and that at the
next convening of the closed session, agendize assistance that may be needed to
continue the evaluations.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:52 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
October 17, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-01-05,14,"which is one way of confirming the range of 4-8%; the CPI is an important number
which speaks to the 8% threshold; all data points confirm Alameda is on the right track
with the 8% range; Alameda is dealing with lasting effects of income inequality; he does
not think it is fair to increase rents 8% every year; a cumulative rent increase of not
more than 12% over 2 years is a better approach; certain policy remedies could be
triggered with the cumulative method; mom and pop landlords play by the rules and
their needs should be addressed; there is a role for government to regulate when
excesses occur in the free market; the Council's role is to fit solutions to problems; that
he favors Ordinance 1 modified, including: 1) there should be just cause for landlords
who play by the rules, 2) small mom and pop landlords should be exempt from
Ordinance 1, 3) relocation assistance should be offered for tenants who cannot afford
the rent increase; 4) he would like to combine proposed Ordinance 1 with Alternative
Option 1 to include binding arbitration, and 5) rent increases should be dealt on a
cumulative basis.
Councilmember Oddie stated the matter is serious and will impact many people no
matter what Council chooses to do; Option 1 does not provide tenants with additional
protectio, it just shifts the burden onto the landlord to file a request for a rent increase; if
the landlord is intent on raising the rent, Option 1 is non-binding; Option 3 has the most
tenant protection and limits evictions based on certain causes, which is a protection that
does not exist today; Option 2 is the most fair to everyone; Option 2 provides a binding
mechanism if an increase is over a certain number; he does not believe every single
rent increase will be 8% every year; there needs to be a provision to collect data;
returning in a year to compare and fix problems would be helpful; he would like Option 2
changed; the 50% exception for non-just cause evictions should be lowered to 25% as
clever landlords will use the loophole; disincentives could be built into Option 2; a capital
improvement program to address landlord improvements will come back at subsequent
meeting and does not include enough information to be discussed tonight; nothing that
the Council decides tonight should prevent a landlord from being able to make
improvements; there has to be clear guidelines on the person making the decision in
arbitration; the provision for reduction of services is missing from Option 2 and should
be included.
Mayor Spencer stated the creation of an ordinance which gives the RRAC more teeth
was not included in the report; she would like the process to start with RRAC for all
tenants, whether or not they fall under Costa Hawkins; she likes the current composition
of the RRAC; cases that do not settle through RRAC should then go through binding
arbitration; the goal is to find balance; 30 to 60-days notice is too short for tenants;
allowing the landlord to give a six months notice of eviction, whether for no cause or no
fault, is reasonable; a landlord giving more notice will not cost them; the landlord could
negotiate or go through the RRAC process if less than six months time is needed for an
eviction; some tenants may not need six months and would prefer the payment, which
should be based on the rent; the additional $1,500 relocation is offset by six-months
notice; the capital improvement plan has to be required in advance if an eviction is due
to substantial rehabilitation; establishing a capital improvement plan process is
important; she would not support Options 2 or 3 as she considers the options traditional
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,2,"which is in the northern waterfront area and a new development will be built in the area. She said
last week she went to an AC Transit hearing and summarized the need for restoration of the Line
19.
4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27, 2015
Commissioner Schatmeier stated he had a change to Item 5b discussion of the Central Avenue
Complete Streets proposal. He said that the minutes state Webster Street and Central Avenue
eastbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large amount of vehicles turning right onto Webster
Street. He explained that he meant to say was westbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large
number of vehicles turning right onto Webster Street and he was concerned about how that
would be treated.
4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - July 22, 2015
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes of May 27, 2015 with the corrections
provided by Commissioner Schatmeier and approve the minutes of July 22, 2015. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.
New Business
5.A. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Patel presented the quarterly report and introduced Rochelle Wheeler, Alameda Public
Works, to present an update on the Cross Alameda Trail.
5.B. Recommend City Council Approval of the Central Avenue Concept Including Safety and
Other Street Improvements
Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, presented the report and introduced
Staff Payne to discuss the public outreach, staff recommendations and next steps. Jennifer Ott
also presented Jean Finney, Deputy District Director of Caltrans District 4, who spoke at the end
of the presentation.
Commissioner Vargas said having worked with Caltrans there are design manuals and guidelines
and there are design exceptions for similar facilities that Caltrans has granted with lane widths of
10.5 feet.
Jean Finney replied yes and the standard width for this type of roadway is 11 feet, so there will
be a design exception for the 10.5 feet lane widths. She also reiterated the fact that traffic
engineers looked at the conceptual plans and gave conceptual approval for the 10.5 feet width.
Sean McPhetridge, Superintendent of Alameda Unified School District (AUSD), stated that he
was glad that the City and staff worked with the District. He explained that school leaders
Page 2 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-06-01,16,"which has not yet been analyzed, she would like to include all recommendations made.
The City Attorney stated the prior recommendation from the OGC of 2020, was brought
to the OGC of 2021.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what would occur in the interim, to which the City Attorney
responded if Council does not adopt the proposed ordinance, staff would operate in
status quo.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he believes the Sunshine Ordinance and OGC have
been one of the most important legislations to come out of City Hall; outlined those who
spearheaded the legislation; previously meeting materials were delivered the Thursday
prior to the Tuesday meeting; the Sunshine Ordinance assures the public is served by
understanding how City Hall can operate in a transparent manner; the goal is to put
reasonable rules in place to allow for meaningful community input; he is not convinced
the OGC process is broken; there have been 17 OGC complaints since 2013; three of
the complaints have been in 2021 alone; of the 17 complaints, the OGC has made a
determination on seven with the remaining 10 being withdrawn; there does not appear
to be an inundation of work requiring Council to transfer the OGC responsibilities to a
Hearing Officer; expressed support for staff's analysis of a Hearing Officer being
required; stated staff is making a professional judgement; he is satisfied with the current
status of the OGC; the structure of OGC meetings is a separate issue; there is a
balance between an imperfect process, which is citizen-led and slower, and a faster,
more accurate process which is led by City staff; expressed support for the citizen-led
process; stated people can raise issues regarding government transparency through the
OGC, which is not just a court of appeals; the OGC is a place where residents' issues
can be tried by peers within the OGC; the City should keep what it currently has; if the
OGC is improved, the improvement should be at the margins.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was not on the Council when the
decision for null and void was made; requested clarification about the current status and
status quo for the OGC.
The City Attorney stated the OGC may adjudicate a complaint filed by any member of
the public under existing law; the provisions of the OGC are advisory and Council may
choose whether or not to follow the advice provided by the OGC.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the advisory nature of the
OGC; expressed concern about Section 6 related to findings of unfounded complaints;
stated the five year period is an extreme and draconian penalty; the definition of
unfounded is broad; a complaint being deemed unfounded does not indicate a frivolous
intent or that the complaint does not have merit; outlined court filing processes not
indicating a frivolous intent; the matter should return to the OGC; expressed support for
the OGC's review of the penalty period; stated there appears to be a consensus of
Council wanting to hear from community members; the penalty conflicts with the desire
to hear from community members; five years is a long time; training should be offered to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 1, 2021
15",CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-18,15,"which did not communicate; inquired how Alameda would make sure relevant
departments could communicate with each other.
The Fire Chief responded the Fire Department is cross referencing with other
departments to make sure nothing is missed; staff is reviewing all business licenses to
make sure inspections are done, and assigning inspection dates so none are missed;
the Building Department uses the same program for tracking permits; if an issue arises,
the Fire Department will be alerted and can get involved.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated the two
agencies using non-sworn staff as Fire Inspectors are Oakland and Fremont.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated the City has a
non-sworn Code Compliance Officer and Fire Inspections are done by fire companies.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether adding two Fire Inspector positions is enough to get
through the back log, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated having
two inspectors and an additional Fire Captain would help the Code Compliance Officer
do follow-up; he is concerned about not having a full-time Fire Marshall; he will come
back to Council after the end of the Community Paramedic program to make a request
for a management position.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how much Alameda receives in Ground Emergency Medical
Transportation (GEMT) funds, to which the Fire Chief responded $275,000 per year on
average; he expects to continue to ask for reimbursements.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what does the City lose as a community by not having a
full time Fire Marshall, to which the Fire Chief responded the City loses the
management aspect; there is no one to explain policy and give direction; the position is
important enough that it should be stand alone; a lot of technical information comes
from the position; the City would be missing out on regional meetings a Fire Marshall
would attend to be informed of fire prevention and new codes.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether not having a Fire Marshall or other resources
would impact public events such as the Park Street festival, to which the Fire Chief
responded things would be slowed down; the department is not functioning at the
highest level; it will be more difficult when the Department loses the Chief from the
Community Paramedic funding.
Councilmember Oddie stated there was a huge cost overrun with the EOC funding due
to lack of management of the IT aspect; inquired what the City would lose by not having
management expertise.
The Fire Chief responded the City would lose direct management of several things,
including the Fire Prevention Bureau, quality control, quality assurances and quality
improvement; a framework will be pieced together but making sure the plan is working
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
April 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-10-18,15,"which Mr. Vlaming responded it depends on the type of work being done.
Mayor Spencer stated the Council negotiates contracts with employees that work for the
City and determines benefits; inquired who determines the relevant union master labor
agreement; inquired whether the City is relinquishing input on what employees are
getting paid.
Mr. Vlaming responded in the negative; stated the projects are covered by prevailing
wage rate determinations; there are different classifications for different types of
construction work; the affiliate unions and their applicable local master agreements are
the agreements negotiated between the affiliate union and the traditional bargaining
party.
Mayor Spencer stated the PSA does not require the workers to be union workers;
inquired whether the City gets input into the union master labor agreement or could the
worker receive better benefits than City employees.
Mr. Vlaming responded the agreement does not require employees to become a union
member but employees do have to be dispatched by particular union; the benefits would
be under the particular labor union agreement; the employees under a particular
contract are entitled to the prevailing wage and benefits specified under the particular
contract; the relationship to City employee's benefits are very different.
Mayor Spencer inquired how non-union workers get jobs.
Mr. Vlaming responded anyone can use the union referral procedures; stated the
contractors are responsible for hiring; the contractor goes to the applicable union hall
and requests workers.
Mayor Spencer inquired if a worker is not in the union where would the worker be
placed on the list.
Mr. Vlaming responded when a worker signs up and pays the association fees, they do
not have to become a member; the list is in chronological order.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City has input in the union master labor
agreement; inquired who negotiates the agreements with the union.
Mr. Vlaming responded the negotiation is with an employer association, which is a
group of signatory employers; stated the association bargain the terms, conditions and
wage rates applicable to the craft.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the employer association is union workers or people
on behalf of the union.
Mr. Vlaming responded the unions represent the members; stated the employers
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 18, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-07-15,24,"which Mr. Ratto and Ms. Moehring responded in the negative.
Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Chair Johnson stated that a requirement should be added regarding
spending a certain percentage of grant funding on marketing and
promotion.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion with inclusion of a
policy for promotion and evaluation for GABA [in addition to PSBA
and WABA; stated the issue is a policy decision; a return is needed
if the City invests approximately $225,000 in tax dollars; the
return can be predicated on 50% of grant funding going to
promotion; evaluations need to be performed.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the measurement [of success) would be
difficult for GABA because GABA is spread across the City.
Chair Johnson stated customer surveys could be performed.
Commissioner Matarrese stated business license fees are calculated
on gross; increased performance could be reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan concurred that an evaluation needs to be
performed.
Commissioner Tam stated sales tax revenue has been flat for many
years; a better measurement would be the return to the City;
business districts take care of the street maintenance and
advertising, which the City cannot do; she does not want
measurement tied directly to producing a business tax increment.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that business license tax and sales
tax revenues are a bottom line measurement.
Commissioner Tam clarified that the motion is to fund recommended
levels to all three business districts; inquired what would be the
threshold for advertising and promotion.
Chair Johnson responded 50%; stated GABA can advise how their
success would be measured.
Commissioner Gilmore stated GABA is different from PSBA and WABA ;
PSBA and WABA are spending an incredible amount of money on
advertising; GABA has never spent 50% of grant funding on
advertising.
Eric Kos, GABA President, stated that he has been GABA President
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
5
July 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-01-09,7,"whether there was additional analysis conducted in order to know if the Target store
would reduce every grocery stores' base operations such as reducing store hours or the
number of employees.
Mr. Thomas replied that Amy Herman would be able to explain more about the urban
decay analysis. The objective of the analysis was to see if stores in the City would close
due to the construction of Alameda Landing's retail center and the conclusion was no.
Amy Herman. ALH Urban and Regional Economics and author of the Alameda Landing
Urban Decay Analysis, explained that Mr. Thomas gave a good summary of the findings.
The report's findings indicated a low impact level of impact that was not severe enough
to cause stores to close and some stores show an over performance to industry
averages. Furthermore, the standard of decay is the closure of a store for a long enough
period of time to which conditions of decay (blight) would start to materialize.
Board member Kohlstrand referred to the staff report on page 7 (indicated by red arrows)
and attachment 1. She wanted assurance that the buildings fronting 5th Street, which
showed according to the cross section a wide sidewalk between the two buildings and
between 5th Street does not have cars parked in that area.
Mr. Thomas replied that parking is not intended for that area, but the markings may show
a form of public art or other demarcation of the sidewalk leading people up to the water.
Board member Kohlstrand referred to the staff report on page 6b, section C to the upper
left hand side. She wanted to know if the bike lane is really inside the sidewalk.
Mr. Thomas stated the illustration contained a typo and the sidewalk and bike lane were
mislabeled.
President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to page 4, Buildings D and H and exclaimed that either
side of the passage way did not have bicycle parking.
Mr. Thomas replied that staff could create a condition to include visitor bicycle racks for
Buildings D and H.
Mr. Whiskeman was willing to include bicycle racks near Buildings D and H and he would
welcome additional comments as the project evolves.
Board member Henneberry stated there are 5 findings that the Board must agree on and
urban decay is a great portion of the findings. He would like Ms. Herman to explain the
urban decay analysis and findings again.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that Board member Henneberry was looking for the retail
center's development impact on other grocery stores, but objective of the urban analyses
was to review the retail center's impact on causing stores to close and remain closed.
Ms. Herman replied that the analysis also looked at the potential for stores to be
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 14
January 9, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-16,11,"whether there is a way to ensure adequate funding to review impacts if said situations
occur; further inquired whether the School District has been consulted throughout the
process.
The Transportation Coordinator responded staff has been working with the School
District on developing Safe Routes to School maps; stated routes have been identified
and are updated on an on-going basis.
Councilmember Tam stated students are encouraged to use bicycles; students would
travel longer distances to mega schools; students might be dropped off which would
result in conflict between vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians; inquired whether the
issue could be accommodated in the Bicycle Plan, to which the Transportation
Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the beach has bike racks; stated in 1999, she was
assured that the beach had bike racks; that she has not seen any.
The Transportation Coordinator responded that he is not aware of any.
Mayor Johnson stated bike racks are needed at the beach.
***
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 10:45 p.m. and returned at 10:48 p.m.
* *
The Public Works Director stated bike racks are budgeted in this year's Capital
Improvement Project fund.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated improvements have been made over the years; inquired how
improvements could be captured.
The Transportation Coordinator responded the Bicycle Master Plan has a table that
summarizes completed projects over the last ten years.
Speaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
The Public Works Director stated staff has been working on concerns, which are
addressed in the handout submitted by the Transportation Coordinator.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the proposed bicycle/pedestrian bridge is
possible, but not likely; stated that he does not believe anyone would give the City $60
million or provide an operator to open and close the bridge; the City can spend a
fraction of the amount and have more bikes cross the estuary; a land-side shuttle is the
cheapest, most realistic, and efficient method.
The Transportation Coordinator inquired whether the proposed bicycle/pedestrian
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
November 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-16.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,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,2006-06-20,19,"whether the $1.6 million Vehicle Replacement Program is a
substantial increase from the past.
The Finance Director responded the vehicle replacement amount
has been $150,000 to $200,000 in the past, except for the years
when an ambulance was replaced.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated vehicle
replacement was neglected because of budget constraints;
inquired whether catch-up could be done during the next fiscal
year.
The Finance Director responded an equipment replacement reserve
is part of the General Fund budget; vehicles that should have
been replaced were set aside in favor of keeping public safety
vehicles current.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether vehicles would be replaced
with alternative fuel vehicles, to which the Finance Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Alameda
Power and Telecom is investigating natural gas for three
vehicles.
The Public Works Director stated Council authorized the City
Manager to submit an application for four electric vehicles
which would replace three existing vehicles on the vehicle
replacement listi a recommendation was made to have an all
electric vehicle for the Information Technology Department also.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated vehicles should be replaced with
vehicles that are appropriate for the use.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated having a Managed
Vehicle Replacement Program is advantageous.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the 2006-2007 Capital
Improvement Program included anything for parks.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded three parks were
budgeted in 2005-2006; stated the parks will be improved in the
current fiscal year the Turf Management Program will help
determine where funds will be applied.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
5
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2016-12-08,2,"whether more homeless would come to Alameda because we build a reputation of having good
programs. Vice Chair Delaney also asked if the City Council requested any other measurements at the
December 6th meeting. Director Wooldridge said yes, the staff is requested to bring back a status report
every 6 months to the City Council. Vice Chair Delaney applauded Director Wooldridge's efforts for
taking on this large project.
Commissioner Limoges said it seems like a modest investment right now but if the issue isn't managed
then it could become a larger problem, especially as resources become stretched. Overall it is good
that the City is taking on the homeless issue. He expressed concern about the homeless that are
sleeping every night at Crown Beach. Director Wooldridge said that she would let Operation Dignity
know so they could also post flyers at Crown Beach to let the homeless know where to get help.
Commissioner Limoges inquired if there was to be a decision to put a sanctioned tent city on the old
camp ground at Alameda Point, who would make that decision. Director Wooldridge said that would
need to be a policy decision by the City Council.
REPORTS
A.
Recreation Commission Reports
Vice Chair Delaney attended the City Council meeting on December 6th where they gave recognition
to Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District long time board member representing the City of
Alameda. Mr. Delaney said he was one of the most dedicated individuals he knew and it was a very
rewarding evening. Vice Chair Delaney also attended the Woodstock Park neighborhood meeting on
December 1st. He said there were many wonderful people who were happy about the Woodstock Park
design and he commended Recreation Services Specialist Dennis McDaniels for doing a good job. The
Alameda Rotary Club donated $30,000 to the playground renovation project at Woodstock Park.
Commissioner Limoges attended the retirement event for Director Doug Siden at the Dunsmuir estate
and was astonished about the 60 years of dedication and service of the two retirees.
Chair Tilos attended the Mayors' Tree Lighting Ceremony and said it was a great event and that the
children really enjoyed the free glow sticks that were handed out. He thanked ARPD for putting on such
a great event.
B. Friends of the Park Report (FOTP)
FOTP are currently talking to another potential member to serve on the board as treasurer. The FOTP
has up to approximately $122,000 in their account that has already been earmarked for playground
equipment, the Krusi Park memorial and various programs. FOTP just received a significant donation
from Silicon Valley Bank and feels they are making wonderful progress in obtaining money for the
organization, especially due to their connection with ARPD.
C. Recreation and Parks Director Report
The City Council appointed Marianne Carter at their meeting on December 6th as the new Recreation
Commissioner who will attend the January 12, 2017 meeting.
The Trust for Public lands is a nonprofit organization who are working on Park mapping projects. The
overlay shows residential areas that have a park within a 10 minute walk in purple. Almost all of the
City of Alameda showed up purple, emphasizing what a comprehensive park system we have.
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2016-12-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-14,13,"whether members are amenable to the meeting ending at 12:00 a.m.
Councilmember Vella responded that she is ok with the midnight stop time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the meeting going until midnight and no
later; the rules of order referral and Stopwaste brief should be continued to the July 21,
2020 meeting.
The City Attorney stated the Council must set a date and time specific to continue the
items.
The City Clerk stated a 7:02 p.m. start time is available; should the items not be heard,
the items will push to a September meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the rules of order item may be continued to September.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of hearing the evaluation after the current
matter discussion and ending by 12:00 a.m., with the remaining items being continued
to a future meeting [July 21, 2020 at 7:02 p.m.].
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.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is no doubt in declaring racism as a public health
emergency; the matter is important and necessary; expressed concern about the timing;
stated there are many topics covered in the declaration; many of the topics were
delegated to a steering committee on June 29th; the unbundling services, review of
Police Department policies and practices, Police Department accountability and
oversight and addressing systemic and community racism and anti-racism topics
originated from a proposal created by Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember
Vella; the steering committee proposal will be heard on July 21st; if adopted by Council,
will be community-led and centered on Black voices; the steering committee has met
twice; questioned whether Council should limit to the scope of community members'
input or if Council should listen to input from those that understand the experience of
being Black in America; stated the declaration can be made fuller and more complete;
expressed concern about how input from the Black community is received; questioned
whether the input should be more than just comments received; stated the
subcommittee intends to provide input in one week; it is not easy to give up power and
elected officials are elected for a reason; Councilmembers are passionate about desired
changes; there is room for a community process; the process is not being delayed with
community input; speakers have urged Council to act, not speak; she would like the
actions taken to make a difference and to mean something within a strong declaration;
ceding abilities to a committee still allows Council to make final determinations; there
will be a missed opportunity should Council not allow BIPOC community members the
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
July 14, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-09-25,12,"whether leasing or purchasing the land; the work being done now on the EIR and
zoning will make the property more valuable when the City goes to market; time and
entitlement risk will be off of the table; doing the EIR and zoning first was part of the
City's strategy; most cities have raw land and do an RFP to figure out what to build,
which is a beauty pageant; then developers sharpen their pencils to provide real
numbers and cities are stuck because the community feels things were promised in the
RFP process; the City is not being vague and is clear about the general uses; staff
wanted to present a modest approach which recognizes the City cannot predict where
markets will be in 15 or even 10 years; the document creates many different envelopes
and scopes to allow the City to respond to market signals and proceed with projects
which will financially benefit Alameda.
President Burton stated one concern is how infrastructure will reach sites; the City
Manager has indicated the City will finance and install trunk lines and developers will
pay for individual super pad infrastructure; inquired whether a mechanism would require
developers to contribute a fair share of trunk lines costs so that the City could recoup at
least some of the costs.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the mechanism will happen in
many different ways, such as through lease payments or land sale costs; businesses
will have to pay for backbone infrastructure maintenance going forward; the State does
not currently have Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs); community benefit districts
options were discussed in the MIP; the Governor vetoed IFDs for this year; however,
the Governor is likely to sign something next year; Alameda and Concord attempted to
get some type of financial mechanism together to deal with the infrastructure at both
bases; staff is reaching out to other cities with similar issues and is hopeful some
financing mechanism will be approved next year.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether staff is analyzing how much of the backbone
infrastructure each parcel will have to pay as part of the MIP.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated
developers would be responsible for building infrastructure related to their site and
would also pay a prorated share of the site wide infrastructure; every parcel will
captures its burden; not requiring a developer to pay a fair share would be a Council
decision; if a site does not pay its fair share, another site down the road would have to
pick up the cost; the amounts would be built into fees; staff is drafting an RFP for
Alameda Point fees to capture the pro rata share of larger, site wide infrastructure,
including some of the larger parks.
Councilmember Daysog stated the strategy is a means to implement the Alameda Point
vision, which could be a funky, eclectic place for professionals, bohemians and new
businesses, similar to the Planning Board presentation by SOM; that he is okay with
focusing on retail, while not excluding other things; he is also oaky with commercial,
industrial and housing being fourth because things are going to occur close together;
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
12
Planning Board
September 25, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-05-05,26,"whether a grant program can be opened for those in the three highest language
categories; stated the outreach will be very useful; the grant application process does
not work when applicants are submitting via Microsoft Edge; expressed support for
adding language stating: ""please do not use Microsoft Edge;"" stated the response to the
program has been tremendous.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the deadline is May 7th, to which the Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the City could work with a gofundme.com campaign;
inquired whether the City should put money into WABA's gofundme.com campaign.
Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the negative; stated there is interest in starting an
Alameda Business gofundme.com campaign; should the City promote the campaign,
with a list of 190 possible applicants, the following businesses would be considered to
receive funding after the grant fund cutoff; noted little staff time would be used; stated
work and fundraising would be from the private sector.
Councilmember Vella expressed concern about changing the criteria; expressed
support for changing the criteria if a second round of applications are done, prioritizing
businesses that have taken a harder hit in the potential second round, and conducting a
lottery; noted many financial issues for businesses are related to cash flow; expressed
support for the City loaning money to the program, and pursuing public/private funds,
which look at grants, non-profits and different donors; stated a gofundme.com campaign
would be appropriate; she would like to consult with the City Attorney's office to further
understand the legality of collecting and administering funds; expressed support for
promoting the opportunity on social media and websites; noted individual
gofundme.com campaigns have been successful; stated that she would like to get to
businesses that may not have the same social media following as others; expressed
support for looking at businesses with multiple locations in the criteria for the next
round; stated there are daycare providers and preschool operators, which have multiple
locations and larger staff that should remain operational; expressed support for keeping
businesses operational; stated daycare and preschool are important and should be
included for eligibility.
Councilmember Daysog stated the $600,000 being invested by the City represents a
substantial amount of taxpayer dollars; some entities might not survive; there is risk
involved; the risk is worth taking; the times are not ordinary; Council is making a
reasonable and prudent decision; expressed support for the item, and the City
Attorney's office protecting Council from outstanding legal issues which may arise from
the use of gofundme.com; stated the amount of responses is a good indication that
business communities are struggling.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the item, finding more funding if possible
and the exploration of gofundme.com campaigns; expressed concern about payments
over $5,000; stated that he would support different criteria if there is another round of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 05, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-05.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,6,"whereas the code applies to expansions of existing buildings within a certain time period.
Mr. Knowles noted the credit was not generated by the 25% rule, but by the loss of space. Mr. Tai
concurred.
President Cunningham inquired where the $26.00 per sq. ft. and the 250 multiplier originated. Mr. Tai
responded that it derived from averaging real estate transactions over a period of time and was
prepared by the Development Services Department. He noted the rate of $26.00 was looking at
transactions that occurred after 2003, but staff was recently told this figure may increase significantly
prices and transactions of real estate are looked at in recent times.
President Cunningham inquired where the 250 multiplier derived from. Mr. Tai responded that it is a
flat figure that is embedded in the code requirement and noted that it is the area of land required for
each parking space.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired if the color palette for the building would be the same as the other
building. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. He noted that the building would look almost
identical with the exception of the parapet at the top.
President Cunningham inquired if Public Works had any comments on the layout of the parking since
it is one directional. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative.
President Cunningham inquired if this is in keeping with trash collecting since it was a previous
concern on this parcel. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative.
President Cunningham noted he was concerned about granting this Variance, as it would compound
the problem. He noted the residents stated there was no parking downtown and the whole idea of
having in-lieu fees was to help the city pay for a parking structure. He noted if the City is not
collecting revenue, this would encumber the City more. He also noted it would put the goal of
building a parking structure further away from being achieved.
Board member McNamara noted the issue she is having is if the intent of having the in-lieu fee
available is to look for either a replacement or some other way to make parking available. She stated
$143,000 or $110,000 does not go far enough to make that a possibility as an alternative. She noted
that whole area is so impacted with parking and even if the bigger garage does go up, she did not
believe it would satisfy the parking need. She noted she liked the construction and the design, but
was concerned about the amount of spaces it will take up.
Vice-President Cook echoed the concerns of Board member McNamara. She noted she felt a little
differently about waiving the parking requirement when it is an existing building being rehabbed, a
smaller project or brand new building. She noted she wanted to approve it to encourage this type of
project, but she felt the 22-space shortfall seemed substantial for this particular area. She stated she
would not feel that way if the new parking structure construction were underway. She felt she would
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-16,3,"where Bayport Municipal Services District funds are going.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether information on staff vacancies could be presented by
each department, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Regarding the General Fund expenditures by department, Vice Mayor Matarrese
requested staff to provide an explanation of the difference in the increase between the
Police and Fire budgets at a future meeting.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to see a historical perspective from 5, 10 and
15 years ago of the percentage for each department to show if the percentages have
stayed the same or if some departments have grown and others are shrinking over time;
that she would like to see the percentage for Recreation and Parks.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff would attempt to do so; noted Recreation and
Parks was taken out of the General Fund to better account for programs, so it will be
difficult.
Mayor Spencer noted she is also interested in the percentage for Police and Fire.
Councilmember Daysog requested that the General Fund proposed expenditures by
department FY 2015-16 pie chart be reviewed; stated that he is having a hard time
reconciling the numbers; the ratios are different in staff report Exhibit 1.
Regarding the PERS rates, Councilmember Oddie requested staff to provide a
comparison to other cities.
Vice Mayor Matarrese requested a chart showing the difference between the pay as you
go and the amount if the MOUs are approved.
Regarding the three new positions, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like to
see alternatives; that he will not vote for a budget which increases positions, which
includes a PERS burden; the private sector uses contract organizations for Information
Technology (IT); he would like alternatives which do not involve hiring someone.
The Assistant City Manager stated that she is not sure a comprehensive analysis can
be finished by budget completion.
Councilmember Daysog stated staff would have to make a strong case for the positions;
provided an example of combining positions; stated planning to address the future
deficits should start now.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would favor creative solutions instead of
hiring someone.
Mayor Spencer stated employees at City Hall are working hard; a solution is needed to
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 16, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-09-30,9,"when the project was approved and essentially the City had no real transit strategy for that
project. He said since then every residential project approved has some form of a TDM program
and the key is paying for transit. He said it is handled in a number of different ways such as
having shuttles or buying Easy Passes from AC Transit in perpetuity. Moreover, the City
requires that the Home Owner Association (HOA) cannot vote the TDM policy out. He
explained based on the long-term strategy for the west end that Alameda Landing would go first.
They have to setup a Transportation Management Association (TMA) and Target is paying
annually towards public transit services. He went on to say that eventually it might make sense
for Alameda Landing and Alameda Point to merge as one TMA. Also, he said part of the
strategy is to insert businesses and HOA members into the TMA board and they can adjust the
program as necessary. Essentially, they are building a citywide TDM through each project that
they approve. Regarding parking around businesses, he felt as a community, we could decide to
adjust because business parks at Alameda Point have to pay for parking, whereas older
developments do not.
Jennifer Ott stated that there are examples of area TDM plans such as Stanford University and
Bay Meadows and Joe Daisa could provide more examples.
Staff Payne explained that the City has a preliminary TDM/TSM plan in place and the City has
an abundant supply of free parking making it difficult to implement the measures.
Boardmember Köster asked how much population is needed to support a true TDM plan.
Jim Daisa replied there is not a rule of thumb because the program would be tailored towards the
population. However, the employment is just as important as the residents. He said Jon Spangler
made a good point on how high density residential attracts self-selective people who want to
move towards public transit services.
Boardmember Köster asked who is responsible for educating the public about the transit
services.
Jim Daisa replied that the TMA deals with the promotion.
Boardmember Zuppan said she is concerned with the economic impact of the plan. Since there
would be 1,425 units and 25 percent of them are low-income, plus three housing collaboratives
at most 1,000 people would fund the TMA. Yet, the City would be looking for a catalyst project
driving development and limiting or providing costs for parking is not an attraction. Ultimately,
she felt parking is a component, but since the City has low traffic and high street parking, it is
not smart to outline the parking component. Also, she mentioned the City needed a balanced
perspective to create an effective and friendly TDM plan for visitors and pet owners.
Boardmember Knox White said he agreed with all three recommendations and appreciated the
idea of not trying to design the perfect TDM plan and requiring everyone to do it. He suggested
that staff look at adding a trip cap and a way to gauge the early capacity issues. He highlighted
the city of Cambridge as an example and mentioned that unbundling parking is a good
mechanism to reduce the hidden costs of parking.
Page 9 of 11",TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,17,"when the infrastructure is complete.
The Base Reuse Director responded the money is credited when the developer finishes
50% of the infrastructure.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City would not receive new money; and whether
money would be paid early and credited when the infrastructure is done.
The Base Reuse Director responded $150,000 pays for the City's transaction costs.
Mayor Spencer stated the money is to offset costs that the City is bearing.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what are the cost and timing of the infrastructure.
The Base Reuse Director responded the cost is approximately $43 million for
infrastructure; the total cost for Phase 1 is $80 million; the timing is the developer has to
start construction on infrastructure within 30 days of close.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there are any infrastructure costs that the City will be
responsible for in the event that the project does not go through.
The Base Reuse responded in the negative; stated there are performance bonds if the
developer defaults.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the performance bonds are per phase.
The Base Reuse responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Phase 1 and Phase 2 could be built with the 800 units
of housing and there is no guarantee Phase 3 would be built.
The Base Reuse responded in the affirmative; stated the developer could not meet the
requirements for Phase 3; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired if Phase 3 is not built, how would the City receive the $4
million.
The Base Reuse responded if the developer defaults on Phase 3, the City will not
receive the infrastructure.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City could lose 80% of the money under the new
proposal.
The Base Reuse responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is the total number of market rate housing units for Phase
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-09-25,19,"when staff comes back with issues discussed tonight, Council should discuss the pros
and cons of having more housing on the water and embedded in that discussion is the
overall number of housing units which will be initially constructed; the issues dovetail
because deciding to have more housing on the water raises the question of whether to
spread units over more areas.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(13-427) The Assistant City Manager presented the results from a survey for naming
options for Alameda Point; stated the community favored Seaplane Village and
Seaplane Lagoon.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore 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.
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
19
Planning Board
September 25, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-06-14,12,"when he and his fellow board members joined this board they swore an oath to protect
the City Charter as much as he had issues with Article 26.
Board Member Rothenberg asked about the legal bindings of the resolution with and
without the references to Article 26 suggested by President Teague to be struck.
President Teague said it would be a different message altogether and once it went to City
Council they would have more room to work in. He added that this was just a
recommendation and he believed that with the proposed edits the resolution had a better
chance of being approved by the City Council.
Board Member Cisneros summarized her understanding of the intent of the original
wording and noted that keeping the language would bring the issue of Article 26 to the
forefront.
President Teague and Board Member Hom exchanged comments on the suggested
wording. Board Member Hom asked how important it was to mention Article 26 in the
resolution.
Director Thomas explained that this is ultimately the Planning Board's resolution and
understood that how the board was conflicted with the issue.
President Teague made a motion to approve the Draft Resolution to the City Council
with the following modifications. In the title remove everything after ""and finds that
the City Charter"", also strike everything in the ""therefore"" paragraph, and in the ""be
it"" paragraph strike the word ""further"". Then in the 2nd bullet add the wording
""contrary to the City Charter Article 26 as necessary to comply with State Law"".
Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the
motion passed 4-0 with Vice President Saheba and Board Member Curtis absent
and Board Member Ruiz abstained.
7-C 2021-1018
Public Hearing to Receive Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
General Plan Update.
President Teague opened public comments.
There were no public comments.
President Teague closed public comments and opened the board's discussion.
Board Member Ruiz asked if only one of the two volumes were available for review since
she had only received one. She wanted to know if there was still time to make comments.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 12 of 14
June 14, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-06-05,21,"whatever necessary to create a robust, full and complete rent registry discussed tonight
and modify the fee study next year, if something is brought back and implemented.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the motion includes the survey; inquired what is meant
by robust.
Councilmember Oddie responded that it means a complete inventory of every rental
property and the rents in the City, which both the landlords and tenants are requesting.
The Acting City Manager inquired whether the rent registry would track increases in rent
and evictions, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative; stated the
registry is the only way to get a true picture of how many people are getting rent
increases and by what percent.
The Community Development Director stated changes would be measured on an
annual basis to provide a comparison of the status of individual units.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the registry would be public and anyone could look up
rent history by address.
Councilmember Oddie responded legal staff would have to tell Council.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the ordinance would have to be modified to require
the landlord register the unit; there would have to be a Request for Proposals for a
vendor; the ordinance requirement could possibly include provisions about
confidentiality; options would be provided.
The City Attorney stated the matter would not return to Council before November when
a decision is made about putting the rent provisions in the Charter.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated a Charter initiative will
be on the November ballot, which was done by landlords, and puts the rent stabilization
ordinance in the Charter; if it passes, the Council could not make amendments and a
vote of the people would be required; an amendment to the ordinance would not be
brought back until after the election in November.
Councilmember Oddie stated the work would still be the same; either the Council could
change it or propose changes to go forward at an election.
The Community Development Director noted following the direction at the Council May
18th study session, staff plans on coming back to Council in December with a
comprehensive list of items; the registry would be part of the work effort.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there would be another vote by Council before
proceeding, to which Councilmember Oddie and the Acting City Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-05,19,"what to expect.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there will be 15 minutes of public comment at the
beginning.
Councilmember Vella stated there will not be specifically agendized talking points, it will
be free-form discussion about general priorities; discussed a previous workshop.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the previous budget workshop; stated the upcoming
priority setting workshop is not similar; it is a good time to hold a workshop.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he is glad the meeting will be recorded; expressed
support of discussing how Council would like to work together; outlined previous Council
functions; stated that he would like to spend time discussing how this Council would like
to work together as a body, how to work with staff, and how to work with Boards and
Commissions; discussed setting the agenda and ensuring the agenda translates well to
readers; stated that he would like the workshop to focus on team building.
Councilmember Vella expressed concern related to the magnitude of the one-day
workshop; inquired if there is an opportunity for Council to hold another workshop to
follow-up.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the facilitators are highly recommended; stated there is
a lot to discuss in one day; facilitators are able to efficiently manage conversations;
another workshop is possible, if Council feels there is a need; discussed previous
workshop difficulties.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is excited about the workshop; collaboration is a
two-way street; workshops should be held every year; staff needs guidance from
Council priorities.
Councilmember Daysog stated this is an opportunity to discuss high-level qualitative
and quantitative concerns; outlined his issue of strengthening public trust and how to
relay that topic to Council.
Vice Mayor Knox White suggested Council consider holding a half-day workshop
quarterly or every 6 months; stated that he would like to ensure next steps are captured
at the upcoming workshop.
Councilmember Vella expressed support.
Councilmember Oddie expressed gratitude for the current discussion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will relay her notes to the facilitator.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
March 5, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-05.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,15,"what studies are needed and he wanted to hear from Staff Patel about his perspective on some of
the technical issues that are involved.
Jennifer Ott replied that they hired Kittelson and Associates who performed the traffic analysis.
So, Staff Patel could talk about what Caltrans might inquire about, but she would like Kittelson
and Associates to talk about what analysis was performed.
Commissioner Vargas stated that Caltrans was looking for additional traffic studies in order to
grant the City design exceptions. He explained they only cover the part between Webster and
Sherman Streets, which is a state route, and the rest does not need approval but falls on the City.
However, for continuity sake he asked staff to talk about the studies Caltrans is inquiring about
and the studies that have been done so far, including what are the challenges this project has
from an engineer's perspective.
Staff Patel replied since this project is only a study they have not done detailed traffic operation
analysis. However, from Caltrans' or the City's standpoint staff is conducting analysis on each
and every traffic signal along the route and the proposed signals along the route. Yet, that level
of detail Kittelson and Associates may have done as an overview. He explained that design
exceptions usually go to the headquarters, which is why staff ended up having this route under
the City because they were asking for a standard shoulder width and the City did not have the
standard width.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if the traffic and operational analysis include a review of shifts
in vehicle traffic or only show the Central Avenue traffic or also movements to other streets.
Staff Patel replied that staff would look into the shifts in vehicle traffic.
Commissioner Miley asked staff when the plan would go over to engineering for detail design.
Staff Patel replied staff reviewed the conceptual plan and made comments, but the plan is turned
over to engineering for detail design when the final plan is approved by the Transportation
Commission and City Council.
Commissioner Bellows said what was happening tonight was reviewing and making a motion for
the conceptual plan and that was all that was funded. She said until additional funding is
identified they are not going forward with the design.
Jennifer Ott stated that staff has reviewed the conceptual plan with City and Coastal engineers,
Stantec Engineering, Staff Patel, Kittelson and Associates and Caltrans engineers. She also said
there will be additional analysis and engineering when they get into the design phase.
Laurence Lewis, Kittelson and Associates, stated that an overview of the analysis looked at seven
key intersections on Central Avenue and one limitation that would be addressed is looking at the
minor intersections as well. He said they looked at locations that have traffic signals with the
highest traffic volumes going west to east and during the design phase all the side streets would
be analyzed. Additionally, they looked at AM and PM peak hours to understand the existing
traffic volumes level of service and existing conditions to understand the impact. Overall, they
Page 15 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,11,"what is the assessment of capital needs.
Mr. Vest responded the south property has a lot of capital needs, such as irrigation and
the pump station; stated 80% of the greens need to be redone; the driving range needs
to be re-covered; tree work is needed.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the condition [of the Course] when Kemper took
over.
Mr. Vest responded the course was rough; stated the greens had bare spots and were
diseased; the course has drainage issues; irrigation lines break daily.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Golf Course was considered to be in acceptable
condition when Kemper took over, to which Mr. Vest responded in the negative.
In response to Mayor's Johnson inquiry regarding capital projects, Mr. Vest stated the
sprinkler system and pump station are in dire need of repair.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the costs would be, to which the Recreation and Park
Director responded the sprinkler system would be approximately $1.5 million.
Mr. Vest stated the pump station would cost approximately $140,000.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated said information will be provided at the time of the [operator]
selection process.
The Interim City Manager stated staff worked very hard to get all reports done for
tonight's agenda; going through supplemental information provided by vendors
responding to the RFP while preparing for tonight's agenda was not humanly possible
because of the short holiday week and extra meeting; hopes are to have a
recommendation come to Council the first meeting in February.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the RFP has five different operational configurations; that he
does not know what the best set up would be; the RFP should have been revisited since
little interest was generated; the Golf Course will be closed forever once it is closed and
will not be replicated anywhere; every golf course is having problems; the community
has prided itself to reach out to every individual sport; moth balling the Course as a
passive park would cost $30,000 per year.
Mayor Johnson requested clarification on how much the City has made in cuts over the
last two years.
The Interim City Manager stated that she cut 10% of City staff in her first thirty days;
cash funds have gone down by more than $20 million in the last fifteen months; the
situation at the Golf Course is a factual reality of what is happening everywhere.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-07-22,8,"what is happening. He asked that the approval be postponed until after the appeal and
until the plans accurately reflect what is expected.
Madlen Saddik said this will be a great hotel which Alameda needs. She said the Chamber
of Commerce supports the project.
Pat Lamborn said she supports what Brian and Ed have said. She asked the Board not to
approve the project until the plans reflect the changes. She said the changes regarding
the landscape screening are very important. She said the community does not like the
solid grey structure. She said the project is over-parked. She said the plants do not reflect
the community input. She asked for a delay.
Dave Ross thanked the Board for all the work they do. He said there is no such thing as
perfect. He said waiting costs money. He said the neighbors signed disclosures when they
purchased their homes that say they lived next to a business park. He asked the Board to
approve the project.
Robert Leach, applicant, said he respects the residents who oppose the project. He said
this will be the nicest hotel in Alameda. He said they have not asked for variances and
have complied with every requirement there is and have tried to listen and accommodate
as many changes as possible. He said they have a qualified landscape planner and a
union labor agreement in place for construction and operations. He said the neighbors
liked the blue color, but that they believe the tone on tone design will keep the hotel from
becoming dated.
President Curtis closed the public hearing.
President Curtis said the project complies with the zoning requirements, BCDC, and every
regulatory issue there is. He said they can only focus on the design and landscaping.
Board Member Teague asked if there is a problem with the Board taking action tonight
while the appeal is pending.
Staff Attorney Chen said the appeal does not affect the Board's action tonight.
Board Member Teague said he is in favor of the project. He said he slightly favors the non-
blue color option, and would not oppose the brick if that is what the neighbors want. He
said the floorplan is up to the developer to decide and not part of the Board's decision
making process. He asked that the condition reflect that evergreen plants be used when
part of a light barrier.
Board Member Rothenberg said she supports the project. She asked that the drawings be
updated and conform to the design changes reflected in the staff report. She said the
applicant needs to verify that the changes are reflected in the final drawings. She
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 8 of 11
July 22, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-07-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-20,16,"what is being incurred currently; maintaining the building will be
a budget line item of a couple hundred thousand dollars per year;
the question is how to relieve other burdens at Alameda Point and
move forward.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has a couple of concerns;
philosophically. he does not believe Andrew Carnegie envisioned
giving the City an office building; the Carnegie should not be used
as an office building; form a practical point, there are too many
unanswered questions regarding the building use and consolidating
City services from City Hall West without reviewing all options; he
inquired about an Oak Street property at one point ; there were
rumors about the property being for sale; he never received an
answer; looking at said property should be reviewed; the Recreation
building is not fully utilized; said issues should be reviewed
first; his other questions are regarding financing; the project
costs are almost double what was initially anticipated; questioned
whether the building would always have to be used for Planning and
Building if permit revenues are used to finance the debt;
questioned whether tax increment can be used to pay debt service;
further stated the funding source, as well as the Master Plan,
should be determined first; there is an option to complete the work
regardless of use, particularly if tax increment can be used; the
elevator has to be completed regardless of use; phasing would allow
expensive items to be completed; the lighting information is
interesting; there should be further study; the building is to
important to rush to a decision at this point.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she appreciates the presentation
addressing public access and the use types that have been
considered; staff and the architects exercised a fair and balanced
due diligence process working with the museum; deterioration will
continue the longer the building remains unoccupied and not
renovated the building is a vital historical asset that needs to
be preserved; the timing and available funding is a coincidence
the project cost will not decrease; the Community Arts/Planning and
Building use recommended does not preclude converting to other uses
if there is funding in the future; the $4.7 million estimate brings
the building up to code and allows for other issues; the daylight
issue is in concert with the City's green building efforts that
she supports the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated projections were
made regarding public access to the building; the museum's
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
November 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-20.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
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,7,"what Rosenberg is recommending and the current rules to make sure nothing missing;
for meeting hours, Chair Dieter's list recommends midnight; she saw it was 11:00 p.m.,
then midnight and back to 11:00 p.m.; she thought the current time is 11:00 p.m. now.
The City Clerk stated midnight is not reflected as the time in the Sunshine Ordinance;
amending the ending time and the 10:30 p.m. vote to consider remaining items would
require an ordinance amendment.
Commissioner Foreman stated it does not matter if the Commission proceeds as he is
suggesting or as the motion is suggesting, except he does not see a way to not go
through article by article; he opposes adopting the proposal; the review needs to be
done as a group; he is willing to support the motion, but he is still going to want to go
through every item.
Chair Dieter stated the Commissioners all like Rosenberg's Rules of Order; the
Commission wants to make sure it has not missed anything for only the special rules;
she went line by line through it; suggested coming back again with the special rules to
give Commissioners an opportunity to study the resolutions to see if anything has been
missed.
Commissioner Foreman stated the suggestion makes sense; that he would be more
comfortable and the Commission might save time.
Chair Dieter stated there is a motion and a second; perhaps the Commission should
take a vote.
Commissioner Henneberry stated that he has a timing question; the Commission is
scheduled to meet twice per year; the next meeting is October; however, the
Commission can meet in the interim if there is a reason to meet; inquired whether a vote
of the Commission decides scheduling.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
The City Clerk stated the Commission's meetings are typically held the first Monday; in
the past, the Commission met the next month to continue review.
Commissioner Foreman moved approval of tabling the motion until the next meeting in
the next 30 days.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the meeting would be held the first Monday, to which
Commissioner Foreman responded that is fine with him.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that he will be gone the first Monday in March;
inquired whether the Commission would agree to the first Monday in April.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether other days are available.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
7
February 5, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-12-14,4,"what Lucy said. Alameda has every pre-qualification to be a world famous bicycle-friendly
community yet the City needs infrastructure to match it. He had three points:
1) On the class I bike paths on page 4 - He would like to see 12 feet as the recommended
minimum because these paths become multi-use paths. Twelve feet accommodates
multiple conflicts, users, directions and speeds. Twelve feet should be the floor and
should be the minimum for each side of the west span of the Bay Bridge. Golden Gate
Bridge is ten feet and seems too narrow.
2) On Page 34 regarding in-street bike corrals, earlier in the year we had conversations
about having them in front of businesses such as Stones Cyclery even on a trial basis.
Park Street is going to need more bike parking due to the elimination of the parking
meters along Park Street totaling about 100 de-facto bike parking spaces.
3) Class II bike lanes - such as Central Avenue between Willow Street and Oak Street is 5.5
feet - if you recommend an effective door zone of five feet between the bicycle tire and
the parked car to allow for sudden doors to be opened, then need to place bicycle tire on
the bike lane line on the Central Avenue bike lane. It says something about the current
practice as three feet yet they are talking about changing it nationally because the average
door on an SUV is four feet when open. Bicyclists need one foot between the door and
the bicycle to ensure that the bicyclist is predictable and safe. He recommends an
increase in the width of bike lanes and at least a four-foot door zone.
Commissioner Tribuzio asked about loop detectors and if they are the same as the ones at
intersections for vehicles.
Staff Khan replied that loop detectors detect the metal of a car and staff increases the sensitivity
to detect bicyclists. Cameras are becoming more common such as on Webster Street and
eventually on Park Street to ensure better detection of bicyclists.
Commissioner Tribuzio asked about bicycle racks. The guidelines showed two kinds - U shaped
and the ring kind. He questioned if it would be cheaper to use the ring kind for construction.
Page 4 of 9",TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-12-12,15,"wetlands confer an immense benefit for wildlife by providing habitat for aquatic, amphibian, terrestrial, and
avian species alike. Coastal wetlands are also notoriously efficient mechanisms for carbon sequestration and
storm water filtration, thereby mitigating anthropic environmental impacts on a local and global scale.
In addition to the environmental benefits DePave Park can provide, constructing a shoreline wetland can
establish critical ecosystem-based adaptations that would augment Alameda's resilience to global climate
change. As one of the largest low-lying regions in the Bay Area, Alameda must prepare for the impending
effects of sea level rise. Wetlands function as natural sponges that trap and slowly release surface water,
rain, groundwater, and flood waters and distribute these waters more slowly over the floodplain, thereby
lowering flood heights and dissipating storm surges. DePave Park can serve as a buffer between Alameda
and the Bay to mitigate gradual and storm surge inundation to populated areas. The additional benefit of
replacing the impermeable land cover currently at Alameda Point with a porous ecosystem will create
immediately observable improvements.
The proposed park is an investment towards Alameda's future resilience in the face of climate change and
rising sea levels as well as its ecological role in the Bay. More importantly, the park will restore a sense of
place and community that has been lost from this corner of the island. Therefore, Baykeeper strongly
recommends that the Alameda Department of Recreation and Parks prioritize DePave Park for development.
Thank you for your consideration. You may feel free to reach me at 510-735-9700 x114 or
cole@baykeer.org if you have any questions.
Warmly,
CBB
Cole Burchiel
Field Investigator and Science Associate
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800
Pollution hotline: 1 800 KEEP BAY
Oakland, CA 94612
WATERKEEFER'ALLIANCE
FOUNDING MEMEBER
www.baykeeper.org
(510) 735-9700",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-06-14,3,"were warranted. For the Harbor Bay Club, he thought it was a moot point since it was
already zoned for housing.
William Smith applauded City staff for proposing that the City of Alameda affirmatively
further fair housing by allowing multi-family housing in all residential and commercial
mixed-use neighborhoods. He discussed the many benefits enabled by multifamily
housing in all residential neighborhoods. He asked that the Planning Board members
reach across the generational divide between boomers and millennials on housing. He
wanted to see Alameda affordable for the working and middle class.
Charles Johnson discussed the Harbor Bay Club and its history. The club's purpose was
to provide recreational facilities to the residents of Harbor Bay Isle and it essentially
replaced open spaces in the confines of each neighborhood. He believed that removing
this amenity from the planned development would be inequitable to the families who had
purchased homes on Harbor Bay Isle. He discussed the many benefits of having access
to the club and losing this amenity would be a huge blow to the 112 families who use it.
Bill Pai, the Board President of Harbor Bay Isle, also discussed the importance of the
Harbor Bay Club. Last month the CHBIOA Board unanimously passed a resolution
opposing the city's Draft General Plan which if approved as is would rezone the land
currently occupied by the club and shopping center to allow the construction of multifamily
housing. He believed the city was already strained in dealing with its infrastructure and
thought that an increase in residents and housing would further overburden the
infrastructure. The CHBIOA proposed to see the club's land use changed to business and
employment and encouraged the city to take advantage of Alameda Point for multifamily
housing.
Conchita Perales was concerned that the city was proposing a heavy increase in
development in existing residential areas while reducing or removing parking
requirements. She said if the City Council failed to appeal the RHNA numbers then they
would be adding more than 25,000 people to the island in the next 8 years. She didn't
understand the assumption that people would not be bringing their cars, she thought the
plan was downplaying the traffic situation. She thought that new development should be
limited to Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront as much as possible.
Matt Reid discussed the importance of preserving Alameda's military history. He
mentioned how neighboring cities had done a great job such as the Rosie the Riveter
Museum in Richmond and thought that Alameda could be doing more. He hoped in the
long-term vision they could incorporate how important Alameda's role in WWII was.
Reyla Graber discussed Article 26 and how it confirmed people's love of Alameda as it is
and how the Mayor herself said that Alameda would continue to support Article 26. She
was confused by why the General Plan proposed to allow multifamily development in the
single-family area zones. The report said it would also be eliminating single-family zones.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 14
June 14, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-09-26,4,"were used, including comparisons to different non-ferry modes of transportation. He
recommended that the street transit fare box average of 27-28% be used, as well as the
recovery ratio for the highway system by CalTrans.
Chair Knox White inquired whether Objective 3 on page 16 (Integrated Ticketing)
included any discussion between the City and Translink. Mr. Sanchez noted that it had
been discussed with MTC, but there was no current implementation schedule or funding
available at this time. Chair Knox White suggested adding that as a goal, stating that the
region should start moving to a single fare card.
Chair Knox White noted that Objective 3 on page 16 (Measure 2) read, ""Transit
schedules should be coordinated to allow easy, convenient transfers between ferries and
land-side transit."" He noted that it mentioned that the ferries ran at a 65-minute headway,
and inquired whether that was because it was the shortest possible headway.
Chair Knox White noted that Objective 5 on page 16 read, ""The ferry system should
provide ample reserve capacity in case of disruptions to land-based transportation
systems."" He believed that seemed to run counter to the cost-efficiency argument. He
believed it would be interesting if the plan discussed that issue. Mr. Sanchez replied that
the City has participated in the Spare the Air program, and cited the recent closure of the
Bay Bridge and other heavy service days. They used additional carrying capacity from
the contractor, Blue and Gold Fleet, which would meet that goal without having the
additional carrying capacity on their books.
Chair Knox White noted that on page 18, Service and System Evaluations, the total City
expenses between FY2002-03 and FY2006-07 nearly tripled for the Alameda-Oakland
Ferry Service; at the same time, the Alameda-Harbor Bay service decreased significantly.
He inquired whether that was the City's portion of the fuel increases, and inquired
whether the City would take on more expense for the Alameda-Oakland Ferry. Mr.
Sanchez confirmed that the two contractors operated on different contract structures. The
Alameda-Oakland Ferry was contracted with Blue and Gold Fleet, which was a cost-plus-
fixed-fee arrangement. He added that the City paid Blue and Gold Fleet approximately
$280,000 in annual fixed fees for overhead, profit, etc. He noted that the other ferry
expenses (fuel, labor, insurance) were passed through to the City for payment by the City.
The Alameda-Harbor Bay Ferry service was operated under a fixed subsidy agreement,
whereby they agree to the operating subsidy at the beginning of the year, and the ferry
operator, Harbor Bay Maritime, would be required to operate and provide the required
service at that level of funding. He noted that it used a modified fixed subsidy agreement
because the fuel was paid for on a direct pass-through basis.
Chair Knox White noted that it was a significant surprise when the dollar bridge toll was
passed under Regional Measure 2, including language to pass that money onto the
Alameda ferry system, and other area regional systems, going to the WTA. He inquired
whether there was any way to tap into those funds under Regional Measure 2. Mr.
Sanchez replied that there was no way to access Regional Measure 2 funds. Chair Knox
White requested that staff look into that possibility under the WETA arrangement. He
Transportation Commission
Page 4 of 9
September 26, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2014-03-10,7,"were approved.
7.C. Alameda Landing Residential Homes - Colors and Street Names. The
Planning Board will hold a public hearing to consider the color and material boards for the
residential units and the proposed street names for the residential portion of the property at
the Alameda Landing Project, generally located between Stargell Avenue, 5th Street, and
Mitchell Avenue. A final environmental impact report was certified for this project in 2007.
Staff requested this item be continued to April 12, 2014
8. MINUTES: None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
9.A. Future Agendas - Mr. Thomas reported on upcoming agenda items.
9.B. Staff Communications - Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent
Actions and Decisions - Mr. Thomas reported there were four approvals since the last
meeting.
Board member Knox White asked about the timeline for Del Monte.
Mr. Thomas stated he will look at the timeline closer.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
11.A. Report from Alameda Point Town Center Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee - None
Board member Zuppan asked for comments on the Golf Course project. Perhaps that
can come back to the PB.
Board member Knox White stated it was a temporary structure. He asked about permits
being pulled.
Mr. Thomas stated there was a scoping session for an EIR for two different sites. The two
separate application were packaged together. There has been a constant influx of emails,
and a letter was sent for a special meeting on the rezoning. There was a letter from the
applicant to withdraw the rezoning on Packet Landing. The only proposal now is a new
club in the business park. There is no date set for the design review. The original EIR
has been used for all the development for HBI.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
13. ADJOURNMENT: President Burton adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 7
March 10, 2014",PlanningBoard/2014-03-10.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-07-19,21,"went to the Council and bypassed the OGC; it seems the City Attorney's office has deeper
concerns that have not been addressed; she believes there are underlying issues that the
OGC should address before moving forward with other suggestions.
Commissioner LoPilato stated one thing she heard at the June 1st meeting regarding the
OGC's adjudicatory function is a suggestion that there could be improvements to the ways
in which complaints are adjudicated; while there are big philosophical questions the
Commission wants to dive into, she is concerned that keeping it abstract opens up having
many complaints filed in the interim period while the complaint procedure is not being
followed; there is a big picture question about who advises the Commission and what
does that look like; she encourages moving forward with something that outlines what a
complaint hearing should look like, what kind of documentation could be submitted, the
timing and what the findings and options are; something could be prepared that begins to
answer the questions and put forth a proposal; she would like to see what could be done
tonight to be sure something is brought forward for the OGC to take action on at a future
meeting.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding whether there is interest in
revising the complaint procedures, Commissioners concurred.
Chair Tilos stated he would like someone in a neutral position provide guidance on how
the OGC should weigh in, rather than having outside counsel tell the OGC how to weigh
in.
Commissioner LoPilato stated it might make sense to actually draft up what a complaint
procedure might look like, acknowledging there is a desire for a neutral guidance and
include expectations about what the docket and complaint hearing would look like; she
would really like to get something moving forward and has already fleshed out some
options; suggested creating a subcommittee to make some progress in the downtime.
Chair Tilos stated he would support doing so.
Commissioner Chen stated that she envisioned a flow chart of a process while reviewing
Commissioner LoPilato's report; expressed support.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated if there is capacity of some staff members to create a flow
chart, as another visual learner, it would be helpful.
Commissioner Reid stated that she is supportive of having an August meeting; she is
willing to work on a subcommittee.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he supports figuring out the priority of the questions,
including the issues around the complaint process, not necessarily the procedures, but
how the information is presented; other issues may need to be prioritized and timelines
considered.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
21
July 19, 2021",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-02-08,3,"went into detail about how Article 26 coupled with the high cost of land makes building
required housing difficult.
Vice President Saheba believed that diving deeper into all these connected issues that
surround housing would be beneficial.
President Teague wanted to know how the energy usage had changed due to the
pandemic and wanted to see reports that electrification would not be a barrier to
development. He also wanted to see more information on rental vs sale for the Inclusionary
Housing Program. He also strongly suggested that Alameda adopt the Efficiency Unit
Ordinance that opts them into AB325.
Director Thomas wanted to thank Mr. Pelegri-O'Day for all his work as he will be leaving
Alameda. He said that the staff was very aware that all of these issues surround housing
and that it's important that the board was picking out items that are important. He also
assured Board Member Curtis that they are not closing down any roads, but more of road
diets like reducing 4 lane roads to 3 lanes. He also said that they would start having budget
workshops in May.
8.
MINUTES
8-A 2021-635
Draft Meeting Minutes - December 14, 2020
Board Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Curtis
seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2021-636
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
No board member wanted to pull any items for review.
9-B 2021-637
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects.
Allen Tai, City Planner, said that at the next meeting there would be a presentation from
the Economic Development Staff. The staff would also bring back the Objective Design
Review Standards and proposed amendments to the Residential Open Space Ordinance.
Then at the March 8th meeting, the staff would bring forward the Parking Ordinance with
a more detailed Housing Element Annual Report.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Ruiz suggested looking at the definition of Alameda's zoning code, to
revisit the definition of a dwelling unit. They could more narrowly define it and also give
more options as other jurisdictions have done. This could possibly expedite the housing
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 4
February 8, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-08.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2016-12-14,20,"went back to driving my car, it means that this has been going on for 10 years. If our transportation
coordinators were spending half as much time as they are on bike lanes and streamlining those kinds
of modes of transportation to just getting Paratransit to working the way it supposed to work, that
would be great, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of outreach. Measure BB is my property taxes,
I
believe, I'm paying for this, it's not coming out of the sky. I would really like somebody to work on
the Paratransit better.
Elizabeth Kenny: Thank you.
Gail Payne: And just to respond to that, you're speaking of the East Bay Paratransit, so that's a
separate entity than the city, and that's why I'm not spending my time on it.
Beth Kenny: I'd like to thank you again, Gail, for another informative presentation and I think that
concludes our old business. Up next, we have Staff Communication.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Kerry Parker: So, yesterday I updated the website for the Commission on Disability Issues meeting
for 2017, given the formula that we have of on the even months, we meet on the second Wednesdays
at 6:30 PM, except August because Counsel Chambers is dark in August. So, the meetings for this
next year is slated for these dates: February 8th, April 12th, June 14th, October 11th and December
13th. I just posted all of those today. What is not yet scheduled is our extra meeting, our retreat, and
that's something that we're probably going to look at, at our next meeting, because we'll put it on the
agenda. It's not on the agenda for today, so we can't really make any decisions about it.
Kerry Parker: Also for that February meeting, we already have a couple of items on the agenda.
Gail mentioned one of them, the Paratransit program will be giving their annual update, and I expect
we'll meet the new staff person at that meeting, very exciting. At the February meeting, we're going
to vote for the Chair and the Vice Chair, because we do that annually. Be thinking about that. If the
incumbents want to go again, if there's anybody else who would like the role of assisting and running
the meetings and deciding on agendas, it's an interesting job to contemplate. Be thinking about that
for the February meeting. And then possibly for February, we might be talking about the universal
design ordinance. I don't know what the status of that is. I know the sub-committee has gone through
some various iterations of that, so that could very possibly be something we're discussing in February.
7.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Elizabeth Kenny: Great. Thank you, Kerry. To follow up on the universal design ordinance, yes, we
are going to try and have a meeting in February. However, the timetable for this has changed quite
often, but at some point in the very near future, we will have a universal design ordinance that the
Community Development Department has asked if the Commission on Disability Issues would
recommend it. That will be coming up at one of our future meetings. If it's not at our February
meeting, we may have a joint meeting with the planning board where it would be the first item, and
where we could either recommend it or not recommend the universal design ordinance at that time.
So keep that in mind, and I'm very excited about how it's going. The other announcement, I think Lisa
Hall. Commissioner Hall?
Lisa Hall: On October 22nd, I had the pleasure of attending the Making of the Invisible Visible
Summit 2016, held at Will C. Wood School. This event was sponsored by the AANHP, the Asian-
American Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander Disability Awareness Project. The program started with
a
warm welcome from Reverend Michael Yoshii of the Buena Vista UMC Church, whose church also
have a disability ministry. It was very informative. A strong disability advocate also spoke, Mr. Austin",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-12-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-07-07,9,"well; stated rounds have increased substantial savings are
anticipated; numbers can be presented at the next meeting.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether any formal feedback has been
received from golfers.
The Recreation and Park Director responded Kemper Sports is
conducting a survey; stated information should be available within
a month; informal feedback has been positive.
Mayor Johnson stated the Golf Course condition has improved.
The Recreation and Park Director stated customer service has
improved also.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Golf Course is in better shape and
management has improved.
Mayor Johnson stated maintenance workers are at the Golf Course on
weekends.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Golf Course is running
a deficit.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the deficit is not as
large as originally anticipated.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Mif Albright numbers can
be provided.
The Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative;
stated numbers have been strong.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the projected deficit, to which the
Recreation and Park Director responded the deficit should be half
of what was expected.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the original projection, to which
the Recreation and Park Director responded $700,000.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether or not theft has occurred.
The Recreation and Park Director responded Kemper Sports has done a
good job on inventory control; stated inventory is performed on a
regular basis.
Mayor Johnson inquired about past break in issues, to which the
Recreation and Park Director responded window break ins have not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2017-10-12,4,"well. There were 100 golfers and 125 dinner guests. Bike for the Parks was on Saturday, October 7, 2017
and there were 465 riders. Commended Gene Oh and ARPD for all of their hard work. FOTP raised
$40,000 from these two events.
Congratulated Vice-Chair Tilos on his recent engagement. Vice-chair Tilos said he proposed under the
Magnolia Tree at Longfellow Park, which is his favorite park.
C. Recreation and Parks Director Report
Mastick Senior Center
Mastick's 30th Annual Thrift Shop Fashion Show and Luncheon took place on Thursday, September 21.
There were 245 participants, (205 registered patrons along with 40 volunteers). Everyone enjoyed live music,
lunch, raffles, the fashion show and shopping. The net revenue raised was $3,190.48. Commended Alameda
Rotary for serving the meals.
Mastick's 10th Annual Ice Cream Social took place on Wednesday, September 13. Over 150 members
enjoyed ice cream sundaes and socializing.
Admin
Continuing management of Activenet implementation with ""Go Live"" anticipated in December. This effort is
requiring coordinated efforts from every area of the Department.
LimeBike launched its dockless bikeshare program which will include parks.
Smoke and air quality
Cancelled all ARPD outdoor programming such as Kidz Love Soccer.
All youth and senior programs are remaining indoors.
Parks Maintenance staff is currently limited with few or no staff in many locations due to the air
quality. Normal routine maintenance concerns will be handled as soon as we can work outside at full
capacity.
Public art in Parks - Responding to artists that are interested in putting their art in the parks.
One is under review with Sweeney Park Steering Committee and will then come to Recreation and
Park Commission (RPC) in November for final review.
Littlejohn Playground
Obtained a CA housing related park grant which was matched with the California Parks and
Recreation Society grant for Healthy Communities. It will be a national demonstration site.
Resident input meeting on Wednesday, Oct. 25th at 6:30pm at Littlejohn Recreation Center.
Public access pathways on Fernside Blvd.
o Steps
1)
Issue Marine Architect RFP for feasibility study of 6 access points. Includes recreation option and
cost for each option at each point.
2) Provide feasible options to neighbors and community and host meetings for input.
3) Commission to review final draft recommendation in late spring 2018, then City Council has final
approval.
Gym Allocation update
Concerns were raised and letters written to Commissioners regarding inadequate gym hours for
Alameda non-profit organizations, Alameda Youth Basketball (AYB) and Vipers, as well as concerns
of equal girls' use of gym per the Fair Play Act.
Staff worked with schools to give back time and have distributed that to AYB and Vipers. Continuing
to work on identifying additional time.
Girls hours in gym:
Oct = 62%, Nov = 52%, Dec = 52%, Jan & Feb = 50%
Athletic Facility Allocation Policy process and timeline:
Staff is already collecting allocation policies from similar municipalities.
Draft policy will be reviewed at a meeting with user groups to receive feedback and make
adjustments as needed.
4",RecreationandParkCommission/2017-10-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-10-02,12,"welfare commission; urged that the results of the internal affair
probe be released to the public.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Police Department is preparing a
report to Council that will be made public; internal affair
investigation reports are not public.
(07-487) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed volunteering.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07-488) Councilmember deHaan stated that Alameda Power and
Telecom had a meeting regarding the Solar Rebate Program last week;
the meeting was well attended; a policy will come to Council.
The City Manager stated a policy will go to the Public Utilities
Board in November with input from the meeting.
Councilmember deHaan stated many people are interested in the
program even though solar energy does not seem to be very efficient
in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to look into the Navy's quarterly
Partners Sustainability Meetings; stated that the Navy has done a
lot of research on alternative and solar energy.
(07-489) Mayor Johnson stated that she and Councilmember Matarrese
met with staff and Oakland Council President Ignacio de La Fuente
regarding the realignment of a train route and re-routing of more
trains onto the track that crosses 29th Avenue; Alameda and Oakland
are planning a workshop on October 11; Alameda motorists need to be
able to continue on once over the [Park Street ] bridge; the issue
is significant and affects Oakland Councilmember Kernighan's
district; the purpose of the meeting is to inform Oakland and
Alameda residents on what is known at the time.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a railroad track is crossed when
motorists proceed outbound on the Park Street Bridge said railroad
track would have increased train traffic inbound; the train traffic
would go through the neighborhood along Fruitvale Avenue and cross
the off ramp to I-880 southbound onto Fruitvale Avenuel
Councilmember de La Fuente's office found out about the situation
when the Union Pacific Railroad sought permits for traffic
diversion on 29th Avenue to start repairing the tracks.
The City Manager stated the meeting is scheduled for October 11th at
6:30 p.m. ; the location is to be determined; information will be
provided through a press release as well as the City's website.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
October 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-02-04,14,"weigh-in on matters and provide opinions on issues; the null and void provision is meant
to be said tool; null and void can supersede Council decisions and represents a power
that is above the Council; noted the problem with null and void is that there is no basis
in the City Charter; stated Section 3-1 of the Charter vests all power in the City Council;
Section 3-2 states Council may delegate powers to commissions in a manner only
consistent with the Charter; expressed support for being consistent with the Charter and
for understanding the basis of how the null and void provision aligns; stated the City
Charter Sections 3-1, 3-2 and 1-2(D) are vested in Council making rules and having
powers; Council can delegate rules to commissions and boards; the rules cannot be
delegated in a way that places the Council in an inferior position; the City should come
up with a tool to address situations in which the public has not properly been noticed;
null and void is not the only tool available; members of the public and the OGC can
come up with a variety of other tools that checks the City Council if a decision is made
that was not properly noticed; noted Council can create an ordinance which allows the
OGC to flag situations that clearly show a decision being made which has not been
adequately noticed; stated penalties could require a 4-1 Council vote in order to move
the item forward; there will be times when the Council makes a mistake; when checks
are created, it should align with the City Charter; there are many ways to create
remedies similar to null and void.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for Councilmember Daysog's comments;
noted that he was previously on the Sunshine Task Force; discussed meetings
developing the Sunshine Ordinance; stated each member of the Task Force desired the
OGC to have teeth, not just alerts; the one violation yielded a battle-mode response
from the City and prompted reconsideration of the null and void provision; stated there
should have been an easy cure to the issue; that he agrees with Councilmember
Daysog's, as well as staff's, comments; null and void is not a legal finding and is
problematic; there will always be a legal implication; expressed concern for removing
the provision in hopes that OGC findings are considered; stated actions of Council take
time to implement; should violations be found, the Sunshine Ordinance should dictate
the violation be agendized on the next reasonable agenda for consideration of either
concurrence or non-concurrence with the OGC's findings; there should be a reasonable
way to cure the issue; the simplest path would be to re-hear the item and cure; the
public is given an opportunity to come back to the policy making body, at a properly
noticed meeting and weigh in on the topic; outlined his experience related to the
Transportation Commission improperly noticing an item; expressed concern about the
finding being perfunctory; expressed support for something that replaces null and void
with an acceptable alternative; stated that he does not support staff's recommendation
of removing null and void.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for Councilmember Daysog's comments;
noted there are restraints at the State level; stated the City can pass any law; however,
if the law is unconstitutional, it should not be passed; expressed support for replacing
null and void with something that allows for the ability to call out Council in the event an
item is passed which violates the Sunshine Ordinance; stated the opinion of the OGC
will have weight; expressed concern for someone using null and void to try and overturn
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
February 4, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-02-04.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-07-20,2,"week and is healing well. The staff gave out two-for-one coupon, to
tournament groups inconvenienced by the work being done, which seemed
to make the situation better. The area of the new practice putting green
has been outlined and a survey of the underground utilities will be done
this week to eliminate any line breakage during the irrigation trenching.
The tree has been removed on #1 of the Mif Albright Course for the new
hole and the new green on the new #3 hole was mowed out. The practice
area will be opened as soon as possible and Alameda Power and Telecom
has been called to come out and redirect the lights. The Jack Clark Course
irrigation pump's motor broke and has been repaired. The course suffered
minor damage during the replacement period. A problem also occurred
with the Earl Fry Course pump and the repairs are being done. The new
City Manager, Debra Kurita is scheduled to begin on August 1 and is
scheduling meetings with the various departments over the next few
months. The General Manager, Chair Swanson, and Commissioner
Schmitz have scheduled a meeting with the Mayor, New City Manager,
and Assistant City Manager on August 16, 2005 to discuss the new
clubhouse project. The General Manager complimented the Junior Golf
Club on their organization running the tournaments. The club
has
partnered with Junior Golf Resources to have the Junior Pro Shop open on
tournament play days to distribute the golf equipment. The City Manager
received a letter from Legends and Heroes requesting a meeting to discuss
their contract. The comment was made that Legends and Heroes does not
open the snack shack on #9 of the Earl Fry Course until 9:30 am or 10:00
am and it should be opened earlier. The question was raised whether the
dead trees on #13 of the Earl Fry Course have been removed yet. The
General Manager stated that they have not been removed yet. The
suggestion was made to replace the garbage cans at the snack shack. The
General Manager stated that they have been replaced and the restrooms
were power washed. The General Manager also mentioned that he would
be on vacation starting tomorrow and returning on Monday, August 1.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
No report given.
5.
COMMISSIONERSI REPORTS
5-A
Marketing and Promotions, Secretary Gammell.
Secretary Gammell gave an overview of the current marketing and
promotions. The promotions include the Silver Club Senior Package,
Early Bird Package, Friday Monthly Ticket rate, Kids Play Free with a
paid Adult, $25 Late Twilight rate, Two for One Green Fees for Affiliate
Clubs and Discounted Range Balls (morning & evening). Advertising
includes the new web site www.golfinalameda.com, an ad at SBC Park for",GolfCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2014-06-12,3,"website which includes much history including newspaper articles and legal documents.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION & PARK DIRECTOR
A.
Recreation Commission Reports: Commissioner Cooke commented on attending the
May
17th California Association of Park and Recreation Commissioners meeting in Moraga. It
was an interesting meeting, and well attended. Commissioner Sonneman commented on the
T-Shirt League which had an amazing turn-out, great collaboration, and good community
effort. Wooldridge commented there is still a need for volunteers, coaches and with each site
having over 50 kids and a total of 335 children registered. Sonneman commented on the
Russi family being an active park family, and condolences for the loss of Mr. Jim Russi.
B. Friends of the Park Report (FOTP): Chair Delaney stated there is a new FOTP
Boardmember and there is still room for more. June 20th is the first Starlight movie at
Alameda Point, and FOTP will take more of an active role addressing the audience.
September 15th is the Annual Golf Tournament and support in the way of raffle items has
been great.
C.
Mastick Senior Board: Commission Brown reported that an upcoming meeting will
include financial reporting and election of new Chair(s). She and her husband hosted a full
bus on a trip to John Muir Woods and it was fun and well received. There has been a good trip
program that has been instituted at Mastick for the past 15 years. She stated that the City
Manager did a State of the City to Mastick members in May. She praised the staff and
volunteers at MSC.
D.
Recreation and Parks Director Report:
Director Wooldridge reported on behalf of Recreation Services Specialist Mariel Thomas
who works with Mastick half of her time and handles role while handling enrichment classes
the other half. She listed new classes, provided numbers on how many classes are
provided and participation levels.
Starting in July, the Commission will have two new Commissioners: Mario Mariani and
Ruben Tilos and Chair Delaney is being reappointed.
Outlined the ARPD Annual Budget. Impacts include the state minimum wage increase
which resulted in an additional cost of $50,000. Fees will be increasing next year to offset.
Revised the Recreation Fund with additional revenue and subsequently will hire one more
Recreation Services Specialist. Adjusted the water utility budget in Parks (General Fund).
Estuary Park design is moving forward.
Mastick is implementing a new program with Alameda Family Services for a Senior Case
Manager program. This is a one-time pilot program.
Development Impact Fees will be discussed by City Council in July.
Leydecker Court rehabilitation, funded by Under Armour and Stephan Curry is upcoming.
Implemented dragging and lining of fields by youth sports agencies, and provided a mower
to Alameda Little League for Rittler Park.
Pool maintenance has been brought back in-house for cost savings.
More brown lawns in parks due to drought.
Krusi Park has a project manager assigned and will be moving forward soon.
McKinley Recreation Center will have exterior painting done in the next few months and
thanks to the Church of Latter Day Saints for the rehab of interior.
Grant funds have been able to help with getting recycling in our parks, six to start.
3",RecreationandParkCommission/2014-06-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-01-26,3,"web site under the Public Works Department web page with the title ""Transportation.""
Close public hearing.
No action was taken.
4B.
Election of Transportation Commission Chair and Vice Chair
Staff Khan explained the work involved for a Chair and a Vice Chair.
Open public hearing.
Commissioner Moehring stated that she is not comfortable with nominating and electing
a Chair and Vice Chair at this time because there are SO many new Transportation
Commission members. She recommended having an Interim Chair and an Interim Vice
Chair until the July meeting.
Staff Khan replied that it is the call of the Transportation Commission members.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Moehring moved to recommend electing an Interim Chair and an Interim
Vice Chair until the July meeting. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Vargas moved to elect Kathy Moehring as the Interim Chair.
Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Tribuzio moved to elect Tom Bertken as the Interim Vice Chair.
Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
5.
Staff Communications
Additional City CarShare Pod - Public Parking Lot on Santa Clara Avenue
Staff Payne stated that a new City CarShare pod has been installed at Public Lot W,
which is at Santa Clara Avenue by Webster Street and adjacent to the farmers' market on
Tuesdays and Saturdays. The parking meter still needs to be removed at this spot.
Commissioner Moehring stated that she appreciates this work.
Additional Bus Shelters on Webster Street
Staff Payne stated that three new bus shelters have been installed on Webster Street - one
at Atlantic and the other two at Buena Vista, in both directions.
Page 3 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-01-26.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2016-06-08,5,"we're working hard to improve our bus system, walking and bicycling. Some of the challenges are
that we still have gaps, especially in the bicycling system. We're trying to adapt to new technologies
and it's changing daily, it's evolving, so that's hard to figure out.
Gail Payne: More people in Alameda are using alternatives to driving than they ever did before.
More people are taking the bus, more people are bicycling and walking, and more people are
telecommuting from home. So, people are definitely open, more Alamedans are open to commuting
in these different ways. Within Alameda, most homes and jobs are located close to a bus stop,
there's a 37% increase in bicycle commuting over the past four years. And what's really difficult
within Alameda is if you need to get around at about 8:00 AM, before or after, we really have a lot
of students here, we have about 1,500 more students than we did a decade ago. And not only that,
we have fewer neighborhood schools, we have more magnet schools than we've ever had, more
charter schools. And these schools have a city wide enrollment. The neighborhood schools tend to
have that catchment area around the neighborhood, around the school. Whereas the magnet schools,
charter schools, they get students from all over the city, SO they're more apt to be driven to the
school. They even get students from other jurisdictions as well, and more apt too, than local
schools. So if you're trying to get around a town around 8:00 AM, you'll notice a difference, it's
tough.
Gail Payne: Bicycle facilities, we are going to be updating the bike plan soon. We're going to be
constructing the Cross Alameda trail next year. And we are currently looking at the potential to have
bike share here, like you probably see in other jurisdictions like San Francisco, East Bay is getting it
later this year, I think. For transit ridership, most commuters take AC Transit. My favorite is the AC
Transit Transbay, they are the work horses of it all, and they don't get enough attention. And the
people also take BART, and they also take Ferry. So we're very fortunate we have close access to
ferries, BART, and the buses. It's unusual for such a small jurisdiction to have all those options.
Granted, we don't have BART nearby, or right in town yet, we have, I think, within about a mile or
so radius maybe, I think it's five BART stations. We have two ferry terminals, and shuttle systems,
we also have some tech shuttles coming in now, like Google and Facebook. And we're expanding,
we recently had improvements to Line 51 A, we're going to be restoring Line 19, along the Northern
Waterfront, Buena Vista Avenue. And we're hoping to get a new ferry terminal in Alameda Point, in
the Seaplane Lagoon area coming 2019-2020.
Gail Payne: AC Transit ridership is on the rise, especially Transbay buses. We had an increase in
ridership of 27% since 2010. A lot of that has to do with the BART strikes that happened in 2013.
And this next slide shows that BART ridership from Alameda is down. Because after the BART
strikes, these commuters discovered the Transbay buses, they discovered the ferries. And ferry
ridership is also up, and unfortunately for BART, Alamedans are less apt to take BART, although
BART is packed so I don't think they're really missing us. For Paratransit, we are fortunate to have
East Bay Paratransit, which is funded by BART and AC Transit, they really carry the bulk of
Paratransit riders. They carry 13,000 annually, riders from home base from Alameda. And we also
have an Alameda Paratransit shuttle. And we have, because of Measure BB that recently got passed,
we're planning on increasing the frequency to run every 30 minutes, and hopeful to Fruitvale BART.
Gail Payne: Like I said, ferry ridership has been increasing from the two ferry terminals. And the
last of key points, of the key concept is these transportation demand-management strategies
improve transportation options, and I had mentioned them before but the idea here is we're trying to
make the transportation system more efficient. There's limited space, so let's try to get as many
08/17/16
Page 5 of 19",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2009-09-10,5,"we start doing this how are Alameda citizens going to feel about future bond issues for
parks and that they cannot trust the fact that if they vote for the money to go to parks
the money will be there. The Estuary Park and Alameda Beltline representatives look
forward being able to have a bond issue to get money for Estuary Park and Alameda
Beltline projects. Ms. Freeman would hate to see this idea put in jeopardy just because
we want to give money that belongs to the people to a private organization.
Joseph Woodard, Alameda resident, provided a copy of a letter that he sent to EBRPD
protesting the monies being given to the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. For the record, at
the Council Meeting on September 1, the number of speakers for and against the Boys
& Girls Club receiving the money was about equal. The Alameda Boys & Girls Club
managed to pack half of the Council chambers with employees and Board Members.
The people speaking against the idea were not employees of anyone, but were private
citizens. People who voted for the bond issue thought that it was to be used for parks.
You have maintenance projects and certainly have new acquisitions that are very
important. This opportunity is absolutely unprecedented with regard to the Alameda
Beltline, where a large park space will be purchased for less than $1 million and now
money is being proposed to be diverted to a private organization. This is
unconscionable and hopes that the Recreation & Park Commission will do everything in
their power to oppose it.
Barbara Kerr, former Councilmember and Alameda resident, stated that a group went to
EBRPD for a sub-committee meeting and after spoke to Mr. Rasmussen (grant
manager). The committee was very sympathetic, but the grant manager was not. She
expressed a criticism that this is something that needs to be remedied. Mr. Rasmussen
was basing his decision on the Alameda Boys & Girls Club and only on what the Boys &
Girls Club had told him. Ms. Kerr was surprised at his resistance. She recommends
that the EBRPD, through whatever process, needs more cross communication from the
City and citizens. Ms. Kerr stated that what bothered her at the last Council Meeting
was the aggressive attempt to bypass the Recreation & Park Commission. She does
not feel that any Board or Commission should ever be considered insignificant the way
the Recreation & Park Commission was at the last Council Meeting. The Council needs
to hear from staff and the public about all projects that are worth while and need to be
heard together on an equal basis. We need to let the Council know how we feel about
their just trying to bypass one of our Boards and Commissions, meaning the Recreation
& Park Commission.
Gretchen Lipow, Alameda resident, provided the Commission with the text/definition of
Measure WW. Ms. Lipow stated that she was amazed at the galvanized Alameda Boys
& Girls Club at the Council Meeting on September 1. When you look at the Measure
WW language it talks about protecting creeks, wild life, purchase and save open space,
wetlands, bay shorelines, acquire, develop and improve local and regional parks, trails
and recreational facilities. She was trying to figure out what justified doing anything for
the Boys & Girls Club, and the only thing that she could see that would apply was
recreational facilities. When you look at the other needs, new parks - Estuary Park and
Beltline, they cover so many other factors in the initiative itself. These projects would
encompass improving local parks, trails, open space, etc. People went to the ballot box
to vote, they did not vote to put money into the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. Ms. Lipow
was really disappointed and thinks that this is an unfair process. She encouraged
everyone to go to the next Council meeting and speak their mind.
Recreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.
2
Minutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009",RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,11,"ways of honoring Wilma Chan; Supervisor Chan has had an impact on many; discussed her
experience in asking Supervisor Chan for advice on college selections; stated Wilma Chan has
been a role model for many; renaming is the right thing to do and she is glad Council is taking
action; expressed condolences to the family.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she whole-heartedly supports the resolution; stated the request
comes directly from the family; it is important to honor the family's wishes; expressed support for
adding residency information to the resolution; stated the information can be added to one of the
last paragraphs; provided highlights of the resolution; stated many lives have been saved due to
legislation Wilma Chan sponsored; it is fitting that Wilma Chan be honored; Council is looking at
the matter with hindsight; at the time of the naming policy, no one anticipated the tragedy would
occur; Council did not leave room for an exception to the policy; stated that she is forming an ad
hoc subcommittee of Councilmembers Daysog and Knox White to go over the naming policy
and return to Council with any recommendations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council has the authority to make an
exception to the current policy.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Council has wide discretion to deviate
from the policy due to the policy being Council-adopted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for placing the addition of long-time
resident in the second to last whereas.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it should state: ""Whereas Supervisor Wilma Chan, a long-time
resident of Alameda, faithfully served the residents of her district.'
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over any misunderstanding of the term
district.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the resolution states that Wilma Chan served on the Board of
Supervisors and State Assembly; she thinks most people understand the terminology.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the resolution discusses which cities or how
many people fall under the District.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the negative; stated other districts are considering honoring
Wilma Chan; the resolution is specific to the City of Alameda.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:43 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
(22-116) Recommendation to Review City Aquatic Center Conceptual Design Options and
Provide Further Direction on Development of a City Aquatic Center.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2022
9",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.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,2019-11-19,14,"way to make up for the increases; the item should be looked at systematically;
expressed support for the recommendation presented by the Recreation and Parks
Director; stated a larger conversation should be had about additional ways to fund the
Recreation and Parks Department.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the Recreation and Parks Commission's
discussion; inquired whether there is a policy to help determine the fees charged for
facility use in terms of cost recovery.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded it depends on the facility; stated picnic or
O'Club rentals are marketed for profit to offset the free parks and playgrounds
programs; facilities attempt to break even with a small net profit; typically, fees offset
direct costs for facility attendants, janitorial costs, and administration; the goal is to have
100% cost recovery for field and gym programs.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated having a discussion return to Council would be useful to
provide direction to the Recreation and Parks Commission; fees were not increased for
about 6 years; inquired the impact of smoothing out fees.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded there are a couple options; stated one
option is to make the tournament the same as game fees; another option is to amortize
across coming years.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the maintenance fund will be used.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated the maintenance
fund is a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) fund, which is a different and funds capital
maintenance projects; the Recreation Fund is already at a net deficit for this year by
approximately $100,000.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated there might be a way to form partnerships in order to
lower costs.
Councilmember Vella stated there are a number of factors related to the fee increase;
the fee increase is a large jump at one time; expressed support for ramping up fees
over time; expressed concern for increasing the fees without improving the facilities;
stated the restrooms at the Alameda Point Gym are in an unacceptable condition; there
needs to be a plan for facilities to be as nice as parks and fields; expressed support for
the Recreation Department forming partnerships with concession stands to allow
fundraising.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the fees have not been increased since 2013; expressed
concern for not increasing fees at all; discussed restroom conditions at the Alameda
Point Gym; stated many improvements are needed and the fees must increase; the
Recreation and Parks Commission unanimously approved the fee increases; expressed
concern for the Recreation Fund being at a deficit; stated youth sports are important,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
November 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-11-19.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,2021-05-04,24,"way or another; the magnitude of the decision is incredible; ACI, as well as any other waste
organization, has an economic activity in the City of Alameda of roughly $23 million per
year; in order to maintain the $23 million per year, Alameda residents must pay as rate-
payers; the amount over 20 years is roughly $287 million to be given out on a non-compete
sole source basis; expressed concern about extending the contract on a non-compete sole
source basis; the information is not new; his views are the same from October 2020;
however, is worth restating; outlined the presentation from a residential rate comparison;
stated one would think there could be a reduction in the rate for residential 30 to 35 gallon
bins over time; the rate increases slightly from the current average; the increase in rate and
the magnitude of dollars says that Council needs to look at the contract from a competitive
Request for Proposals (RFP) basis; the reason the City contracts with ACI is based on a
previous competitive basis in 2002; he was on Council when ACI was selected; ACI has
provided good service; he appreciates the annual reports provided; there is an issue of the
magnitude of the money being dealt with; data points suggesting there should be a decline
in rates; when he looks back on the October 2020 meeting regarding ACI, the scoring done
through the survey showed ACI with a B+ grade; outlined ACI's total satisfaction of 89% in
the context of AMP whose total satisfaction is 96%; stated AMP's total satisfaction is the
gold standard; Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) scored higher than ACI in satisfaction; total
favorability for ACI scored at 83% and AMP scored 91%; reasonable rates for ACI scored
74% and AMP scored 82%; the survey shows scores that do not indicate A grade services;
percentages showing an A grade might be considered for a non-compete sole source
contract; he does not see the grounds for a sole source contract; utility business is tough;
ACI has done a good job and provided incredible reports; questioned whether the City is
getting the best dollar it can; stated the only way to know is to put out an RFP; ACI should
lower rates; he is not convinced a case has been made for going forward on a non-compete
sole source contract; expressed support for going out to bid; stated that he believes ACI
would prove to be successful in an RFP process.
(21-310) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda
items and the two Council Referrals, after 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the Council Referral
requesting a performance review [paragraph no. 21-315].
Councilmember Daysog 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.
Mr. Hilton stated there have been recent competitive procurements in the Alameda County
market to inform what might happen through the bid process; the processes resulted in 20
to 30% rate increases; when negotiating directly with ACI about large rate increases, staff
expressed concern; the desire was to see how good of a deal could be provided for the
City; in order to benchmark the deal, staff had to look at cost factors in other competitive
deals; staff looked at hourly labor, fuel, maintenance and General and Administrative (G&A)
expense percentages to ensure there were no charges for overhead; staff looked at profit
and what is being paid for recycling, disposal and composting costs and benchmarked
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
May 4, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,4,"waved. Mr. Tai noted that when that work was done, no new parking spaces were triggered because
there was a loss in floor area.
Board member McNamara inquired if the approval of last year's construction occurred. Mr. Tai
responded that that project was approved on a separate parcel and that the addition also did not
trigger extra parking spaces.
Vice-President Cook inquired why that request did not trigger additional parking spaces. Mr. Tai
responded that the code specifies that only an expansion to a commercial building that is 25% of the
existing floor area or equivalent to five parking spaces would trigger the parking. The office space
that Board member McNamara referred to was a demolition of an existing addition and
reconstruction, so the net gain floor area was not sufficient to trigger additional parking.
John Knowles, the applicant, addressed the Board explaining the history of this project, which began
six years ago and informed the Board that part of the confusion was that this was an ongoing project
and from his point of view the project is actually four separate parcels. He noted that Mr. Tai was
referring to the net loss of leaseable area in the original building and then 1,000 sq. ft. of new space
was added. At the same time they demolished the entire ground floor, which had a net loss of roughly
1,000 sq. ft. thus leaving no parking requirements. He felt the project accrued a credit towards in-lieu
parking fees. This office space would match the façade of the Starbucks building. He stated the
parking lot would be re-landscaped. He felt the in-lieu fees were extraordinarily high and were
financially difficult for him. He then noted that this is the first new building to be in down town Park
Street in the past 20-25 years. He felt that the services provided in the building would be good for
the City at large. He felt these fees on top of all the other fees were excessive. He reiterated that he
thought it would be a great project for keeping momentum going in the Park Street area.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired how many spaces the applicant thought were accrued on accrued
deficit from the previous parcel. Mr. Knowles responded five spaces.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired on how the current parking lot is managed and if the applicant
reserves spaces for businesses in the area. Mr. Knowles stated he is reserving spaces for certain
individual business in the area. He noted that they have spaces leased out on a monthly basis.
However, he noted that retail parking spaces are not leased out, just spaces for offices. Board
member Kohlstrand made a point of clarification on parking spaces for employees versus client
parking to which Mr. Knowles responded employees are not supposed to park in the lot as the spaces
are supposed to be for clients only. He also noted that the parking lot has not been tightly managed
over the last year and they have gotten very sloppy with managing the parking lot in anticipation of
these projects. He noted that once the projects are completed, he is obligated to strictly enforce the
parking space management.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that when the firm she worked for looked at the different locations
of parking lots in the down town area, they realized not all parking lots were used effectively and
were reserved for individual businesses. She noted pieces of the lots had spaces that were not being
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-10-01,15,"waterfront access; approval of Pathway E staff recommendation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over having specificity prior to consideration by
an architect; discussed Vice Mayor Knox White's defensive plant options; stated the
concept versus specificity should be considered.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the footage is specified in the staff recommendation; the
change is from 35 feet to 22 feet.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the majority of the motion; stated that he
is comfortable with 18 feet for Pathway B; the title for the properties must be resolved
and a number must be selected; expressed support for keeping options open for
Pathway D; questioned why closure of Pathway C is not an option; expressed support
for maintaining Pathway C to keep the view available.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for a 4 foot-10 foot and 4 foot width for
Pathway B; outlined reasoning behind width preferences; stated if the same width
should be selected for Pathways A and B; expressed support for vacating Pathway C
and for staff's recommendation on Pathways D, E and F.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether the item should be discussed pathway by
pathway; stated Council must provide direction.
Councilmember Vella stated there is agreement on many portions of the motion.
Vice Mayor Knox White withdrew his motion.
Pathway A
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is agreement for Pathway A.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern over the 35 foot width; stated the widths
should be the same for Pathways A and B.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the Pathway A staff recommendation.
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.
Pathway B
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the staff recommendation for Pathway B.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Pathway B as recommended by staff, with
the change of 35 feet wide to 20 feet wide.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
October 1, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-10-01.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-01-09,10,"was very comfortable with that process.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the current owners had complied
with all the conditions placed upon it by the City to date, Mr. Tai confirmed that was correct. He
added that staff would like to remind the property owners that they should perform more due
diligence on maintaining weeds and clearing the property to make sure it is clean. He noted that the
property owners had been very responsive whenever staff had asked them to clear the property. He
added that the soil would probably be removed when construction commences.
President Cunningham agreed with the staff report, and believed the proposed project may mitigate or
eliminate some of the issues were reported to pertain to this particular site. He commended the
applicant for proceeding in earnest to do the right thing.
M/S Cook/Lynch and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-03 to uphold the
Planning and Building Director's approval of a Major Design Review to construct a new 2-story
single family residence on a vacant lot at 301 Spruce Street.
AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Cunningham noted that this would be Mr. Tai's last meeting with the City, and commended
him for his insights and hard work during his tenure. He noted that he had been a great resource to
the Board, and had been impressed with his swift rise in the Planning & Building Department.
Mr. Tai thanked the Planning Board and the City, and noted that it had been a great pleasure working
in Alameda. He added that he had accepted a position as an Advance Planner with the City of San
Jose.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
January 9, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-09-13,6,"was the cheapest way to get more housing. For LU-18 he wanted to see ""define a
Mainstreet"" for the Alameda Point Waterfront. For LU-31 he felt that the ferry gateways
had been left out and thought something should be there to welcome people when they
come in on the ferry. He appreciated the Special Needs Section that the staff had added
to the parking design. He discussed that what was in the legend and what they had
described should match and the importance of acknowledging proper terms from gender
and people experiencing homelessness, language matters. For CC-17 Zero Waste
Culture he discussed how composting and gardening should be made available to
residents. He was not in favor of adding bike boulevards at this time to the 15 mph zones.
He then gave his thoughts on transportation for 8-80 and parking fees and spaces. He
also gave his thoughts on the Infectious Disease Preparedness section. He was
supportive of leaving Harbor Bay Club as it was and explained how he viewed the site.
Director Thomas took notes on every board member's comments and asked questions
making sure understood what board members wanted to see in the final draft.
President Saheba thanked staff for their hard work on this plan. He believed a lot of his
thoughts had already been stated. He gave his thoughts on LU-31, he was in support that
ferries were also gateways. For the Harbor Bay Club, he knew that it was a community
asset but acknowledged how it had deteriorated over time. He saw an opportunity to really
look at it through the lens of the Housing Element.
Board Member Hom asked questions about the next steps and how the schedule would
be affected by asking for a final draft. He also asked for clarification on bike boulevards.
Director Thomas explained the staff's schedule and next steps.
Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, explained what a bike boulevard was.
Board Member Teague made a motion to request that the staff bring back a Final
Planning Board Draft for their approval to recommend to the City Council. Board
Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion
passed 6-0.
7-B 2021-1270
Amendment to the City Council Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets -
Citywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to review and comment on the City
Council-initiated revisions to the Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities, and Streets.
CEQA Determination: The proposed amendment is not a project under CEQA pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and Public Resources Code Section 21065. No further
environmental review is needed.
After a discussion and a vote, it was decided due to time to bring this item back at
a later date.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 10
September 13, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-09-13.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-04-05,5,"was taking initially; now it is a 30-day look back period; requested special counsel to walk
through the steps of whether the policy was changed and whether there is continuing
evaluation of ongoing changes.
Ms. Rogers responded that she may have to rely on Captain Emmitt for some details;
stated that she understands the 30-day policy went into effect when the Police
Department actually undertook to improve its Information Technology (IT); it was a matter
of practical possibility of the time to be able to expand the records; the records can be
viewed on the Department's website in real time up to 30 days back; it is now the practice
and technological capability of the Department to have that 30 days.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she is also curious if someone comes in with a request
for 30 days, will they automatically get the information; inquired whether the current
practice changed due to Mr. Morris's complaint.
The Police Captain responded that he does not now know where the 14-day policy came
prior to May 12, 2020 because everyone involved in the executive decision making
process at that time has retired; he was promoted to Captain in July 2020; since that time,
the City has taken the position that the Police Department would provide 30 days; most
of the decision came from knowing that the Department's Computer Aided Dispatch
(CAD) and records management system was being upgraded and would be able to
handle requests in an almost real time basis; the new system went live on February 24,
2021 and live with the Citizen Rims function on April 1st; information goes back to March
26, 2021; as the system moves forward, the database will continue to build information;
there is a specific tab on the Citizen Rims page that is dedicated to arrests and is a rolling
30 day calendar; after 30 days, the names that are 31 days or older will drop off the
system; he hopes that the system points citizens in a direction where they will have more
information available.
Commissioner LoPilato stated Ms. Rogers mentioned that Alameda's policy is generally
consistent with judicial guidance and policies from sister jurisdictions; requested Ms.
Rogers to elaborate and inform the Commission how the benchmarking occurred and
which jurisdictions Alameda aligns with.
Ms. Rogers responded that she would first like to address Mr. Morris's statements to help
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
April 5, 2021
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-11-16,4,"was stolen. Also mentioned was the need to repair the garbage can behind
the #7 hole on the Jack Clark Course. The suggestion was made to put
pampas grass in the area between #15 and #16 of the Jack Clark Course.
The grass would be aesthetically pleasing and would act as a good border.
5-F
City Council and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.
Nothing to report.
5-G
Front Entrance Beautification Project, Commissioner Wood.
Commissioner Wood stated that he would meet the Superintendent at the
Fire Tower this week.
5-H
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.
Nothing to report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)
Nothing to report.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
Nothing to report.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for October 2005 of $14,116.
The year-to-date total to the General Fund is $63,658 for the fiscal year
2005/2006.
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Page 4 of 4",GolfCommission/2005-11-16.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,14,"was right. She had heard people speak passionately on both sides of the Measure A issue,
and believed that some people had misconceptions on what Measure A actually meant.
She noted that Measure A could be changed without any greater density, and that more
open space could be created; in addition historic resources could be preserved as well
under Measure A. She believed it was possible to discuss it without it being an all-or-
nothing issue. She noted that there was no attempt to hide this discussion and believed
that a public discussion about the process going forward was important. She noted that
she was a fan of Measure A, appreciated Victorian homes, and would like to see some of
the big stucco buildings on her block disappear. She would like to continue to have this
discussion and see where it progressed.
Board member McNamara noted that she was disillusioned because she believed the
intent of this forum was misconstrued during the public hearing. She believed the intent
was to educate the community and citizens of Alameda about the history, consequences,
legal aspects of Measure A and to put it in context with respect to the current issues. She
noted that the Planning staff had not made a decision, and could not unilaterally change
Measure A. She noted that it was not even stated that staff or the Planning Board wanted
Measure A to change. She believed that having an informed background was essential to
making an informed decision with respect to Measure A.
Board member Kohlstrand echoed the previous comments, and noted that staff did not
initiate this forum. She had advocated for a forum because she did not grow up in
Alameda and did not understand all the history; she wished to help the community as a
whole become well versed in its history and effect on the community going forward. She
believed that such a forum was important because people had wanted to become better
informed as housing and industrial uses evolved over time. She would like to see
Alameda's main island character move to Alameda Point, and would like the general public
to have the opportunity to learn about the measure and comment on it as Alameda continues
to change.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was able to attend the League of California
Cities Planning Institute in San Diego the previous week, and that Ms. Woodbury had
attended several programs together. She had attended an interesting workshop on how to
configure commercial and residential density in nontraditional ways. She encouraged the
public to attend the workshop at Mastick Center on March 29, which would include one of
the speakers she heard in San Diego. She acknowledged that density was a hot-button word,
and noted that there was more common ground than people may think. She noted that she
grew up in an apartment on Pearl Street in Alameda. She noted that the building had a big
backyard, and added that it would not be Measure A-compliant. She believed that many
conclusions had been drawn from a very brief staff memo, and wished to assure the public
that decisions would not be made in a back room by staff and an ad hoc committee. She
noted that the purpose was to bring this public and important issue into a public arena. She
noted that to have a public discussion, people may not feel intimidated and attacked; she did
not believe that approaching the people involved with such vehemence and personal attacks
were an appropriate approach. She urged people to have an open mind, and noted that no
one had all the answers. She believed that if the public's perception of Measure A was clear
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,13,"was requested because of street and sidewalk issues; the Police
Department review was requested for insight special requests would
be discussed among all department heads.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the zoning district allows up
to 60 feet with the granting of the Use Permit.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the parking structure is exempt.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether only the cineplex was being
discussed, to which the Development Services Director responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that comments at the Planning Board
meeting and tonight's meeting are no different the Planning Board
took diligence in reviewing the Municipal Code for the cineplex
height requirements and did a credible job in reviewing extending
hours past midnight; stated he has no problem as long as the hours
are monitored.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution upholding
the Planning Board's approval with a condition that there be a
monthly analysis of late-night screenings and a review after 12
events or a year, whichever comes first.
The Development Services Director stated that there would be a
master review after 12 events.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board would review the
matter, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes - Vice Mayor Gilmore, Councilmember
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Abstentions: Councilmember deHaan - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-526) Status of the Infrastructure Improvement Project/Plan,
including scope, issues, timelines and questions.
Counci lmember Daysog requested that the Council forward
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-03-20,2,"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. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ]
(*07-125) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission
Meeting held on February 20, 2007; and Special and Regular City
Council Meetings held on March 6, 2007. Approved.
(*07-126) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,486,622.05.
(07-127) - Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $198,360
to Pacific States Environmental Contractors, Inc. for the
demolition of boarded and vacant structures at 110 and 112 Norfolk
Road located on Orion Street and 100 and 104 Miramar Road located
on Stardust Place.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether deconstruction would not be
allowed because the buildings have asbestos.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated fixtures and other reusable items would be recycled.
The Development Manager stated the bid package included the City's
construction and demolition debris procedures which require that
construction and debris be recycled; approximately 70% would be
recycled after abatement.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there is an opportunity to go
after blighted areas, particularly Alameda Point; inquired whether
additional funding is available for other buildings.
The Development Manager responded the current Community Development
Block Grant funding would allow the project to be completed and the
site secured; stated there is not enough money in the budget to
take down additional buildings.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be some cost
recovery when the developer is chosen.
The Development Manager responded the Blight Buster Program is
intended to be a revolving loan fund; stated costs are anticipated
to be passed on to the Master developer.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
March 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-02,21,"was put into place; African Americans were 2.6% of Alameda in 1970, 4.2% in 1980,
6.7% in 1990, 6.2% in 2000 due to the closure of the Base; 6.4% in 2010, and 7.1% in
2020; the amount of African Americans has increased since Measure A; Measure A has
not stopped the increase of racial and ethnic minorities; noted Alameda has a higher
percentage of African American population than San Francisco; stated apartments are
still being built with Measure A; the Housing Element had finally been approved by the
State; expressed support for keeping Sections 26-1 and 26-3 as an effort to preserve
Alameda history and to build wisely in the future; stated the matter is not simple;
previous effort by the people put Section 26-1 on the ballot; any changes to either
Section should be processed at the same level of effort and not as an abuse of power
by the Council; even with Measure A, the City has become a stronger and more diverse
place than before; there is no reason to undo Measure A; Alameda has limited space
and inadequate street infrastructure; the discussion is valuable.
Councilmember Oddie stated it is important to not impugn motives; it is impossible to
circulate petitions at this time; preserving heritage is the battle cry of the confederacy;
expressed concern about meeting noticing due to COVID; stated the matter was placed
on a regular meeting in order to have adequate notice; he has learned to empathize and
discovered a lack of trust; the proposal allows Council to build more trust; noted a long
planning process would be needed if Council could be allowed to repeal Section 26-3;
expressed support for going through the planning process, building Council trust,
resulting in an item placed on the ballot that passes; stated there is still time; the current
meeting allows Council to request staff bring back ballot language; expressed support
for hearing arguments for repealing Section 26-1; stated there is a fundamental
unfairness for properties purchased before and after Measure A; the affordable housing
percentage will increase without Section 26-1; expressed support for guidelines with the
planning process; stated the matter has had a disparate racial impact and the intent was
to reduce economic diversity; economic diversity has been lost with the rent crisis;
expressed support for discussing the item in an open, fair and civil way to engender
trust and reduce division.
(20-377) Due to technical difficulties, the meeting was recessed at 11:01 p.m. and
reconvened at 11:10 p.m.
***
Councilmember Vella stated that she would like to know the plan for meaningful
community engagement; there have been a number of difficulties with technology and a
number of residents are part of the digital divide and do not receive information; many
community members do not know when meetings occur; she does not think Section 26-
1 is controversial; there are many people on both sides of the matter that see no issue
with Section 26-1; a lot of work needs to be done on Section 26-3; expressed support
for any work being done in a manner that is engaging, welcoming and informational;
many people of color do not know about meetings and their voices are not being heard;
expressed support for having a process for meetings and conversations about an EIR
and any legal challenges which may arise; stated that she would like to understand the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,11,"was provided.
In response to Chair Tilos, Commissioner LoPilato stated the question is when could the
Complainant have known when they actually had a claim to bring; with Claim 1, the City
did not respond in ten days, which he knew on day 11; with Claim 2, he could not have
known that there were no responsive documents until the City told him.
Chair Tilos concurred with Vice Chair LoPilato and Commissioner Montgomery that
timeliness is not a factor and can be struck to address the social media piece.
Commissioner Chen stated the Complainant did not know until October 19th when he
received an email from the City informing him that there were no records.
Commissioner Reid stated she agrees with all Commissioners; something to discuss is
what would constitute the conduct of public business.
Chair Tilos stated if the City has its own account for blasting information to members of
the public and a public official comments, it would be considered a public record; if the
public official makes comments on a personal account, outside of the City's lane, he does
not want to make a determination about that and needs guidance.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that she is leaning towards whatever happens on
social media should be considered public record; if one Commissioner posted on a City
matter and two other Commissioners responded, the three members responding would
constitute a City meeting and be conducting City business.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner Montgomery stated discussing issues
on social media that are coming on an agenda is City business.
Chair Tilos stated that he does not want to go down the rabbit hole and make a statement
or determination about what is considered City business and what is not.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she cautions the Commission to address
what is actually in the complaint; in the communication between the Complainant and the
Assistant City Attorney, the Complainant stated he was interested in statements made in
the private social media account of Councilmember Herrera Spencer; the Commission is
being asked to decide whether or not the City, in telling the Complainant to deal directly
with Nextdoor for the information he requested, is a violation of the PRA; the question is
whether there is a requirement by the City to go to Nextdoor or do something else to get
the information for the Complainant.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she respects the delineation made by the Chief Assistant
City Attorney if the Commission goes in that direction; any Commission decision should
state it was upon guidance from the City Attorney's office; the Complainant believes the
communications by Councilmember Herrera Spencer on Nextdoor are subject to the
PRA; while she understands there was back and forth after the complaint was filed, she
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
11",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-10-21,7,"was presented.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:44 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
October 21, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-10-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,13,"was originally granted 39 units to meet housing needs for the
homeless: APC entered into an agreement with the City to replace
the original units in east housing near the corner of Atlantic
Avenue and Fifth Street the City told APC that there are no funds
to build the 39 units; the City is contemplating financing a 39- -
unit project through other funds instead; the City specifically
designated project revenues from the Catellus Project as the
primary source for the 39 units, including $2 million from the sale
of land; that designation of funds is not shown in the accounting
presented tonight; without the agreement with APC to relocate
units, the Bayport Project would not have happened; the use of the
Catellus funds could go a long way toward making units more
affordable and serve the homeless.
buncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested an Off Agenda Report
in response to Mr. Biggs' comments.
(05-159CC/05-018CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider authorizing
the City Manager/Executive Director to enter into a Disposition and
Development Agreement with Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P.
,
approval of the 33433 Report, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure
Project (State Clearinghouse #2004-122-042).
(05-018A/CIC) Adoption of Resolution Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement Between the
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment
Associates, L.P., and Approving Certain Mitigation Measures for the
Project and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
(05-159A/CC) Adoption of Resolution Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement Between the
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment
Associates, L.P., and Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program. Continued to May 3, 2005.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:06 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
3
Community Improvement Commission
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-01-05,15,"was not calculated in relation to rent; stated the value is responsive to Council's
direction to help those that are helping the community; stated none of the performance
measures equate a mathematical equation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the times are described as unprecedented for a reason;
expressed support for staff's efforts.
Councilmember Spencer questioned whether the lease is a three year term, with the
ability to abate six months total; noted the previous program allowed for three months to
be abated; stated the City is also landlords for residential spaces as well; inquired
whether programs are being offered to residential lessees.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the previous matter [final
passage paragraph no. 20- allowed a total of nine months to be abated; noted the
current program is a shorter abatement period; stated the City has provided residential
tenants the same programs provided Citywide.
Councilmember Spencer requested clarification of the rent programs.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the previous matter program
allows for a nine month deferral and three month payback within three years; if payback
occurs early, an abatement of one month is allowed for each year paid early.
In response to Councilmember Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant Community
Development Director stated tenants can abate six months between March of 2020 and
June of 2021, with three years to meet the milestones; noted the program is not on a
per year basis due to milestone timing; stated the previous matter's program
requirements differ.
Councilmember Spencer noted the programs differ in abatement and repayment.
Discussed the pandemic; stated staff at St. George Spirits felt the need to do
something; an investment of thousands of dollars has been made in order to produce
hand sanitizer; discussed distilleries producing hand sanitizer throughout the Country
and hand sanitizer costs; stated there has been no intention of selling the hand
sanitizer; people should be looking out for one another during these times; if the matter
not pass, hand sanitizer will continue to be produced and provided: Lance Winters, St.
George Spirits.
Councilmember Daysog outlined the process for ordinance approval; stated COVID-19
enforcement provisions are new information; expressed support for guarding against
overreach; stated Section 4 of the agreement relates to COVID-19 enforcement;
questioned whether Council should adopt policy guidance language offline prior to
adopting the agreement; stated concerns raised about overreach should be hammered
out first.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
January 5, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,4,"was not an endorsement of a particular footprint. Both buildings will be subject to a
future development plan and design review application to be reviewed by the Planning
Board.
President Cook noted that the siting of the buildings were originally set in place because
the City wanted to retain the warehouse structures. She inquired whether the Planning
Board would have the ability to review the two westernmost new buildings and
reconsider their siting.
Mr. Thomas replied that it would be possible, and noted that the Clif Bar building and
shed were both already approved, and the location was set. The location of every other
building on this site plan was still subject to the Planning Board's review and approval
through the development plan and design review.
Ms. Altschuler added that the revised plan showed a continuous access along the area,
which allowed the Bay Trail to come straight into the site, eliminating the previous jog
around several buildings.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding keeping pedestrians
safe from the bicyclists, Ms. Altschuler replied that a 12-foot minimum area was required
on
most of the Bay Trail, and that there would be sufficient room with 44 feet to
accommodate both uses safely. She added that benches would be added to invite
pedestrians to stop and rest on the trail.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Christopher Buckley noted that he submitted a letter to the Planning Board, and
spoke in support of retaining the second warehouse. He believed one of the more
compelling features of the original project was maintaining the look of a working
waterfront; he believed that the generous length of the two warehouse structures provided
that look. He believed that removing the second warehouse reduced the original visual
context for the working waterfront, and he did not believe it would provide the sense of
place provided by the original concept. He requested clarification of the statement in the
staff report that suggested the possibility that the remaining warehouse may need to be
removed, that the proposed amendments will define and clarify where a new building
would need to be placed if a decision is made in the future to demolish the existing
waterfront would have as currently planned for Clif Bar. He inquired whether the
Planning Board would be asked to preliminarily endorse the idea of removing the Clif
Bar warehouse, and replacing it with a new structure. He suggested using a lighter-
weight, more cost-effective planking for the section of wharf over the pilings, such as the
wood plankings shown in the illustrations on top of the existing pilings. He believed it
was necessary to resolve these issues so that Clif Bar may move ahead on schedule, and
suggested that if the City would like to study the options concerning the second
warehouse, that the Clif Bar phase to move ahead at the same time.
Page 4 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,14,"was much larger and in a different location.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she was on the Planning Board at
that time; that she remembers the discussion regarding the
shoreline site and wanting to put restaurants at the former movie
theatre site; Page 14, paragraph 22 states that ""The project may
include one store up to 90,000 square feet in floor area and two
stores each up of up to 60,000 square feet. Any larger store shall
require a Planned Development Amendment. Additions or modifications
of less than 5% in overall center area may be approved by
Administrative Design Review""; she has been a customer of all
retail establishments discussed tonight ; she understand the
concerns; one speaker brought up the cigarette store on Park
Street; the City was sued and had to pay the rent for several years
until tenants rented the site; she needs to balance the
consideration of potentially being sued by the shopping center and
the precarious budget; she wants Alameda to be known as a City that
lives up to agreements.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the City's policies reflect the concern and
desire to make sure that small businesses survive; the City has
allocated money to support the Park Street Business Association,
West Alameda Business Association, and Greater Alameda Business
Association; a lot of money is spent on advertising, landscape and
lighting, and façade grants; the City cannot dictate the tenant at
a particular site; the City has to abide by established agreements
with Alameda Towne Center there is not a lot of choice in
determining tenants at Alameda Towne Centre.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution [upholding the
Planning Board's decision].
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated the reality is that
OSH could take the building as is and open in one month because OSH
is a permitted use.
Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda Towne Centre is part of
Alameda; the developer would advise the City of an anticipated
lawsuit; inquired whether buncilmember Gilmore heard anything on
the issue.
Councilmember Gilmore responded in the negative; stated she would
be remise if she did not consider the possibility of a lawsuit.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City put caveats into the Alameda
Landing PDA; a decision should be postponed for further discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-03,24,"was in the red and in danger of folding the business is profitable
and is almost a year ahead of projections.
Commissioner deHaan stated the theatre developer was going to open
a wine bar in the theatre and that has not happened; hours of
operation would be limited.
The Development Services Director stated the theatre developer
discussed opening a wine bar at the same time; the lease does not
require a wine bar be built upstairs.
On the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair
Johnson - 3. Noes: Commissioner deHaan - 1. Abstentions
Commissioner Tam - 1.
(ARRA) Recommendation to approve a Five Year Lease and Repayment
Plan/Write-of: with AC Hornet Foundation.
[Note: The minutes for this item are part of the ARRA record]
(ARRA) 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. Continued.
ORAL REPORTS
(ARRA) Oral Report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory
Board (RAB) - Highlights of January 8th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
[Note: The minutes for this item are part of the ARRA record]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 1:22 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
4
and Community Improvement Commission
February 3, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,15,"was important for the health care of the animals. He noted that the business was located in a
commercial area with surrounding homes.
Dr. Genevieve Manchester-Johnson, DVM, Associate Veterinarian, Park Center Animal Hospital,
16863 Los Banos Street, San Leandro, wished to respond to the residents who believed the
applicants would act in an irresponsible manner. She read the oath taken by all veterinarians:
""Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, Isolemnly swear to use my
scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of
animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources,
the promotion of public health and the advancement of medical knowledge.
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity and in keeping with the
principles of veterinary medical ethics. I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual
improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.""
Dr. Manchester-Johnson stated that everyone at Park Center took their oath very seriously, and added
that keeping the neighborhood clean was a very large part of that commitment. She stated they would
never consider walking an animal that would pose a health risk to other animals or people; to suggest
so would be utterly against their oath.
Ms. Helen Mohr Thomas, 3011 Thompson Avenue, spoke in support of this project; she had taken
her pets to the center for 10 years and received excellent care. She believed the business was an asset
to Alameda. She believed the expansion would greatly improve the physical appearance at Everett
and Central, especially the elimination of the long-abandoned minibank. She believed the expansion
would also provide a valuable service to the community.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this
application, and was pleased that the project offered more parking than was required. He noted that
the rezoning would bring the parcel into compliance with the General Plan, as well as its intent for
commercial zoning in that area. He added that had been overlooked in the past, and that the rezoning
would correct the oversight. He believed this would be an appropriate use, and that the expansion
was an improvement. He emphasized that this design and application met the needs of neighborhood,
and it would be welcomed on Park Street without reservation. He did not believe that any dog under
the care of the hospital staff had urinated on private property; he suggested that the residents call the
Police Department if they see someone trespassing on their property.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani wished to disclose that she received calls from Mr. Matthews and Mr. Barni; she also
owns three dogs.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the nature of any boarding services provided,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-09-17,10,"was extended for approximately three months to accommodate City swim programs; the
Encinal pool pricing has been discussed for six months; however, what to do about the
pools has been discussed for over two years; the City does not want to make a loan to
the School District; at the last subcommittee meeting, the School District indicated it
could not afford to do the project unless the City could provide a loan; discussed the
terms of the loan; noted the City needs security.
Councilmember Daysog stated swimming is a public good; the City should engage with
the School District; the terms are fair; the funds would not be used for highest and best
use; however, the City provides services that are not always the highest and best use.
Councilmember Chen acknowledged the work of staff and the subcommittee; inquired
whether the 30 day extension of the Joint Use Agreement would allow enough time.
Mayor Gilmore responded there are two issues: a 30 day extension of the Joint Use
Agreement to accommodate the swim groups and the loan to repair the Encinal facility;
stated that she is not convinced the two are combined.
Councilmember Chen stated his question is what will happen after the 30 day extension
expires.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded Mayor Gilmore is correct; stated there
are two separate issues; currently, Recreation only has a limited number of programs
using the pools; the extension shows good faith to keep the pools open while the loan
terms are being negotiated; 30 days is also the term for negotiating the loan, which is a
tight timeframe; the Superintendent is presenting the matter to the School Board next
week.
Councilmember Chen stated both swim centers are in need of repair; questioned what
would happen if Emma Hood closed; inquired whether there is a backup plan.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the School Board would have the option
to keep the pools open for the community swim teams.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether any agreement requires the City to pay for
repairs, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated
the Joint Use Agreement specifically says the City does not have to pay any capital
costs.
Councilmember Chen noted the School District is working on a master facility plan; if
successful, hopefully the City would be repaid.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the loan would only be paid back if the District
places a bond measure on the November 2014 ballot and the measure passes.
The City Manager noted if a measure passed, the District probably would not pay back
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 17, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf
GolfCommission,2012-03-13,4,"was down $100,000 from prior year, and also a decrease in equipment repair, which
was down due to the new equipment that was purchased.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Norma Arnerich stated that the fears expressed by many after Junior Golf's letter to
John Russo announcing that Junior Golf did not want to run the Par 3 course proved to
be unfounded now that all four golf operators responding to the RFP made proposals
that included operation of the Mif Albright course. The letter was prepared on the
advice of John Russo.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Status Report on Long Term Lease negotiations, including Golf Commission
recommendations, if any
Update on Golf Complex Finances
10.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
4
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, March 13, 2012",GolfCommission/2012-03-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,13,"was created because of the new gymnasium, City Hall moving into the
east wing of the high school, and the Library moving into the
middle wing of the high school; parking was increased from 32
spaces to 58 spaces; Council approved an ordinance modification for
diagonal parking; the Recreation and Park Department is the only
part of City Hall remaining in the east wing and will be moving out
within a month; the Library is projected to move out within 17 or
18 months. much of the parking demand will be eliminated; the
parking garage construction provides an opportunity to move back to
parallel parking; a parking plan would need to be brought back to
Council for approval.
Vice layor/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she has great sympathy
for bicyclists; a large segment of the youth population will either
ride bikes or take the bus to the theatre.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the dollar value of
parking spaces is understood now.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the parking structure would solve a
lot of the parking problems.
louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that the project is good
for all of Alameda, especially the youth.
louncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the theatre project is
important for the whole City; dollars would be kept in town; the
historic theatre will rot if the project does not move forward.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the Resolution Approving and
Authorizing Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement
Between the Community Improvement Commission and Alameda
Entertainment Associates, L.P., and Adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program [paragraph no. 05-
194CC].
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Approving
and Authorizing Execution of a Disposition and Development
Agreement Between the Community Improvement Commission and Alameda
Entertainment Associates, L.P., Approving Certain Mitigation
Measures for the Project, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring
Program [paragraph no. 05-021CC].
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-03-04,4,"was constructed when cars were not prominent i people are jockeying
for parking spaces on the main thoroughfares on Sunday mornings; he
is concerned with ridership and noise; parking is the major issue;
enforcement needs to be done on illegal vehicles stored on streets.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she takes the Mound Street route often;
she concurs with staff's observation regarding available parking ;
the City established a long-range transit plan and is sending the
message that a viable transit system is needed; she appreciates the
efforts of staff and the Transportation Commission.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of upholding the Transportation
Commission's decision.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion
included the enforcement issue.
Vice Mayor Tam responded that she hopes enforcement is happening
irrespective of being included in a motion.
Mr. Ashmore inquired why three parking spots are needed instead of
two.
Mayor Johnson responded staff would be able to answer the question.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the ordinance is strong enough for
enforcement of illegal vehicles stored on streets.
The Assistant City Manager responded enforcement is done on a
complaint basis.
Councilmember deHaan stated that ticketing vehicles stored on
streets over seventy-two hours becomes a game vehicles are moved
and then put back in the same spot he would like to see how the
existing ordinance can be strengthened; fines should be increased
after three violations per year; requested that the Police
Department provide Council with recommendations.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(08-101) Recommendation to request placement of a Ballot Measure
Resolution proposing non-substantive changes to the City Charter on
a City Council Agenda no later than July 15, 2008, and to
prioritize and provide direction on future substantive changes.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
March 4, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-04-24,10,"was biased in her decision. She was very familiar with this area, and noted that the check cashing
business and the car dealership were in the Webster Street business district. She noted that the area
was mostly residential, with the exception of Ralph's Market. She was surprised that more residents
were not in attendance, and believed this would be a dramatic alteration to this neighborhood. She did
not know whether this was an appropriate location for a dental practice.
President Cunningham noted that the use permit ran with the property, and would remain in force if
the current owners were to sell the property. Ms. Pudell added that the use permit would be good
only for the specific use proposed.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that most of the nearby commercial uses were on corner sites near Webster
or
in a cluster of similar uses; this would be the first introduction of this kind of frontage. She was
concerned about introducing a commercial use at this site.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she had visited the site and spoke with Mr. Stewart about this site.
She noted that the subject traffic would occur during business hours, and that the greatest demand
was during the evening hours. She noted that three patients per hour day did not mean that they
would be parked there all day.
Mr. Lynch noted that Alameda was an urban environment, and would like more detail with respect to
complaints about the ""noise problem."" He noted that there were many medical facilities located
throughout Alameda, and he has yet to see any devalued property prices. He added that another
complaint addressed decreased privacy. He believed that if a resident did not want this business as
their neighbor, they should just say that.
President Cunningham noted that the property is currently vacant, and inquired whether there was a
current problem with the property not being occupied at night. He would like further information on
traffic impacts. He would like to hear comments from the other neighbors.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Mariani and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
AYES - 4 (Cook and McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- -
0
Mr. Stewart noted that no one has addressed the salability of the homes in the future, and agreed with
Ms. Mariani's concerns. He noted that many neighbors were opposed to this project.
Mr. Colinberg wished to clarify the definition of ""buffer,"" which meant being protected from
something. He was not convinced by the Jennings' statement that many neighbors had changed their
minds from opposition to support.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
This item was continued to the meeting of May 8, 2006.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 24, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-01-28,5,"was also meant to be low to the ground. They believed it was a bad precedent to allow
exceptions to the Golden Mean and to the Guide to Residential Design.
Ms. Joanne Chandler spoke in support of this project. She noted that she owned the property
adjacent to the subject site. She did not believe there would be an adverse impact on her
property, and supported the variance.
Ms. Seth Amalian spoke in support of this project, and noted that he and his wife lived two
doors to the southeast from the subject site. He did not believe they needed protection from
the proposed project, and believed it was consistent with the already existing scale and mass
of the home. He noted that it was already in imposing structure, but in a positive way; he
believed it was attractive. He noted that it already had three stories, and that the increase was
three feet, which would make it a more usable space. He noted that the peak of the roof
barely crept over the height limit. He noted that this house already had mass, and that the
proposed changes would be consistent. He believed that in his neighborhood, investment by
the property owners would be necessary as the homes age. He believed that when the
changes were thoughtful and in keeping with the home's character, it would be acceptable.
He noted that this house was not a low-slung bungalow.
Ms. Patricia Plowman spoke in support of this project. She noted that she lived next door to
the applicants, and noted that she had two single-family homes on her lot. She noted that
many of the homes in the neighborhood had been built in the 1930s, and that many needed
updating and upgrading. She noted that she submitted a letter to the Planning Board.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft disclosed that she visited the property.
Ms. Donna Talbot, applicant, distributed an exhibit to the Board and noted that their home
was not on the historic list. She added that they endeavored to include as many Craftsman
elements as possible. She was very disturbed by what she had read in the staff report and the
AAPS letter, which both used the phrase ""Craftsman Bungalow."" She noted that the
Alameda Residential Design Guidelines included a glossary that defined the architecture
styles in Alameda. She noted that the example Craftsman house was somewhat smaller than
their house; the example Craftsman Bungalow was a much smaller one-story home. She
noted that their house was a large Craftsman house, not a bungalow. She noted that the two
examples of Craftsman homes in Alameda were low one-story homes that did not have front
entries. She noted that there were many things that could be done with a Craftsman house,
and that they had worked very hard with their architect to preserve those qualities. She noted
that the AAPS had commented that they planned to reduce the front porch to create a front
stoop; she noted that they would double the size of the porch. She noted that the staff report
and the AAPS letter discussed a side stair, and added that they still had a front step going up
to the house; it was moved to the side and put a turn in it so it would not appear to be one
long staircase.
Ms. Talbot displayed several photos of the site on the overhead screen. She noted that they
had discussed implementing changes from the staff report in order to provide a balance
between their creative desires and what staff requires. They proposed to reduce the height by
Page 5 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,9,"was a good location in the heavily used Washington Park because it was not used at all. While this
monopole was larger than the pole approved several years ago, it was a better design in that all of the
antennas were hidden inside the pole.
Ms. Mariani noted that the City had been in a legally binding contract with American Tower since
1991.
Mr. Piziali suggested that the additional picnic tables be added if possible.
Mr. Dale Wright, Acting Director, Recreation and Parks, deferred to Mr. Arnerich's experience, and
was confident that they could work out three or four tables and barbecue pits. He noted that it was
the intent to paint the building to match.
M/S Mariani/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.PB-05-14 to approve a renewal of
expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole
communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond
left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building of
up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC
Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above ground utility installation in the O Open
Space Zoning District.
To include the items in the email dated 4/25/05, with the following amendments:
a.
Painting both buildings; and
b.
Additional picnic tables would be added at the selection of the Acting Director of
Recreation and Parks;
AYES - 5 (Cook absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-05-17,7,"wants to discuss the matter in open session.
Councilmember deHaan stated guidance was given on the topic.
Councilmember Johnson stated the best thing is for Councilmembers to talk to the
incoming City Manager; that she will meet with the incoming City Manager on Thursday;
understanding the incoming City Manager's thoughts is important before making
assumptions based upon what appears in the newspapers.
Mayor Gilmore stated there are numerous examples of newspapers not always quoting
things correctly.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether any Councilmember has discussed the issue
with the incoming City Manager.
Mayor Gilmore responded that her conversation was regarding technology.
Councilmember Tam responded that her conversation was regarding the City Attorney;
stated the City has a City Council/City Manager form of government; the Council does
performance evaluations of the City Manager; Council can provide input to the City
Manager.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the budget would come to Council.
The Acting City Manager responded a budget presentation is scheduled for May 31st,
stated approximately a month later, the budget would be presented to Council for
adoption.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there are any anticipated changes the City
Manager's office staff positions.
The Acting City Manager responded that she is working on the issue; stated she is
trying to make anticipated changes as budget neutral as possible.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated Council should wait until a budget is presented.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(11-265) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Planning Board
Mayor Gilmore nominated David Burton and Mike Henneberry for appointment to the
Planning Board.
(11-266) Councilmember deHaan provided a handout on the Alameda County
Associated Community Action Program (ACAP); provided an overview of events.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 17, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-03-17,10,"wants to add something to a residential property and design review
is approved by staff; neighbors might not like the project for
various reasons that were not addressed at the design review level
because the Code is only checked; the matter could become a whole
other issue such as blocking sun light.
Mayor Johnson stated the appeal process has become too lax; a
better process needs to be developed.
Councilmember Tam stated twenty-two appeals have been filed within
two years; the process does not seem to be abused.
Mayor Johnson stated the Fernside Boulevard process took a year and
a half; there was an amendment to the appeal months after the
original appeal was filed; the process needs to be better defined;
trying to accommodate everyone ends up being unfair.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated incidentals could be cleaned up before
coming to Council charging $10,000 for an appeal is a disgrace;
an appeal process is democracy in motion and is right for the
community; placing all appeals into one pot does not work.
Mayor Johnson concurred that commercial and residential should have
different fees; all commercial should not be lumped into the same
category.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she does not like tying the fee
to whether someone wins or loses; proposed a $350 residential flat
fee with time and materials cap of $500, for a total of $850; a
commercial flat fee of $350 with time and materials cap of $2,500,
for a total of $2,850; inquired whether individual hardship could
be considered.
Mayor Johnson proposed lowering the residential flat fee to $200 or
$250 with a time and materials cap of $500; concurred with
Councilmember Gilmore's proposed commercial fee structure.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with the
following amended fees Residential : $250 flat fee with time and
materials cap of $500; Commercial : $350 flat fee with time and
materials cap of $2,500.
The Planning and Building Director inquired whether a single family
or duplex would be considered residential, to which Councilmember
Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson requested that policy recommendations be brought back
regarding the appeal process.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
March 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,3,"wanted to make sure they were not hampering people using the ferry either because there weren't
enough public transit options or parking places.
Mr. Connolly said WETA has had an effective partnership with the City of Alameda and a good
partnership with AC Transit. AC Transit was working on a proposal to serve the new Main Street
Terminal. He spoke on the drawbacks of the 96 Bus and that the option AC Transit was developing
would be better. He did not want to go into much detail, he did not want to ""steal their thunder""
He was very optimistic and grateful for the work done by AC Transit.
Staff Member Payne discussed how AC Transit was ""moving mountains"" to make this happen,
and they had been under a lot of pressure due to the Pandemic. There is an upcoming meeting
where it would be discussed further. For parking, she discussed the new parking lot at Seaplane
Lagoon has 400 spaces and that there was more work to do.
Commissioner Weitze asked if the plan was to charge for parking or had it been pushed off.
Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, said she didn't have a timeline to share. There were plans for
paid parking at Alameda Point but as for now, there was no parking fee. It had been put on hold
with the Pandemic, but they would move forward with that in the future.
Commissioner Weitze asked if it was unlikely that they would start charging for parking in August.
Staff Member Foster said that would be fair to say.
Commissioner Rentschler thanked Mr. Connolly for his presentation and commended WETA for
embracing change since now with the Pandemic it was a great time to do it. He urged WETA and
the commission to keep an open mind on what the possibilities could be. He thought the bike
access at Seaplane Lagoon was better and safer and encouraged the same bike structure that was
at the Main Street Ferry terminal. He was not optimistic about the bus but was happy they were
trying it. He did not want to see an experiment that doesn't work to become permanent.
Commissioner Yuen discussed the decision to potentially cut AC Transit services and wondered
if the influx of Federal dollars from the new stimulus bill earmarked for local transit would
translate into support for this new route.
Chair Soules said that was a great question and reminded everyone that AC Transit was not on the
call and she did not want to get too far off the agenda topic of WETA service.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
3",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
GolfCommission,2010-12-15,5,"want to throw that out there to just be cautious about that. She can sometimes, in
her way, be persuasive to others."" Mrs. Arnerich stated: ""But, she won't be handling
the gavel. So, I'm supposed to go ahead and call Dick Lee and get the ball rolling.
He had already put our intent in and so we going to start that process because that
might take a little while. According to Dick Lee, if we did cancel it, it would cost a
few hundred dollars to cancel if Kemper decided to take over the Par 3, we could
always put a stop to the non-profit."" Chair Sullwold asked: ""You have in your money
that Perforce Software grant money that can pay for Dick's expenses?' Mrs.
Arnerich stated: ""yes, we have the money set aside, the $20,000. Also, at the
meeting, I did appoint Joe and yourself, and I volunteered to be on the board. I
asked our board who wanted to be on the new board, and it was myself, Connie,
Betsy, Tony Corica, of course, and Shirl Ames are the ones that wanted to be on the
new board.""
Commissioner Gammell stated: ""She plans to have the end of January, the 25th of
January will be a special meeting on this, all golf, she plans to have the Kemper
situation more or less, and the Mif. And she said it's probably going to take six
months from there.'
Chair Sullwold stated: ""I expressed my concern to Marie Gilmore after the meeting
last week, that we so frequently get the staff reports on a Thursday before a
Tuesday meeting, when it's difficult, if not impossible for the citizens to absorb it,
much less the Council members to absorb it. She indicated to me that the Sunshine
Task Force was supposedly working on a resolution to have staff reports ready
sooner. She recommended I go to their next meeting. Joe wrote to John Knox
White and asked to him about this. John Knox White responded today. According
to John Knox White, their concern is not so much as getting staff reports out earlier,
but more notice of special meetings, 72 hours, rather than 24 hours.
Commissioner Gammell stated: ""Dale said the minutes are being written today as
he spoke and they should be on the email this afternoon or tomorrow."" Chair
Sullwold stated: ""What I'm talking about is the problem with them posting their
agenda and the related items 72 hours before the meeting which gives the people
too little time to deal with it. Marie thought that the task force is working on that. I'm
not sure that's what they're working on. I think what they're working on is, according
to John Knox White 72 hours for special meetings as well as regular meetings.""
Bob Sullwold stated: ""Well, the task force is over. The task force has proposed an
ordinance, directed by City Council, to address a number of issues including
campaign financing, meetings and the like. Their proposed ordinance is available
for anyone to read. It addresses the issue of notice for meetings. There is nothing
more that anyone in this room can do about it. It's already proposed and they've
already met and proposed their ordinance, and if the City ever takes it up, that's
another question.""
Chair Sullwold stated: ""If the meeting is on January 25, then we will get it on
January 20, it will be posted on the 20th and that is when we will first find out what.
- 5 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, December 15, 2010",GolfCommission/2010-12-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-04-15,16,"want to give up on a transit oriented development.
*
(14-151) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the Akerman
contract [paragraph no. 14-152] 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 - 1. Noes:
Councilmember Tam - 1.
* *
Councilmember Chen left the dais at 10:00 p.m. and returned at 10:02 p.m.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council has to have vision and is well positioned to
move forward; that she does not want to compromise; there is no harm in allowing
flexibility.
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 10:50 p.m. and returned at 10:52 p.m.
Councilmember Chen stated the entire allotment of units should not be used in 30 acres
of space; suggested assessing a $50,000 per unit premium for any units above 800.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember Chen; the fees could be
used to help the historic district; she is concerned that historic district structures will
remain vacant while the rest of Alameda Point flourishes because the costs are so great
to rehabilitate the historic buildings; Council made a promise to the community to focus
on jobs; the discussion has been on housing.
Councilmember Tam stated Council is focused on jobs and a viable job center;
Alameda is competing with cities like San Francisco when discussing transit oriented
development; Site A is an attractive site for a job center which would be subsidized by
housing; any job center requires sales tax breaks; potential future costs should be
factored in.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what a developer would pay for infrastructure impact
fees for 800 to 1000 units on Site A.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded $91 million for Site A,
including estimates of site grading and demolition.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the $91 million is for the entire Site A, to which the
Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the
amount includes $17 million in parks and open space.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Site A would be $1.3 million per acre, to which
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-06-10,5,"want to design the neighborhood so that it is attractive whether or not the bridge is ever
constructed.
Scott Hilke, Pulte Homes, and the applicant team gave a presentation.
President Sullivan asked if the reliance on the Chinese Elm would be a problem given the
potential for disease.
Mr. Abed said that anytime you have a monoculture that disease is a concern. He said
there is a mix of other species in the plan and that so far the tree is doing well in the area.
Board Member Rothenberg asked the developer to explain the thinking behind the
different building heights and their placement within site.
Staff Member Thomas said the Master Plan permits five stories.
Mr. Hilke said most of the product they intend to build is three stories, and the flats would
be in four story buildings.
Board Member Rothenberg said the design needs some refinement. She said the
vernaculars of the different products are very different and asked how the products would
work together and how the stucco would hold up in the marine environment.
Mr. Hilke said they were attempting to show a range of possible designs for consideration.
He said that they could stick with a more consistent style, or even try to match the Tri
Pointe style of the previous phase of development.
Cindy Ma, project architect, said that three of the four products are more contemporary.
She said the compact townhomes happen to have a pitched roof and they were just trying
to show that there can be different approaches taken with the different typologies.
Board Member Rothenberg suggested that there be a unified vision when they bring the
design back. She added that a 3D simulation may be helpful. She asked if a market rate
development this large (356 units) would be consistent with proposed changes in the
General Plan regarding support for a range of affordable housing options.
Staff Member Thomas said the site is subject to a development agreement from 2006 and
any proposed changes to code would not apply.
Board Member Teague asked if the EVA on the west side of the project will be exclusive
to emergency vehicles.
Mr. Hilke said that the western edge of the site would have a walking and biking path and
a grass-crete emergency access not open to private automobiles.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 9
June 10, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-06-10.pdf
GolfCommission,2010-12-15,8,"want to be the saviors of the Mif, that they want to run the Mif, and that it's all about
them, their plan to try to shove down your throats, the junior golf throats, the City's
throats. I frankly resent that implication. Joe and Tony, as you all know, have full
time jobs. Joe has devoted an enormous time to this; Tony has devoted a lot of time
to this. They don't need this additional burden. They're not in it for themselves.
And Jane, though she doesn't have a full time job, she is a full time golfer and has
various roles with the Women's golf club here, with the PWGA and various things,
she doesn't need this additional burden either and to the extent that there's
someone out there that thinks this three people are doing what they have done or
are willing to do for some personal interest, I will say, and Patti you can quote me,
""They can kiss my ass"".
Commissioner Gaul stated: ""In the event that they have an Executive Director
beyond Jane, and assuming she's taking $1.00 a year, is there some salary you're
going to have to arrive at for a professional to come in here and do this? Has there
been any consideration or brought up about this?"" Chair Sullwold: ""Well, that's why
the consideration initially you get somebody like me who's willing to do it for a $1.00
a year. And maybe you continue to get volunteers to do that.
Mrs. Arnerich: ""Now that we're going to start the non-profit, the spin-off of another
non-profit, and having a Board now proceed from there."" Chair Sullwold: ""The thing
is, I think, the finances in the business plan are tight enough absent a big growth in
the play on the renovated Mif course, we're not going to have money to pay
somebody a big salary, even a small salary. And so, at least in the first startup
years, we would envision, I think, volunteer services from the community, and that's
Joe, although, he's not able to be on a day to day basis, he's willing to devote a fair
amount of time to it, as is Tony and others. But, I do need to throw out that it's been
my experience in my involvement with golf in the East Bay since 1993, that
whenever you renovate a course or improve the conditions at that course, you
automatically generate an increase in play, because people get curious. My opinion
is, if we do the $400,000-$500,000 renovation that Wadsworth's architect, Bob
Loehmann, has drawn up for us, that we're going to get more people coming out
there and playing, because it will be more interesting and it will be in better
condition. It will have better tees and better greens, which are the primary thing. It
will be set up in a more logical way to allow not just kids learning the game and
seniors to play, but also people who want to practice their short game. It will be a
better place for that, and I think it will get increased play. Now, maybe I'm just naïve,
but, that's what I've seen in this Northern California market since I started playing
out here regularly. Callippe comes up and all of a sudden there's a surge of interest
in Callippe. Metropolitan opens because it's renovated and all of a sudden they've
gotten a lot of play. They put a fairly minimal amount of money into Lake Chabot,
and Lake Chabot is just doing landmark business. They've increased play and
revenue, I believe, every year for the last three years. So, I believe that the Mif will
do that, and if it does, then we can talk about having money to hire somebody to do
something. On the other hand, we're bouncing up against an economy that has not
improved. The employment rate is just awful, and I suspect people have given up
golf because they can't afford it anymore.""
- 8 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, December 15, 2010",GolfCommission/2010-12-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,10,"wall recognition and the plaques, to which the Library Director
responded that having both is usual.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council is concerned with
positioning too many plaques through various areas of the Library;
inquired whether the donor plaque recognition would be replicated
on the wall.
The Library Director responded that any donor who gives $5,000 or
more would be recognized on the donor wall; noted the Library
Foundation has begun to schedule meetings with donors.
Mayor Johnson stated she likes the idea of the large item and area
recognition; inquired whether fund raising efforts would be
impacted.
The Library Director responded that having recognition for large
items and areas might be an incentive.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council should get
clarification on the legal issues of refusing a contribution.
The City Attorney stated that any reasonable rules could be
imposed; the City cannot say no for the wrong reasons. parameters
can be drafted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he agrees with the concept and
framework of the policy; inquired when the policy defining the
criteria to refuse a contribution and appropriate recognition would
come back to Council, to which the Library Director responded that
she would hope the policy could come back at a City Council meeting
in July.
Councilmember DeHaan stated how the plaque would read is important.
Mayor Johnson stated she would like to have a recognition wall only
as long as there would be no fundraising impact; suggested looking
into what other libraries and public buildings have done.
The Library Director stated it was not unusual to place names on
shelves.
(05-280) Recommendation to accept the Webster District Strategic
Plan Report.
Councilmember deHaan stated that having a grocery store as a key
anchor was not possible; inquired whether parking is being
proposed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,6,"walkways."" Mr. Garrison replied that was in the nature of findings, which summarized all
of the review that had been performed; the finding would be summarized in that way.
Board Member Lynch suggested that specific items were tangible, operational items that
should be included to flesh out the macro findings.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft wanted to ensure there were adequate safeguards to reflect
the work that had been done.
Mr. Garrison noted that the Design Review Manual would be more appropriate to
incorporate that level of detail, including recommended minimum width sidewalks and so
on.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed that staff's work on the guidelines was very positive,
and she was encouraged to see the people from EDC in attendance as well. She believed
that the bigger issues should be addressed first, such as the appropriateness of more
shopping centers. She believed that public opinion seemed to be moving away from the
development of shopping centers.
Vice President Kohlstrand supported staff's plan to go back to the business community, and
inquired whether a month would be adequate, given the upcoming holidays. Mr. Thomas
replied that would not be adequate, but staff and the EDC wanted to move this item forward.
They would like to get the Zoning Amendment and General Plan policies to City Council as
a complete package.
President Cook noted that she had been concerned about the large buildings at South Shore
being changed piece by piece, and would like that level of change to come back to the
Planning Board at one time. She inquired whether there were any instances where a
nonconforming use would be desirable in a neighborhood commercial district.
Mr. Garrison noted that when the City was looking at 60,000 square foot stores, they were
not going to include the C-1 neighborhood districts, because there were already policies in
place requiring the businesses to serve the neighborhoods, as well as other restrictions. He
noted that the 30,000 square foot stores would still have to meet the other policies and
requirements; if they did not, the City had the grounds to deny the use permit, which was a
stronger permit than trying to deny it because of the design review when they were not
changing the building.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were a number of existing nonconforming businesses that did
not have use permits, particularly if they were initiated before the use permit requirement
came into place.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed this would be a good conversation to have with the
businesses.
Page 6 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-02-27,6,"walking or biking distance of the school. He noted that a lot of time has been spent on school
drop-off zones. He suggested enacting an ordinance to enforce double fines in school zones, as is
allowed by the state. He understood that staff had a difficult job in balancing many wants and
desires in the City. He did not see any need to remove the parking at Paden school, and
suggested adding a crosswalk in front of the school across Central Ave. He suggested
encouraging walking to school, and strongly encouraged the neighboring residents to be notified
of actions such as this near their neighboring school. He would like the personnel manual to
include a requirement to inform the public of changes happening near their homes. He noted that
residents should realize that it was not always possible to park directly in front of their house or
school.
Staff Khan noted that it was important for staff to work with the school principal, parents, school
district and police. He noted that additional Police staff had been hired to increase enforcement
in front of the schools, primarily for the children's safety. He noted that the intention was to
remove the children from the path of traffic. He noted that they were working with the school to
develop a safe routes to school map.
Commissioner Schatmeier echoed Chair Knox White's comments, and did not see any
compelling reason for the one-hour parking zone in front of the school. He noted that when his
disabled child was school-age, she often took AC Transit when she was old enough. He noted
that he had to fight for parking places like everyone else for parent-teacher conferences. He did
not see a reason to grant a parking space for someone who would be at the school for an hour or
less. He noted that people should be able to find some other place to park, or use the off-street
lot, and did not agree with the staff report in that regard.
Commissioner Krueger did not see a compelling need for the time-limited parking, but was
concerned about the traffic flow and safety. He inquired about other safety and circulation issues
apart from double parking. He believed that parking should be designated in the correct way,
whether or not the restrictions were enforced.
Staff Khan displayed the circulation map, and replied that in the morning, parents used the white
zone to drop off, and other cars would stop in the middle of the street. He noted that the access
was changed to eliminate other cars impeding the access.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether compact spaces would be possible,
Staff Khan replied that the City did not have any ordinance for compact spaces. He added that the
Commission could recommend to the City Council that an ordinance for compact spaces be
developed.
Chair Knox White noted that if there did not seem to be a need for a restriction which was not
being enforced anyway, he did not believe it made sense to have such a restriction. He believed
the City's roadways should interact with the land uses.
Commissioner Krueger moved to accept the staff recommendations, with the modification to
remove time-limited parking, and retaining the no-stopping zone during school hours. Motion
dies for lack of a second.
6",TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-11-01,8,"walk 200 yards to a common smoking area; that he cannot enforce something that he
does not have control over.
The Police Chief stated the ordinance would be complaint driven; that he has no desire
to be proactive in citing people; the ordinance would be self policing; the Police
Department would work with landlords, tenants, and business owners to help mediate
issues; the Police Department prioritizes calls on a one to four scale; smoking violations
would be a four.
Mayor Gilmore stated Police Officers would not come into an establishment looking for
violations; complaints would come from residents, customers, and people affected by
sidewalk smoke or smoke coming over a six-foot fence.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired what the response would be if a Police Officer is on patrol
and notices a smoking violation.
The Police Chief responded it would depend upon calls for service and how busy the
Police Department is; stated that he would expect a Police Officer to request the
cigarette be put out.
Councilmember Johnson stated the Police Chief stated Police Officers would try to
mediate complaints; the Police Department might receive numerous complaints for a
particular establishment; an ordinance should not be adopted that Council would not
want the Police Department to enforce.
The Police Chief stated a lot of discretion would be used; a Police Officer would be
assigned to work with bar owners and residents; the Police Department would not
ignore a nuisance.
Councilmember Johnson stated the outdoor patio bar area needs further consideration.
Mayor Gilmore stated bar owners have been responsible and have worked well with the
Police Department; the ordinance could be changed if things do not work out.
Vice Mayor Bonta concurred with Councilmember Johnson regarding further
consideration for outdoor patio bar areas and electronic cigarettes; stated that he can
envision having certain specifications for outdoor patio bar areas so that public health
interests would be harmonized with business interests.
Mayor Gilmore stated each business is different; that she would be okay with having
some type of opt out permit system; businesses would need to meet certain criteria.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff could bring back San Francisco's hybrid
restriction for review.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she is not in favor of holding up the entire ordinance because
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
November 1, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-11-01.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,2021-03-30,13,"waiting a long time.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is not looking to send an e-mail; she would
like to have a substantive discussion on the merits when staff returns and allow for public
and Council interaction; she understands staff does not have the information at this time.
Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification from staff; expressed concern about the associated
costs and implementation timeline; the budget is upcoming; she is concerned about voting
one-offs, which could prove costly outside of the budget.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Vice Mayor Vella would prefer to have a motion
include a referral to the budget for consideration.
Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; stated the matter could be part of the budget
considerations.
Councilmember Knox White noted that he and the Information Technologies Director had
previously met with the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) and Common Networks to
determine a process; stated the process is significantly less easy than initially
contemplated; expressed concern about turning Council Referrals into calls for staff reports
where staff is present at meetings; Council Referrals are a time for Council to discuss
whether staff resources are to be used; a presentation has been made on the Smart Cities
Program; he will not be supporting the motion, not because the matter is not useful; the City
has a lot of work underway and what is currently being done is easily answered by e-mail.
The Information Technology Director stated staff went to Council last December to move
forward with the Smart City Master Plan, which includes a Communications Master Plan,
with the idea that consultants will work together with internal departments and focus groups
throughout the community; staff launched the project in December and has met with
Alameda County (AC) Transit, Alameda business districts, AUSD, College of Alameda and
many other focus groups; staff has determined the need to target specific areas of the City
to provide Smart City solutions, including public WiFi; staff is hoping to bring the matter to
Council in May.
Councilmember Daysog stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer is noting a specific
problem and wants to stand on behalf of constituents that are often left out of the equation;
a lens is being brought to the topic that is worthy of having; expressed support for the lens
of equity; stated it is nice to hear about the areas considered; public WiFi should be mindful
of serving often forgotten constituents; the matter would be a missed opportunity and
Council should not lose the special communities in the shuffle of the communication
strategy.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated everything done by the City is done looking through a lens of
equity; the Information Technologies Director has done many things to help families in the
School District; noted focus groups are being included as part of the discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it has been over a year that people have been
excluded from any means of communicating via online access; expressed support for the
Continued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
March 30, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-05-05,12,"voters will vote to determine whether or not the Council should have the flexibility to give
themselves a raise in the future; noted there has been strong support for the proposal;
stated Council pay could be a limiting factor in attracting candidates who may not have
the wherewithal to self-fund being a volunteer for the City.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding clarifying health benefits, Vice
Mayor Knox White stated there is currently no language related to health benefits; the
Charter strictly states members make $50 per meeting and does include health benefits,
technology, or car allowances; previous Councilmembers have funded their family
health coverage; the proposal clarifies that Councilmembers would be able to collect
health benefits, but not as family coverage.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the only people being removed from eligibility
are family members of the Councilmember.
Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated language can be changed;
noted previous versions discussed the City Auditor and Treasurer compensation being
set by Council; the proposal does not change said provision.
Councilmember Daysog provided Alameda County Council pay data from transparent
California; stated there is a considerable discrepancy in the way Council is paid relative
to nearby cities; noted members of the public have expressed concern about Council
pay related to the COVID-19 environment; expressed support for Council discussion of
the item at the current meeting; stated a decision does not need to be made, but the
discussion can begin to inform the public about the direction of Council pay; the
discussion is occurring in a vacuum and other Charter discussion items will be had in
the coming days; each Councilmember should place the item in the context of
discussions of related Charter items.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated some Council comments may also relate to the proposed
Measure 2; completed the presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council should consider having Councilmembers
represent districts; more and more cities are being pressured by legal challenges and
are turning to district elections; district elections can also be a form of campaign finance
reform; noted campaigning in a district election could cost less depending on the
formation of districts; stated San Leandro holds district elections, but candidates must
be voted on citywide.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the last two items will be considered.
Vice Mayor Knox White responded that he did not intend for Council to consider the
items at this meeting; stated Council can decide.
Councilmember Daysog stated the direction provided at the previous Council meeting
resulted in whittling down the list for discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
May 5, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,9,"vote; requested the record be reviewed.
The City Attorney stated there can be a vote if the matter is
placed on the agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated the matter was raised by the public.
Mayor Johnson stated that the matter was on the agenda.
The City Manager stated a title was placed on the agenda under
Council Communications; Council Referral would be the proper place
for such an item.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how one Councilmember directing
the City Manager to place an item on an agenda tests against the
Charter's provision that the Council provides direction to the City
Manager.
The City Attorney stated under the Charter, the City Manager is
responsible for operations and implementing the policy decisions of
the majority of Council: a majority of Council is required to
direct the City Manager to take an implementing action or to
implement anything within the realm of operations.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether that includes putting the
agenda together.
The City Attorney responded putting the agenda together is part of
operations; the City Manager controls the agenda.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether one Councilmember directing a matter
be placed on the agenda is a Charter violation.
The City Attorney responded making a request is not a Charter
violation; it is up to the City Manager to put something on the
agenda if she determines that it is an operational matter that
comes under her authority under the Charter; it does not matter
that one Councilmember may have suggested it; however, no
Councilmember individually has the authority to direct the City
Manager to do a certain thing a certain way if it is under
operations; a cleaner way is to try to find a way to seek
consensus.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she cannot recall a Councilmember
raising something under Council Communications that he or she
wanted placed on the agenda and there not being a consensus or that
the matter did not come up later as an agenda item; Councilmembers
are very generous with each other and pretty much put everything on
Regular Meeting
9
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,2,"vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22-047) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on December 21,
2021. Approved.
(*22-048) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,915,834.26.
(22-049) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with SEED
Collaborative, Inc., to Assist the City with the Development of a Citywide Diversity, Equity,
Inclusion and Belonging Plan for an Amount Not to Exceed $275,000 including a 10%
Contingency.
The Assistant City Manager, Paul Hudson and Tara Taylor, SEED Collaborative, gave a brief
presentation.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the efforts; stated that he pulled the matter to
introduce the project and encourage SEED Collaborative to include background reports on
broader demographic and health trends within the City of Alameda; he would like SEED
Collaborative to provide analytic context to data; Alameda's African American population is
relatively low compared to many other East Bay cities; stated if health related data is included,
data about different demographics experiencing disparate kinds of health outcomes should be
explained and not automatically attributed to racism; expressed support for a range of
perspectives for underlying issues; stated issues related to racism and prejudice should be
called out as seen; expressed concern about Alameda being considered behind the times;
stated that he has seen the City grow tremendously in relation to representation and diversity on
Council; discussed prior instances of offensive language being used by City staff; stated that he
is looking at SEED Collaborative to provide context; discussed the demographics of the East
End of Alameda versus the West End; stated that he would like to look at the data
comparatively, as well as understanding the context; noted issues might be more complex.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns about spending $275,000;
inquired whether the funding comes from the General Fund, to which the Human Resources
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about the five-year fiscal forecast.
The City Manager stated the last five-year budget forecast shows issues in the future mainly
due to increases in pension obligations; a positive surplus occurred in the past year; due to
conservative budgeting, staff is expecting a positive surplus for this year as well; the City has
funds for the project if Council wants to move forward.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff will be requesting additional taxes.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about a discussion related to taxes; inquired whether
the discussion is allowable at the current time.
The City Attorney responded certainly, the Council would not want to discuss tax measures;
however, the inquiry from Councilmember Herrera Spencer can be answered by the City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,3,"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.]
(*22-079) 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 January 4, 2022. Approved.
(*22-080) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,250,242.47.
(22-081) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted
via Teleconference.
[Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item 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.]
(*22-082) Resolution No. 15861, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and
Execute a Grant Agreement Between the State of California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways and the City of Alameda by and through
the Alameda Police Department."" Adopted; and
(*22-082A) Resolution No. 15862, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Police Grants
Fund Estimated Revenue and Expenditures by $75,000 Each for the Surrendered and
Abandoned Vessel Exchange Grant."" Adopted.
(22-083) Ordinance No. 3311, ""Approving a Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA) for the Encinal Terminals Project By and Between the City of Alameda and North
Waterfront Cove, LLC (""Developer"") Governing the Encinal Terminals Project for Real
Property Located at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue and Approving and Authorizing the City
Manager, or Designee, to Execute a Land Exchange and Title Settlement Agreement
for the Encinal Terminals Project By and Among the State of California Acting By and
Through the State Lands Commission, the City and Developer Substantially in the Form
Attached Hereto."" Finally passed;
(22-083A) Ordinance No. 3312, ""Approving the Amended Encinal Terminals Tidelands
Exchange Master Plan and Density Bonus Application for Redevelopment of Real
Property Located at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue (APN 072-0382-001, 072-0382-002,
072-0383-003 and 072-0382-009). Finally passed; and
(22-084B) Ordinance No. 3313, ""Approving Development Agreement (DA) (Encinal
Terminals Project) By and Between the City of Alameda and North Waterfront Cove,
LLC Governing the Encinal Terminals Project for Real Property Located at 1521 Buena
Vista Avenue."" Finally passed.
The City Manager recused himself from the matter and left the meeting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
3",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-06-01,11,"vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation [including
introduction of the ordinance].
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion with amendments including language
from the City Attorney regarding no determination made under Section 8 of Charter
Section 22-12, and the amendment of the payback cap of reasonable costs amounting
to no more than $350,000 pro-rated over a 30-year period.
Under discussion, the City Manager stated the amendment should also include adding
language specifying using a structural engineer.
Councilmembers Knox White agreed to include the amendment.
Councilmember Daysog agreed to amend 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: Aye; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the project is positive; she is looking forward to seeing the
development; expressed support for the matter going before the PAC.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is possible to make a motion to
have the matter be heard by the PAC.
The City Attorney responded Council may always make a motion to reconsider.
The City Manager stated Greenway Golf would be fine with bringing the matter to the
PAC; staff can provide a supplemental letter administratively for Greenway Golf to
commit to consideration by the PAC.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council needs to provide direction to
staff regarding the PAC provision.
The City Manager responded many Councilmembers expressed support for the matter
going to the PAC; the proposal was taken as informal direction to staff.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:34 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:51
p.m.
***
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 1, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-06-15,2,"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 7:06
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 15, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-18,19,"vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes:
Mayor Spencer - 1.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 11:18 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:23 p.m.
(17-263) Recommendation to Approve Design Concept for Cross Alameda Trail Gap
Closure on Atlantic Avenue between Webster Street and Constitution Way.
The Transportation Planner gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like better graphics of the street
level renderings; she cannot approve a plan without seeing better visuals.
The Base Reuse Director stated staff could have renderings prepared and come back to
Council in June.
The Transportation Planner continued the presentation.
Stated the project is holding up two other projects; urged support of the plan: John Knox
White, Alameda.
Stated Council does not need to delay the project; there was a unanimous vote from the
Transportation Commission; the plan is good and is ready to move forward; delaying the
plan holds up key pieces of Cross Alameda Trail: Brian McGuire, Alameda.
Stated 200 seniors live at Independence Plaza; she appreciates improved safety on
both ends of major junctions; urged support of the plan: Vanessa Cooper, Alameda
Housing Authority.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports the midblock crossing adjacent to senior
housing; she is concerned that the Transportation Commission did not include a
midblock crossing; the crossing improves a lot of safety aspects of multi-modal
transportation.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the Base Reuse Director stated staff talked to
the property owner about removing the left turn into Starbucks and they were not
supportive; the Transportation Commission can still explore the issue.
Vice Mayor Vella stated she would want a bigger conversation with the property owner;
it is a safety issue.
The Base Reuse Director stated staff has talked to the property owners a number of
times; the property owners were adamant about prohibiting access.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
April 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-12-20,20,"vote.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(16-680) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Spencer wished everyone Happy
Holidays!
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:10 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
December 20, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-12-20.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-05-24,6,"vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0, with President Teague absent and Board
Member Ruiz abstaining.
7-C 2021-952
Proposed Citywide Text Amendments to the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC
Chapter 30) to Modify Public Art Requirements. Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing
to consider proposed amendments to Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30. The proposed
amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3) and 15303.
Allen Tai, City Planner, introduced this item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4953602&GUID=220E7191
C62C-46D0-8164-B6777391577D&FullText=1.
Amanda Gehrke, Development Manager with Community Development, gave a
presentation discussing the changes and feedback since this item was first introduced at
the April 26, 2021, Planning Board Meeting.
Vice President Saheha opened the board's clarifying questions.
Board Member Rothenberg asked about the condition, item 2-B page 5, that had to do
with the exemption for waving the requirement when you have 100% Affordable Housing.
She wanted to know if they had rethought the merit for not having that exception or of
qualifying it. She gave an example of the provision she was thinking, ""only if the inclusion
of art is an economic impediment to the project development to conform the exception and
the intent of your art program with the goals of the General Plan for inclusivity, equity, and
the appropriate sharing of resources"".
Staff Member Tai said when this provision was added to the Public Art Ordinance some
years ago the emphasis was to respond to the cost of housing and not to put a burden on
affordable housing. That was why the staff did not look at qualifying that exemption but
the board could raise that question to the City Council.
Vice President Saheba opened public comments.
There were no public speakers.
Vice President Saheba closed public comments and opened the board's discussion.
Board Member Cisneros was in support of moving this forward and appreciated Board
Member's Rothenberg comments and concerns on equity. She was curious to know what
other cities had done in this situation and wondered if there were other creative ways to
provide public art to 100% Affordable Housing.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 11
May 24, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-05-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,3,"vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*17-417) 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 6, 2017. Approved.
(*17-418) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,345,569.36.
(*17-419) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period
Ending March 31, 2017 Collected During the Period October 1, 2016 to December 31,
2016. Accepted.
(*17-420) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment to the Agreement with the Alameda County Fire Department Regarding the
Regional Emergency Communication Center and Fire Dispatch Services Extending the
Term by Five Years With a Total Not to Exceed $1,976,729. Accepted.
(*17-421) Recommendation to Approve the First Amendment to Services Provider
Agreement with Nossaman LLP, a California Corporation, that has been Providing the
City with Grant-Seeking, Writing, and Active Lobbying Since 2014. Accepted.
(17-422) Recommendation to Award a Five Year Contract for an Amount Not to Exceed
a Total Five Year Expenditure of $8,264,931.69 to West Coast Arborists, Inc. for
Citywide Urban Forest Maintenance Services, No. P.W. 04-17-25.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City Manager informed her the total expenditure includes
extending the contract for an additional four years; inquired whether the golf fund is
being included in the financing, how much of the funds would be used and if the
maintenance of the trees at the golf course would be included in the funds.
The City Engineer responded the funds include the trees in the golf course area, as well
as other work.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how much of the golf funds will go towards the trees.
The City Engineer responded he would have to review the numbers.
The City Manager stated the funding will be prorated by the number of trees.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City has a contractor that is paid to maintain the
golf course; does the contract not include maintenance of the trees.
The City Engineer responded he does not have information on the contract.
The City Manager stated the trees are probably under the City's jurisdiction.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-18,3,"vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*17-249) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on March 21, 2017.
Approved.
(*17-250) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,051,066.86.
(17-251) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda Investment Policy.
The City Treasurer stated a ban on investing in Wells Fargo securities has been
incorporated in the Investment Policy through 2020; current securities will be liquidated
before the new fiscal year.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Treasurer stated the matter can be
revisited in 2020.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*17-252) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment to an Agreement with Akerman LLP for Federal Legislative Services
Extending the Term for Three Years and Adding $90,000 Per Year, for a Total of
$270,000. Accepted.
(17-253) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Short Term
Agreement with the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) to Provide Services for
the City of Alameda's Potable Water System at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not recommend transitioning from
EBMUD to an outside contractor; inquired what is the impetus for the recommendation.
The Public Works Coordinator responded EBMUD does not typically provide operations
and maintenance for a system that is not theirs but has been providing the service to
the City since the late 1990's through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA); the short term
agreement extends the JPA for six months, which gives the City an opportunity to
understand the legal, regulatory, and technical aspects of having another service
provider.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the primary consideration for seeking
an alternative provider is because EBMUD does not do maintenance on facilities that
are not their own, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to
execute a short term agreement with the East Bay Municipal Utility District to provide
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-16,4,"vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*16-066) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on January
19, 2016. Approved.
(*16-067) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,902,761.91.
(*16-068) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $118,320, Including
Contingency, to Ray's Electric for the Alameda Ferry Terminal Access Improvement
Project. Accepted.
(16-069) Resolution No. 15119, ""Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-
Record for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2."" Adopted.
Vice Mayor Matarrese and Councilmember Daysog recused themselves and left the
dais.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 3. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog and Vice Mayor Matarrese - 2.]
(*16-070) Resolution No. 15120, ""Appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-
Record for Maintenance Assessment District 01-1 (Marina Cove). Adopted.
(*16-071) Ordinance No.3147, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 5-Year Lease with
Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability Company, for Building 29
Located at 1701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point."" Finally Passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(16-072) Summary title: Consider: 1) An Ordinance regarding Rent Review, Rent
Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions, Amending the Duties of the Rent Review
Advisory Committee (RRAC), and Deleting the Current Article XIV to Chapter VI
regarding Rent Review, 2) A Resolution Adopting Policy Concerning Capital
Improvement Plans (CIP), and 3) An Appropriation of Funds.
Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article
XV to 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; (C)
Amending Section 2-23.4 Concerning the Duties of the Rent Review Advisory
Committee; (D) Deleting Article XIV to Chapter VI in Its Entirety; and (E) Determining
that Introduction of the Ordinance is not a Project under the California Environmental
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.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,2017-11-21,10,"vote - 5.
(17-693) Ordinance No. 3201, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a
New Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses) to Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and
Industries). Finally passed.
[Note: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese voted against the ordinance.]
(17-694) Ordinance No. 3202, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Sections 24-11 (Smoking Prohibitions in Places of Employment and Unenclosed Public
Places) and 24-12 (Smoking Prohibitions in Housing)."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(17-695) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Sylvia Gibson as a Member of the Planning
Board. Not adopted.
Expressed support for Sylvia Gibson: Damien Masen, Alameda.
Expressed support for Sylvia Gibson: Ruth Abbe, Alameda.
Outlined why she is a good candidate: Sylvia Gibson, Nominee.
Mayor Spencer listed Ms. Gibson's qualifications.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Abstentions: Councilmembers
Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vella - 3.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(17-696) Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Public Update on Crime within the City.
(Mayor Spencer)
Mayor Spencer made brief comments regarding the referral.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an item not on the agenda can be
discussed, to which the Acting City Attorney requested Mayor Spencer discuss only
items on the current agenda.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would be requesting adding an oversight committee.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the oversight committee is in the referral.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 21, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-11-21,7,"vote - 5.
(17-689) Recommendation to Receive Status Report on Job Creation Efforts at
Alameda Point, Including an Update on the Enterprise District Marketing Strategy.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether staff can review why people are not
responding to outreach; expressed concern about the Enterprise District being held up
based on the Site A groundbreaking; stated that he would like the report to state the
financial impact to the General Fund and Base Reuse fund budgets and where the
money is going.
Mayor Spencer stated that she concurs with Councilmember Matarrese; expressed
concerns about Cushman and Wakefield performing at the level that is needed.
The City Manager stated two buildings have sold for a total of $15 million, which is
being set aside for Alameda Point infrastructure improvements.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired which buildings sold.
The City Manager responded Buildings 9 and 91; stated Bladium is also being sold.
Mayor Spencer stated Cushman and Wakefield's job is to bring new business interests
to Alameda and she does not believe that has been happening.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the transactions have been due to staff.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(17-690) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Amendment
to the Agreement with Operation Dignity for Homeless Case Management Services
Extending the Term for Six Months to May 9, 2018 and Adding $61,534 to the
Agreement for a Total Budget Amount of $183,777.
The Economic Development Manager provided a brief report about the work being done
to address homeless issues in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he witnessed Operation Dignity's homeless
outreach; he supports the item.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 21, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-17,12,"vote - 5.
(17-631) Recommendation to Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency for a Proposed City of
Alameda Charter Amendment Making the ""City Alameda Rent Review, Rent
Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance"" a Part of the Alameda City
Charter; and
(17-631A) Select One of the Following: 1) Adoption of Resolution_Calling an Election to
be Consolidated with the Statewide Primary on June 5, 2018 and Submitting to the
Voters at That Election a Measure that Proposes to Amend the City Charter by
Incorporating into the Charter Ordinance 3148, with Certain Modifications. Not adopted;
or 2) Resolution No. 15319, ""Calling an Election to be Consolidated with the General
Municipal Election and Statewide General Election on November 6, 2018 and
Submitting to the Voters at That Election a Measure that Proposes to Amend the City
Charter by Incorporating into the Charter Ordinance 3148, with Certain Modifications.'
Adopted.
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
In response to Mayor Spencer's question, the City Clerk outlined the financial impact of
the two election dates.
Mayor Spencer inquired when the taxing for cannabis issue will come to Council.
The City Manager responded that the cannabis workshop is Saturday; the tax on
cannabis issue could be on the June or November election.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there are any other tax measures that the City is
contemplating putting on the June ballot.
The City Manager responded that staff is currently talking to the community about what
they want.
The City Clerk clarified that the City has until March to place items on the June ballot;
noted Council would need to make any amendments to the 75-word ballot question
tonight.
The City Manager noted the November election will be crowded.
Expressed disappointment with the Charter amendment: Eric Strimling, Alameda
Renters Coalition.
Urged Council to place the measure on the November ballot due to the cost and the
higher turn-out: Brian McGuire, Alameda.
Urged the language on the ballot be clear: Beth Kenny, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 17, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-19,3,"vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.]
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(10-024) State Budget
The Interim City Manager gave a brief report on the State budget; announced a Special
Meeting dedicated to budget matters would be held next Tuesday, January 26.
In response to Acting Mayor deHaan's inquiry regarding the gas tax, the Interim City
Manager stated the City receives $1.2 million on an annual basis; the impact of the
State taking the gas tax would be analyzed; the State would do the same thing that has
been done with sales tax and property tax.
Acting Mayor deHaan inquired whether the State has determined its shortfall amount, to
which the Interim City Manger responded in the negative; stated the amount is a moving
target.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10-025) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $60,280 to AZCO
Supply and Authorize a Ten Percent Contingency to Purchase Twenty-five Streetlight
Poles as Part of the Woodstock to Webster Street Neighborhood Improvement Project,
and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute the Contract and Related
Documents.
The Economic Development Department Division Manager gave a Power Point
presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the poles would be fiberglass, to which the
Division Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what is the life expectancy relative to steel or
aluminum.
The Project Manager responded that she does not know the difference in life
expectancy; stated AMP would only allow fiberglass poles to be installed.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry regarding why AMP requires
fiberglass, the Project Manager stated AMP finds fiberglass easier to install, lighter for
crews and easier to switch out.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned fiberglass does not hold up; the
life expectancy of steel or aluminum is a lot longer; poles might need to be replaced in
four or five years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 19, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-07-05,4,"volunteer.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is concerned $150,000 is being requested and the
MEDAP was just appointed and has not even met yet; she would like the MEDAP to be
heavily involved and would like their feedback.
Councilmember Daysog recommended bringing the plan to the Panel to lay out the
roles, then move it forward to the committee; suggested that at a meeting of Panel there
be an opportunity to decide whether additional members want to be involved in the
committee and which members want to participate in the whole process.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff would choose the members of the ad hoc
committee, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many members would be on the committee, to which the
Economic Development Manager responded there would be about seven members.
Mayor Spencer stated she is not supportive of staff choosing the members; Council
should choose the members.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he does not want to add another layer of committees;
suggest the MEDAP oversee the project; stated Council just pulled the expertise
together; the description of the panel includes advising and reporting to the Mayor and
Council on policies and programs; the strategic plan is the ultimate in policies and
programs; he would like the Advisory Panel to oversee the plan and come to Council
with a recommendation.
Mayor Spencer stated Council wants the volunteer's expertise to be used.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested sending the item back for staff to provide
more detail; stated that she does not object to staff suggesting the members, but would
like to see the groups [ad hoc committee and MEDAP] work together.
Councilmember Oddie stated rather than have Council micromanage the minutia of the
process, he would like to see the results.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council could still move forward and work with the
process laid out by staff; the process should be flexible to allow individuals to participate
and be tweaked.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like consultants to provide Council
with the names of the panel members.
The Economic Development Manager stated the consultants would attend the MEDAP
meeting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-03-22,6,"volumes, and roadway width. She stated that the City's key guidance criteria were: pedestrian
volumes, collision history and the distance to the signalized intersections. The crossing is not too
far from the nearby signalized intersections and it would be safer for pedestrians to cross at one
of them. She noted that if the City installed a rectangular rapid flashing beacon, the vehicles
would be required to yield to pedestrians, but they may not stop. She indicated that the pedestrian
guidance thresholds for a marked crossing are 20 total pedestrians, or 15 senior pedestrians, in
the peak hour. Staff counted 12 seniors and 17 total pedestrians crossing when conducting
pedestrian counts this year, during the highest peak hour - 11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. Thus, she
explained the pedestrian counts were just under the guidance thresholds. Finally, she stated that
there was one pedestrian-involved collision in 10 years, even though pedestrians regularly cross
there.
Commissioner Bertken asked Staff Wheeler if pedestrians do not press the pedestrian push-
button, then does the crosswalk not exist?
Staff Wheeler replied no, since it would still be a marked crosswalk.
Commissioner Bertken replied that if the rapid flashing beacon lights are not blinking, then
Atlantic is just a throughway and it does not delay motorists. So, it's only when the pedestrian
presses the button to cross that motorists are delayed.
Staff Wheeler replied that the traffic impacts of the options with and without the midblock
crossing are about the same, since cars only need to yield to pedestrians and are not required to
stay stopped, as at a red traffic light.
Commissioner Miley stated that the priority tonight was to see the gap closed. Regarding the
mid-block, he said he could take it or leave it and he questioned whether the mid-block crossing
would be used more. He felt Commissioners Bertken and Vargas echoed his concerns about the
turning actions at Constitution Way. He also noted that the staff report said during the peak p.m.
hours there were 173 vehicular turns and during the peak a.m. hours there were 110 turns from
Atlantic Avenue onto Constitution Way. He believed when looking at the drawings and
conceptualizing the queuing concern, a simulation would be useful. He asked Staff Wheeler if
staff looked at signalizing traffic so left and right turns could proceed simultaneously. He also
wondered if there was a way to signalize the controls, like a scramble, to allow pedestrians and
bicyclists to cross the intersection without any cars proceeding.
Staff Wheeler replied that the City explored the simultaneous right and left turn idea but that
because there is a combined through and right turn lane eastbound on Atlantic Avenue, the right
turns cannot proceed in a turn-only phase, because they might be stopped behind a through car.
Commissioner Bellows wondered if, rather than giving a lane to the left turns, could they use
some of the median and make that a left turn lane and scoot everything over, thereby maintaining
all three existing lanes. That would provide a free right turn lane.
Staff Wheeler said they also looked at that option, but rejected it because it increases the cost
since they would have to remove the center median on both sides of the street, to make room and
to allow for the alignment of lanes across the intersection. However, she explained that the traffic
Page 6 of 14",TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,18,"voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Ezzy Ashcraft and Daysog - 3. Noes:
Councilmember Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 2.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if there are time sensitive issues on the agenda.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; inquired if there is an option for one of
the two votes against to reconsider the motion to get the budget approved tonight.
The City Attorney stated there can be a reconsideration if one of the two opposing votes
wants to make a motion.
Councilmember Oddie stated the long meetings need to stop.
Mayor Spencer stated she will not agree to proceeding with the meeting.
(16-164) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Operating and
Capital Improvement Program Budget and Approving Workforce Changes in the City
Manager's Office and Public Works Departments. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(16-165) The City Manager recognized Alameda Municipal Power for being recognized
as the #1 safest utility competing against 250 other utilities; stated it is a high level, very
impressive reward that Alameda's utility received nationwide.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(16-166) Consider Directing the City Manager to Provide the City Council with a Plan
and Timeline to Address: 1) Taking Action with the Water Emergency Transportation
Authority (WETA) on Immediate Partial Relief from the Effects of Overflow Ferry
Parking, 2) Presenting Mid and Long Term Projects to WETA to Accommodate
Increased Ferry Ridership, and 3) Working With and Lobbying Regional Agencies and
Legislators to Implement Fixes and Grow the Ferry Service to and from Alameda
pursuant to the Agreement between WETA and the City. Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(16-167) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the first workshop
cosponsored by County Supervisor Wilma Chan and Keith Carson regarding a
Countywide affordable housing bond that will be placed on the November ballot.
(16-168) Councilmember Daysog announced that he attended the East Bay League of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-04-01,3,"voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]
(*08-132) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission
Meeting of March 5, 2008; the Special City Council Meeting held on
March 10, 2008; the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities
Board; Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement
Commission; and Regular City Council Meetings held on March 18,
2008. Approved.
(
*08-133) - Ratified bills in the amount of $1,631,590.32.
( *08-134) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Adding Section 3-53 (Claims) to Division VIII (Refunds and
Corrections) to Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) to Establish
Uniform Requirements and Procedures Applicable to the Presentation
and Processing of Claims for Money or Damages with the City of
Alameda That Are Not Currently Covered by State Law or Other
Provisions of the Alameda Municipal Code. Introduced.
( 08-135) - Ordinance No. 2978, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Repealing Section 5-30 (Filming Activities) in Its Entirety, and
Replacing It with A Successor Section to Article II (Permits) of
Chapter V (Licenses and Permits) Making Changes to the Procedures,
Regulations and Related Fee Provisions for Filming Activities
Within the City of Alameda. Finally passed.
(*08-136) Ordinance No. 2979, ""Amending Various Sections of the
Alameda Municipal Code Contained in Article I, (Zoning Districts
and Regulations) Chapter XXX, (Development Regulations)
,
Pertaining to Retail and Commercial Uses. "" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(08-137) - Resolution No. 14191, ""Appointing Cecilia Cervantes as a
Member of the Public Art Commission. "" Adopted; and
(08-137A) Resolution No. 14192, ""Appointing Andrea M. Leal as a
Member of the Public Art Commission. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate
to Ms. . Leal.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-01-06,2,"voice vote - 5.
Mr. Breuer thanked Council for the opportunity to serve; stated
that he hopes his business background will bring a positive aspect
to the Commission.
Mr. Harrison thanked the Council for its trust; stated that he is
looking forward to serving the community.
Mayor Johnson thanked Mr. Breuer and Mr. Harrison for the
willingness to serve; stated serving on the Commission during the
current economic times will be interesting.
The City Clerk administered the Oaths of Office and presented
Certificates of Appointment to Mr. Breuer and Mr. Harrison.
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 8:07 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Meeting at 8:37 p.m.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Noll & Tam Architects Contract
[paragraph no. 09-009] and the Public Hearing on Tentative Parcel
Map No. 9757 [paragraph no. 09-014] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese 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. ]
(*09-007 - ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Alameda
Public Financing Authority Meeting held on November 18, 2008; the
Regular City Council Meeting held on December 2, 2008; and the
Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meetings held on
December 16, 2008. Approved.
(*09-008) Ratified bills in the amount of 3,524,697.09.
(09-009) Recommendation to award a Contract in the amount of
$298,000, including contingencies, to Noll & Tam Architects for the
design of the Neighborhood Library Improvement Program No. P.W. 08-
08-21.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 6, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,14,"voice vote - 5.
Mayor/Chair Johnson directed staff to bring the Central Avenue bike
lane issue back to Council.
(05-022CIC) Resolution No. 05-135, ""Approving and Authorizing
Payment of Certain Public Improvements to the Park Street and Otis
Drive Intersection. Adopted; and
(05-195CC) Resolution No. 13835, ""Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Public Improvements Construction Agreement Between
the City and Harsch Investment Corporation. Adopted.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the project is critical
to Alameda's economic engine.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the
resolutions.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what
type of funding would be used.
The Development Services Director responded that staff recommends
using Community Improvement Commission funds for the project; the
primary benefit finding is required because the intersection is
just outside the formal boundaries of a redevelopment project area;
the improvements are tied to the form and function of the rest of
the redevelopment project area; Redevelopment Law has a provision
that recognizes that there are projects that may be outside the
boundaries which are a primary benefit to the function of the rest
of the project area.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether other funding
sources were considered.
The Development Services Director responded that there was a
discussion about using some sales tax dollars from the new South
Shore Shopping Center development.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the two-third, one-
third cost sharing was derived.
The Development Services Director responded that the formula was a
result of negotiations with the developer ; there was a dispute over
the assignment of the impact of the intersection; the developer
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
4
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-19,3,"voice vote - 5.
(06-468) Resolution No. 14012, ""Approving Amendment No. 2 to the
1986 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan. Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog stated the issue has been controversial in the
City of Hayward; the City is being asked to join other Alameda
County cities in voting for a change to the Measure B funding
program; some people do not want to widen Mission Boulevard; stated
he would abstain on the matter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether any other projects were remaining,
to which the Public Works Director responded two projects remain.
James O'Brien, Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA)
Project Control Team, stated the Hayward Bypass project was more
controversial ten capital projects were listed in the Expenditure
Plan; Amendment 1 addressed the first segment of the Route 238 and
Route 84 project and was replaced with a set of improvements to
address the congestion problems within the corridor; Amendment 2
addresses the connection between Mission Boulevard and Interstate
880; Union City and Fremont originally opposed the connection; the
Expenditure Plan Amendment is needed because of the significant
variance from the plan description.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Board of Supervisors voted on
the amendment.
Mr. O'Brien responded the ACTA Board voted four to one; stated
Supervisor Haggerty voted no.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Mayor of Hayward voted.
Mr. O'Brien responded the Mayor of Hayward voted in favor of the
amendment stated the matter needs to go to cities representing the
majority of the population in incorporated Alameda County; the
matter has been approved by ten of the fourteen cities; Alameda's
vote would push the vote over the 50% line.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Fremont and Union City approved the
amendment, to which Mr. O'Brien responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
louncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-469) Resolution No. 14013, ""Establishing Guidelines for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.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
TransportationCommission,2013-07-24,3,"visit on October 22nd. He sent an email the next day and thanked Staff Ta for coming out and
made it clear that he was against the no parking street sweeping signs and parking restrictions on
the 2600 La Jolla Drive block.
Commissioner Miley asked the residents if the gutters and curbs are generally clean on their
block.
Ann Leonardo replied that she hired a gardener to clean the 80-foot strip in front of her house.
The gardener clears the gutter and he blows underneath cars. However, she felt the residents
should not have to do it if there is a street cleaning vehicle going up and down the streets.
Robert Erdmann replied that he grew up on the block and his continued duty is to pick up some
occasional leaves and soda cans. He stated tall trees are not present on their block and the wind
blows some leaves from the other block, but he sweeps them up because it is not a huge issue.
Periodically, on Thursdays, there are not many cars on the street so they could get into the street.
Commissioner Schatmeier confirmed with Robert Erdmann that at times the street sweeper is
unable to clean the gutter area.
Robert Erdmann said he is usually at work, but his wife does occasionally see the street sweeper
unable to get into the gutter area.
Commissioner Wong referred to page 5 of the staff report where there are two pictures of a
typical Thursday street cleaning morning compared to a non-street sweeping morning. Overall,
the snap shots look like there are more cars. So, she asked if staff could look into moving the
street sweeping day to a time when it is not as heavily used.
Staff Ta replied staff has spoken to the maintenance department and asked if they could move the
time, but the City's street sweeping schedule is a complicated matrix and to change it for a 125-
foot cul-de-sac is not a reasonable use of staff time.
Commissioner Wong asked staff what are the scheduled street sweeping dates for Broadway.
Staff Ta replied the days are Monday and Thursday.
Commissioner Wong explained since the opposite side of Broadway is on Monday then the street
sweeper could go down the cul-de-sac since it is a non-street sweeping day. Additionally, based
on the photo from the presentation the cul-de-sac would be less impacted by cars.
Staff Ta replied that there would still be an impact of parked cars regardless of the day.
Commissioner Miley asked if the City is required to sweep 100 percent of City streets.
Staff Ta replied that the City has a schedule to sweep all the public streets, but he is not certain of
City policy.
Commissioner Bellows said her street contained signs on one side because it was needed to
Page 3 of 10",TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,4,"visibility. He would entertain a motion to bring this item back in November in order to discuss
the validity of selecting another site for this stop.
Commissioner Schatmeier would support a bus stop located somewhere, but did not want the
conclusion to be that there would be no bus stop located anywhere.
Staff Khan expressed concern about the proximity of establishing additional crosswalks at
adjacent intersections, and recommended channelizing pedestrians toward the existing crosswalk
at Sandcreek Way. He indicated that the concerns of the crossing guards could be addressed by
working with staff and AC Transit.
Commissioner Ratto moved to eliminate the possibility of putting a bus stop at Otis Drive and
Sandcreek Way, to agendize looking at Sandalwood Isle and Pond Isle at the November meeting,
and to instruct staff to do the appropriate noticing. Commissioner McFarland seconded. Motion
passed unanimously, [4-0].
Revisit Commission Recommendation to City Council to Adopt AC Transit Board's Bus Stop
Policy
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and noted that bus stop spacing recommendations
were fairly consistent within the City's current transit plan, which was a range of 800-1300 feet
for local routes. He noted that the 63 was considered a local route. Staff was concerned that there
were some provisions in the policy that were not applicable to the City, and this might be better
handled as part of the Transit Plan Update through the TMP. Staff recommended that in terms of
spacing, until the TMP is amended, that the City use the existing Transit Plan's guidelines of
approximately 1000 feet.
Staff Khan noted that AC Transit policy was more focused on a service-oriented approach, in
terms of how to provide and improve service. He noted that the examination of crosswalks and
pedestrian ramps were not addressed in the AC Transit policy; that was another reason that staff
recommended that when the TMP was looked at as a whole, all those concerns could be
addressed to be more consistent with the rest of the TMP policy.
Public Comment
There were no speakers.
Closed Public Comment
Chair Knox White noted that the long-range transit plan for the TMP would probably be worked
on within two to three years, and agreed with staff that this would be a great time to work on
these issues. He believed there may have been a lack of clarity regarding the current City plan
regarding the guidelines.
Staff Khan inquired whether the Chair was recommending that this be taken to the Planning
Board and City Council to be adopted as a policy; at this time, it is a recommended policy.
4",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-07-23,11,"visibility of lights, sun glare with respect to east-west orientation, and shadow of trees or
buildings. He noted those were site-specific considerations, and added that the draft would be
completed to be accepted by the Public Works Director.
Open public hearing.
Audrey Lord-Hausman, Pedestrian Friendly Alameda, noted that the group had been a strong
advocate for the in-pavement crosswalk lights, and was impressed that Alameda had 10 such
crosswalks. She expressed concern about the false sense of security, and that such amenities
were only as good as the education. She believed that was an area that needed a great deal more
work. She noted they were very effective at night and in inclement weather, but that during a
bright, sunny day, it was difficult for motorists to see them right away. She suggested that an
education program be enacted, including the use of newspaper articles, pamphlets, and items on
the City's website. She noted that because motorists' memories were short, and to address new
residents coming into the City, that there be an ongoing education effort.
Jon Spangler agreed with the previous speaker's comments, and added that enforcement was at
least as important as education. He noted that enforcement was very effective, and that it would
also be remunerative to the City. He liked the effectiveness of the in-pavement lights during bad
weather and nighttime hours, but that they were almost useless on a sunny day at Webster and
Taylor. Shaded locations worked better than lighted locations. He noted that a Yield to
Pedestrians sign would work well in conjunction with other measures, particularly at schools. He
commended the funding method of using grants.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner McFarland noted that he liked the in-pavement lights.
Chair Knox White noted that these devices had a time and a place, and added that they were very
expensive. He echoed Mr. Spangler's comment about the grants used to pay for them, and added
that the grants came from competitive money that could be used for other things. He did not
believe that was a good rationale to install them just for that reason. He believed they should be
used very sparingly. He was concerned that drivers disregarded measures to protect pedestrians.
He suggested a special paint scheme such as those used in school zones that would indicate
pedestrian crossings more clearly. He supported an education campaign as well.
Staff Khan noted that was a good point, and complimented Staff Bergman on the research and
evaluation of the studies he performed in compiling the staff report. He noted that each study
cautioned against overuse of these devices, which may render them ineffective. He hoped that
safety committees or local committees at schools could be formed to increase education with
respect to pedestrians and bicyclists.
Page 11 of 14",TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2016-03-24,3,"violence, and the associated medical and other costs.
In response to questions, Ms. Scott shared that she had just found out today about the change in
protocol, and would be in contact with Chief Rolleri to find out the reason for the change. She went
on to say that some police departments have all of their DV calls investigated at the patrol level.
One change she sees with the new protocol is that, in the past, APD had sent FVLC spreadsheets
of all of the DV calls, and that they may no longer get them.
Angie Watson-Hajjem, Fair Housing Counselor, ECHO Housing
Ms. Hajjem shared that her work at ECHO is in Fair Housing, and she encourages all residents to
call if they feel that they are being discriminated against.
President Biggs stated that Fair Housing funding is not reviewed by the Board, and that the
application for funding that they reviewed from ECHO is for tenant- landlord services.
Ms. Hajjem explained that calls to ECHO for tenant-landlord services has increased as the housing
crisis has become more critical. While the RRAC is available primarily to handle rent increase
issues, ECHO provides education as to both the rights of a tenant being evicted, and the rights of a
landlord wanting to do a just-cause eviction.
President Biggs asked why most of the funds requested in the ECHO tenant-landlord application go
to education as opposed to mediation.
Ms. Hajjem replied that ECHO's Executive Director wrote the proposal, and would be in a better
position to answer that question.
Karen Zeltzer, Board Member Alameda Food Bank (AFB)
Ms. Zeltzer thanked the City and the Board for their years of support and funding. The AFB
provides food to 5,000 residents of Alameda, representing nearly 2,000 households. They serve all
of Alameda's diverse community, with more than half of their clients being children, and many being
elderly and disabled. The CDBG funding from the city of Alameda allows them to provide both
quality and quantity in the food packages that they distribute. Families are able to access the Food
Bank seven times a month, and they also provide delivery to homebound Alamedans. The average
family participating in their programs can receive enough food to save $500 a month on their
grocery bills. The money saved can help offset the cost of increasing rent, medication, and other
bills.
While they do have income limits, the limits take into consideration the high cost of living in the Bay
Area, and no one is turned away. One of their challenges is in having families in need feel
comfortable about coming in and asking for food. They have the capacity to serve more clients, and
recently received a grant from a research firm who will help them develop strategies. Ms. Zeltzer
said she is reaching out to the community to let them know about their services. In addition to
attending the Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth, and their Families meetings and
community events, and reaching out to Alameda's faith community. They also have positive
relationships with the Alameda Journal and SUN, and have an increasing presence on social
media.
Member Hyman made a number of recommendations for the Food Bank to interact with AUSD, in
addition to the relationships they have already established.
3",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2016-03-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-11-13,4,"violations of these conditions within a 12- month period, the City shall automatically set
a date for a revocation hearing before the Planning Board"" be changed to a 13 month
period.
Board member Köster feels that the 12-month period will be easier to track and
remember.
Board member Knox White agrees that since the Use Permit can be called for review at
any time the 12-month period is fine.
Motion to approve the Use Permit as amended by Board member Köster.
Seconded by Board member Knox White.
Approved 5-0, no abstentions
7-C
Public Hearing on Draft North Park Street Area Zoning Ordinance
Amendments, Design Review Manual, and Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) - The Planning Board will consider approval of draft amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance and a draft Design Manual to regulate future development
within the area bounded by the Oakland Alameda Estuary, Tilden/Lincoln, and
Oak Street (approximately 20 blocks of commercial, residential and industrial
land uses).
Board member Köster recused himself from the discussion as he lives in the district.
Mr. Thomas stated that the comment period on the Zoning Amendments has been
extended to November 26, 2012 and final action will be taken by the Planning Board at
the January 15, 2013 (Tuesday) meeting. He gave a brief presentation pointing out the
major changes and the five sub districts.
President Zuppan opened the public comment period.
Patsy Paul, resident, spoke in support of the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society (AAPSO recommendations that the area not be zoned mixed use but remain
residential.
Karen Bey, resident, stated that she is excited about the project and believes the
rezoning will bring more tourists to Alameda. She also stated that she would like to see
a visitor's center located on Park Street to help attract people to town and would like to
see the City return to its roots as a resort destination.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, questioned why drive-thru's need to be eliminated from the area
stating that they should be reviewed on a case by case basis with approval being
granted through a use permit. He also stated that see through windows are not always
feasible for the business owner.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 5
November 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-12-01,18,"violation severity which should be relayed and clarified.
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
(20-760) The City Manager announced COVID-19 testing information is available on the City's
website; stated there will be a flu clinic sponsored by Alameda County held at Mastick Senior
Center; announced APD has received a traffic data and safety grant; stated the Posey Tube will
have an overnight closure between December 7th and 9th.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(20-761) Consider Adoption of Resolution ""Requiring a Project Stabilization Agreement for
Certain Construction Projects, Including Construction Associated with Certain Leases, which
Include: City-Owned Property, City Funding at a Set Threshold, Approval of Certain
Agreements, or Other City Subsidies or Credits at Set Thresholds"" or Consider Directing Staff to
Place the Resolution on a December 15, 2020 Special Meeting Prior to the 7:00 p.m. Regular
Meeting. Not heard. (Councilmembers Oddie and Vella).
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(20-762) Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he attended the Rename Jackson Park public
meeting at Rythmix and the community Renaming Committee meeting.
(20-763) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced attending the League of California Cities League
Leaders workshop.
(20-764) Stopwaste October 2020 Topic Brief: Re: Source. (Councilmember Oddie)
Councilmember Oddie announced that his alternate will be attending the meeting; noted an
Alameda business will receive an award at the meeting; outlined the resource.stopwaste.org
online tool available for use.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:28 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
15
December 1, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-12-01,12,"vicinity are dispatched; inquired whether response time is
determined from the time that dispatch receives the call to the
time that the first officer or the full compliment of officers
arrives on the scene.
The Police Chief responded response times are determined from the
first dispatch call received until the first officer arrives at the
scene; stated calls are assigned to officers in specific sectorsi
an officer closer to a call will answer the call.
Councilmember Tam stated fire fighters need time to put on gear;
inquired whether patrol cars and officers are fully equipped.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated a specialized
officer would be assigned to a call where additional, specialized
equipment is needed, such as a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT)
call.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether an officer would be cleared of a
Priority 3 call to respond to a Priority 1 call.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated determining
whether or not to clear an officer is a supervisory decision.
Mayor Johnson stated police officers do not need the turnout time
that fire fighters need.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated police officers multi-task. -
The Police Chief stated police officers multi-task very well;
police officers are trained to handle any type of call; continued
the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a beat officer is responsible for
abandoned vehicles.
The Police Chief responded beat officers and parking technicians
are responsible.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired why Priority 4 response times are better
than Priority 3 response times.
The Police Chief responded many Priority 4 calls involve abandoned
vehicles that can be immediately handled by parking technicians.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Police Chief stated
Priority 1 calls totaled 282 in 2008 and 179 up to August 2009
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
December 1, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-06,15,"very small regarding the MDGIP; the Board did not want the driveway
closed; the additional sentence addresses how to resolve the issue.
Vice Mayor Tam requested clarification on remanding the matter to
the Planning Board.
The Planning Services Manager stated the site plan would be
remanded with direction to reconsider the decision in light of the
new information.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether it might not be procedurally correct
to send the other two items [MDGIP and driveway ] back to the
Planning Board.
The Planning Services Manager responded the matters could be sent
back.
Mayor Johnson stated taking the two items off the table might make
sense.
Councilmember Matarrese restated the motion approval of staff
recommendations 1 and 2 [regarding the MDGIP and driveway and
sending site plan 4 back to the Planning Board for review, comment
and approval.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the motion
included the additional sentence regarding the right turn lane, to
which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the motion included
direction to have the Planning Board review raised crosswalks, to
which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has seen the project design and
has concerns regarding the size and mass of Buildings A and B; the
Planning Board wants to take a second look at the matter; Building
A is 67 feet tall and only houses one story.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether said matter is part of the agenda
item and should be discussed.
The City Attorney stated the agenda item is specific to the appeal
and the three items in the appeal, which should be the Council' S
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
November 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-20,11,"very difficult; due to the location of sheer walls, the only
alternative would be an exit out of the east side, which would go
down to the ground.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the exit would be similar
to the Council Chambers exit.
Ms. Muller responded in the affirmative; stated the exit would not
look too great from the street.
Mr. Dreyfus stated exterior and interior building impacts were
reviewed; the interior is important, but the exterior is as well;
the [balcony ] proposal appeared to have the least impact on the
historic fabric.
Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates the lighting issue
information. the building has a lot of windows, which she had
considered when reviewing different uses.
Ms. Muller stated museums tend to find preserving artifacts more
important than seeing buildings.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the building is not the ideal type
of building for a museum.
Ms. Muller responded that she is reluctantly coming to said
conclusion; stated thirty years ago museums were okay with
daylight research has led to curators being more careful with
artifacts; visiting exhibits will not allow paintings to be
displayed if there is too much light.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how the art exhibit area [in the
proposed Community Arts/Planning and Building Center] could be
justified if people are concerned about paintings.
Ms. Muller responded that she discussed the matter with artists and
they were not concerned about art for sale being displayed for two
to three months as long as the windows have film to keep out most
of the ultraviolet light.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether oil paintings have different
lighting tolerance than wood or leather.
Ms. Muller responded in the affirmative; stated the most light
sensitive items are drawings on paper, watercolors and fabric, such
as old costumes.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether special art exhibits require
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
November 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-02-27,10,"very conceptual, he believed it would be important to stay in contact with the daycare owner,
since they owned the building. He stated that this may not be the right location for a transit hub,
and it is not the right time to be pursuing it, that there are many existing pressing needs for transit
in the City.
Commissioner Krueger noted that regarding the realigned road, he would like to see more detail,
and added that shortening the route from Alameda Landing to the Tube made sense. He also
believed that this use of the railroad right of way made sense. He did not believe that a four-lane
route may be necessary.
Chair Knox White did not see a transit hub with commercial spaces being a good match for
shared parking. He would like to see this proposal again when the traffic model was done, with
more specific numbers.
Staff Khan noted that he would add the speakers to the email list for this proposal.
Commission Communications (cont.)
Chair Knox White noted that the federal grant for bus shelters that the City had applied for was
denied.
Staff Bergman noted that those funds were generally earmarked and were competitively awarded.
Staff would continue to track that issue.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the bike path near Mount Trashmore was overgrown with
hedges, and would like it to be trimmed back.
Chair Knox White noted that the bus route map at the southwest corner of Santa Clara and High
was covered with graffiti.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he had complained about it, and was told that all complaints
about graffiti must be routed through AC Transit. Staff Bergman indicated that the City is
responsible for graffiti on shelters, but that AC Transit is responsible for other bus route maps
posted at bus stops.
Chair Knox White noted that there was broken glass at the shelter at Webster and Santa Clara, as
well as Willow and Santa Clara.
8.
Staff Communications
Staff Bergman provided an update on the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study, funded by a
$100,000 grant from ACTIA. ARUP was hired as the consultant, and Caltrans District 4 would
provide access to its on-call outreach consultant. Oakland has also contributed to the project as
well. Several community meetings had been scheduled in Chinatown (April 10) and in Alameda
(April 12).
10",TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-05-24,5,"very compact and monotonous development plan. She urged the land planners to develop
more site and building lay out variations and carefully review the proposed development
standards.
Both Board Member Lynch questioned the parking space need assumptions as being too
limited.
Board member Cook stated that the proposed plan lacks specificity regarding what
elements would in fact be provided by the project which were merely project goals and that
it is unclear what elements of the plan would be provided by the developer or the City.
Board member Cunningham commented that the EIR should also review the impacts of not
redeveloping Alameda Point, which would likely negatively impact the City of Alameda.
Board Member Lynch asked what the City's involvement will be for the development of
Alameda.
Staff responded that the City has not finalized the Development Agreement that would
outline the dollar amount that the City would put into the project. City staff is currently
evaluating the pro forma for the density bonus alternative.
Mr. Braun, SunCal representative, described the past public outreach effort. He stated that
SunCal's polling efforts resulted in wide-spread community support for Measure B, but a
lack of understanding of the financial details and transportation issues resulted in its defeat.
He explained that SunCal is committed to a timely and economical land analysis as well as
developing in-depth design guidelines for buildings and structures.
Board member Lynch stated that he does not agree that there was wide-spread support for
Measure B, for if there was the Measure would have passed.
The Board thanked staff and the SunCal representatives for the information they provided
and responses to questions. The President of the Board noted the item would be coming
back to the Planning Board at a future meeting for consideration. The Board took no further
action on the project at this time.
9-B
Boatworks Project 2229 Clement-Public Hearing to a Proposed Reduced
Density Alternative for the Property. The City of Alameda Planning Board will be
holding a public hearing to receive comments on a proposed reduced density
alternative for the property. The alternative would reduce the number of housing
units from 242 to approximately 175 and increase the public open space from less
than a 1/4 acre to approximately two acres. Major issues for discussion will include
extension of Elm Street and Blanding Street, proposed standards and guidelines for
the design of the proposed housing, and park design criteria. The public is
encouraged to attend and participate in the discussion. No final action will be taken
by the Planning Board at this meeting.
Planning Board
Page 5 of 8
Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010",PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,9,"versus interior walls.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was any guidance
being given now to prevent misinterpretation.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that there are
no new guidelines i staff would be looking more closely.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to know that the intent
of the ordinance will be carried out; the drawings do not show any
resemblance to the original house.
Councilmember deHaan stated 30% is hard to interpreti inquired
whether the percentage should be more.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded a method other
than percentage should be defined.
Mayor Johnson stated that there is no need to wait for an ordinance
revision to carry out the intent noted that a defacto demolition
of a historic structure will not be allowed because of a badly
drafted ordinance.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the matter is
being addressed; there should not be any similar issues in the
future.
The City Manager stated that there have been many internal
discussions regarding the lack of direction in some parts of the
ordinance; inconsistencies need to be address guidelines would be
handled internally.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether deconstruction and reconstruction
would be addressed, to which the Acting Planning and Building
Director responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager stated that HAB input would be sought.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated some structures have the potential for
historic designation but have not been certified; home owners
should not have to jump through hoops if the house is not truly
historic; many houses are old, but not historic; she does not want
to preserve old, non-historic houses inquired how the issue could
be balanced.
Mayor Johnson stated that owners could apply to have their houses
removed from the historic study list.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-11-17,13,"ventilating roofs is important; two ladders are needed in order
for firefighters to have another to egress when on a roof.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the answer she received was that
the City has a lot of properties that are odd shapes and have
deep lots; sometimes that [using a truck] is the only way to get
to the back.
The Fire Chief stated sometimes access to the back is difficult.
Mayor Johnson stated more prevention should be done.
Councilmember Tam stated the ladder truck was critical at the
Grand Street fire because of the set back from the street.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated a consultant questioned the value of
the ladder truck; inquired why the consultant was so critical.
The Fire Chief responded some people may think that if water is
being put on a fire, trucks are not as important stated truck
companies are usually the first to be cut because trucks are not
as multi-versatile as engines.
The Fire Chief continued with the Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) portion of the presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated response times would be quicker if each
medical call were treated as a heart attack; however, the
downside would be putting people at risk.
The Fire Chief stated the Fire Department puts a lot of stock in
the process dispatch uses to evaluate calls.
Councilmember Matarrese stated decisions made on the scene are
made by the dispatcher; inquired whether the City will have some
say in dispatch center actions.
The Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the system is
certified and has been tested and evaluated millions of times.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there should be assurance that
people answering the phones have been properly trained and
qualified to make decisions.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated irreversible damage occurs within six
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
November 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,17,"vendor; however, the dealership will not likely want to sell a vehicle for far less than
what the general public would offer.
Councilmember Daysog 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: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(21-544) Resolution No. 15805, ""To Increase Expenditure Appropriations in the
American Rescue Plan 2021 Project (96034/C9930) in the Capital Projects Fund (310)
by $23,625 for the Feed Alameda Program to Provide Alameda's Most Vulnerable
Residents with Hot Meals and to Provide Support to Alameda Restaurants."" Adopted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated one restaurant provider was excluded from the
program due to not serving hot meals, only cold meals; noted that she consumes cold
meals; inquired whether the requirement to provide hot meals is included in the
program; questioned whether the City has discretion and flexibility to include offering
cold meals as part of the program.
The Economic and Community Services Manager responded the program called for hot
meals, which is the reason for the exclusion of one restaurant; stated staff can include
the restaurant if Council wishes to include the cold meal option; the restaurant indicated
does not have a hot meal option.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the guidelines are set forth by the State Department of
Agriculture and the Great Plates program; the criteria is similar in requiring fresh fruits,
vegetables and excluding sugary drinks; there are nutritional requirements for the
program.
The Economic and Community Services Manager stated the program started in the
middle of winter, indicating the need for hot meals.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated fresh fruits and vegetables can be included in
salads without being heated.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution, with the addition of
the restaurant that serves cold meals as long as the nutritional requirements are
satisfied.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes approval for any increase in
costs to provide the additional meals; questioned how many meals are being provided
at a time by restaurants.
The Economic and Community Services Manager responded 105 meals; stated the
amount has increased due to need.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
9",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-06-28,7,"vehicles were purchased, not leased.
The Controller stated the terms of a lease would not exceed the useful life of the
equipment.
Speakers: Barbara Kahn, Alameda; Honora Murphy, Alameda; Kate Quick, Alameda;
George Phillips, Alameda; Rudy Rebago, Alameda; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business
Association; Lois Pryor, Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship & Yacht; Mike Henneberry,
Alameda; David Connolly, Alameda; Kathy Moehring, Alameda; Judi Friedman, West
Alameda Business Association; Corinne Lambden, Alameda; Adam Gillitt, Alameda;
Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Bruce Knopf, Alameda; and Alan Pryor, Alameda.
The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation on the Façade Grant.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether there would be no guarantee for replenishment if
the entire $250,000 were budgeted; further inquired whether three years would be
covered by lowering the amount spent annually, to which the Deputy City Manager
responded three full years and a partial fourth year would be covered [at the proposed
lower budget amount].
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated twenty projects are cued up; only half would be funded by
splitting the money; businesses have already paid designers and architects.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated that she assumes the
Chamber of Commerce and Greater Alameda Business Association are on the same
page as other business associations; she supports accelerating the use of funds and
continuing to look for funding sources.
The Deputy City Manager stated twenty projects could be funded with the $250,000.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated the City has to put its best foot forward because of the
heavy competition for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory project.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated the economy is down and difficult right now;
prices are lower; there are more than adequate reasons to accelerate funding.
The Deputy City Manager stated the issue could be revisited next year.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated that she is in favor of moving forward and getting through
the projects in the cue.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the $250,000
is available now, to which the Deputy City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda
7
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 28, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-12-15,5,"various relief items; stated one of the relief item remedies for staff to review would be the rolling
period for rent increases.
Councilmember Oddie stated the Vice Mayor proposed 60 or 90 days after the termination of
the emergency; the language proposed by the Mayor seems to terminate at the end of the State
of Emergency.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed reopening the economy; language 30 days past the declared
local State of Emergency; questioned the Council already adopting something else for 30 days
after.
Councilmember Oddie responded it was included in the rent deferral program; stated the he is
happy to rephrase the motion.
Councilmember Oddie amended the motion to approval of including both: adopt the staff
recommendation, including the moratorium and the direction to explore additional opportunities;
the moratorium would be until June 2021 or 60 days following the termination of the local
emergency, whichever is later.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is happy to continue to second the amended motion;
great ideas came out about assisting smaller landlords, which would be great; the deadline will
not really be June 30th because 60 days prior is April 30th; he does not think the emergency will
be lifted by April 30th; including June 30th does not hurt.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not know how long the State of Emergency will last;
she is happy to include the date and the end of the order.
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.
ADJOURNMENT
(20-776) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:05
p.m. in memory of Doctor Jeptha Boone.
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 15, 2020
5",CityCouncil/2020-12-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-01-02,15,"variety of options.
Mayor Johnson stated the RFP should indicate that Council's
preference is not to lease out the entire facility.
The City Manager stated the RFP would include a facility Master
Plan; staff would get back to Council regarding scope, cost, and
timing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether not wanting to lease out the
whole operation would cause problems with candidates.
Mr. Singer responded the issue is a big unknown; stated the NGF
could work with the City to craft what Council wants.
Councilmember deHaan stated contracting out the management portion
was reviewed and did not pencil out; inquired why the other portion
would pencil out.
The City Manager stated that the other portion did not pencil out
on a short-term - basis.
Councilmember Matarrese stated long-term management was never
explored.
Mr. Singer stated a lot would be learned from an RFP .
Ms. Sullwold inquired whether the motion included having the NGF
help cost out some of the Golf Commission's recommendations, to
which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked the Golf Commission and members of
the golfing public for coming tonight i encouraged everyone to play
more rounds of golf.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(08-013) - Ricardo Lopez and Diana Wong discussed the Homeowner and
Bank Protection Act.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
Regular Meeting
15
Alameda City Council
January 2, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-24,12,"van; inquired where the delivery trucks are going to park to make deliveries; inquired
what the cost of the proposal would be and where the money will come from: David
Maxey, Alameda.
Showed a video on the impacts of the two lane road; stated painting a green lane for
bicycles to share with autos would work more efficiently: Geoffrey Burnaford, Alameda,
showed a video.
Stated Alameda is already a bicycle friendly City; Central Avenue has many businesses;
loading zones should be made available; backing out of a driveway is more difficult with
a bike trail; he would like to see taxpayer dollars spent on projects where everyone is on
board, not just a select few: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Stated the Council has an obligation to look into other alternatives; no attempt has been
made to educate drivers and bicycle riders as an alternative; urged Alameda Police
Department to enforce the 25 mph speed limit on Central Avenue: Burney Matthews,
Alameda.
Stated Central Avenue has businesses that need to unload merchandise; she has not
seen much support from Central Avenue residents; urged Council to vote no on the
proposal and not to take a major transportation route away for a few cyclists: Karen
Miller, Alameda.
IN FAVOR:
Stated that he lives on Central Avenue and uses it every day; he strongly supports the
proposal; people still speed with the enforcement of the 25 mph law; he feels the new
design will help stop speeders; bike riders and pedestrians will feel safer; less cars on
the road means less congestion: Jerry Serventi, Alameda.
Stated the proposal will put more money into the businesses; the City will benefit from
sales taxes; pedestrians and bicyclists will be safer: David Campbell, Bike East Bay.
Stated that he supports the project because it will reduce carbon emissions; if the City is
concerned with traffic congestion, the best thing to do is to provide alternatives to get
cars off the roads; the project connects the East and West End of the Island and
provides a safe route to get children to school; urged Council to approve the project;
stated he lives on Central Avenue and he strongly believes the project will greatly
improve the safety for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers: David Burton, Community
Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA).
Expressed support for the project; stated that he lives on Central and it would be easier
to exit out of his driveway with a bike lane: Michael Scheper, Alameda;
Stated he lives on Central Avenue and is alarmed by the high speeds on that road;
urged Council to decide what we value in Alameda 8 parking spaces, 1 minute of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-24.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,8,"validity to a complaint; what can happen once a complaint is deemed valid, is to advise
the Council, or whichever Commission, that they are in violation of the Sunshine
Ordinance; the Commission does not have the function to make any decision null and
void; she has been listening very intently to the entire process; she was indignant when
it
first happened three years ago; sitting on the Commission, she has come to realize that
having an adjudicatory role is not the same as having the right to make something null
and void; as a point of order, the subcommittee did not make any comment or statement
or recommendation on that specific issue and it is not on the table at this point.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated the complaint
by Scott Morris was put on hold due to the expectation that the City Attorney's office would
develop a policy; his understanding is that has not taken place; the recommendation was
for the policy to be put in place and for it to be published publicly.
Speaker:
Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated the staff report appears convoluted and extensive and he
cannot tell what the recommendations are; encouraged the Commission to carefully read
Mr. Foreman's letter; stated the Sunshine Ordinance as drafted in 2013 is out of sync with
what the public expects from the government in terms of openness; encouraged the OGC
to set up a committee to find out what the public would like to see in terms of openness
in the procedures.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated the Word
document provided to the Commissioners has redlines of corrections and revisions.
Commissioner Chen stated because there was not enough time to put together a proper
report, she would like another month to clean it up for the sake of the public being able to
see what was just sent to the Commission today.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated nothing in his report is new; the difference is previous iterations
in July and the rudimentary outline has details he was not able to include before due to
lack of computer access; shared that tonight is his last meeting; stated everyone is
welcome to utilize the information.
Chair Tilos stated since Commissioner Chen will be the sole subcommittee member and
she needs more time to clean up the report, it can be paused and brought back at a later
meeting.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he was unavailable to attend the September meeting; the
subcommittee was hoping to get input; additional feedback should be shared now, so
when the item returns, it can be dealt with effectively and efficiently; this is the first time
the Commission has authored a report; the report does not have to be the everything
report; encouraged subsequent reports and for the Commission to do with it what they
will.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2019-02-14,5,"uses. Below are some images that show the history of planning for this area, along
with some photos.
Thank you,
Richard Bangert
Alameda Point Environmental Report https://alamedapointenviro.com/
OPEN SPACE PLANS FROM PRIOR PLANNING EFFORTS
1996 COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN
2003 GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE
Ferry Terminal
No
I
Mitchell
etermined
Civic
West
Core
Neighborhood
5th
Tinker Avenue
WN
P
Cinic Core
Main Str
Neighbork
Aulántic Ave
Marina District
Marina
N
District
Inner
Harbor
Inner
Harbor
Encinal
Ferry Terininal
High School
2006 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT
2010 MEASURE B OPEN SPACE PLAN
2010 Community Planning Workbook: Going Forward
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-02-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-30,16,"uses to the end of page 51 under Commercial Recreation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the prior category language; suggested adding: ""the
new development supports or enhances the mission of the institution "" in the Commercial
Recreation category to ""support or enhance the recreation facility;"" stated there are carve outs
for recreation areas; expressed support for coming up with language to limit residential use.
The City Attorney stated adding any of the commercial categories creates no concern; if Council
wishes to add language stating: ""residential uses are not authorized,"" staff will have to return to
Council with conforming zoning changes due to the creation of inconsistencies between the
General Plan and underlying zoning.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated an application to completely rebuild
the recreation center will be submitted; the application will have 6 tennis courts, rather than 18;
the land from the remaining courts will be used for housing; discussed the process for building a
new health club; stated neighbors in the area do not support the application and desire land
preservation; neighbors would like a community-owned recreation facility; community-owned
means the facility is either owned by the City or the Home Owner's Association (HOA); if
Council includes language in support of recreation use, an applicant can defend the use of
housing as supporting recreation; if the goal is not to have housing on the site, Council must
direct staff to provide the zoning change via ordinance.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated Council may
amend the General Plan to provide for a wide range or semi-wide range supporting ancillary
commercial uses; a wide of commercial uses is most helpful for Planning staff; Planning staff
will return to Council for conforming zoning changes, which would presumably eliminate housing
for the site and seek to up zone elsewhere; under State law, staff needs to create housing
opportunity neutrality; the neutrality can be achieved elsewhere.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is necessary to add the term ""ancillary"" and
whether the commercial uses are limited or unlimited, to which the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director responded the current commercial zoning is broad.
The City Planner stated the zoning for the site is the same zoning that applies to shopping
centers, which allow residential; there is not a standalone commercial zoning that allows an
athletic club and prohibits residential; staff would likely need to create a new zoning district.
Expressed support for the General Plan as-is; stated dedicating so much discussion to one
parcel is unfortunate; downzoning could be considered a taking issue causing litigation
concerns; the City would also run afoul of SB 330; the equivalent housing loss for the site would
have to be created elsewhere; the discussion is not a prudent discussion for a General Plan;
expressed concern about Brown Act violations due to un-noticed rezoning discussions: Zac
Bowling, Alameda.
Expressed support for the General Plan; stated the Plan is impressive and will guide in the
years ahead; she applauds the work done on the mobility element; the vision turns today's
challenges of safety, affordability and climate crisis into opportunities; urged Council to support
the General Plan and take every opportunity to resource efficiently through infrastructure and
increasing staff budgets; stated transformative projects are complex and need a doubling down
on commitment: Cyndy Johnsen, BikeWalk Alameda.
Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 30, 2021
16",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-11-14,5,"used. She understood one of the challenges is to accommodate long-term parking; however, when
commercial lots are not managed, parking gets pushed into residential areas. She stated one way of
managing the parking lot is the applicant could restrict lots to tenants and their visitors, and have a
little more flexibility and efficiency on how existing parking is utilized. She pointed out another
factor they uncovered was existing land uses in downtown Alameda and how the uses were being
used for parking right now. She also noted an estimate was performed on the demand for parking in
the downtown area using the standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
She noted her group found that if you use those standard rates and look at all uses individually, the
amount of parking required in downtown Alameda would be four times as much as is available right
now so that definitely argues for the fact that you get ""link trips"" that are not accounted for when you
look at all the individual parking requirements. She then noted she knew there were some provisions
in the planning code for recognizing joint uses of activity or parking spaces going on downtown, but
she feels the City needs to be a little more specific on how that is administered. This might help some
of these businesses that are trying to locate in downtown and can not meet the parking requirements
or are having trouble financially dealing with the parking requirements even if the trouble is with in-
lieu fees.
President Cunningham requested a point of clarification on whether the traffic study was with a view
of opening up to a public use. Board member Kohlstrand responded in the affirmative. She stated
she advocated that there were issues associated with it such as liability, safety and lighting. She was
not aware if the City had pursued this point. She stated the City has been doing parking studies down
town for years and fortunately at this point, is closer to getting a parking garage, but if other
businesses develop, then the parking demand is going to increase if surface lots are eliminated.
President Cunningham inquired if Board member Kohlstrand had seen situations in other jurisdictions
where parking areas on private land has been used for public benefit, to which she responded in the
affirmative. She noted it is happening on the Bank of America lot, and that lot is one of the biggest
lots in down town. She felt the Bank of America parking lot has gone a long way toward alleviating
the problem.
Board member Kohlstrand inquired if the applicant's lot was used after hours. Mr. Knowles
responded in the affirmative. He noted it is mostly offices that have leases, but noted that residential
tenants use it at night and after hours as well as restaurant diners.
Board member Kohlstrand noted people use parking lots after hours for uses that are unsanctioned.
Board member Piziali inquired if the five spaces were originally credited to the applicant. Mr. Tai
responded that the 2001 renovation resulted in a loss of floor area. He noted that the Alameda
Municipal Code specifically states that within a five-year period if the commercial building is
expanded to 25% or floor area equivalent to five parking spaces, it triggers additional parking, but in
the case of Mr. Knowles' project, the floor area experienced a reduction.
President Cunningham inquired if there was also a fact that it is a different property, which does not
apply to this project. Mr. Tai responded this does not apply to this project, as this is a new building,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
November 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,21,"used for the program, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the
negative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the organization has been
around since 1953 and is community-based; inquired why a meeting with the neighbors
has not been conducted.
The Community Development Director responded staff was unsure a program was in
place to discuss with neighbors; stated staff wanted to ensure Council buy-in; noted a
meeting is scheduled for November 29th
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over the meeting occurring after
the Council vote; stated that she is unsure of the point in reaching out to neighbors after
the fact; she understands Council is currently being asked to approve the program.
The Community Development Director stated staff is recommending Council approve
the program; modifications can be considered following receipt of the input.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated members of the community expressed concern
about having 11 individuals in one unit; inquired whether the amount of people is 11 per
home.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated there will be
10 to 11 individuals per home; staff talked to two different service providers; both came
up with the same amount of individuals per home; rooms will be shared; the housing is
not considered dormitory style; BACS observes protocols for COVID-19 safety; the
homes are large and the layout will be dependent on the size of the rooms; BACS
intends to use the living room as an additional sleeping area in order to maximize the
number of individuals served.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands the houses have three
bedrooms; inquired how many bedrooms each home has.
The Community Development Director responded the two homes, referred to as Big
Whites, have four bedrooms and will also utilize the living room; less people will be in
the townhome, which has three bedrooms.
The Economic Development Director stated the two Big Whites houses have four and
five bedrooms.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there will be two or three people per
room.
The Community Development Director responded typically two people per room; stated
there is the potential for three people per room; however, two people per room is the
preference; the living room is larger and will allow for an additional person.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
10",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.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
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-02-10,3,"use. Mr. Reeves would like to hear an alternative.
Mr. Borsoni stated that an alternative would be installing sports turf. He would like to see
some long-term planning.
Mr. Matthews stated that the partnership that has been established is not on paper, but has
significant monetary value especially in the maintenance part of the budget. The groups
have supported a lot of the maintenance costs by volunteers, volunteer labor (e.g., fencing,
etc.). If the grants that the groups provide were taken away, if there is even a $10 per play
charge, the Department would still be way behind in the money needed to pay for the
budget.
Phil Woodward, Alameda Girls Softball representative, stated that he agreed with Mr.
Borsoni and Mr. Matthews. It is We understood that they are users of these facilities and
the concern is that if these charges move forward they want to know that there is insurance
that these fees are marked for maintenance and maintenance only.
Dave Johnson, Alameda Football Association representative, stated that he agrees with Mr.
Borsoni, Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Woodward. Mr. Johnson stated that the fees from all
groups would be approximately $10,000 per year and asked if that is enough for the
maintenance of the fields. If $5 is not enough what is the plan. Director Ota stated that it is
estimated that it would be approximately $20,000. RSM Lillard stated that is based on the
groups playing two seasons. A credit back could be an option depending on groups
volunteering time and funds.
Jean Sweeney, Alameda resident, stated that in the future she would like to see a fee for
overnight camping in a Beltline Park.
Chair Ingram stated that it seems that Alameda groups are doing much more with
volunteers and providing donations to help maintain the fields than other cities and asked if
that was the case. RSM Lillard stated yes, Alameda groups do much more than groups in
other cities.
Mr. Johnson stated that the Alameda Football Association would like to donate $2,500
toward the $10,000 cost for maintenance. Commissioner Oliver asked if the group would
be willing to provide volunteer help in addition to their donation. Mr. Johnson stated yes.
Chair Ingram suggested that this item be turned back over to the Sports Advisory
Committee to get a consensus on the per player fee.
Commissioner Reeves stated that he is concerned about meeting the budget and
suggested tabling this item for a month until alternatives can be reviewed.
M/S/C
REEVES/OLIVER
(approved)
3
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-26,14,"use.
Mayor Johnson stated the City's sports programs jointly use many School District facilities,
such as the gyms.
The Park and Recreation Director stated non-profits also use School District facilities.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a joint use agreement would provide an opportunity to
make an improvement; Richmond High School has artificial turf.
Mayor Johnson stated that she attended an Alameda/Encinal football game and the field
was extremely muddy.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City has a joint use agreement for Ruby
Bridges, to which the Park and Recreation Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated a more comprehensive joint venture for athletic facilities has been
discussed along with joint maintenance; a meeting is needed with Nino Borsoni (Alameda
Soccer Club); a higher level of maintenance is needed; athletic facilities maintenance
differs from the other parks.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much time staff would need and what would be put
aside if Council votes to give the Interim City Manager direction to research the issue.
The Park and Recreation Director responded not much time would be needed for the
research; stated figuring out financing might take some time.
The Interim City Manager stated a lot of things have been done with the School District on
a handshake; a huge clean up is being done; artificial turf can be used in the rain and could
cover its own maintenance costs.
Mayor Johnson stated the City needs to make up for what it does not have; other cities
have beautiful athletic facilities.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what would be the cost of an all weather field.
The Park and Recreation Director responded the cost depends upon infrastructure but
could be approximately $1 million.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the lifespan is a concerning factor; the Interim City Manager is
on the right track; understanding which fields have joint use agreements is important.
The Park and Recreation Director stated centralized scheduling would become more
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
14
Community Improvement Commission
January 26, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-05-15,22,"urged approval of the staff recommendations; stated perhaps
$150,000 should be allocated for the ceiling to provide additional
flexibility.
Chair Johnson inquired whether $100,000 is sufficient, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what is being done with the Fox
Theater, to which the Development Services Director responded it
would be used for educational purposes.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendations
with direction that as much restoration work be done as possible in
the historic theater so that the project does not end with money
left in the contingency budget.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 12:18 a.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
May 15, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-17,10,"urged Council to send back the nomination: Brian McGuire, Alameda.
Mayor Spencer outlined Ms. Cozad's qualifications.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Ms. Cozad understands the need to deliver affordable
housing; he supports appointing Ms. Cozad.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated affordable housing is an important issue for
Alameda; she would like a balance of different perspectives represented on the
Planning Board, for that reason she will not support appointing Ms. Cozad.
Councilmember Oddie stated the nominee needs to be someone more focused on the
housing crisis.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy
Ashcraft and Oddie - 2. Abstention: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.
(17-630) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute a Ground Lease Agreement between Eden Housing, Inc., and the
City of Alameda for a 70-Unit Family Affordable Housing Project on Block 8, within Site
A at Alameda Point. Introduced; and
(17-630 A) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Ground
Lease Agreement between Eden Housing, Inc., and the City of Alameda for a 60-Unit
Senior Affordable Housing Project on Block 8 within Site A at Alameda Point.
Introduced.
The Base Reuse Director gave a brief presentation.
In response to the Base Reuse Directors comment regarding the wording change to the
ordinance, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired which ordinance she was referring to
changing, to which the Base Reuse Director responded both ordinances.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired who funds the contingency program and what the
benefit or detriment is to the developer holding the project.
The Base Reuse Director responded Eden is on the hook to finance the project if
Alameda Point Partners defaults.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what impact, positive, negative or neutral, does the
project have on Alameda Point Partners.
The Base Reuse Director responded that the impact will be positive.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 17, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-02-02,18,"up road blocks to building more housing; the dilemma faced with Article 26 is that it
prevents building smaller units that can be affordable by design and workforce housing;
there are many ways to help solve the problem; expressed support for exploring Mr.
Hendrickson's proposal to count work-live units towards RHNA numbers; noted the City
has launched a homelessness strategic plan; stated transitional housing is needed;
there are many problems to solve and many are inter-related; a West End bicycle
pedestrian bridge would allow bicycles and pedestrians to get on and off the Island;
many solutions can be worked on at the same time.
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.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:10
p.m.
***
(21-073) Oral Update from the Police Chief on Police Activity.
The City Manager made brief comments.
The Interim Police Chief gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has embarked on a Homelessness Strategic Plan;
outlined a recent Town Hall on addressing homelessness; stated that she was
impressed by City staff and Alameda Police Department (APD) Officers' ability to build
rapport with homeless individuals.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are glaring commonalities within the
seventeen shooting cases and seven arrests.
The Interim Police Chief responded the cases vary; stated some are settling disputes
with gunfire and some are illicit business dealings; staff is trying to forensically link guns
and ammunition to determine usage locations.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is an issue of people being released
from prison engaging in criminal activity.
The Interim Police Chief responded the number of prisoners has been reduced
throughout the State over the years; stated the reduction is due in part to criminal justice
reform and COVID-19; part of the regional homelessness and crime problems are
connected to people being released from prison not yet being ready to assimilate with
jobs, families and housing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
February 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf
GolfCommission,2010-04-21,5,"until there is some resolution about the future of the Golf Complex in general.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance Department
showing a surcharge payment for March 2010 of $5,842. The year-to-date total to
the General Fund is $80,909.00 for FY 2009/10.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Status Report on Long Term Lease and Mif Albright Negotiations
Update on Golf Complex Finances
11.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown
Act.
- 5 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, April 21, 2010",GolfCommission/2010-04-21.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,4,"unless the sign faced Park Street. He believed the signage program was dated.
President Cunningham inquired whether approval of the pylon sign could be deleted and returned at
a later date. Ms. Pudell agreed with that request.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-08 to approve
a Planned Development Amendment and Minor Design Review to modify the existing sign program
to allow for a change in the location of existing building signage. The approval of the pylon sign
would be withdrawn from this resolution, and staff would bring it before the Planning Board after
working further with the applicant.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-12-02,22,"unknown; projects need to be ready to go in 120 days the Public
Works Department is gathering information on projects that would be
ready to roll within the 120 day period; everyone is collecting
lists to prove the case of needing money.
Councilmember deHaan stated there will be first, second, and third
waves; staff cannot give up.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $108 million price tag
on the former Base could be put on the list.
The Assistant City Manager responded opportunities could include
Alameda Landing.
Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda Point remediation projects have
been designed and have not been funded in the past; the projects
would generate jobs.
(08-526) - Councilmember deHaan stated the theater projection union
has not settled that the matter could be placed on Council
Referral.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:18
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
22
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,16,"units.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there are eight points of concern; Council has
discussed two; some points are clarification; the proposed change for the main road is a safety
concern; she does not know whether the developer and staff are agreeable to having the main
road be a similar design to Clement Avenue.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the right
of way for the central road is 62 feet; the right of way for Clement Avenue is 60 feet; there is
plenty of room in the right of way to stripe the road such that cars and trucks can get around
bicyclists and delivery trucks without going into the other lane.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the next proposed change is to have the windows be
operable to open; the proposed language would read: shall be designed with operable
windows to the extent allowed under the [Building] Code.""
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the language is not a problem; there
is agreement that operable windows are a good idea; the Plan encourages operable windows;
the proposed language can certainly be adopted and is not a substantive change.
Mr. O'Hara concurred with the Planning, Building and Transportation Director.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the next point is regarding the block design subsection
having language that does not require cross streets that provide for automobile access; she
understands the language is an error and that the intention is to have vehicle access and ability
to get to parking structures; the language would be a clarification.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director concurred; stated the language is a
clarification; noted the Master Plan states that the east to west streets can be designed primarily
for bicyclists and pedestrians due to being designed around a central corridor; staff will also
need to provide access to parking garages on the east to west streets; staff has come up with
clarifying language which indicates the streets be designed as Slow Streets to allow for vehicle
access in addition to bicycle and pedestrian.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to see all on-street parking spaces
be a minimum of eight feet wide; noted the developer has agreed to the width.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the width is consistent with Council's
recent policy related to street widths.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is agreeable to the requirement of 20,000 to
50,000 square feet of commercial development; it would be appropriate to allow the developer
to modify the requirement if desired to strengthen the project; the commercial development may
or may not be the best use of the space and could allow for an increase in the number of
housing units.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the items have been discussed and agreed upon.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
points are all clarifications to the Plan; the major issue of discussion relates to complications
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
16",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,14,"units, and that the development seemed intended to provide affordable housing for school
employees. She believed it would be very difficult for the school to mix the housing upon
different sites. She believed that putting the units on one site was a very rational approach to
trying to deliver these units. She would like Warmington to be able to have some flexibility in
trying to accomplish this.
Mr. Thomas noted that the agreement and the amendments state that Warmington Homes would
be able to try to make this project work. If they failed, it would be because they could not get the
land from the School District, or the District would decide they did not want to develop housing
on that site. He noted that this agreement would allow Warmington to get started with the
phasing. He noted that they needed the ground lease from the school district.
Vice President Kohlstrand believed that Warmington was taking all the risk in this project.
Mr. Thomas noted that (F) on page 9 stated, ""Developer shall secure all necessary discretionary
City and other governmental agency permits and approvals to allow development of the off-site
affordable development to proceed upon issuance of a building permit by the City.
Mr. Day noted that this was brought forth to create goodwill with the City, and added that they
were willing to take the time to entitle this project.
Board member Cunningham noted that he originally had reservations about this item, but after
reading the staff report, he saw a lot of merit to the idea of putting the housing in this location,
which would help rejuvenate downtown and the schools. He wished to discuss the modifications
to the Grand Marina Plan, and the idea of putting three-story buildings in, instead of two-story
buildings.
Mr. Thomas noted that Warmington's proposal was to replace five of the affordable units with
five market-rate units at Grand Marina. Under the original approvals, the market-rate units were
all three-story buildings, and the affordable units were all two-story buildings. He believed the
change was for financial reasons.
Mr. Day noted that there were many costs involved with doing the all-affordable off-site
projects, such as the shortfall between the tax credits for the non-profit organization and the
actual cost, which Warmington Homes funded. He noted that the density was still the same.
Board member Cunningham believed the units were too dense in their previous iteration, and
supported taking the inclusionary housing to another site. He did have problems with the
exchange of making this a denser development.
President Cook believed the tradeoff with the park parcels was a good one, but was concerned
about losing the sidewalk.
Mr. Thomas noted that a sidewalk in an alley seemed odd, so it was not an issue for staff.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Page 14 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-05-16,22,"units they are not subject to the rent control provisions.
The Community Development Director stated accessory dwellings are covered by the
ordinance; inquired whether Mayor Spencer is requesting accessory dwellings not be
subject to rent control but still be under the eviction protections.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would be hesitant to add the exemption;
she would like staff to review the implications of adding said provision.
Mayor Spencer requested if clarification could be added regarding fixed-term leases
and the tenant leaving voluntarily; inquired whether language needs to be added about
tenants leaving voluntarily not being entitled to relocation benefits.
The Assistant City Attorney responded at the end of the first fixed-term lease, the tenant
would not be entitled to relocation fees.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified the question is regarding if the tenant were to
leave voluntarily.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that the end of a lease the tenant leaves, no
notice is required at the end of a lease.
The Community Development Director responded that relocation benefits are for no
fault evictions, owner move in or withdrawing from the rental market or if a tenant enters
into a subsequent fixed-term lease and that lease ended.
The City Attorney stated the question is if the tenant decides to leave, not the landlord
making the tenant leave.
The Community Development Director responded in the event that the tenant decides to
leave, they are not being terminated.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to add language to clarify if a tenant laves
voluntarily, relocation benefits are not needed.
Council and staff concurred.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a landlord has to pay relocation benefits in the event of
a natural disaster.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated in the event
of a governmental order to vacate, relocation benefits need to be paid to a tenant; staff
is requesting to have the language remain until staff can return with new language.
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
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
May 16, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf
PlanningBoard,2013-01-28,5,"units in the Reuse Plan.
President Zuppan opened the public comment period for the General Plan and Zoning
Amendments.
Erin Fisher, current resident of Alameda Point stated that the Port of Oakland's containers
frequently make loud noise when being dropped and that should be considered in planning
for new residents. She is concerned about displacement of existing residents.
Elizabeth Krase Greene, resident stated that the Historic buildings are located ""all over"" AP,
not just in the historic district. Some buildings can be adaptively reused. The color scheme
on the maps should less opaque so it's possible to identify buildings and streets beneath
the colors. Also she would like to see the Bachelor Officers Quarters (BOQ) renovated and
used as a hotel or senior housing.
Karen Bey, resident, stated she would like to see more mixed-use development on Main
Street and believes more housing is necessary to help pay for the infrastructure. She also
would not like to see any large ""super stores"" on the property.
Jon Spangler, resident, wants to know when the Government will hold hearings regarding
the NEPA process.
Chuck Kapelke, resident, would like to see the development a model for sustainability. He
stated that the Community Engagement Plan needs to have material in understandable
English to ensure that people can understand what is going on. He suggested the City set
up an interactive web blog to track the discussion amongst community members.
President Zuppan closed the public comment period for the General Plan and Zoning
Amendments.
Board member Henneberry stated that he believes the homes currently on the property
should be retained and also agrees that large format stores be prohibited.
Board member Knox White stated that he is concerned that a lot of the Planning Board prior
zoning discussions are not being incorporated in the current document. He would like to
see the Navy step up and complete the conveyance of land. He also would like the City
Council to be engaged in the project prior to the end of the process.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 6
January 28, 2013",PlanningBoard/2013-01-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,11,"unit and one other unit on the property; stated the proposal would need to meet all of
the guidelines.
Councilmember Matarrese stated design review can occur for every ADU, which
provides a certain amount of protection; by right, anything up to 600 square feet
requires a ministerial design review; anything larger than 600 square feet should require
public notification and public input on the design review; anything visible from the street
should be subject to design review.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft read from Government Code Section 65852.150; stated
ADUs provide additional rental housing stock at a lower cost; the City Council and staff
care about the appearance of Alameda; not just anyone can build an ADU, there are
restrictions in place; she supports the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she has concerns with the 600 square foot limit; 600
square feet will not allow for universal design of an ADU to make it fully accessible;
putting a 600 square foot limit punishes people who would like to care for family
members or age in place; if the ADU is in the front or side yard, she would consider a
limit under 1,200 square feet; she would not want to put the number too far below 1,000
square feet for public notice.
Mayor Spencer asked Vice Mayor Vella to think about whether 750 square feet for
requiring notice is sufficient.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he feels comfortable with the City's current design
standards and staff's ability; the City should not interfere with people and their property;
he appreciates the input from AAPS; he supports the current ordinance the way it is
written.
Mayor Spencer stated that she cannot support the ordinance as written; she would like
to require public notice to the neighbors at a lower square footage.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like the limit to require notice to be around 850
square feet; the architects she spoke to indicated 850 square feet would fit a universal
design aspect.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the existing text of the ordinance, with
amendment to have anything greater than 600 square feet require notice, and design
review will be conducted regardless, if any ADU is visible from a public street; ADUs
must meet the design guidelines.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether said changes can be made and still qualify for a
second reading.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-09-01,4,"unique, have very deep lots, and usually have two houses with one
in the back.
Councilmember Gilmore stated there seems to be some property
confusion; the pictures do not show any construction or a large
house; the neighbors have an issue with a different property.
Mayor Johnson stated the neighbors are concerned with what type of
development could be done after the proposed subdivision; the lag
in time should not have occurred.
The Planning Services Manager stated that he concurs with Mayor
Johnson; the property owner was trying to meet Planning Board
requirements.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a full public process would
be required to do an ad on or exterior renovations, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether building an additional
structure in the backyard would be more difficult if the property
is subdivided.
The Planning Services Manager responded without subdividing, there
would be one less property line to deal with and one less parking
space required.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there could be greater density in
the back part of the lots [if not subdivided], to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the same number of units
would be allowed with or without the subdivision, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the project was not sent back to the
Planning Board, to which the Planning Services Manager responded
the application seemed to be straight forward.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Planning Board needs to take
another look at the project.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the underlying issue seems to be
straight forward; there is a potential for four units regardless of
approving or disapproving the subdivision; the mass of the units
that could be built on the site is much greater without a
subdivision; the owner fulfilled the Planning Board's requirements.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 1, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-11-24,7,"unintended consequences and the need to be cautious with what the Board wants to
include in the requirements.
Board member Autorino commented on the regulations relating to condominium
conversions and asked if the second unit could be divided and sold.
The Board provided input and guidance to staff on the standards they would like
included in the ordinance.
M/S/C (Cook/Cunningham) to continue the item to the meeting of December 8, 2008.
Approved 6-0-0
(9-B.) Draft Transportation Element General Plan Amendment and Final Environmental
Impact Report - Recommendation to Council. A General Plan amendment to update
and amend the Transportation Element of the General Plan. The proposed
Transportation Element Policies would apply citywide. (AT)
Mr. Andrew Thomas presented the staff report and pointed out some of the issues
pertaining to the Transportation Element and Final Environmental Impact Report.
Board member Cook asked about amendment number five regarding new
classifications for school and recreation zones.
President Kohlstrand requested John Knox White and Michael Krueger from the
Transportation Commission discuss issues in the Transportation Element.
Mr. White spoke about road widening and intersections and said that it is important to
mitigate future development impacts on traffic. He asked if travel times are really
reduced from road widening. He said that most traffic issues are just being pushed off
to the future. He wants to see less traffic instead of mitigated traffic issues from new
development. He also spoke about TDM and how it can be used to mitigate overall
impacts.
Michael Krueger addressed the Board and reiterated the comments in the letters on the
EIR. He spoke about items in the Transportation Element such as the widening of
some streets, implementation of the Transportation Master Plan, and the approval of
new developments and the traffic associated with them. He also stated that the
Planning Board has the ability to not approve a project if the negative impacts outweigh
the positive impacts.
Mr. David Kirwin addressed the Board. He said that he is concerned because the
Transportation Element suggests that the City will just have to deal with the extra traffic,
longer back ups, and lower levels of service. He suggested that every street is a shared
street and less emphasis should be put on the marking of streets. He also expressed
concern with the implementation of elements of the plan and how they will be paid for.
Page 7 of 12",PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-23,5,"unimproved area. Under the proposed plan, both properties owned by Ms. Wagner would
have direct access onto Mariner Square Loop; they would not have access from Willie
Stargell. He suggested that while direct access could not be provided, that a joint driveway
or access could be provided from the Stargell driveway for the Alameda Landing project
and to provide a secondary access for Ms. Wagner's properties.
President Cook suggested that the Planning Board discuss Fifth Street and Mitchell Moseley
while staff prepared a displayed for Willie Stargell.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she was fairly comfortable with the landscaping
treatment on both Mitchell Mosely and Fifth Street. Her concerns with Stargell had less to
do with the landscaping plan than the street configuration. She noted that the resolution
stated that the Board should consider both the ""landscape and site improvements for the
public right of way."" She wanted to ensure that whatever was in the public right of way was
adequate to meet everyone's needs.
Board member McNamara stated that she liked the landscaping plan for both Fifth Street
and Mitchell Moseley, and believed they were laid out very well.
President Cook inquired about how the placement of the trees related to any view corridors
between the buildings, which she would like to be as open as possible to the waterfront.
Mr. Behan replied that at every view corridor, there would be cottonwood trees to act as a
formal indicator of pedestrian walkways. The trees would be limbed up high enough so that
would be visually apparent to pedestrians.
President Cook believed the understory of ornamental trees on Fifth Street were spaced far
apart, and inquired about the distance between the trees.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she generally liked the plan, and inquired who was
responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping. Mr. Thomas replied that on the public
rights of way, the project pays the City to maintain the landscaping of the private areas.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether anyone used Neptune Park,
and whether staff proposed a redesign for the park to make it more usable, Ms. Gates noted
that it was underutilized and that a senior housing project adjacent to it used it occasionally.
At this time, there are no walkways through the park, and that they planned to clean it up
visually to enhance the existing monumentation/flag area, add new lighting, create an area to
allow maintenance trucks to be parked off-site, and to add the walkway to improve the
connectivity of the circulation.
In response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the understory trees along Fifth
Street, Mr. Behan replied that there would be two palm trees and an evergreen. He added
that they wished to provide room for the lighting as well. President Cook noted that she
wanted there to be a consistent understory along Fifth Street to provide comfort for
pedestrians and people who wished to sit.
Page 5 of 9",PlanningBoard/2007-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-11-23,4,"unhappy that the last community meeting was not noticed properly and that the St.
Joseph's parish was not a good neighbor. She also stated that a neighbor to the site, Ms.
Asker, has also indicated her opposition to the extension.
Mr. McEntire, neighbor, stated that parking is a huge issue and that neighbors are
prevented from leaving their properties during the drop-off and pick-up hours for students of
St. Joseph's Schools. He noted his opposition to the extension of the Use Permit.
Ms. Oberly, neighbor, opposes the project, and expressed his opinion that the proposed
build-out would generate additional parking issues and negatively impact the neighborhood.
Mr. Milroy, Parish member, urged the board to approve the extension because the St.
Joseph's community is an asset and should be supported.
Ms. Kusnik, Assistant Student Principal of Student Life, urged the board to approve the
project and stated that the St. Joseph's community is committed to being a good neighbor
and has implemented changes to various programs to address neighbor concerns and
minimize impacts to neighboring residences. She provided information on the various
programs and efforts that St. Joseph's has implemented.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if St. Joseph's staff monitors the parking on the residential
Streets.
Ms. Kusnik responded by stating that staff monitors traffic and parking on daily basis.
Mr. Davis, of the St. Joseph's Board of Trustees, asked the Board to approve the
extension. He stated that the Parish was dedicated to being a good neighbor and
welcomed community feedback and criticism and that feedback or criticism would be used
by St. Joseph's to improve its opperations.
Mr. Sullivan, Alameda resident, spoke in favor of the project and requested that the Board
approve the Use Permit.
Ms. Reed, former project manager of the St. Joseph's expansion, spoke in favor of the
request and discussed efforts to address community concerns.
Mr. Anderson, a neighbor, spoke in favor of the project and stated that he lives within half a
block of the school and noted that traffic has improved in the area over the last few years.
He stated that there is sufficient outreach on the part of St. Joseph's to inform the
neighbors of activities and events.
President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.
President Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern that the extension to complete the project
would have some potentialy negative consequences for the neighborhood if granted.
Board Member Kohlstrand asked about the enrollment levels in 1998 and about security
issues behind the gym.
Ms. Reed stated that the combined enrollment of both schools was approximately 850
students and that a condition of approval placed a cap on combined enrollment at 1,025
students for the high school and elementary school. He also elaborated on the efforts to
address security concerns behind the gym, which included appropriate lighting and
consulting with the neighborhood and the Alameda Police Department.
Board Member Lynch stated that the request to extend the timeline by 15 years may
actually be too short. He supported the request.
Page 4 of 5",PlanningBoard/2009-11-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-07-14,14,"unfettered ability to be heard; Council is moving forward rapidly.
Councilmember Vella stated that a number of public commenters announced how long
they have lived in Alameda; time of residency does not matter; each voice matters;
there are a number of reasons for people to speak and address Council; the credentials
of how long someone has lived in Alameda should not matter and are part of systemic
racism; racism is not an individual thing, it is not a personal attack on any individual;
racism is the over 400 years of systemic legal racism that leads to disparate outcomes
and deaths of BIPOC; the goal of the resolution is to specifically call out racial
disparities: income, health, wealth, education, access to upward mobility and a number
of other things related to quality of life; racism is the causation of disproportionately high
rates of homelessness, incarceration, economic hardship and poor outcomes in
education and health; racism is not an attack on any individual; racism is the disparate
outcomes happening; systemic racism is legalized racism which has occurred
throughout all systems; California is not immune from racism; even though California
rejected slavery, it committed genocide against Native Americans; outlined historic
genocide information; stated California has overwhelmingly voted to continue racial
discrimination in the sale and rental of housing; the State and United States Supreme
Courts ruled discrimination is unconstitutional; many laws have been racist and created
systems where simply being a race meant actions were illegal and crimes; Alameda is
not leading the way in declaring racism a public health crisis; Wisconsin State and
municipalities were the first, along with Indiana, Michigan and Ohio; Alameda can look
to the other cities which have declared racism a public health crisis; she has reached
out to cities which have declared racism a public health crisis to understand the impact
verbiage has on the declaration; the trend is identifying words which showcase racism
as a problem; it is important to start there from a public policy standpoint; it is important
to identify the lens with which progress will take place; resolutions are often followed
with a directive or process to determine the best way to promote racial equity; the
subcommittee will report back with recommendations to the governing body within six
months to one year; discussed generally accepted public health issues; stated it should
be easy to declare racism as a public health issue; the order with which Council is
approaching is off from other municipalities; expressed support for defining the problem
and looking at the matter through the lens of racism; noted public comments provided
have been helpful; expressed support for getting out the core sentiment that racism is a
public health issue; stated the matter is beyond the Police Department and is Citywide;
there is a way to combine the process; expressed support for adding language which
clarifies or adds clear direction to community groups; stated the City has not been clear
about which powers have been surrendered; a defined process incorporating directives
needs to be established; expressed support for empowering the community group to
define and gather data needed to inform its decision, for the community led group to
provide recommendations on shifting resources, for finding funding for the programs
recommended and to make recommendations across the board for Citywide change to
define short and long-term goals and to look at the issues for the five areas provided by
Council with a racial lens; stated it is important to have the racial lens when looking at
the issues; surrendering to community process is daunting and jarring; informative
change will not occur without voices of support from the White community; the silence
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
July 14, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-14.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,12,"unfair and may be deciding that the test should be redone.
Member Malloy stated that the Board may decide that the test was not fair with respect to
one, two or three specific individuals and may seek information about those individuals that
may help the Board in making a decision, correct? Mr. Riddle stated that if some of the
information is in written form it may well be confidential. He will look at holding a closed
session as the Board moves forward. The Board can schedule a date for when to hold a
meeting and he can provide advice on whether to do the meeting in an open or closed
session. Normally it is an appointment of an individual, discipline of an individual, or
evaluation of a current employee; those are the types of situations that the Board can
lawfully go into a closed session.
Mr. Riddle stated that the Board will not be making the decision of whether one employee
versus another will get hired. Ultimately that decision is up to the administration. What the
Board will do is determine whether the test was fair and/or whether the test will be redone.
That is what the issue is before the Board. If that happens everyone will presumably take
the test again and there will be new results and selections from that test. This Board will
not be determining which individuals get hired. That is not part of the authority of the Board
in his legal opinion.
Member McHugh stated that she needs to digest the materials and will then have
questions. She feels that there will be people in the room that she would like to question.
She asked if a week would be sufficient. President Peeler stated she is not available in a
week. Mr. Riddle is also unavailable.
Member Horikoshi asked the Board if it is unreasonable to try to read through the material
now. He knows that there is a lot of material. Member Malloy stated that she feels it is
reasonable, but it depends on what time commitment others may have. It is reasonable to
do it and reconvene and ask questions. President Peeler stated she is willing to do that.
Mr. Riddle asked the Board if they would like to take a 20-30 minute recess and reconvene.
Mr. Peterson asked the Board if they really thought that a 20-30 minute recess is a fair time
for a fair perusal all of the information. President Peeler stated the Board needs to read the
information.
Mr. Peterson stated that it could be two weeks; it does not need to be tomorrow. He does
not want to have a rush to judgment. The Board needs to look at all the facts. Needs to
look at who set it up. Why was Dale Lillard setting this up?
President Peeler stated that the Board will take a 20 minute recess and then will
reconvene. The Board may have questions and will reconvene at 6:20 p.m.
Meeting was reconvened at 6:25 p.m.
President Peeler asked the Board if they have any questions.
Page -12-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-10-22,6,"understood that other responsibilities may intrude; she would not be opposed to having the
attendance move from one person to anything. However, she did not know how that would
serve the needs of the City Council.
Member Mariani suggested that Member McNamara may be a good choice to attend the
meetings, and that her input was always valuable.
A discussion of the details of the Task Force ensued.
Mr. Thomas noted that he would report back to the Planning Commission at the next
meeting, and he would get clarification at the November 7 ARRA meeting with respect to
what would be reported back to the Planning Board.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was very important to hear the perspectives and ideas
from the other Commissions, which would help inform the Planning Board's decisions more
effectively.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bill Smith noted that the feedback was valuable, and that it followed the feedback given
at City Council.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cook noted that she was excited about the proposed work and the team, especially
the emphasis placed on historic preservation and sustainability.
No action was taken.
9-B. Large Format Retail Store Workshop - Applicant - City of Alameda. The
City of Alameda is considering the unique land use, transportation, urban design,
and economic development challenges posed by large-scale retail (big box) stores.
No action will be taken by the Planning Board at this meeting to approve or deny
any specific projects. However, the Planning Board may make recommendations
to the City Council that could result in changes to the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance that would potentially affect all properties in non-residential zoning
districts.
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report, and requested Planning Board comment on this
proposal. He noted that because retail was a permitted use, the Planning Department
could require a design review, which did not address the appropriateness of the use. Staff
recommended adopting the retail policies into the General Plan, amend the Zoning Code
to include a definition of large format stores, which is proposed in the staff report as a
""single stand-alone store or collection of stores developed and managed as a single project
which includes over 60,000 square feet of retail sales floor area."" The Zoning Code would
be amended to require a use permit for a large format retail store, which is the same as a
Page 6 of 11",PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,12,"understands the need for an anchor store, and stated that we need to support the small
businesses in the Centre.
Walter Schlueter spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that Harsh had been a
responsible and good neighbor, and produced a quality shopping center, that is unusual
for a town of this size. Harsch has invested millions of dollars in the city and has a long
term vision for enjoyable shopping for Alamedans. The Centre allows Alamedans to
shop in town generating sales tax revenue that would help balance the City budget. He
encourages the Board to approve the project.
Marilyn Schumacher spoke in support of the proposal. She disliked the old shopping
center and is in awe of the new center. She rides her bike to the Centre every day.
She loves the lighting and quality of the materials used.
Karen Bey spoke in support of the project. She supports the expansion and would like
to see the city refine the retail strategy to locate similar retailers in one location.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. The board agreed to a five minute
break.
President Kohlstrand suggested a structured discussion. She stated that the Board
could collectively agree that there is a belief in Alameda that changes that have
occurred at the center have been positive for the city. She stated three overriding
issues: 1) Is the infrastructure provided onsite and adjacent to the centre adequate to
meet the needs of the expansion so far? If the shopping center expands, has the
analysis adequately addressed the level of infrastructure primarily regarding traffic and
transportation, 2) What should the maximum size of the center be? Should the Board
consider additional expansion. 3) Neighbors have addressed the operational noise
issues along Park, Otis and Broadway, which are considered issues of livability.
President Kohlstrand stated she would like the Board discussion to begin with the
environmental issues, then move to design and size issues. She stated that Board
member Cook was unable to attend this meeting, but sent a letter where she expressed
her reservations about certifying the EIR due to concerns about lighting, unfulfilled
promises regarding infrastructure improvements, dust control during construction, and
approving additional square footage.
President Kohlstrand asked staff if there were issues that were not related to the EIR
that the Board could deal with independently of EIR certification.
Staff responded that if the applicant's proposal is denied, there are prior approvals the
applicant could act on. The applicant could renovate but not expand the Centre and
could not expand into the shoreline area. The sign program would be affected if the
proposal was denied.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Board should identify specific concerns with
Page 12 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.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
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,7,"understanding of the Council's direction.
The City Attorney stated that the direction from the Council was to
provide a proposal that addresses issues regarding the Charter,
Council oversight in order to provide a threshold to limitation of
the City Attorney's current budgeting authority, and to address
other issues discussed, i.e., an RFQ panel of attorneys.
Chair Johnson stated the Council does not intend to limit the
dollar amount; the Council could spend $800,000 on one case; the
focus is on hiring outside counsel.
The Acting City Manager stated that sometimes it is not known how
much money will be necessary for hiring outside attorneys in cases
where the City gets sued; usually there is a proposal from a
consultant advising what the cost will be when other departments
hire consultants; the Council would like to be advised who the
outside counsel would be.
Chair Johnson stated it is not necessary to have a dollar amount in
contracts; the Council needs to be advised who the attorney is that
would handle the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that it is not in the interest of the
public for the Council to be involved in every single hiring
decision; there should be a threshold.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council does not want to be
involved in every single hiring decision.
Chair Johnson stated there would be a greater awareness and
sensitivity to hiring outside counsel; there have been instances
where the Council has questioned why outside counsel was hired; the
issue is not a dollar limit; stated the Council could discuss the
type of issues that should involve the Council; the City Attorney
could address the matter in her proposal.
Councilmember deHaan requested a summary of litigation and the
estimates for finalization; requested that the Council receive
advanced notice when the amount of a consultant's contract is
anticipated to increase.
Councilmember deHaan stated that all managers should be able to
provide the Council with an on-going ledger.
Chair Johnson stated that the task of providing the ledger to the
Council should not be burdensome; requested that the City Attorney
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
7
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
GolfCommission,2010-03-17,3,"understanding is that the City Council is not willing to do a final deal with Junior Golf
until they see how non-profit operation of the Mif course fits into overall puzzle of the
Golf Complex, as operated under a long-term lease with Kemper. Several people at
the meeting expressed their opinions regarding configuration of the Golf Complex
under Kemper, and whether the Golf Commission will still be intact after negotiations
for the long-term lease are completed.
4-C
Update on Golf Complex Finances
Bob Sullwold stated that the month of February 2010 showed an operating loss of
$49,000 and drawdown from the cash reserves of $140,000, although the Clark
course actually had more rounds and revenues in 2010 than in 2009. John Vest
stated that this due to the fact that the Clark course was much more playable after
the heavy rains. For eight months, the operating income is $472,000 and positive
cash flow is $303,000, while the draw on the Enterprise Fund is $369,000. At the
City Council meeting last night, Ann Marie Gallant stated that the City has saved
about $700,000 since Kemper has taken over management of the Complex,
although that cannot be ascertained from the financial reports provided to the Golf
Commission. The commission packet this month contained a copy of the client letter
from Kemper to Dale Lillard; the Golf Commission hopes that this letter is included in
all future months, and asked John whether it could be provided for past months.
4-D Consideration of Memorial Bench Program for the Golf Complex
Mrs. Norma Arnerich stated that she had picked out a traditional bench that costs
$665.95 from the catalog she got from Matt Wisely. She also stated she was going
to talk to Alameda Awards regarding plaques for the benches.
5
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by John Vest &
5-B
Golf Complex Maintenance activities report by John Vest
John Vest stated that a Junior Golf flyer has been prepared, and a tournament flyer
will be forthcoming. Demo day will be April 3, and will include a golf manufacturer to
help fit juniors with clubs. There will also be a club drive on the same day, where
golfers are asked to bring in gently-used golf equipment for donation to juniors.
Oakley sunglasses will also setting up a station so customers can custom fit frames
and lenses. Mike Winkenbach has already booked $186,000 in tournaments for this
year. The netting on the left side of the driving range will be completely replaced.
Commissioner Gammell asked about painting the turf on the driving range, and Mr.
Vest stated that Matt Wisely was looking into whether there is any kind of paint that
would work. A sewer pump that pumps from the restrooms and snack bar at the 9th
tee on the Fry course will be replaced; porta-potties will be in place while the work is
underway. EZ-Go has replaced 56 more batteries on carts, so we now have 118
carts up and running. The Mif Albright course was aerified last week and the Clark
course will be aerified on Monday and Tuesday. The Fry course will be aerified in
- 3 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, March 17, 2010",GolfCommission/2010-03-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-26,6,"understand the real fund balance.
The Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated not having workers
compensation and risk management funds is very risky.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City is also developing a systematic way for dealing with
large maintenance projects.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated ""why"" should be
addressed in the discussion about the appropriate [general fund] fund balance.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she understand the City is
trying to have a balance between providing services and increasing the bond rating by
having a reserve; $9.9 million of the $18.2 million fund balance is cash.
In response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam's inquiry regarding cash
on hand, the Interim City Manager Interim/Executive Director stated bond rating agencies
review all cash reserves, such as the $3 million cash in equipment replacement; going
forward rating agencies will start to look at issues like OPEB.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired how many positions were
eliminated, the Human Resources Director responded the number of positions went from
650 to 575; stated many positions that were cut were not filled.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the positions remain in the budget, to which the
Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated times are tough; the City had to
make cuts; carefully characterizing the [general fund] fund balance is important, particularly
if there might be about another five years of tough times.
The Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated the State Chief Legislative
Analyst is forecasting no growth until 2014; the decision was to make the cuts all at one
time; a plan was created to recover negatives in 24 months; the City was not prepared for
the latest surprise of the State wanting to take the gas tax.
In response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry about full time
equivalent employees, the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated the audit
amounts are simply the numbers that were included in the budget, not the actual number of
employees.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the actual numbers would
be provided, to which the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
6
Community Improvement Commission
January 26, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-04,10,"understand long-term solutions and options; expressed support for proposed interim measures;
stated that she hears support for others looking at the matter and an option for civilian review;
she looks forward to seeing the options; expressed support for including UBI; stated that she is
troubled to hear questioning about UBI; effectively reimagining Police includes reimagining
support services to help uplift people and even the playing field; UBI is provided to help uplift
and even the playing field.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Knox White has made some additional requests;
inquired how to incorporate the items in the motion.
Councilmember Knox White made a friendly amendment to the motion to include Council
providing direction to staff to come back with a plan and options for oversight; stated the idea is
to have time to move the matter forward by July or to have an independent staff person in the
City Manager or City Attorney's office; he would also like to change catalytic converter from
complete to return with a plan.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the friendly amendments; stated that she would like
to add having staff come back to Council with a timeline for the oversight.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the amended motion.
Under further discussion, Councilmember Daysog requested clarification about oversight.
Councilmember Knox White stated staff will return with a proposal for oversight on a timeline
which would allow for something to go on the ballot if Council so desires.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the language is broad in order to provide Council with
options, which include going to the ballot; expressed support for the including a breadth of
options.
Councilmember Knox White stated the language includes options.
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.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
***
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-022) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal
Code Chapter XXX to Implement Senate Bill 9 Regarding Two-Unit Housing Developments and
Urban Lot Splits in Single-Family Residential Zones, as Recommended by the Planning Board;
and
(22-022A) Adoption of Urgency Ordinance_Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXX to
Implement Senate Bill 9 Regarding Two-Unit Housing Developments and Urban Lot Splits in
Single-Family Residential Zones. Not heard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2019-02-04,5,"underlying issues regarding cannabis and everything to do with transparency in
government and making sure the public does not have to hunt for information; the
Commission made a decision based on the Sunshine Ordinance to make a Council action
null and void, yet it is still unclear whether or not the Commission does have that authority,
and it is left for the Council to decide; ultimately she would like to ask the City Council
three things: 1) make a determination based on the OGC's decision in December to make
the ordinances null and void, 2) the null and void clause of the Sunshine Ordinance needs
review with the next City Attorney; if it is deemed unconstitutional, the Commission needs
to have some method of oversight, and 3) the Commission needs to have separate legal
counsel.
The Interim City Attorney requested the Commission review and provide a written
decision concerning the matter.
Commissioner Schwartz stated redlining the decision on the fly does not make sense; the
decision should simply state that the complaint is sustained; if the ordinance does not get
sent back for a first reading, the City could potentially be faced with a lawsuit; suggested
starting fresh and re-introducing the ordinances.
The Interim City Attorney stated the proposed decision could be amended to state there
was a violation of Section 2-93.2-B and 2-91.5 and the complaint should therefore be
sustained.
Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the decision adding that the Commission
based their findings on information presented during the hearing on the matter, including,
but not limited to, the fact that the Commission's prior decision was not included in the
January 15, 2019 City Council packet, causing average members of the public, or even
a well-informed members, to be confused about what the Council was voting on.
Commissioner Shabazz requested a friendly amendment; stated that he would not
include Commissioner Schwartz comment regarding ""average members of the public"" as
it is an assumption and he wants to remain as factual as possible; suggested the motion
state the OGC sustain Ms. Chen's complaint filed on January 25, 2019, and that there
was a violation of Section 2-93.2-B and 2-91.5 of the Sunshine Ordinance based on the
omission of the documentation of the Commission's decision in the Council packet.
Commissioner Schwartz concurred with Commissioner Shabazz and clarified the term he
meant to use is ""reasonable well-informed"" member of the public.
The City Clerk stated the motion is: Ms. Chen's complaint will be sustained with the
decision stating that the document of the Commission's decision was not attached to the
January 15th Council packet and that a reasonable well-informed person would be
confused as to what Council was voting on.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:
Commissioner Henneberry - 1.]
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
5
February 4, 2019",OpenGovernmentCommission/2019-02-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-05-08,5,"under current market conditions; that she would like to understand how said conclusion
was reached; inquired whether the bonds are being issued for the first pad.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the bonding is for a California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the entire
Base; the project description might change over time and require supplemental
environmental review; the initial EIR would clear most of the projects for the entire
property and allow all areas to move forward; a Master Plan and form based code is
being contemplated for the 80 acre residential project and the town center; hopefully,
the planning tool will last 20 to 30 years.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City would have a CEQA document for the
entire Base Reuse Plan that is deemed not feasible under current market conditions.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the document would clear
development up to 1,425 residential units and 51/2 million square feet of commercial.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she has a problem with going into debt to fund entitlements
for a project that is not feasible under current market conditions; Alameda Landing is
entitled and is not moving forward.
Councilmember Tam stated there has to be some hope of return and feasibility;
requested an explanation of the [staff report] Exhibit 5 finding that the Base Reuse Plan
is not feasible.
The City Manager responded the City's infrastructure numbers are vastly inflated; stated
professionals need to be brought in to review the plan and determine correct figures;
infrastructure includes all mitigations and promises made to the community, some of
which will never materialize; 79% of the net is not a fixed number; there is a lot of
latitude; in the event of stress, positions could be eliminated and the net would be lower.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated there are discretionary items in the
budget, which raise the debt coverage ratio to anywhere from 7.6 to 8.3; said ratios are
well above the amount required for the bond.
Mayor Gilmore stated maintenance is part of what would be subordinated to the debt
payment; tenants complain about maintenance; that she would not want to cut
maintenance.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the major maintenance budget of
approximately $1.8 million is off the table and would be paid before debt service; other
extra, enhanced maintenance budgets are subsequent to the debt service payment.
Councilmember Tam requested an explanation of the assumptions in the Base Reuse
Plan; inquired whether the plan would be feasible under any market conditions; further
inquired about infrastructure costs; stated that she is getting more risk adverse since
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 8, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-02-18,21,"under Transportation; expressed support for adding anything which removes 85% for
speed setting and allowing local jurisdictions to set limits, speed enforcement, efforts to
allow vehicle miles traveled, building safety projects around schools, greater local
control for Transportation Network Companies (TNC) and automated vehicle
deployment; stated baseline safety information is not being provided related to how
TNCs are operated; expressed support for requiring technological solutions to eliminate
the use of phones, texting and calls in moving vehicles, adoption of the design
guidelines for standards for low speed streets, a reform for warrants at stop signs in
order to build safer intersections, and State changes in requirements that slow down
safety projects; stated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reform needs to
happen.
Councilmember Vella expressed support for AB1839; stated Council should be part of
the conversation around the new SB50; not including SB50 is a disservice to the people
of Alameda; that she opposes the repeal of Proposition 47; there is a prison problem in
California; a federal mandate requires reduction of the prison population; the process
should not be cut short; something needs to be done about PG&E; she is not in support
of the San Jose initiative as proposed; expressed concern for over-politicizing utilities
such as PG&E; stated the City uses PG&E systems; expressed concern about impacts
to Alameda from PG&E; expressed support for other changes to oversight, the
Webster/Posey/Broadway project, having the West End Crossing shown as its own
bullet point, and more lobbying and support of better regulation of TNCs.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for Vice Mayor Knox White's comments
related to traffic safety; stated all Councilmembers have the priority of keeping
intersections safe; expressed support for the bicycle pedestrian bridge, the
Broadway/Jackson project, listing guns under public health, community paramedicine,
opposing cash bail reform initiatives, and supporting the Green New Deal; stated that he
is not supportive of the Cooper Initiative, Proposition 57, or Proposition 47; expressed
support for an iteration of SB50; stated there is not much that is known about PG&E or
the impacts of service to Alamedans; the technology to block calls while driving exists
and enforcement should be discussed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is reason to discuss PG&E; the power shutoffs have
been onerous; local control over housing issues has to be addressed; more can be
done in Alameda about housing issues; expressed support for the League of California
Cities' priorities related to housing and homelessness, the City meeting and exceeding
the priorities, and SB50; noted the Oakland/Alameda access project is a regional project
that should continue to move forward; expressed support for the bicycle pedestrian
bridge linking Alameda and Oakland together; stated the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry
Terminal should not be removed from the list, but should be edited to support promotion
of use; expressed support for regulating short term rentals such as AirBnBs and
Vacation Rental By Owners (VRBO) by limiting the number of permits and for putting
more money into addressing the population coming out of prisons.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 18, 2020
19",CityCouncil/2020-02-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-01-05,16,"under Costa Hawkins would still have the ability to appeal to Council; the Mayor's
proposal has a trigger with respect to when the landlord has to file with the RRAC; there
is no threshold or number that anyone is bound by or compels arbitration.
Mayor Spencer stated she is looking for something that would eventually be binding.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is okay with including a RRAC mediation step;
staff makes a decision which an elected body reviews; his process would include the
hearing officer making the decision, then, the RRAC could serve as a citizen's check;
the process would exclude the Council; the current process is backwards; the citizens
committee has the first crack in the process and comes up with a recommendation;
then, the power is shifted to a staff person, making the arbitration with judicial review
instead of RRAC review.
The Assistant City Attorney stated power would not be shifted to a staff person, if the
housing provider was not happy with the RRAC recommendation, the remedy would be
to file a petition to set up a hearing, or lose the opportunity for the rent increase.
Mayor Spencer clarified the issue would go to an arbitrator, not a staff member; the City
of Gardena has a list of arbitrators to choose from or staff could recommend someone.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the arbitrator would be a neutral hearing officer.
Councilmember Oddie inquired who will pay for the arbitration process.
Mayor Spencer responded whichever party does not agree with the RRAC decision
would pay.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has a problem with the non-agreeable
party paying for arbitration.
Councilmember Oddie stated arbitration could cost $5,000 at a minimum; he does not
see how a tenant could afford the bill.
The Community Development Director stated staff recommends a program fee for
whichever program is adopted so that costs could be spread across the rental units and
anyone can avail themselves of the process; costs could be subsidized depending on
the Council's desires; there are a range of costs involved with administering any
program.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he has an big issue with someone arbitrating a 1%
increase, which is permitted under Berkeley's rent control; he would like further
discussion on the just cause eviction issue.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-05-14,7,"uncomfortable that the Board is being asked to assume ""facts not in evidence;"" and asks the
Deputy City Attorney for an opinion on the appropriateness of the written motion.
Farimah Faiz, Deputy City Attorney, responded that, although she has not fully digested the
written motion, if the Board thinks that the information in the written motion is accurate than the
Board should proceed with the motion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that her concern is that the motion references a lot of
information and material beyond what is included in the report. And although she wants to ask
City Council to lend their support to the TEP, there is concern about a written motion.
Board member Knox White stated he will argue against sending something to City Council with
no background information because staff did not have time to prepare a report. Although he
would prefer not to, he is willing to move the motion forward with just the first bullet point in the
motion.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that Vice Mayor Rob Bonta sits on the Transportation
Advisory Board, and although it's a bit unorthodox, she will support the motion as long as the
wording is smoothed over.
Board member Zuppan stated that although it is an excellent piece of work and they are all
worthy projects, it points to a number of concerns she has such as: the payoff, discipline,
support, and some of the politics imbedded in the oversight. She stated that she will not support
this plan.
Board member Henneberry clarified if the motion is inclusive of all four written bullet points.
President Zuppan answered in the affirmative
Ayes: Burton, Ezzy Ashcraft, Knox White, Köster
Noes: Zuppan, Henneberry
Motion carries 4-2
9-B
Parcel Map 10086 Application PLN12-0073-Catellus Alameda Development, LLC. A
proposed parcel map application to construct a retail center, housing, public and internal
roadways and associated improvements on a 55.6-acre property located south of Mitchell
Avenue and east of Fifth Street commonly referred to as the ""Alameda Landing site"".
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager gave brief presentation of the project.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the plans include a network of open spaces for the
public's enjoyment.
Mr. Thomas responded that the open spaces being referred to pertain, primarily to the Retail
Center projected which has already been approved.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if Fifth Street and Mitchell Avenue will be dedicated to the
City and if the on sight streets, drives, aisles, and walkways will be privately owned and
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 12
May 14, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-05-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-19,2,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
Following the discussion of the items pulled from the Consent
Calendar, speaker David Kirwin requested to speak on the
Recommendation to adopt Specification No. MSP9-01-1 [paragraph no.
*06-466] and the recommendation to accept and authorize to record a
Notice of Completion [paragraph no. *06-467]
(*06-464) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on September 5, 2006. Approved.
(*06-465) Ratified bills in the amount of $10,732,440.43.
(*06-466) Recommendation to adopt Specification No. MSP9-01-1 - and
authorize request for bids for a Vehicle Tow Contract for the
Police Department. Accepted.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated the Buy Alameda campaign could be
improved through the bidding process.
(*06-467) Recommendation to accept and authorize to record a Notice
of Completion for Bayport Residential Phase 2 Trunk Line Demolition
and Grading Improvements. Accepted.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated Public Works staff should be
responsible for final inspection before a Notice of Completion is
signed.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to explain whether Public Works signs
off on the work.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
Development Services works with the Public Works Department i Public
Works approves the projects.
Councilmember Daysog stated the staff report indicates that the
original engineer's estimate was $1.68 million; the total project
cost was $1.40 million; $270,000 was saved.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendations to
adopt Specification No. MSP9-01- [paragraph no. *06-466] and to
accept and authorize to record a Notice of Completion [paragraph
no. * F66-467].
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-03-17,2,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented Ms. Dailey with
a certificate of appointment.
Ms. Dailey thanked Council for the opportunity to serve the
community.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 8:02 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Meeting at 8:23 p.m.
***
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Supporting a Maritime
Administration Small Shipyard Grant [paragraph no. 09-114] and
Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Adding Article XX [paragraph no. 09-116] were pulled from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor deHaan 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. ]
(*09 - 110 ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on March 3, 2009. Approved.
(*09-111) - Ratified bills in the amount of $3,253,243.09.
(*09-112) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Alameda
and the Alameda County Fire Department to establish a Cooperative
Agreement to administer a Department of Homeland Security
Assistance to Firefighters Grant and allocate matching grant funds.
Accepted.
(*09-113) - Recommendatior to award a Consultant Agreement in the
amount of $77,936, including contingency, to Kier & Wright Civil
Engineers & Surveyors, Inc. for survey and mapping services.
Accepted.
(09-114) - Resolution No. 14314, ""Supporting a Maritime
Administration Small Shipyard Grant to Bay Ship & Yacht Co. to
Establish a Job Training Center and Program. "" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
March 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-03-03,17,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
(09-100) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Social Service Human Relations Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Ardella Dailey for appointment to the
Social Services Human Relations Board.
ADJOUNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 11:47 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
17
March 3, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,10,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(09-414) Ben Delaney, Chief Executive Officer of Reliatech, stated
Reliatech is the social venture of the Stride Center, which is a
ten-year program that trains low-income individuals to become
technicians Reliatech is located within the St. Vincent de Paul
space.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether people can bring in computers and
other electronics for service repair.
Mr. Delaney responded computer related equipment can be brought in
for service; stated St. Vincent de Paul accepts e-waste; Reliatech
refurbishes computers.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether people can buy computers at
Reliatech, to which Mr. Delaney responded in the affirmative.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(09-415) Analysis of SunCal Initiative
Mayor Johnson stated that she has received questions from the
School District; suggested having a special joint meeting with the
School District so that questions can be addressed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mayor Johnson was referring to
the two-part executive summary, which outlined financial and
transportation impacts.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. stated the
two reports are on the website; scheduling a joint meeting with the
School District would require three [affirmative] votes since the
item is a Council Referral.
Speakers Honora Murphy, Alameda; John Knox White, Alameda; Diane
Lichtenstein, Home Ownership Makes Economic Sense (HOMES) ; Doug
Linney, Alameda.
Mayor Johnson requested an update on on-going efforts with SunCal.
The Interim City Manager stated that both sides are working to meet
the terms of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement the purpose of
the Council Referral is to focus on the two election reports only;
staff meets with SunCal every Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
along with other Technical Advisory Committee meetings.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,5,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese stated proposed cuts would be brought to
Council on October 21st ; he would like Council to consider policies
because the depth of the cuts will depend on whether Measure P
passes.
The City Manager stated that the budget does not take into account
Measure P passing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would like to review ways to
change the structure of the City's service system to flatten the
organization so that top management has more responsibilities with
fewer people; some cities have a Director for public safety;
consolidating recreation programs and Library services should be
reviewed; professional services could be outsourced; Council should
look at concentric circles for prioritizing the most effective uses
of tax dollars to preserve health and safety and value in the City.
Mayor Johnson stated private organization funding should be
reviewed; the City is paying $50,000 [per year] to the Alameda
Museum; public money needs to be spent in areas where the public
gets the most benefit; the City Manager needs to provide Council
with different recommendations for OPEB funding one budget
proposal could address the Economic Sustainability Committee
recommendation for $4.5 million.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City usually has a two-year budget
recovery will be very slow; out years need to be discussed; the
City needs to live with a three or four year budget forecast.
Mayor Johnson stated the public needs to know that difficult cuts
will need to be made even if Measure P passes.
(08-429) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of Planning Board
decision to certify the adequacy of the Alameda Towne Centre
Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report and to approve the
Sign Program, permitted hours of operation, and outdoor uses for
Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 and Major Design Review
DR05-0073;
(08-429A) Resolution No. 14274, ""Approving the Environmental Impact
Report and Upholding the Planning Board Decision. Adopted; and
(08-429B) Resolution No. 14275, ""Denying the Appeal of the August
11, 2008, Planning Board Decision to Approve the Hours of Operation
and Outdoor Uses for Planned Development Amendment PDA 05-0004 and
Major Design Review DR05-0073. Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.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,2007-02-20,3,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07-080 -
)
Recommendation to amend Contracts with Lamphier-Gregory
and Omni Means for environmental and traffic evaluations of the
proposed expansion of the Alameda Towne Centre and amend Contract
with Harsch Investment Realty for payment of consultant and staff
costs.
The Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation.
Eugenie Thomson, Alameda (submitted handout) urged Council to send
the scope back to the Planning Board for further discussion.
Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated she is concerned with the scope;
accurate traffic numbers are needed to make a real decision.
Claire Risley, Alameda (submitted handout) urged Council not to
approve the requested Contract revisions; the scope of work fails
to analyze the environmental impacts of the entire Target building;
the project is piece mealed; the California courts make it very
clear that a public agency may not divide a single project into
smaller sub-projects to avoid the responsibility of considering the
environmental impact of the project as a whole.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember deHaan stated the proposed additional work is a
direct outgrowth of the Planning Board, Transportation Commission
and general public; inquired whether the additional scope of work
is covered adequately.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the
$12,000 referenced by Ms. Thomson is included in the existing
traffic study and the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ; the
work was performed outside the original scope of work; staff has
reviewed all comments received after the draft EIR; piece mealing
comments have been submitted into the record; responses will be
included in the final EIR.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff would be provided with
the Planning Board, Transportation Commission and public comments.
The Supervising Planner responded comments would be addressed in
the future; stated the Traffic Engineer, Public Works and Planning
staff, City Attorney's office, and environmental consultant had
extensive discussions on how to respond to comments received; there
were concerns about additional intersections on Park Street and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,3,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-306) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting two
Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce
Street. The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new
development proposals, was required by the Historical Advisory
Board as a condition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree
in 2001. The site is located at 301 Spruce Street within the R-4
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Applicant : Bill Wong
for Hai Ky Lam. Appellant: Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader; and
(05-306A) Resolution No. 13857, ""Upholding the Historical
Advisory Board's Approval of a Landscaping Plan for Planting Two
Coast Live Oak Trees on the Vacant Property at 301 Spruce
Street. Adopted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponent (In Favor of Appeal) : Patrick Lynch, Appellant.
Opponents (Opposed to Appeal) : Joanne Lam, Applicant; Ivan Chiu,
Bill Wong Engineering & Design Christopher Bowen, Project
Arborist.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what percentage of the
composite sample came from the piles of fill versus the areas
under the drip line of the tree, to which Mr. Bowen responded
about half of the soil was from the piles.
Councilmember Daysog noted that the Appellant stated that the
laboratory scientist was not accredited; inquired to what extent
the matter would be an issue.
Mr. Bowen stated that the laboratory would supply the Title 22
limits which include heavy metals; the laboratory is reputable
and is recommended in the arborist field.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how to address the concern that
the laboratory is not accredited to perform Title 22 soil
testing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,3,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *07-565) - Recommendation to accept the Impact Fee Report for Police
and Fire Services. Accepted.
(07-566) - Recommendation to accept Affordable Housing Ordinance
Annual Review.
Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated Affordable
Housing discussions always address money and building; lower income
neighborhood preservation is never discussed; emphasis should be
given to preservation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether former Councilmember Kerr was
talking about existing neighborhoods and issues such as home
additions.
Former Councilmember Kerr responded huge planned projects could be
a possible intrusion in her neighborhood; a Planning Board Member
suggested moving the Wang Project west of Sherman Street another
Planning Board Member suggested running all the streets northward
to the Beltline; traffic protection was discarded.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*07-567) Recommendation to accept the Annual Review of the
Citywide Development Fee and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center
(FISC)/Catellus Traffic Fee. Accepted.
(*07-568) Recommendation to appropriate $17,676 in Measure B
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Funds as the required local
match for accepting a Bicycle Facility Program Grant from the Bay
Area Quality Management District. Accepted.
(07-569) - Resolution No. 14161, ""Amending Resolution No. 12121
Setting the Order of Business of City of Alameda City Council
Meetings. "" Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan stated currently any Councilmember can place
any subject matter on the agenda; the proposal would eliminate said
processi that he does not have a problem with Councilmembers
identifying what they want to place on the agenda one of the
actions [outlined in the staff report] is no action; after a matter
gets to Council Referral, the Council can decide that it does not
want to hear the matter and the issue would never get placed on the
Regular Meeting
3
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,27,"two-year extension.
The Finance Director responded the payments for total debt services
for all three funds is about $573,000 each year.
Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the deferred payments
not being made over the first two years are slightly under a
million dollars.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the added interest and cost of
restructuring is an additional $594,000.
The City Treasurer stated bills should be paid when due.
The City Auditor stated money needs to be spent to refinance; he
does not see the benefit in pushing obligations into the future;
tough decisions need to be made now.
louncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated deferred payments
over the first two years are approximately $1 million; $594,000 is
the delta between what would need to be spent if nothing is done
and what would need to be spent for refinancing; inquired whether
the savings would be the difference between $1 million and
$594,000.
The Finance Director responded there is no savings because the $1
million is part of the calculation of the $594,000.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the non-payment years cannot be counted
as savings inquired whether payments would be higher in the third
year because of the restructuring.
The Finance Director responded the payments go up to $567,00 in
year three; in year three payments would be $610,000 as compared to
$567,000; payments start to decline in 2017 because the 1996 Police
Building debt would be paid in 2015 the existing debt service
would decline to $369,000; the new debt service would stay in the
$570,000 range.
The City Treasurer stated the situation is whether to borrow money
over the next two years to balance the budget and pay it back over
the next twenty years.
louncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore moved approval of tabling
the item pending budget discussions.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
13
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,2,"two years a poet laureate would be appointed and pointed out that it had not been done.
She wanted to suggest that the final decision regarding the grants be done by an outside
entity or by lottery. She thinks the $50,000 should be used for all disciplines of art and
feels that there should be representatives from all areas of the arts. She also mentioned
a strange feeling at the last meeting and proposed that grants of $2,000 be awarded to
an individual writer, performance artist, visual artist, musician and an interdisciplinary
artist. She also mentioned that $4,000 grants could be awarded to groups in visual arts
such as theater, dance, literary arts, museum, gallery or music groups. Also, a grant
could be awarded to art programs for kids, low income or elderly groups. She expressed
excitement and suggested that it can be done and doesn't need to be complicated.
Clint Imboden wanted to make the point that the most important part of a grant program
is giving resources to the individual artist. He also mentioned that organizations would
not be there without the individual artist.
Chair Huston welcomed Commissioner Wolfe to the Commission.
Michelle Frederick thanked the City for recognizing that art is important and that it is
economically viable for the community and for artists. She wanted to talk about the
grant criteria and wanted to make sure that it inclusive, visual arts, all media, written and
spoken word, performances and events, architecture, historic preservation and culinary
arts. She felt strongly that grants should be available to individuals as well as groups
and feels that there should be a portion set aside for individuals to apply for. In addition,
she feels that the art product that is produced should contribute to the advancement or
enhancement of Alameda and the art community. She also wanted to make sure that
the grants that are awarded are given to the appropriate recipient, such as teaming up
with art departments in schools to further the understanding of what art is, a partnership.
Another element she felt would be important is a comprehensive marketing program that
would catalog and calendarize all art activities, an active promotion that would market
the art activities and cultural assets in Alameda. It could bring in revenues and give
great exposure to local artists.
Elizabeth Calandario concurred with Ms. Frederick. She gave a personal history and
wanted to make sure that philosophies regarding art be evaluated with as much respect
as the art itself. She brought up the proposal of a steering committee for the
applications for grants. Her concerns were with the potential structure of the committee.
She wanted to make sure that all projects of merit get a fair hearing. She wanted to
make sure that the steering committee doesn't overlap or duplicate the mission or
responsibilities of the Commission and it should seek out lesser known artists or artists
that are new to the community. She submitted her suggestions in writing and asked
about the paid positions and how they were funded. Her concern was that the money to
pay for the administrative positions was going to come out of the art fund and that it
would consume a significant amount of that fund. Finally she brought up the recent
graffiti problems seen on some of the public art in Alameda.
Jeff Cambra, a member of an ad hoc steering committee representing a portion of the art
community introduced some of the audience members. He wanted to entertain more
information on the process of the grant program and thanked everyone for all the work
they have done. He expressed eagerness to assist and contribute to the process. He
mentioned that there are a number of options that can be used to achieve the objectives
and goals of the grant program. He wanted to request that a portion of the art
2",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-10-22,3,"two phases, and Phase Il is providing about 16%.
Board member Knox White stated his concern with the cul-de-sac and placing the Below
Market Rate (BMR) units around the cul-de-sac. He asked about the requirements that say
BMR units should be distributed throughout project, and be comparable to market rate units.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the plan shows making Clement Avenue a through
street, and asked if it included removing the Pennzoil tanks, and will Clement become the
official truck route.
Mr. Thomas stated that Clement Avenue will eventually be the truck route and the road will
be from Grand to the Wind River property. He stated that the Pennzoil tanks are not part of
this project.
President Zuppan asked for clarification on the sidewalks and bike lanes.
Mr. Thomas stated the sidewalks will be 5' as are the existing sidewalks in project. The bike
lanes will be on both sides of Clement, and 6' on Buena Vista.
Vice President Burton stated that Item 75 has an incomplete statement on page 18. Items
94 and 95 the storm water retention is a conflict with Item 22. Item 97 seems to be
redundant or conflicting with Item 64B.
Matt Naclerio, Public Works Director stated that the items mentioned are not redundant. He
provided clarification that each department has separate conditions which makes the
process easier.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft referred to a letter from a homeowner in adjacent Marina
Cove I, regarding the requirement of a Homeowners Association (HOA).
Mr. Naclario stated HOA's are for private developments, there can be an assessment
district, a HOA, or it could be a combination of the two.
President Zuppan opened the public comment period.
Javier Lopez, resident, stated he is undecided and neither in favor or against the plan. He
lives on Buena Vista, and has seen many changes at the Del Monte building specifically,
and does appreciate the reduction in truck traffic. The large three story homes are very big.
His major concern is the demolition, site preparation, pilings, and new construction and the
effects of long term exposure to those activities.
Bill Smith, Renewed Hope, stated he has mixed feelings, and is concerned about the
overlay for housing and that the project could be out of compliance with the Housing
Element.
President Zuppan asked for clarification on the Housing Element.
Approved Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 22, 2012
Page 3 of 7",PlanningBoard/2012-10-22.pdf
GolfCommission,2009-12-16,2,"two of the interested parties do not have the capital capacity at this time, so only two
responses actually came in. She met with the subcommittee, which includes
Commissioners Sullwold and Schmitz, Director of Recreation and Parks Dale Lillard,
and David Samms, a consultant she has retained, and has sent out a supplemental
request for additional financial information to the two responders. The questions
concern each company's financial stability and its ability to fund capital
improvements. Ms. Gallant was unable to recall the precise wording of the five
questions, but said that one asked the companies to provide three to five years
worth of financial statements. Each company was given ten working days to respond
to five questions, with responses due next week. Ms. Gallant considers the
information she expects to receive to be confidential and proprietary, so she will not
be sharing the responses with Commissioners Sullwold and Schmitz.
Her current plan is to recommend at the first City Council meeting in January
(Wednesday, January 6) that she be authorized to begin negotiations (estimated to
take 90 to 120 days) for a long-term lease with one of the two companies that
responded to the RFP. This will involve posting the staff recommendation on
December 30 or 31, which will be the first public notice about the nature of the
proposals received in response to the RFP. She is not certain, however, that she
can meet that schedule, and advised that she will notify Chair Sullwold on Monday
after Christmas whether she intends to go forward with the January meeting.
Bob Sullwold asked what role the Golf Commission and members of the public
would have in evaluating these proposals. Ms. Gallant stated that the City Charter
grants the City Manager the exclusive right to negotiate; even the Council is not
involved until the City Manager makes a recommendation. Public comment occurs
only after the matter is placed on the Council agenda with a Staff Report. Chair
Sullwold asked why the public cannot know now the general parameters of the
proposals the potential vendors have made. Ms. Gallant stated that law and
ordinances require the City to protect the responses until the Staff Report is done.
Ms. Gallant was asked why a survey of the community was not done before the RFP
was issued. She stated that the City Council is elected by the community to
represent the community. She stated that she is going to review the video of the
City Council meeting on July 1, 2008, to determine whether Council really directed
staff to survey the community before issuing the RFP for a long-term lease.
4-B
Repayment of $300,000 loan
Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant stated that there is no simple answer to the
status of the $300,000 loan from the Golf Enterprise Fund to explore the
development of a new golf course at Alameda Point. It is possible that, when the
decision was made to make this advance, it was considered a cost of doing
business, so it should not be characterized as a loan due to be repaid. It was
borrowed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and there was no
promissory note between funds. ARRA does not have a lot of money, and what it
does have is subject to being attached by the State, so there is substantial doubt
whether they will ever have the capacity to repay it. It has not been removed from
- 2 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, December 16, 2009",GolfCommission/2009-12-16.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-03-24,7,"two apartments, the open space for the front two apartments was diminished. She believed
this created an inequitable situation.
Board member Lynch noted that several of the issues were not under consideration by the
Planning Board at this point. He noted that the procedural issues of a nonconforming use
were addressed by Board member Cunningham. He believed that zoning and General Plan
processes were a broad-brush effort, as is the nature of a public body. As the zoning texts are
updated, he believed this property fit into the category of a building constructed during an
earlier time period, which was not recognized by the existing zoning codes beyond being a
legal nonconforming use. He hoped this property would be with the applicant's family for
40 more years.
Board member McNamara expressed concern about the citrus tree in the backyard. Mr. Seal
noted that the tree was planted on the Elks property, but that the branches reached over the
applicant's property; the applicant would be able to cut the branches that encroached over
his property, but would not be able to do anything to the tree itself.
Board member McNamara did not support the argument from the applicant that the lighting
would be affected, and believed that the reflection from the building would improve the
lighting.
President Cook agreed with the Board members' comments, and did not consider this
property to be unique. She noted that many larger apartment buildings did not have private
decks, and did not want to enter a slippery slope of the expectation of a deck. She was
concerned that the back yard would be restricted because of private decks.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt Draft Planning Board Resolution to deny a
Major Design Review and Variance to attach a two-story covered deck. A Variance is
required for this project because both decks will be closer to the rear property line than
permitted by the Zoning code.
Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:
0 Absent: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
a.
Shinsei Gardens Apartments - 401 Wilver ""Willie"" Stargell Avenue
-
Description of proposed changes to project entrance design (AT).
Mr. Biggs noted that a letter had been provided to the Planning Board, which included
elevations showing the original approval and the revised design of the project.
Page 7 of 8",PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-07-20,23,"twenty-four hours is onerous.
The
City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the DDA is not before the
Councilmembers/Boarc Members/Commissioners tonight; Councilmember/Board
Member/Commissioner Gilmore's questions regarding the DDA are relevant; staff does
not believe that anything in the last, best, and final offer has a cure or changes staff's
recommendation.
Mr. Brown stated at a previous meeting, the Councilmembers / Board Members
/
Commissioners discussed the intent to have a public hearing; the intent of the public
hearing would be to discuss whether or not to continue with the ENA, not to deny the
application; SunCal wants to work cooperatively with the City; the process needs a
partner; the partner [City] has been difficult to come by over the last several months;
SunCal wants to reestablish the relationship; that he is convinced that the relationship
can be reestablished to move forward to discuss the important project issues and to
have the EIR analyze every element of the project; at the end of the day,
Councilmembers/ Board Members / Commissioners may vote to deny the project; staff
may generate EIR alternatives that would be studied and would be the appropriate time
to make judgments regarding the DDA, EIR, and project itself; rushing judgment on the
application is inappropriate; SunCal would welcome dialogue with Councilmembers /
Board Members / Commissioners and staff regarding the DDA and project itself; that he
would like to engage in conversation with the Public Works Director regarding cost
estimates and where the line would go; SunCal has a recommended bus rapid transit
location in the plan which needs to be discussed; staff did not have enough time to ask
questions regarding the DDA; SunCal has achieved the goal of having the DDA meet
the requirements under the ENA.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff has not changed its
recommendation in response to letters provided by Skip Miller; the Councilmembers /
Board Members / Commissioners and staff have been discussing potentially denying
the MOEA for the last two months; May 18th, June 1st, and July 7th staff reports discuss
the matter; staff does not think the EIR would change any issues or recommendations
noted tonight; findings for denial are related to the commitment to a transit oriented
mixed-use development and comprehensive transportation development strategy that
fully funds costs and operations, which is not something that an EIR would study.
The Public Works Director stated SunCal had three years to address the bus rapid
transit line; that he has tried to get SunCal to meet with WETA over the last year; he
had to force SunCal to initiate dialogue with WETA; the issue is too little too late.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Mr. Brown stated
that the last, best, and final offer is a complicated document that would take a long time
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
11
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
July 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-03-12,10,"turnaround. Since the Ron Goode site is located on a heavily public transit corridor in the
City, the site should be designated as multifamily. Based on the staff report, what
jumped out at him was the fact that the consultant thinks that we don't identify enough
housing capacity resulting in the state challenging those sites. Therefore, two ideas to
combat the issue are: (1) identify the Ron Goode site as multifamily because it's in the
North Park Street District and the community already stated they want mixed-use; and
(2) allow density bonuses within the multifamily overlay zoning designation. He is not
sure what number that would be, but he definitely believes this should be encouraged,
especially for transit-oriented places. He referred to Jon Spangler's comment about
parking requirements in multifamily developments. He pointed out that multifamily
developments give out transit passes for a shuttle, but the City should also eliminate
parking requirements because it will make it to expensive to build. Once the
Transportation Demand Management and Transportation Systems Management
(TDM/TSM) plan is in effect, it will be difficult to get people from not using their cars if the
City provides free residential parking. Thus, the TDM/TSM plan should include reducing
residential parking in areas where transit service exists. Finally, since staff will be talking
to HCD during the 60-day review staff should be looking at other sites for multifamily
housing and North Park Street is a good area since most of the community accepts
denser residential development.
Board member Henneberry asked Mr. Thomas about the discussions and outcomes with
the West Alameda Business Association in terms of high-density options above retail on
Webster Street.
Mr. Thomas replied the discussions with Webster Avenue Business Association were
several years ago and staff hasn't reached out to the association this year and in this
context. They were interested in the idea of changing the zoning code on Webster Street
to encourage housing above retail in order to revitalize Webster Street as part of mixed-
use projects. The Initial conversations took place around 2-years ago and there was no
follow up from staff or the association.
Board member Henneberry encouraged staff to reignite that discussion if they have the
time because this would be a very desirable pursuit.
Mr. Thomas replied he would follow up with the association.
Board member Henneberry asked Mr. Thomas to also talk to the Park Street Business
Association. He also wanted to know why the Ron Goode site is included in the staff
report, but not the Good Chevrolet property.
Mr. Thomas explained that the Good Chevrolet has an ongoing proposal that is a fully
commercial project without residential. He didn't want to put housing on the list and tell
the state that it was available when the proposal doesn't include residential. So, he if the
project does not go forward, then it would be a potential site.
Vice President Burton said the multifamily residential combining zone talks about the
number of different housing types permitted, but it is not clearly address the idea of
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 23
March 12, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-09-28,9,"tube on the west end that meets lifeline requirements and that meets multimodal transit access
through that tube.
Commissioner Bertken made a personal comment that explained that the tube was originally
designed in 1967 as part of the southern crossing and it probably still exists somewhere in
Caltrans 6 lane double boxed tube was part of the connection of alameda and what is currently
980 which would have opened up Alameda.
Commissioner Hans seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. Quarterly Report September 2016
Jennifer Ott replied there isn't a report, staff was updating the TC of all of the projects and staff
is happy to answer any questions. Staff will be updating this every meeting with the latest status.
6.B. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Cross Alameda Trail - Atlantic Avenue Gap Closure
2. I-880/Broadway/Jacksor Multimodal Transportation Project
3. Preliminary Strategies of the Transit/TDM Plan
4. Alameda Point Bus Rapid Transit Dedicated Bus Lanes Concept
5. Paratransit Annual Review
6. Transportation Management Association Annual Report
Commissioner Bellows asked to see an update on the 23rd Street/I-880 since that is going very
slowly.
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
Jim Strehlow asked about the Caltrans public outreach about the rail.
that direction directions and have a bike going over the rail and now it's higher. What is the
process of that facility? He thanked the City for hiring Sharam.
Staff Payne replied that the Posey Tube is a historic renovation and around 2013 or 2014 there is
a project page on the city site there is outreach noted on the project page. Staff did participate on
this effort and she was impressed with Caltrans and they bring all their statewide experts and
they tackle this altogether in one room. They added 4 inches to that path and the railing is the
new railing that is compliant with safety measures.
8.
Adjournment
8:17 pm
Page 9 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-09-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-04-26,17,"ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4913552&GUID=B1FF7DA4-
9168-4AE7-A7B2-AA34EF75F603&FullText=1.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted to pull for a review item PLN20-0541
-
Variance/Design Review - 910 Centennial Avenue.
Staff Member Tai said that would be scheduled for a later meeting.
9-B 2021-857
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Tai said that the next meeting on May 10, 2021 would be a joint meeting
with the Transportation Commission, with a few items just for the Planning Board including
the Public Art Ordinance. Then the following meeting on May 24, 2021 would include the
study session on the Parking Ordinance Update.
Staff Member Gehrke asked that the Public Art Ordinance be pushed to the May 24th
meeting due to both herself and Staff Member Butler being on vacation during the May
10th meeting.
President Teague said at the May 10th meeting they would ask to continue the item to
May 24, 2021.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
President Teague said he would be absent the second half of May so Vice President
Saheba would be leading that meeting.
Board Member Cisneros wanted to if the next meeting would be an appropriate time to
address her questions for the General Plan since she was coming in as a board member
after previous meetings.
Staff Member Tai said the next meeting would be a workshop for the second draft of the
General Plan and that it would be an appropriate time. He also said she was welcome to
email staff any questions or comments.
President Teague asked Board Members Hom and Cisneros about providing dates and
times for the subcommittee to meet.
Board Members Hom and Cisneros responded they had communicated with the staff.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 17 of 18
April 26, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-09-14,2,"ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2452044&GUID=FDD3E822-
61D8-456E-A4B8-7D28E87E3CBO&FullText=1
Board Member Sullivan asked to confirm that the approved height of the applicant's home
is still substantially lower than the appellant's.
Staff Member Sablan confirmed that it would be several feet lower (5-7 ft) than the
appellant's home.
Board Member Burton asked for clarification of the sill heights of the lower windows.
The project architect said the window sill was about three feet above the floor.
Board Member Burton asked for more information on the historic status of the home.
Staff Member Sablan said the home has an ""H"" designation and said the project is
compliant with standards for treatment of historic homes.
President Henneberry asked what the maximum allowable heights are for a building in
that zone.
Staff Member Thomas said 35 feet was the maximum allowable height according to the
zoning.
President Henneberry opened the public forum.
Melanie Snell, applicant, explained how their growing family has outgrown their house and
the long process they have gone through to come to a satisfactory design that meets their
family's needs.
Joseph Snell, applicant, explained the improvements they have made to the home since
they purchased it. He said they love the community and just need more room for all of
their kids.
Anh Nguyen, next door neighbor, explained the changes and hardships the approved
project would impose on their family. She asked that the project be denied.
Bao-Long Nguyen-Trong, next door neighbor, said the project would box their house in,
causing increased shadows and very little light to reach their home. He asked that the
design be denied.
Approved Meeting Minutes
September 14, 2015
Planning Board Meeting
Page 2 of 9",PlanningBoard/2015-09-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-12-18,8,"trying to ensure safe, lab-tested items are accessible.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy
Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2.
(18-675) Ordinance No. 3234, ""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."" Finally passed.
Showed a video; requested the Council postpone removing the G overlay: Liza Gabato
Morse, Alameda.
Stated the zoning is required since there is a legal lease of the property; Alameda Point
Collaborative (APC) is committed to a safe project: Doug Biggs, APC.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved final passage of the ordinance amending
Alameda Zoning Map for the property on the west side of McKay Avenue to remove the
G Government Combining District Designation to allow for private use of the property for
a wellness center.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the motion;
there is insufficient notice of contaminated property.
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.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:17 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
7
December 18, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-12-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-03-21,19,"trust will remain in place until terminated by Council.
Mayor Spencer inquired how much the consultant has been paid, to which the Finance
Director responded she does not have that number.
The Assistant City Manager stated he is the PARS Trust Administrator, not a consultant.
Mayor Spencer inquired how will the PARS Trust Administrator be paid, to which the
Assistant City Manager stated he will be paid as part of the fees in the Trust.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution and approval of the staff
recommendation, with amendment to remove the incentive of taking 10% of department
savings.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer requested the actions be considered separately.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution authorizing participation in
the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Post-Employment Benefits Trust to be
used for prefunding of pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) obligation.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of appointing the City Manager or her
designee as the City's Plan Administrator for the Trust Program.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing the City Manager to execute all
necessary agreements and Plan documents associated with establishment of the new
Trust.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote 5.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of adopting the pension rate stabilization
program as listed, with the exception of 10% contribution from savings.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, and Vice Mayor Vella - 4. Noes:
Mayor Spencer - 1.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 21, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-03-21.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2020-12-14,5,"truly appreciates the intelligence and curiousness of the Commissioners and how the
topics were handled.
Chair Tilos thanked Commissioner Pauling for stepping in during an eventful time and for
all her help serving on the subcommittee.
Commissioner Little thanked the Commission and stated she is excited to see who will
be replacing her and Commissioner Pauling; offered her assistance if ever needed, which
would no longer be a violation since she is no longer on the Commission; she will be
sworn in on the School Board tomorrow night; invited anyone who would like to attend.
Chair Tilos wished Commissioners Little and Pauling well in their next endeavors and
thanked them for their time on the Commission.
Commissioner Shabazz stated that he would like to have the PRA Annual Report on the
February meeting; he would also like to add crafting some language that could potentially
be in the City Charter or somewhere else to make sure the PRA Annual report is
continually done, especially after the comments from tonight regarding transparency and
the goals of the Sunshine Ordinance.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated both the PRA Annual Report and the Annual
Report on Complaints are already on the February agenda.
In response to Commissioner Shabazz's inquiry, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated
he is retiring but will still be around in January and February.
Adjournment
Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 14, 2020
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-12-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-01-09,14,"trees being removed and there seems to be some inconsistency.
Mr. Naclerio replied that any trees on City property or private property must come to the
Planning Board. So, as a plan of caution, staff brought item 9c to the Board.
Board member Kohlstrand agreed to all Board member Autorino's comments and felt the
removal should be brought up in the agenda.
President Ezzy Ashcraft agreed.
Board member Zuppan supported the selection of the new trees, but she believes the
City has spent enough money on removing trees.
Board member Zuppan made a motion to pass the resolution without removing the
existing trees.
Board member Burton seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-1.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
12. ADJOURNMENT:
10:50 PM
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 14
January 9, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-01-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-06-11,8,"traveling at.
Mr. Khan answered that a lot of traffic exiting from Broadway are making several turns to get
back onto Webster Street. He stated that he will forward that information to the Board.
Vice President Burton stated the Market Street on-ramp access via 6th Street is a weakness
in the plan, and asked how drivers are going to be enticed to utilize that on-ramp. He stated
that the slow street concept is in direct opposition of the people trying to access the freeway.
Board member Knox White clarified with Mr. Khan that Alameda is the project sponsor for
ACTC which means the City directs ACTC when to move forward with projects.
Board member Köster asked about the BRT timing.
Mr. Khan answered that BRT is scheduled for FY 2017-18 and the development of Alameda
Point is critical to BRT.
President Zuppan opened the public comment period.
Jim Strehlow, expressed confusion why the project is not being presented in a joint special
meeting with the Planning Board and the Transportation Commission. He stated that the
plan fails the goal of the Deficiency Plan and said that the shorter ramp will cause back up
on the freeway.
Randy Rentschler, resident, stated that this is a great project and very much needed
especially for the development of the base. He encouraged the Board to support the plan.
Tony Daysog, stated that the plan disperses traffic which helps alleviate traffic.
He
suggested that staff consider the feasibility of a road be constructed that immediately links
drivers turning left onto 6th Street to the 880.
President Zuppan closed the public comment period.
Board member Knox White commented that Deficiency Plan was based on 1950 freeway
design engineering and part of the Transportation Master Plan includes changing the way
project benefits are reviewed/proposed. He suggested that an analysis be performed to
determine that the benefits are worth the cost of the project.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to extend the meeting to 11:15
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion.
Motion carried 6-0
Vice President Burton concurred with Board member Knox White regarding the benefits and
cost. He cited the 6th Street projected and stated that it doesn't appear to provide enough
benefits to Alameda and further cuts off Chinatown from Jack London Square.
Page 8 of 10",PlanningBoard/2012-06-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-05-01,7,"trash and cars blocking driveways; outlined regulations in other jurisdictions.
In response to Mayor Spencer, the Acting City Manager stated the issue is on the
workplan and will come to Council in the fall.
(18-251) Robert Todd, Alameda, expressed concern over issues being raised regarding
naming of public streets and buildings.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced that the Gig Car Share [paragraph no. 18-254 and City
Attorney contract [paragraph no. 18-255 were removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the reminder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor 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.]
(*18-252) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on April 3, 2018.
Approved.
(*18-253) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,508,748.75
(18-254) Recommendation to Authorize the Acting City Manager to Execute a Service
Agreement with Gig Car Share for a One Year Point-to-Point Carshare Pilot Program at
No Cost to the City.
Mayor Spencer stated LimeBikes did not come to the Council and she thought it should
have; requested staff explain the proposal.
The Transportation Coordinator made brief comments; inquired whether Council would
like to hear the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the 50 cars would be in designated parking spaces.
The Transportation Coordinator showed a slide from the presentation and outlined the
pilot program.
Mayor Spencer inquired where the cars would be parked, to which the Transportation
Coordinator responded on the street.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Transportation Coordinator stated the pilot
is piggy backing on an existing pilot in Oakland and Berkeley, but differs since Alameda
is not recommending ending trips at parking meters or the parking structure; the policy
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 1, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-05-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,3,"transports.
Ms. Stebbins responded that she does not know; stated the cost is charged to patients,
not the hospital; the amount would be easy to get.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has suggested having a liaison sub-committee
with the Hospital Board and City Council, similar to those with the School District and
AC Transit; some items that could be discussed with the liaison sub-committee would
be: 1) off-site expansions, which would be an economic development component; 2) the
VA and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority relationship; and 3) emergency
and non-emergency transport services, including the City's franchise rights; the City's
relationship with AC Transit and School Board is valuable.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked Ms. Stebbins for the presentation; stated that she is
constantly being asked how the Hospital is doing and how its financial picture fits with
the need for seismic retrofitting; inquired how capital expenditures would be funded.
Ms. Stebbins responded the Hospital has discussed various financing options with an
advisor; stated the Hospital has very little debt; not having a long history of positive
margins and reserves complicates the ability to access capital; the Cal Mortgage
program is available for hospital financing; an initial presentation has been made to Cal
Mortgage; a formal application will be submitted in a couple of months; a presentation
will be made to the Loan Committee around December or January; Cal Mortgage tends
to be more lenient in terms of consequences because Alameda Hospital is not the only
hospital in a financially challenged situation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she hopes Council receives updates as the Hospital
moves through the process; the community is interested in the issue.
Ms. Stebbins stated several community meetings would be held; the Hospital enjoys a
very good relationship with its neighbors; the entire process will take less than a year;
that she would be glad to provide regular updates.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether State funding or grants are available for
retrofitting.
Ms. Stebbins responded in the negative; stated retrofitting is another unfunded
mandate; stated that she has had meetings with Congressman Stark regarding tapping
into the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but the money cannot be used for
retrofitting.
Vice deHaan stated the Hospital losing the Kaiser contract resulted in a 14% cut;
inquired whether the Hospital settled with the nurses.
Ms. Stebbins responded the Hospital settled a four-year contract with Service
Employees International Union (SEIU) before the Kaiser contract terminated in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,13,"transportation system. She believed the traffic impact would be staggered because of the theater
show times, and did not believe there would be 500 cars pouring in simultaneously.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding ADA access, Ms. Eliason replied that
the historic theater restrooms would not be ADA accessible, and that the new theater would be fully
accessible. The movie theater itself would be accessible and ADA compliant. The women's restroom
in the historic theater would be able to accommodate a handicapped stall, but the men's room would
not. There would also be a unisex bathroom on the first floor.
Mr. Lynch noted that the suppositions put forth by some speakers opposing the project that this
project was not legally consistent with the General Plan were incorrect. He noted that the General
Plan was a statement of goals and policies, but in order for the Board to take an affirmative action,
there must be findings created. He believed there was consistency, and that the findings may be
made to support those policies and goals.
Mr. Piziali agreed with the comments made by Vice President Cook and Mr. Lynch.
President Cunningham agreed with Vice President Cook's statements. He believed the new theater
would revitalize the historic theater and conformed with uses elsewhere in the district.
Regarding Item B (Extended Hours of Operation), President Cunningham inquired about the criteria
and plans for blockbuster showings. Mr. Conner noted that there were many factors involved,
including staggering show times to minimize traffic congestion occurring at one time. He added that
was also the benefit of having multiple screens. He added that the historic theater would be the
catalyst for those showings, unless it was a major blockbuster release such as ""Star Wars.""
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch whether he would agree with a condition that only the
blockbuster releases be shown at 12:01 AM, Mr. Conner replied that would be limiting, but it would
be acceptable to him.
Mr. Piziali expressed concern about police coverage when a show lets out at 3 AM, and inquired
whether the Police Department had weighed in on this issue. He believed that extra staffing should
be borne by the theater.
Ms. Eliason noted that no comment had been received by the Police Department, but that the Use
Permit could be conditioned so that the applicant paid for extra police services.
Ms. McNamara inquired about queuing control in the event of a major blockbuster, and did not want
people camping out for tickets days in advance. Ms. Eliason advised that the operator must provide a
queuing plan, including provisions for crowd control and police coverage.
Mr. Piziali believed there were City ordinances against camping overnight.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-11-17,6,"transportation sales tax augmentation and extension; ACTC went to each city within
Alameda County to seek support; discussions with the City of Alameda included
questions about including enough Alameda projects within the Transportation Plan; at the
time, Alameda wanted assurances that should the project not move forward, enough
funding would be provided to support the needed multimodal access to the City; a letter
was written by the ACTC Chair and Vice Chair considering programming enough money
to the City of Alameda; there are two pathways for Alameda to pursue funding: 1) the City
can go through the application process for discretionary funding for the Comprehensive
Investment Plan (ACTC-CIP) and 2) ask the Commission for consideration of the 2014
letter and any applicable funding.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Planning, Building and
Transportation Director stated the horseshoe and the Broadway off-ramp are both
included in the core project.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the horseshoe includes a speed limit slow-down
for the tube.
Rodney Pimentel, HNTB Corporation, responded due to design, traffic needs to be
slowed to 20 miles per hour by the first curve; stated the speed limit will be lowered to 35
miles per hour in the Posey Tube; 1,000 feet prior to the exit of the tube, the speed limit
will be further lowered to 25 miles per hour; reducing the speed limit is a key component
for safety; signage will be updated as well as lane narrowing to aid in traffic calming.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated true multimodal access is needed; expressed concern
about there being no actual commitments to fund the next steps of the project and no
action taken on past requests; inquired the commitments being provided besides
consideration of the project being put into the ACTC-CIP.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she has solid support from fellow Commissioners;
stated every city in the county has a representative from the Council on the ACTC; noted
the City of Oakland has two representatives due to its large size; stated that she has
requested moving the West End Crossing project from the 30-year ACTC-CIP to the 10-
year ACTC-CIP list; the project is important to Alameda and the region in reducing the
number of single-occupant automobiles.
Ms. Lengyel stated funding matters go before the full Commission and staff is not able to
make commitments; ACTC could receive a letter from the City of Alameda regarding its
interest the 2014 letter being considered; noted that she will commit to bringing
consideration to the ACTC at the January 11, 2021 meeting; meetings will be set with City
staff related to approaches on moving forward with the project; the ACTC-CIP will be a
competitive call for projects released in December as an opportunity for the City to pursue
discretionary funding for bicycle-pedestrian facilities through the ACTC-CIP; any actions
taken will be done by the full Commission.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not recall a proposal for funding being brought
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2021-02-25,3,"transportation program plan, the Mayor's COVID-19 team is facilitating vaccination
distribution logistics.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Season for Non-Violence Speech Contest - Staff member Fonstein reported that the
virtual contest has tentatively been scheduled for Saturday, May 8th, 2021.
Feed Alameda - Staff member Bagtas reported that the City's restaurant meal
program for unhoused individuals and those in shelters has been well-received. Ninety
meals are distributed each week to people on the streets, encampments, FEMA
trailers, Midway Shelter, and safe parking. Funds raised can support the program
through August 2021.
Showers at Christ Church - Staff member Bagtas reported that the shower program
is under way providing showers to unhoused individuals every Sunday.
7. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Vice President S. Lewis notified the Board that Board member Aly will be moving out of
Alameda and is therefore stepping down from his role on SSHRB. Board member Aly
expressed his appreciation for his time on the Board. Board and Staff members expressed
their appreciation and best wishes to Aly.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Vice President S. Lewis adjourned the meeting at 8:21 p.m.",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2021-02-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,24,"transportation mitigation for each unit up to 1,000 units, which is described as the first
phase of the project; in return, Chinatown agreed that they would not submit a lawsuits
for the first phase.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the matter fits with current discussions, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded the mitigation payment still applies; mitigation
required for units beyond the first 1,000 is unresolved with Chinatown.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) plan was
for 1,800 units; inquired how the proposal for more units fits into the agreement.
The Planning Services Manager responded the agreement requires that the City
coordinate with Chinatown through the entire environmental process, allows for a pre-
determined mitigation payment for the first 1,000 units, and does not limit what the City
can do in terms of an ultimate development envelope for Alameda Point; the City
understood that there would be more than 1,000 units; the key is to coordinate the EIR
process with the Chinatown process.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there have to be mitigation measures after first
1,000 units.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Planning Board
representative on the Chinatown committee does wants to start conversations now and
does not want to wait until the EIR is published.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what number is being used as the basis for discussions.
The Planning Services Manager responded Chinatown work with whatever number the
City puts out; until recently, Chinatown was working with the Measure B number;
Chinatown will be working with the new application number once the Notice of
Preparation is released.
Speakers: Frank Faye, SunCal; and Rosemary McNally, Alameda.
Following Mr. Faye's comments, Vice Chair/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan
inquired whether costs that SunCal wishes to recover could be broken down.
Mr. Faye responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal is not seeking to recover costs;
the arrangement with the City is that monies are pulled out of a special escrow account
set up with the City quite some time ago; the City has a record of each and every
expenditure from the time that checks were issued and payments were made; that
SunCal is happy to make anything available.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be a
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
4
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-04-05,13,"transparency, she is finding herself aligned with Commissioner Chen's comments and
still also troubled by what was heard today.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he is concerned with making sure the Sunshine Ordinance
is being applied; neither the complainant or the legal counsel specifically address this;
questioned if this issue is not what is sustained or addressed, then what is the process;
when there is a pattern, or at least more than one instance of this happening, what is the
mechanism to change the behavior; stated at the core of it, he still feels there was a
violation even if it was not explicitly stated by the complainant or the presentation.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated her latest motion to sustain
was made but not seconded and is being discussed.
Commissioner Reid stated that she would amend her motion; the dates fall under 14 days
and technically is a violation; pointed out the importance that the requestor did not receive
the totality of the information that he requested and the fact that he had to go back and
forth, which took an extended period of time; the Commission collaboratively agrees that
it
was not the procedure that falls within the spirit of the Brown Act and the transparency
the Commission is seeking.
Commissioner Reid moved approval of sustaining the complaint based on the lack of
timeliness.
Chair Tilos stated that he likes where Commissioner Reid is going, but wants to phrase it
more succinctly; stated the complaint is being sustained due to lack of totality of his
requests in an efficient manner.
Commissioner Reid amended her motion to include that it did not follow the spirit of the
Brown Act and the requestor did not receive the totality of his requests in an efficient
manner.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated the references to the Brown Act and the PRA does not
prescribe a specific time in which records have to be produced, the 10 days is related to
a response.
Chair Tilos stated that is why he used the word efficient; it was not efficient for Mr. Morris
to go back and forth and file a complaint before getting any information.
Commissioner LoPilato stated it would be good to get some legal guidance on the terms
of totality and efficiency that she is not aware as rooted in law.
Commissioner Chen stated the description of the Commission's duties includes reporting
to the City Council at least once annually on any practical or policy problems encountered
in the administration of the Sunshine Ordinance; she feels like Mr. Morris's claim is not
sustained, but to double down on saying his complaint highlighted and brought into the
spotlight a real serious problem that he is not the only one who has faced; the Commission
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
April 5, 2021
13",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,2,"transparency of government activities.
Commissioner Reid stated the Commission should acknowledge Mr. Garfinkle's
comments; there should not be any rush to revise the Bylaws without careful
consideration; reiterated some of the points referenced in Mr. Garfinkle's
correspondence, such as the Bylaws being amended by a supermajority vote; stated the
role of the City Clerk as the Secretary is confusing and should be clarified; if the
Commission wants to continue considering meeting monthly, it should be included in the
Bylaws; the suggestion to increase awareness regarding special meetings and updates
is important; locations of meetings should be available and accessible to the public.
Chair Tilos stated that he does not agree with the speaker's comment regarding
steamrolling through issues; nothing has moved that quickly during the entire time he has
been on the Commission; he wants to gauge the rest of the Commissioners on making a
motion tonight or pushing it out for several more meetings.
Vice Chair Shabazz concurred with Chair Tilos regarding the steamrolling comment;
stated that he is willing to move to approve the revisions of the Bylaws; the issue has
been and can be an ongoing process; he does not think any revisions voted on tonight
will be final revisions; if the Commission adopts the provision of a supermajority
requirement, it would make it potentially more difficult to make revisions in the future; he
agrees with some of Mr. Garfinkle's comments; suggested a simple adjustment to noticing
special meetings via electronic communications to add the phrase: ""and others"" beyond
just local media; questioned how a majority of the Commission would call a special
meeting, which could be addressed at a later point; stated other issues could also be
detailed in a practical way that does not cause obstruction and enables the Commission
to function.
Chair Tilos stated that he shares Vice Chair Shabazz's sentiments.
Commissioner Chen stated that she appreciates Commissioner LoPilato's hard work on
the item, as well as the efforts of Mr. Garfinkle; she does not agree with the supermajority
piece for the same reasons Vice Chair Shabazz stated in that it would freeze the
Commission in place; inquired how the Secretary of the Commission is also a staff
member and whether she is a voting member of the Commission.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated he could provide examples of organizations he has been a
part of where there was a similar designation, including the Peralta Community College
Board of Trustees, which has a Board Secretary who was hired to do specific work;
technically based on the Bylaws, the Chancellor of the District is the Secretary of the
Board; often times public institutions have a Secretary who serves as record keeper; if it
is necessary, the City Clerk's role as Secretary to the OGC could be clarified to indicate
that she does not vote; it is a standard practice, as is found in some private and non-profit
organizations; it would be difficult for a volunteer body to have someone do the work that
the City Clerk does as a volunteer; it is a common designation.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2015-03-30,10,"translates to the public; Commissioner could review agenda and making notes if there is
an issue that needs to be addressed.
Chair Aguilar stated Commissioners should save examples and inform her and the City
Clerk to have the matter agendized for the next meeting.
Vice Chair Foreman inquired get what agendized, to which Chair Aguilar responded the
issue; whatever the issue is that comes up.
The Assistant City Attorney provided an example of half a dozen items occurring
between now and December; when Commissioners discover items, they should notify
the Chair and the City Clerk to create a running tab and get a scope of the problem.
Chair Aguilar stated the Commission would see whether there is just one item or
several, if it global or something particular; the discussion is just hypothetical.
Commissioner Dieter stated the Ordinance says to work to improve publically
accessible information; inquired whether that is another thing or part of this.
Chair Aguilar responded it would be a part of the matter.
Commissioner Dieter stated she talked to the Assistant City Attorney; on the website,
when a meeting is canceled giving the reason would be nice, such as lack of a quorum
or lack of business; for example, that would be helpful to the public; another issue is it is
hard to find Rent Review Advisory Committee agendas on the City website.
Vice Chair Foreman stated maybe said matters ought to be included in the annual
report.
Commissioner Dieter stated the Commission has to meet to create the annual report.
Vice Chair Foreman stated the annual report is a good idea.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the Ordinance amendments could be included as
part of the annual report; if other items come to Commissioners' attention that should be
included in the report, the City Clerk and City Attorney know; a report will be drafted for
the Commission to review and make changes or additions; something can be presented
in October that can then be put into final form and sent to the City Council.
Vice Chair Foreman inquired if the Commissioners would individually do so, to which
the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Commission can
decide whether or not items should be included in the annual report.
Commissioner Dieter stated the suggestion sounds like a great plan.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 30, 2015
10",OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-03-30.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2020-12-03,2,"transitional housing project and presented the planning process plan and an update of
activities to date. Bagtas presented the next steps in the process to establish a
transitional housing option for Alameda's unhoused residents to move them out of
encampments and street living towards permanent housing.
Bagtas answered questions and invited comments that included ensuring that the goals
are measurable, establishing a realistic timeline, providing a safety net for the unhoused,
and collaborating with other agencies and the County.
6b. Discuss 2021 SSHRB Work Plan
Staff member Fonstein provided updates on the following events/programs:
The Season for Non-Violence Speech Contest did not happen last year due to
COVID, but it will happen this year. Board member Furuchi-Fong offered to help plan
this year's event.
The Community Development Block Grant process will begin in January 2021. The
Board will be apprised of the process, and funding recommendations will be
presented in March 2021.
The biennial Point-in-Time Count of the homeless population is supposed to take
place in January 2021. Due to the pandemic, this will likely change. Staff will update
SSHRB in January.
A consultant has been contracted to help produce the Homelessness Strategic Plan.
The work will commence in January with the aim of a finalized plan in April.
The Alameda Services Luncheon was canceled last year due to COVID and may
happen this year in May.
The Community Needs Assessment conducted every four to five years is due to be
done in 2021. Board member Jagannathan volunteered to help.
6c. Board Nomination of Officers
Board member S. Lewis nominated current President Christine Chilcott for another term
as President. Board member Furuchi-Fong seconded.
President Chilcott nominated S. Lewis for Vice President, seconded by T. Lewis.
Confirmation of officers will take place in January.
6d. Work Group Reports
Homeless Action Plan Workgroup (S. Lewis) - Staff member Bagtas reported that
construction of the showers at Christ Church has begun, and that all remaining
HEAP funding has been allocated for projects. The work of the HEAP Ad Hoc
Committee is now completed, and the committee has been dissolved. Oversight of
funded projects is now under the purview of the CARES team. Due to COVID-19
restrictions, the warming shelter has not opened yet. All other programs are
operating well.
Youth Mental Health (Chilcott/Paillet-Growl) - President Chilcott reported that the
student mental health survey showed a significant increase in high school students
reporting stress. Younger children are also exhibiting stress. Long-lasting effects are
expected due to COVID-related factors (isolation, virtual schooling, etc.).",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2020-12-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-05-10,8,"transit-driven alternative.
Board Member Zuppan stated that the plan lacks specificity and commitment. She
requested that infrastructure, such as storm drains and streets be adequately evaluated.
She requested that the public transportation system outlook in 20 years be included. She
asked for a careful analysis of the economic impacts, such as jobs creation, be included in
the EIR. In addition, she is concerned that the habitat of the Least Terns abuts the
residential portions of the development, and raised the question whether the development
could be programmed differently to avoid the close proximity to these birds.
Board Member Kohlstrand would like to see that the project be redeveloped so that the
approval is not dependent on a slew of mitigation measures, but done in a way that
embraces all potential concerns and impacts especially the traffic concerns. She would like
to see an analysis of proposed building heights and how they would impact the existing
neighborhoods. She seconded Board member Cook's comments on preserving the most
historically significant buildings.
Board member Cook supported the master application for the density bonus concept. She
requested information on what benefits could accrue to the City from granting a density
bonus application, be it open space, parks.
Ms. Ott pointed out that the City Council is briefed on the status of the project at each of
their meetings and noted the comments from the Planning Board would be transmitted to
the City Council.
On a motion by Zuppan, seconded by Cunningham, the Board voted 6-0 to continue
deliberation of this project to its next meeting.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:17 pm
Planning Board
Page 8 of 8
Meeting Minutes 5/10/2010",PlanningBoard/2010-05-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-04-13,9,"transit are being used the most.
Board Member Burton motioned to extend the meeting past 11 P.M. Board Member Knox
White seconded the motion.
The motion carried, 7-0.
Board Member Knox White motioned to approve the amendments with the clarifications to
the TMA, extending the shuttle to the development, adding the annual survey and vehicle
counts, and including a welcome packet and car sharing services. Board Member Burton
seconded the motion.
The motion carried, 7-0.
7-D 2015-1532
PLN14-0701 - 2100 Clement Street. (Clement, Willow, Eagle
Project) Design Review, Development Plan, Density Bonus and
Vesting tentative Map. - A public hearing to consider applications to
permit construction of 58 attached townhomes on a 2.78 acre site
located at 2100 Clement Street. Continued to a future date.
8. MINUTES:
8-A. 2015-1540
Draft Meeting Minutes-January 13, 2014
Board Member Knox White motioned to approve the minutes. Vice President Alvarez
seconded the motion.
The motion carried, 7-0.
8-B. 2015-1541
Draft Meeting Minutes-March 9, 2015
The Board asked to continue these minutes.
8-C. 2015-1542
Draft Meeting Minutes-February 23, 2015
The Board asked to continue these minutes.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
9-A. 2015-1544
Zoning Administrator and Design Review: Recent Actions and
Decisions: None
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 10
April 13, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-05-27,2,"transfers from other departments, to which the Finance Director
responded the amount could be provided.
Councilmember deHaan stated AP&T has the Utility Users Tax and
franchise fees; inquired whether the total amount of what AP&T
brings in is available.
The Finance Director responded that she could provide said amount.
The City Manager continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson requested information on whether Police Department
overtime is due to the five unfilled positions.
Vice Mayor Tam requested an explanation of the disparity between
the cost to run the animal shelters at San Leandro and Alameda.
questioned whether there is the same level of service and whether
the one time donation will offset a significant portion of the
cost.
Council requested information on trends and projections of animal
shelter donations.
Regarding the animal shelter donation, Councilmember deHaan
requested information on investing the $270,000.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to review whether there is
any capacity in the animal shelter for people outside the City to
contract for the City's service.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired exactly how much is being saved by
reducing one Senior Dispatcher position; stated that before she
agrees to cut the position, she would like information about where
the City was and is now, and what trade-offs are involved.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the presentation talked about
guiding principles; in the past when the City was squeezed, the
Council said that it wanted to flatten the organization as a
policy; he would like the Council to consider said direction;
instead of taking from the point of service delivery, upper
management should be reviewed; people still would be supervised but
management would be consolidated; the delivery of internal versus
external services should be reviewed; the tip should go to
protecting external delivery of service; the City can live with
internal delivery of service slowing down; that he wants to ensure
that the Council reviews giving said direction as a policy or
principle; police and fire are delivering services on the street ;
he does not believe in across the board reductions if services
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 27, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-05-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,7,"transfer to individual, adjacent property owners ; the Army Corps of
Engineers is concerned that individual transactions would result in
a checker board.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers
would need to negotiate with individual property owners if the City
does not want to accept the property, to which the project Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation of the PGP  inquired
whether the City would become permit central for the Army Corps of
Engineers.
The District Counsel responded the land transfer is not connected
to PGP necessarily; stated a PGP is issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers under the Clean Water Act; Water Boards, localities,
cities, and counties often want control over regulatory activities;
the City would need to get some type of real estate interest, such
as an easement, lease, or license which would expire after a
certain period of time; the permit could be extended for five
years; the Public Works Department would be permit central for
docks and other structures along the waterfront; the Army Corps of
Engineers would work with the City to help structure the PGP : ; only
certain activities fit within the PGP . the Army Corps of Engineers
would help the City define what would be allowed and ensure
activities are not environmentally damaging; the statute states
that the Army Corps of Engineers has enforcement authority when
things are not going well.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the moratorium goes away with
the PGP , to which the District Counsel responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Army Corps of Engineers for the
information presented stated residents have a high level of
interest in the issue; the main issue is the ability to perform on-
going maintenance and repair.
Councilmember Matarrese stated it is important to have a strategy
for the Congressional delegation to start working on enabling
legislation for the Northern Waterfront redevelopment area,
including but no limited to, the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge
inquired when an analysis would be available outlining different
options such as obtaining a strip of land or the whole land,
ensuring that the waterway is maintained and dredged, and running
the permit process well.
The City Manager stated staff has been working with the homeowners
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-04-16,14,"transaction.
Councilmember Tam inquired why the City is entering into purchase negotiations before
conveyance.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded the City is not entering into
purchase negotiations now; stated three leases include a purchase option; negotiations
have not started; conveyance will occur in June; the City should not entertain purchase
options for ten to fifteen more years according to the Economic Development Strategy
to allow lease revenue to continue as an infrastructure engine and support City
operations at Alameda Point; the strategy manages tenant expectations; tenants cannot
make purchases right after the City gets the property.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Economic Development Division
Manager stated a third party property management company, PM Reality, manages the
properties at Alameda Point.
The City Manager noted a Request for Proposals to manage the commercial and
residential properties will go out this month.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(13-179) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease
Amendment with Alameda Municipal Power Extending Their Current Lease for up to
Two Years in Building 162 Located at 400 West Atlantic Avenue at Alameda Point.
Introduced; and
(13-179 A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease
Amendment with Alameda Municipal Power Extending Current Lease for up to Two
Years in 1890 Viking Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether staff has gone through the storage, to which the
Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
April 16, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-06-07,17,"training; the hiring process is long; the positions are now open as continuous, which has
increased the number of applicants; only 1% make it through the process.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many shifts a day there are
and if the shifts are fully staffed.
The Police Chief responded that the there are four shifts a day and they are not
currently fully staffed; some Police Officers have been working overtime; personnel has
been transferred from non-patrol assignments to patrol assignments because all of the
patrol teams are not fully staffed.
The Finance Director continued the presentation.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the City gets to keep the Safer
Grant money until the positions are filled.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.
Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired what item we have speakers on.
The City Clerk responded the speakers are on the ferry item.
Mayor Spencer stated some speakers are leaving; inquired why the budget item is
before the ferry item.
The City Clerk responded the item is on before the ferry to get Council action before
July 1st
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there is a steep drop in the reserve ratio;
inquired what is driving the drop on the revenue side and the increase in expenditures.
The Finance Director responded the main component on the expenditure side is labor,
not necessarily raises; the revenue side is more in-line with projections.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the operating budget is in the red, but the
City is able to manage by using the reserves.
The Finance Director stated the money is in designated reserves to use in the future.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired if in FY 2016-17, the City will be
overspending by $800,000.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated $500,000 of the amount may
be going away.
Special Joint Meeting
of the City Council and the Successor Agency to the
Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2016
3",CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-02-07,4,"training required by Alameda locally, or mandated by the State as a normal course of
employment.
Councilmember Oddie stated the policy is desperately needed; the City is facing several
vacancies by the end of the year and it is a challenging time to recruit; Alameda is not
immune to crime; he would like to staff the Police Department as soon as possible.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated residents appreciate living in a safe city, but would
like more policing; police staff can only be spread so far; Alameda needs to get the
Police Department up to full staff; the department also needs to be mindful of
approaching retirees.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the policy helps Alameda stay competitive in the market; she is
in favor of adopting the policy because there is potential cost savings in the long term; it
is to the benefit of the Police Department to get a different perspective from other
agencies as well.
The Police Chief stated there are currently 10 vacancies, of which five will be filled with
academy graduates before the end of the year.
Mayor Spencer stated that she plans to support the policy; it is critical the positions are
filled; safety is important to the community.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(17-70) The City Manager announced that the City will be scheduling negotiations with
the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and the Alameda Fire Chiefs
Association (AFCA); stated the City put up a banner for Black History Month and a
proclamation will be presented at the next meeting; announced the new AMP General
Manager is Nicolas Procos.
(17-71) The City Manager stated that as part of the Sanctuary City Ordinance adopted
on January 17, Council requested the City Manager to provide a federal update on a
regular basis; there have been 20 executive orders in two weeks, including the:
Affordable Care Act, reinstatement of the Mexico City Abortion Policy, advancing the
Keystone Pipeline Project, environmental protection regulations, and increasing border
security; staff would seek Council direction before entering into any agreements with
State and local law enforcement to have Police Officers act as immigration officers; she
believes Alameda's federal funds are secure; the Sanctuary City Resolution sets
Alameda apart from other cities.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-02-07.pdf
PlanningBoard,2018-10-08,4,"traffic, noise, pollution, etc.. He said the waterfront park is deteriorating and needs
reinvestment, which would help the residents support the project.
A resident said the hotel is too big and unwelcoming. She said we can do better than this.
President Mitchell closed the public hearing.
Board Member Teague said he would like to see the solar, water heating, bird safe, dark
skies, palm tree waste issues be addressed in the plan. He said he would like to see a
perspective from the Bay view. He said we try not to have parking all the way up to the
bayfront and would like to see some amenity buffer between the shore and the parked
cars.
Board Member Burton said the street side of the building is okay but the water side is very
flat. He said he does not agree with staff that the building should visually match the office
park. He said the connectivity between the hotel, restaurant, and street need work. He
said there needs to be better bike and pedestrian access to the site. He said he supports
all the parking only because of the clear need for the ferry. He said he would like to see
more landscaping space in the parking lot to reduce the heat island effect. He echoed
Board Member Teague's comments about creating a barrier between the parking and the
shoreline.
Board Member Sullivan said the building is very large and the windows look very flat. She
said the 35' setback does not seem sufficient for a five story building. She expressed some
concerns about the selection of appropriate trees for this moisture heavy, windy location.
She suggested that there be a written agreement with WETA, not just a promise. She
suggested how the applicant could engage the HOAs effectively before the project moves
forward.
Board Member Curtis said a lot of the argument can be settled by looking at this building
side by side with the adjacent (McGuire and Hester) building. He said he basically likes
the design.
Board Member Cavanaugh said he likes the design. He said it would be nice to have some
artwork on the building, especially from the bay side.
Board Member Saheba said the project would create vibrancy at the location. He said the
curb cuts in the parking lot do not seem to match up with what the traffic patterns would
be and may create conflicts. He said the project is overparked and sees an opportunity to
create more green space and a buffer between the parking lot and the shoreline and
improving the connection between the hotel and restaurant. He said he would want to see
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 11
October 8, 2018",PlanningBoard/2018-10-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,11,"traffic if there was a fire, or even if the drawbridge went up with an extra 500 cars on the street. He
expressed concern about emergency vehicle access in such an event.
Ms. Karen Bay, 2911 Santa Clara, spoke in support of this item, and noted that she had taken part in
the Downtown Visioning process.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Drive, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he frequently
walked and biked within Alameda. He recommended that a projectionist technician be required to be
available within 15 minutes of a failure. He suggested that a website complaint number within an
onsite kiosk be available for feedback. He would like to see the number of days with allowable after-
hours operation reduced from 45 to 24 days.
Ms. Reyla Graber, 3120 La Cresla Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this project
was wrong for Alameda, and added that the scale of the garage and footprint of the project was too
large. She was not confident of this use of public funds, and did not agree with the 3 AM extension
of hours. She would not like to see the developer return with a request for a game room and for 15
screens. She noted that the Marina Theater was being restored in San Francisco, and suggested that
be a model for Alameda.
Mr. Douglas Mitchell submitted a speaker slip, but was not in attendance to speak.
Ms. Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, 1416 Park Street, spoke in support of this item
on behalf of the Board of Directors. She asked that the 45 days of extended hours be reduced to 24
days. She supported the live theater proposal, and did not want to see dollars leaving Alameda for
movies and associated activities. She read the following names of members who supported this
project, but could not attend: Debbie McBride, Barbara Johnson, Allison Bliss, Pamela
Christiansen, Cathy Leong, Kevin Leong, Kathy Moehring, Terrence Brewer, Cathy Brewer, Chuck
Bianchi, Julia Park, Lorre Zuppan, Josh Lipps, Jennifer George, Renee Tripprudeen of 3235 Central
Avenue.
Mr. Bill Smith, PO Box 2009, spoke in opposition to this item and expressed concern about parking
and traffic congestion.
Ms. Norma Henning, 1361 Park Street, spoke in support of this item and noted that she was a Park
Street merchant.
Ms. Lorna Dowell submitted a speaker slip but was not in attendance to speak.
Mr. Harry Singh, 12 Shepardson Lane, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he would like to
keep his dollars on the Island.
Ms. Lisa Jasper submitted, 117 Chinaberry Lane, a speaker slip but was not in attendance to speak.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
GolfCommission,2007-09-19,6,"town that the developer Ron Cowan was interested in moving the Harbor Bay
Club
to the Mif Albright Course site. The Superintendent stated that the Mif
Albright Course is now basically a practice facility the way it is set up now.
Customer just use the practice area for free and do not pay to play the par 3
course. The suggestion was made to turn the Mif Albright Course into an 18-
hole putting course with only greens. Chair Wood asked if NGF has seen this
sort of operation succeed in other areas. Mr. Singer said that the cost to
renovate it into a putting course would be just as expensive as it would be to redo
the entire course. He said that the best way to attract customers to a par 3
course is to have special events on it or turn it into a lighted facility.
Secretary Sullwold asked if currently there are management companies
interested in taking over and leasing golf operations that need a large amount of
money in improvements. Mr. Singer stated that I it would depend on what sort of
deal was put on the table. Commissioner Schmitz asked for a ballpark payment
figure the City of Alameda could expect to receive from a lessee. Mr. Singer said
that there is generally a guaranteed minimum lease payment and then
approximately 8-10% of gross revenue. He did mention that the more constraints
that are placed on a lessee, the less the return is. The City of Alameda could
expect to earn approximately $500,000 per year. Also mentioned was that in the
current golf market it is becoming more common for contracts to have a
renegotiation clause. Secretary Sullwold stated that she believes that the way a
lessee makes the deal work is by releasing all of the full time civil servant
employees and replace them with a part time nonunion work force, significantly
lowering labor costs. Commissioner Schmitz asked what sort of commitment and
follow through has NGF seen on the part of the lessee to actually do the
improvements promised. Mr. Singer stated that it is important to have a
reputable vendor to start with, also a contract with specific measurable goals and
strong oversight to ensure that the improvements are being done. The question
was raised about leasing out separate pieces of the operation. Mr. Singer stated
that leasing out separate parts of the operation is done although not as attractive
to a vendor and with the maintenance side of the operation there is no revenue
source so the City of Alameda would be paying the contractor.
Chair Wood stated that he did not think that the Operational Review mentioned
the affect of the geese problem at the Complex. He stated that it is a huge
problem and is costing the Golf Complex customers. The suggestion was made
to look into having the goose control dogs returned. The program was
discontinued due to the annual expense of $18,000.
Commissioner Delaney stated that he feel NGF did an outstanding job on the
Operational Review Report and hit on all of the crucial points. He said that the
Complex needs a Master Plan for the long term and additional marketing efforts.
He suggested that the Golf Commission accept the report and also form a task
force to develop a consensus to bring back to the Golf Commission and from that
build a Master Plan. The Golf Commission complimented NGF on the
thoroughness of the report. The motion was made by Commissioner Delaney to
accept the Operational Review and seconded by Vice Chair Gaul. The
Commission approved the motion unanimously.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 6
10/11/07
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2007-09-19.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2020-06-11,3,"towards the schools. Of all designs, liked the flat, small design with neutral tone and natural
elements.
6-B Review and Comment on 2019 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Report and General
Update on the Open Space and Recreation Element. The review of the annual report and General Plan
Update Draft Elements are Exempt Actions Under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Andrew Thomas, City of Alameda Planning Director gave the presentation which included an update
on the Climate Action and Conservation, Open Space and Recreation and Safety and Noise and
encouraged the Recreation and Park Commission's initial impressions and ongoing input over the next
5 to 6 months as the plan is a work in progress. Answered questions about raising the sea level wall
and how the green areas also serve as water retention in the climate change and in making the City of
Alameda policies and values reflect equity and inclusivity. Mr. Thomas will make the Recreation and
Park Commission aware of meetings planned so they can participate through the process and will
continue to bring it back to the Commission.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: 1. Active Transportation Plan 2. Renaming of Jackson Park for the July
agenda.
Commissioner Barnes and Commissioners Narvarro will work with Director Wooldridge to
develop a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Policy process and the City Aquatics Center concept design
will be agendized in September.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, July 9, 2020.
ADJOURNMENT
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Commissioner Barnes
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 4 - 0.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 9:20 PM
3",RecreationandParkCommission/2020-06-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,9,"tournaments, however 27 holes would cause an impact on open players, to which Mr.
Vest responded in the affirmative; stated players just dropping by might have to wait.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the Commuters and East Bay Juniors tournaments
could be run as successfully as in the past [with 27 holes], to which Mr. Vest responded
in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about how the tournament works with 27 holes,
Mr. Vest stated there would be two waves of tee times: one in the morning and one in
the afternoon.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether both waves would be able to finish play before dark
and whether the next phase of the tournament would be done the next day, to which Mr.
Vest responded in the affirmative; stated players teeing off in the afternoon the first day,
would tee off earlier the next day; players would not be affected the second weekend
because only 18 holes are played.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry whether differentiating costs relative to the
renovation of 36 holes versus 27 holes is possible, Mr. Blake stated 36 holes of
irrigation has a higher cost than 27 holes; the goal is to have three very nice 9 holes;
spreading the money over 36 holes could dilute underground and visual repairs to not
have the same impact as 27 holes; Kemper wants 27 high quality holes and there is not
enough money to do that for 36 holes.
Councilmember Johnson stated there is preference for the north course over the south
course; inquired how the three 9 holes would work together and how people would not
mind playing 9 holes of the south course.
Mr. Blake responded the existing 18 holes on the north would be cleaned up and
infrastructure would be improved; stated visual improvements would be directed to the
third 9 holes [on the south course] to have it match the two 9 holes on the north course;
there are enough trees [on the 9 holes at the south course that would be renovated] to
give it a similar feel; the fourth 9 holes [on the south course] are much more open, have
less trees, and he is not sure a match could be accomplished on said holes.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Kemper's vision is to operate the course like
Poppy Ridge, to which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative; stated there would be
three starting tees and the three nines would be rotated.
Councilmember deHaan stated the south course has more land; the north course is
more traditional for an average player; there is a demand for longer courses; there is
ability to have two tournaments right now; 27 holes would push out regular players
when there are tournaments; 27 holes might be done when building a new course
because of capital outlay; Alameda is blessed with very low debt service; other courses
have to make lots of money just to cover debt service; inquired how many acres there
would be from closing down 9 holes, to which the Recreation and Parks Director
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
PensionBoard,2014-01-27,1,"tooks
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., JANUARY 27, 2014
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Marie Gilmore at 4:30 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Trustees Marie Gilmore, William Soderlund, Nancy Elzig, Jill Kovacs.
Absent: Robert Follrath
Staff: Fred Marsh, Finance Director, Lelia Faapouli, Administrative Technician,
Human Resources.
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 28, 2013 was moved for approval
by Member Soderlund and seconded by Member Elzig. Passed 4-0
4.
AGENDAITEMS:
4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending December 31,
2013 and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the
Period Ending December 31, 2013 was presented by Fred Marsh, Finance
Director. The reports were moved for approval by Member Soderlund and
seconded by Member Elzig. Passed 4-0
4-B. Memo regarding the death of 1079 Pensioners - Frances Gustin (Widow
of Firefighter Alfred Gustin Jr.) deceased 12/8/13 and John T Reilly (Fire
Apparatus Operator) deceased 1/3/14 was accepted with regret by Member
Soderlund and seconded by Member Elzig. Passed 4-0
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no oral communications.",PensionBoard/2014-01-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-03-05,12,"tonight.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the comments would be on the Biological
Opinion or the EA.
The City Manager responded the EA.
Mayor Gilmore noted various City departments would be providing comments; Public
Works would comment on transit.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a park would still be located in the
Northwest Territories, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded
in the affirmative; stated 250 acres of parks and open space are being contemplated on
the land which is intended to come to the City; said land does not include the 511 acres
of preserve area on the rest of the property.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City's park area is along the waterfront,
to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated opening up public access to the waterfront is exciting.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the City anticipates having an
access easement around the VA site and having a Bay Trail around the Northwest
Territories.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the land does not belong to the City yet; the public has
weighed in on the clinic and columbarium; read from the September 10, 2010 Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Resolution (ARRA), which solidifies her motivation
to move forward with the staff recommendation; stated Veteran causes need to be
supported; the ARRA resolution indicates the VA project will create local construction,
permanent jobs and have a positive impact on local revenues.
Councilmember Chen stated that he would request the Council to consider delaying the
letter of support so that it will coincide with the wildlife refuge resolution being
considered on March 19th and to give the public time to study the staff report and EA.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is enthusiasm for the VA clinic and columbarium;
ideally all issues would be resolved; that he supports having such a facility in Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation; stated the City
Council and City staff can work on issues raised; the wildlife refuge resolution can
happen independent of the action tonight.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Tam stated that she would not support the motion;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
March 5, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-03-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-09-20,18,"tonight.
The City Attorney responded that Councilmember Daysog's concern could be
discussed; changing the plans would mean a change to the Tentative Map; stated staff
hears the recommendation but would prefer that Council approve the project as is.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not want to change any substantive details;
he believes a statement needs to be sent to the residents.
Mayor Spencer stated the problem needs to be solved; not allowing permits creates a
safety issue that needs to be resolved; inquired whether there are any situations where
one property owner has built out to an adjoining water parcel.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the lines in the map were drawn straight out; the
line moved slightly to avoid hitting obstructions; one dock extends onto the open water
parcel on City property, which will be treated with Code Enforcement.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the goal is to hand the parcels over to the current land
owner and modify as practical.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated there is no situation
where an improvement owned by one property owner is on another property owner's
parcel.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the six public view access point have permits.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the City is not finished receiving the permit
history.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the six parcels should be a part of the maps now;
stated a speaker is concerned there will be an additional cost in the future.
The Assistant City Attorney responded having the six parcels as a part of the map now
would be more cost efficient; there is still question on the public access.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the six parcels could be designated for the City right
now and changed in the future.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney stated the parcel lines can be drawn, but the process to figure out
what makes the most sense will take time; the City might have to change the final parcel
lines depending on the final resolution.
Mayor Spencer stated designating the 35 feet as a hard line has not been done; the
lines have gone a little to the left or a little to the right; she would be prefer keeping the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-04-04,2,"tonight's discussion. The monies could be invested. Could there be an endowment so that these funds
are generating funds, so that we are not thinking of these funds as a onetime thing and they can be
generating funds year after year.
Pat Colburn:
Are there any additional funds forecasted for the art fund?
(Ms. Butler clarified that questions are not answered at this time. The Commissioners can choose to
answer questions as part of the discussion.)
She liked the idea of having a personal interview when you make a decision on the finalist and having a
one-to-one with the people applying.
Cheryl Aaron:
Appreciated staff coming back so soon and what is the schedule going forward. She said she love the
suggested review of the process. She is with Island Alliance of the Arts and personally believes if they
had had the opportunity to address some of the questions, it would have been helpful. But it's a new
process.
Public Comments closed
Discussion:
Acting Chairperson Sherman: What is the possibility of an endowment?
Ms. Butler: We need to research this. Monies go into interest bearing accounts.
A Commissioner stated that he has done research on this and a City can form a nonprofit and administer
an endowment.
Additional Public Speaker:
Wes Warren: He like the review process option.
Commissioner Farrell: Lois, when you say the money is in an account is it a money market, how is it
invested?
Ms. Butler: She would need to research this and follow-up. The interest from money invested is credited
to the account.
Acting Chairperson Lewis do we know how much interest was generated? Ms. Butler: She would need to
research.
Commissioner Gillitt: Do we have a forecast of any developers that plan to donate in lieu of onsite art?
Ms. Butler: She does not know of any developers.
Commissioners discussed proposal amounts.
Ms. Butler indicated that this is the meeting to determine what should happen to with the funds that
were not disbursed.
Draft Meeting Minutes
2 of 4
Public Art Commission
April 4, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-18,34,"together on the water taxi service; she would like Catellus to join the Citywide TMA; she
will support the project.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 2:25 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:41 a.m.
Mr. Marshall stated the deal will not close until the end of the year due to some due
diligence items that need to be cleaned up; Catellus can commit to the maritime
component.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether part of the ordinance can read: ""there will
be no building permits issued for residential until the commercial component is
consummated.""
Mr. Marshall responded he would like the word consummated defined.
Councilmember Matarrese stated consummated means purchased and guaranteed.
Mr. Marshall stated there can be no guarantee after the purchase.
The City Manager responded the attorneys are trying to draft language for the
ordinance first reading tonight; she would like the language to be very clear before the
vote at the second reading.
Margo Bradish, Catellus Legal Counsel, read the language: ""No building permit for
residential use in the residential subarea shall be issued until the maritime commercial
land is conveyed to a developer or user for use consistent with the permitted uses
authorized in the maritime commercial subarea of the maritime commercial residential
variant of the Master Plan.""
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance amending the
Bayport Alameda Landing Master Plan as amended.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer
- 1.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to
execute a Consent to Partial Assignment and Assumption Agreement (Development
Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project) - Waterfront); and
authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Operating Memorandum for
the Development Agreement consistent with the Term Sheet.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf
GolfCommission,2008-03-19,5,"to-date total to the General Fund is $100,441 for the fiscal year 2007/2008.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Response from the Finance Department.
Score Card Advertising
Feedback on Elimination of Complimentary Rounds
Marketing Plan
11.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 PM.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 5
4/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2008-03-19.pdf
GolfCommission,2008-04-16,5,"to-date total to the General Fund is $100,441 for the fiscal year 2007/2008.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Response from the Finance Department.
Score Card Advertising
Feedback on Elimination of Complimentary Rounds
Marketing Plan
11.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 PM.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 5
4/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2008-04-16.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,4,"to within 3-feet from the northwesterly side property line, where a minimum 5-foot setback is
required; 2) The structure would cover approximately 51-percent of the site, where the maximum
permitted main building coverage is 48-percent for residences with attached garages; and3) The front
porch would be relocated and covered and would be setback approximately 7-feet from the front
property line, where 20-feet is the minimum required front yard setback.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,26,"to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated priorities should be determined.
The Public Works Director stated the department has had a reduction
in staff; both the pothole and sidewalk crews had reductions and,
as a result, were combined.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether annual contracts included pothole
and sidewalk repair.
The Public Works Director responded an annual contractor is
responsible for sidewalk repairs; Public Works employees are
responsible for inspections, fillets, grinding and minor concrete
replacement.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding the contractor's
duties, the Public Works Director stated the contractor completes
the backlog of permanent concrete repair in 300 to 400 locations.
Councilmember Daysog stated residents would understand budget
shortfalls for capital projects, but would not understand the City
failing to have a plan, timeline and priorities.
Councilmember Matarrese noted that he would prefer areas be paved
over, rather than installing manufactured turf.
(05-248) - ) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the
meeting past 12:00 midnight.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is probably $8 million
undesignated in General Fund reserve; the City should change course
if the reserve was built up at the expense of sidewalks and
streets; the Council should consider allocating above $300,000;
there needs to be a plan; the Council should receive a report on
how to proceed.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is reaching the point where something
has to be done; people are upset about the condition of sidewalks
and streets.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a structural change should be made ;
spending money upfront will save money later.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-09-25,10,"to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded for new construction.
In response to Councilmember Chen's further inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer -
Alameda Point stated 1,425 includes existing units, such as the 200 supportive housing
units; a settlement agreement requires the City to provide 25% affordable housing on all
new housing; 25% of all new housing units have to be affordable, excluding the
Collaborative units.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the 200 supportive housing units would remain
affordable.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the
Collaborative wants to relocate and wants new facilities; staff believes there are mutual
benefits; the Collaborative would have new facilities which would better meet their
needs and the land could be used for market housing; the option is being explored.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry about prioritization, the City Manager
stated the prioritization order does not mean that staff is not working on others items;
the City will not have any trouble selling 1,435 units; most developers who have
approached the City in the last two years are home builders; detailed zoning is being
done for the Town Center; recruiting businesses is going to require more staff energy,
attention and imagination; housing does not need to be prioritized to happen.
Councilmember Chen inquired there pool of residential developers would be impacted
by a high vacancy rate at the Town Center.
The City Manager responded in the negative; stated when staff presents any project,
even retail, the project will not have a parking lot with stores around the perimeter;
another Alameda Landing will not be built and is not appropriate for the view; something
which creates a sense of space and destination would be built; other opportunities, such
as a campus or light industry, would be something the City could be proud of
architecturally; something special will be done for the location.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands the City can move forward on
more than one front and hopes the City does so; historically, the goal has been to
create new jobs to replace jobs lost when the Navy closed; the City needs sales tax
revenue; however, a wider view is needed; consideration should be given to the type of
jobs retail creates; hundreds of people working good construction and related trades
jobs have been at Alameda Landing for months; however, retail workers probably make
minimum wage; keeping Alamedans off busy highways to shop is a good thing; the
proposed retail opportunities cannot be supported by Alamedans alone; she supports
attractive waterfront developments, which has been discussed for years; lines can be
crossed and uses can be mixed; having high end retail development does not prevent
high end market rate residential, which would help pay for infrastructure; opportunities
will present themselves; as speakers said, the City should think big; amazing things can
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
10
Planning Board
September 25, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-04-02,5,"to which Ms. Young responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation, including
adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(13-138) Recommendation to Approve the Webster Street Business Improvement
Area's Annual Assessment Report; Resolution No. 14783, ""Resolution of Intention to
Levy an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street Business Improvement Area of the
City of Alameda for FY 2013-2014."" Adopted; and Set a Public Hearing for May 7, 2013
to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street Business Improvement Area.
Councilmember Daysog recused himself.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation, including adoption
of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
votes: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4.
Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(13-139) Resolution No. 14784, ""Appointing Dania Alvarez-Morroni as a Member of the
Planning Board.' Adopted;
(13-139 A) Resolution No. 14785, ""Appointing Stanley Tang as a Member of the
Planning Board."" Adopted; and
(13-139 B) Resolution No. 14786, ""Appointing Michael Robles-Wong 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. Alvarez-Morroni, Mr. Tang, and Mr. Robles-Wong.
(13-140) Resolution No. 14787, ""Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to
the Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees'
Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Alameda to Provide the Option for
Local Fire Members to Purchase Service Credit for Permanent Career Civilian Federal
Firefighter or Permanent Career State Firefighter Service."" Adopted; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 2, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2022-03-10,2,"to visit the new Tunnel Top Park in San Francisco Presidio by the Marina for inspiration as it is
an all-natural wood park, including play areas and a shining example.
Chair Alexander: Visited Chochenyo Park and was excited to see it finished and is looking
forward to the installation of the information signage. Attended the meeting for the new Lincoln
Park playground. Parents and kids gave good suggestions. Excited to hear the t-shirt league is
coming back this year as it will be the 70th year anniversary. Impressed by the Summer Activity
Guide. Sent a welcome note to Mastick Senior Center new employee Morace McKay, Recreation
Supervisor Il at Mastick Center. Would like to see an ARPD and Friends of the Park have a float
in the 4th of July parade.
AGENDA ITEMS
6-A Lincoln Park Playground Design
Director Wooldridge gave presentation which included background, site location, scope of work,
funding with the purchase of new large trees and an overview of playgrounds with diagrams. The
theme of the park is a jungle theme which tied in with the mascot of the park which is the Lincoln
Lions. The front area of Lincoln Park has space for options of a lion on rocks or an elephant.
6-A Public Comments - none
6-A Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Navarro: Excited about the new playground and that the kids had input.
Commissioner Nguyen: Appreciates the thoughtfulness of getting and feedback from the public
especially from the young kids. Also appreciates that new trees will be part of the plan.
Vice Chair Robbins: Happy that the natural trees will be kept to provide shade. Curious if there
could be a partial pour of ADA type surface without disturbing the trees. Director Wooldridge:
The wood chips migrate constantly and when it gets walked on it degrades the poured in place
surface which loses the integrity of the poured in place surface.
Chair Alexander: Votes to have the lion on the two rocks in honor of the Lincoln Lions. Will there
be benches around the playground? Director Wooldridge: Yes, the goal is for more benches and
one picnic table.
6-A Motion
Commissioner Navarro motioned to approve the Lincoln Park playground design as presented including
the lion on the rocks for the circular seating area.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Vice Chair Robbins
All present in favor with 4 ayes via roll call vote.
6-B Develop a Short List of Names for Alameda Point Neighborhood Park
Director Wooldridge gave presentation which included background, park location, design, park names
from survey and existing list. The goal tonight is to select a short list of no more than 10 names within
the previously approved criteria of the history of naval maritime, natural landscape and wildlife at
Alameda Point which will go back to the public for a second vote.
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2022-03-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-12-01,13,"to various types of industry growth.
Mr. Rentschler responded in the affirmative; stated the RHNA process is imperfect; questions
behind housing are difficult to solve and are being placed upon local government; there is an
attempt to capture complexities within processes; however, there will never be perfection.
Councilmember Vella stated the methodology takes many considerations into account; inquired
whether there is a focus on looking at job growth relative to the demand for housing.
Mr. Rentschler responded in the affirmative; stated this round in particular has focused on
seeking more housing where the job growth has occurred; there have been impacts on the
transportation systems; the issue remains that people live further from their job location; climate
objectives are met by having people live closer to where they work.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the goal is to have opportunities to live near good schools, libraries
and parks; outlined discussions related to the impacts of equity components on communities;
stated RHNA is not a popular component; however the housing crisis would continue to worsen
without it.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Alameda is the only City making the argument of being
unique.
Mr. Rentschler responded all cities are unique and also the same; stated Alameda has
restrictive access; outlined difficult access points for surrounding cities and counties; noted
Alameda County has a good bus service; stated hazards have been discussed at great lengths
and the main focus has been wildfires; climate change has also been discussed at length.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated every city has often felt a uniqueness
and argued constraints; it will be very difficult for Alameda to make a convincing argument to
lower the housing allocation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
December 1, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-12-01.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
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-02-07,3,"to use and members could even run the tally themselves; the Next Request
demonstration later tonight may help address and alleviate some of the Commission's
questions.
Speaker:
Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, congratulated Vice Chair Chen on the monumental task; stated
the Commission's duty is to enhance transparency of the government activities; ad hoc
committees are subject to the Brown Act; the Police study done last year should have
been open; the Commission needs to be very liberal when making recommendations to
the City Council as to what it should be doing; encouraged monthly PRA updates;
suggested Police PRAs also be reviewed by the Commission; the Commission should
define what is meant by ""private account"" regarding social media.
Commissioner Cambra stated he concurs with all the suggested edits made by Chair
LoPilato; suggested adding a brief description of ""creating a legislative affairs website"" in
addition to using the link to the Legislative Affairs for those folks who are reading a hard
copy; also suggested including the 2021 hearing results.
Vice Chair Chen stated the 2021 figures are included in the report; it is not listed in the
chart, but is included as text.
Commissioner Cambra stated there does not seem to be specific references back into
the report for the three cases listed in the appendix which occurred prior to 2021; inquired
if it would be appropriate to incorporate the data into the existing report.
Vice Chair Chen responded it due to time and COVID limitations; stated that she and
former Vice Chair Shabazz met on the phone several times to try to create the document
together; in actuality, two documents were created; the portion in the appendix was
created by former Vice Chair Shabazz without a give-and-take between the two of them;
she thought the information he had is important and worthy of being included; she decided
to include the information in an appendix with a disclaimer at the top; she is reluctant to
remove it as this is the first report and other things have happened before this report that
were not recorded anywhere in history; moving forward the report could be more precise.
Commissioner Tilos stated that he values the comments from Commissioner Cambra and
Vice Chair Chen; he believes over 80% of the message the Commission wants to convey
is in the report; he is comfortable with the report as is; there is valuable information in the
appendix and he does not want it removed; in the interest of time, he is leaning towards
the report being the final product.
Commissioner Montgomery moved approval of accepting the report with the edits.
Commissioner Tilos seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Chair LoPilato stated replacement language needs to be suggested
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,20,"to undo the work of the Renaming Committee.
Commissioner Chen stated that she really enjoyed reading the packet; she was
impressed about how much work the committee put into the renaming; it made three
dimensional the whole discussion about inclusion and bringing back hidden history; she
is ready to move forward with a vote.
Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Chen; stated he appreciates all the hard work
of the ARPD and RPC for including everyone in the community in the decisions; he is
ready to vote on the issue.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3. [Absent:
Commissioners Reid and Shabazz].
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the OGC is able to issue a decision that the
complaint was found to be unfounded.
Chair Tilos stated they used the term ""sustained"" when issuing a decision on past
complaints; deferred to the Chief Assistant City Attorney.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that based on her recollection of the motion, it
was slightly more involved; it is more appropriate and complete to have to vote match in
the written decision.
The City Clerk clarified that Commissioner LoPilato's initial motion included more detail,
but was then simplified to find the complaint unfounded primarily on procedural grounds.
Commissioner LoPilato stated there was alignment in the deliberations that there was
good public engagement in the process; inquired whether there was also alignment on a
finding that there was substantial compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance; stated, if so,
it should be part of the ultimate decision; another way to state it is that the issue was
cured and corrected by the public meetings.
Chair Tilos stated he did not want to go that route to show that the Commission was
talking about the ad hoc committees and not the methods used to cure it; it seems
redundant.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission to create the most complete
record possible; stated if the consensus or unanimity of the voting Commissioners is that
the decision was based on three factors, all the factors should be in the final, written
decision; it should be reflective of all the reasons the decisions was made.
Chair Tilos stated that he would be in agreement to include all Commissioner LoPilato's
reasons for reaching the decision.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
20",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-16,4,"to their campaigns and is helping fund their legal defense; requested Councilmembers
Oddie and Vella recuse themselves from participating in this matter; stated recusal
under these circumstances is well supported by the law because they have an obvious
conflict of interest; their conduct is clearly an issue; their conduct amounted to extortion
and bribery; they should not be allowed to serve as judge and jury in their own case;
under 1102.5, a public employee does not have to prove that the law was violated, she
only has to show a reasonable belief that the information she disclosed showed a
violation of law; both of these laws have been construed very broadly; he and Ms.
Cannata represented a whistleblower in a suit against the City and County of San
Francisco last year, which resulted in a verdict of $2.6 million, plus fees; he hopes it
does not come to that, but as many citizens have told Council tonight, the City would be
exposing itself to serious liability if it went ahead with the ill-advised decision which
seems to be on the agenda; he supports the release of the tapes and all versions, drafts
and redactions of the investigative report; Ms. Keimach has nothing to hide and wants
the tape released: Karl Olson, Attorney for Jill Keimach.
Stated that she is the City Attorney for five cities in the Bay Area and on the League of
California Cities Board of Directors; in her capacity as Town Attorney for the Town of
Moraga, she worked with Jill Keimach for over five years; Ms. Keimach is one of the
finest City Managers that she has ever worked with; despite the fact that there are
noticing problems with the meeting tonight and that complaints and charges are going to
be heard without the 24 hour notice, urged Council to take a reasoned, tempered
approach; the decision is very difficult; asked Council to consider the fact that there are
a lot of options, other than the drastic, unnecessary measure of terminating Jill
Keimach; urged Council to think of other options: Michelle Kenyon, Attorney for Jill
Keimach.
Stated that she has worked her entire career in the public sector; a key core of her
value system is to enhance the public's trust of government; trust that its elected and
appointed officials will put the interest of the larger community in the forefront of every
decision; trust that even behind closed doors officials will make decisions based on
what is best for the community and not their self-interest; she was put to the test in
Alameda to take the easy road and maintain the past practices or to make her life a little
more difficult by exposing unethical behavior; she chose the harder road and although it
was obviously difficult for all of us, her ethics and good governance would require her to
make all the same decisions again; she feels she has been successful in moving the
needle a little bit so that the residents are more aware of what is going on in Alameda
and the public's trust can be enhanced in the future; she worked hard and well with an
exceptional group of department heads and staff; stated a number of community and
Council priorities were accomplished; the controversy was created when she held to an
open and transparent process to hire a Fire Chief which resulted in the selection of a
Chief who is a good fit with the Fire Union and is working to increase departmental
revenues and improve processes; outlined her work on a Project Labor Agreement, the
animal shelter, the CalPERS unfunded pension liability, and the budget; stated whether
Council directs staff to schedule a mediation, decides to terminate her after she asked
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 16, 2018
4",CityCouncil/2018-04-16.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-13,7,"to the street and to the water.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch regarding the height limitation, Mr. Grayson replied that in
Harbor Bay, buildings could be constructed up to 35 feet. This particular site would be 34 feet.
Member Lynch believed that a 34 foot height limit was a limiting factor, and forced several parameters. He
would not mind having a three-story building on this site with proper massing. He believed that this project
was needed, and suggested that a second-floor entrance be considered. Mr. Grayson noted that one project
with that arrangement did not work as well as anticipated. He noted that his clients did not favor larger
buildings.
Mr. Stuart Sheinholtz, Venture Corporation, project developer, noted that they generally sold to small
businesses, and that the first project in Alameda was very successful. He noted that a very diverse group of
businesses were buying properties in the site. He agreed with Vice President Cook's comments. He noted
that this site was fully landscaped, and that they maximized their views; they made successful use of flex-
space.
Member Mariani would like to see a second, more creative submission by the architect, and that the space
could be used in a more accessible way on the weekends. Mr. Sheinholtz noted that this was primarily a
business park, and that when people used it on the weekends, they were able to enjoy the Bay. He noted
that if the buildings were swapped, there would be a view of the empty parking lot.
Member Kohlstrand noted that she did not have an issue regarding condominiums, and was concerned
about the site layout.
Member Lynch believed this use was needed, and believed the ability for the business owner to own the
real estate was very positive. He would like to see an alternative way for this site to be designed.
President Cunningham would like to see the design address the street.
Mr. Grayson noted that they took a very conservative approach to provide sufficient parking. President
Cunningham did not want architectural context to be sacrificed for a few parking spaces that may not be
used.
Mr. Grayson noted that the Harbor Bay Architectural Committee endorsed this project, as did City staff.
Member Lynch suggested that the applicant consider the height limitations, parking issues, rearticulating
the design and approaching the Board at the next meeting. He emphasized that the project itself was
supported, and that the design should be revised to reflect the Board's comments. He added that the
applicant could take better advantage of what the Bay has to offer. He noted that if the applicant could
provide a design rationale for altering the setbacks slightly, he would we willing to hear that.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the planning standards could not be abandoned, and that setbacks needed to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
February 13, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-01-11,6,"to the other buildings at Site A. He said he wondered about the entry to the senior building
and whether extending the canopy out would be necessary for seniors.
Board Member Burton said the overall project and site gestures are on a good footing. He
said he liked the ground floor active community spaces facing Appezzato. He said the side
street elevations were very flat and needed more articulation around the corners.
Board Member Sullivan said she liked the gardens, parklet and the family building. She
said she wants to see a drop off area right up close to the entrance of the senior building.
No action was taken.
7-D 2016-2437
Planning Board Workshop on Alameda Point Site A Design Review for
Waterfront Park
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments are available
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2540603&GUID=EDFBA20A-
2CD1-4023-8EF1-8FCC6203C2A1&FullText=
Joe Ernst of Alameda Point Partners gave the background on the project. The project
architect then gave the presentation on the park's design and programming.
Board Member Zuppan asked about water access for small boats and whether that was
in this phase. The architect said that it would hopefully be included with Building 113 which
is just outside of this area.
Board Member Sullivan asked whether a railing was being considered for the waterfront.
The architect said they have studied the issue and are considering different options.
Board Member Burton asked about the permeability of the promenade.
The architect explained the strategy for the surface and intentions to reuse much of the
concrete surface.
Board Member Köster asked about the potential to add steps down to the water.
The architect explained that they might be able to do that around the corner where the
riprap is, but in this section the fragility of the bulkhead and distance down to the water
prevented that.
Board Member Köster opened the public hearing.
6
Approved Minutes
January 11, 2016
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2016-01-11.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,4,"to the other Commissioners.
Commissioner Shabazz suggested Commissioner questions be asked within the five
areas of the draft recommendation to keep them organized and on topic.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she likes that approach; she has a couple of bigger-
picture questions; inquired whether it would be appropriate for her to lead with her over-
arching questions before jumping into the different Subcommittees, to which Chair Tilos
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired if the Committee could speak about the involvement and
efforts of the young people in the community; stated interactions with Police and youth
can really be impactful; she would like to hear how the young folks in the community were
engaged in the process.
Raquel Williams responded that she is a high school senior and was on the Systemic and
Community Racism Subcommittee; she was able to really be a part of the process and
being a young person gave her a different perspective; she has had her fair share of racist
encounters; she also has had standoffish and slightly scary encounters with the Police;
she was able to shed light on what she was feeling, especially how some language comes
off to someone who is young and at the beginning of her professional life; it definitely was
a process of learning and educating simultaneously; she was able to be a resource for
some people and, at the same time, use others as a resource for herself; there is
something different about a young person's encounter with the Police; it has been a
learning process as well as a ton of growth for her.
Ms. Wright stated from an overall perspective, it was important to engage the youth of
Alameda; the Committee did send engagement opportunities to the School District for
outreach in a newsletter; there were high hopes for every 12th grade government class in
Alameda to take the survey as extra credit; representation is super important.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she wishes she was live and in person so she could
give everyone a standing ovation for the incredible report and presentation, which is a
labor of love for the City; she noticed the thoroughness of the report and the level of data
and information received from the City in the process; inquired if anyone could speak to
their experiences in doing getting data; stated that she does not know if there has been
a collective push, which resulted in many record requests, what the process was like, and
whether they encountered any obstacles or resistance; inquired whether anything in their
experience might shed light on how the Commission could help make the process
smoother for other individuals or groups in the future seeking data.
Andrea Carlise responded the City was pretty responsive to the record requests, but that
it took several requests, especially specific requests to the Police Department; the
Transportation Planner and City staff were wonderful, but it felt like some of the initial
requests were put aside and it seemed as though they preferred not to respond directly
to questions asked, so she had to re-frame them; ultimately, the Subcommittees got the
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-09-07,2,"to the meeting. An Emergency meeting, a situation of dire emergency in which the City
Council can call as early as one hour notice. And finally a Dire Emergency meeting
(terrorist attack) which does not need any notice.
In response to Chair Anderson's inquiry regarding where closed sessions fall, Ms.
Highsmith responded, that important exceptions to the open meeting act are done in
closed session such as, real property negotiations. Another example of a closed
session is a discussion with the City Attorney's office for matters which are already in
litigation or threats of lawsuit or threats that have come to us. Labor negotiations are
another exception. However closed sessions must be identified on the agenda with the
topic and the government code that applies. Once the closed session meeting is
adjourned, the Mayor must report action taken, if any. Once an item is completed,
everything that was discussed in closed session, except attorney-client privileged
information, must be disclosed to the public.
In response to Vice-Chair Miller's inquiry regarding examples of Emergency meetings,
Ms. Highsmith responded, earthquake, fire, city-wide emergency.
The three basic principles (or purpose) of the agenda are getting the public to the
meeting, (i.e., date, time, place), know what items will be discussed or required action,
and encourage participation. For the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) Regular meetings
must be posted 72 hours in advance. The agenda language should be stated such that
anyone reading it will know what is being discussed. Anything that is not in their
purview should not be on the agenda. For example, if a speaker comes before the
Board and begins to speak to something that the local body can't do anything about
such as a matter in a different city, the Chair should advise the speaker that they can't
do anything but take the issue to the appropriate venue.
Chair Anderson stated that the HAB is frequently told that they are discussing things
that are not in their purview.
Ms. Highsmith stated that the Board should not spend time discussing things that are
not in their purview, or worse take action on things that another Board might have
already acted upon. It is o.k. to refer them to another body. Rather than relay it to the
other venue for them. Ms. Highsmith noted that the Board should never take an action
on something that wasn't on the agenda. That will be a void action. Ms. Woodbury
added that the Board may ask staff to place an item on a future agenda.
The public may speak on any item on the agenda. Before the Board begins deliberation
the public has the right to speak so that it can be included in the Boards deliberation.
The public may speak on any item that is within the Board's jurisdiction that is not on the
agenda, during Oral Communications. You can not require the speaker to give their
name. The public has the right to have a copy of the meeting packets. In addition
if
someone wants to submit documents to the Board they must make a copy for the public
as well.
Minutes of September 7, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,7,"to the Transportation Commission.
Councilmember Knox White responded a lot of transportation conversations are not
focused on the City's set goals; stated that he would rather the matter return to Council
for guidance before it goes to the Transportation Commission.
Vice Mayor Vella stated perhaps the direction on the transportation corridors could be
removed; there should be a broader conversation about goals and the efficacy of what
has been done; she would like to see the City exploring different infrastructure options;
WiFi does not exist without infrastructure; where money comes from is separate; there
could be other grants; it could be difficult for staff to go after funding if there is not a
policy in place; staff needs to understand the direction from Council; she would like to
hear more from her colleagues and understand how they want to address infrastructure.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff thinks more funding is needed
to support the Library hot spots; stated that she would like to break the direction down
into parts; expressed support for WiFi across the Island.
The Assistant City Manager responded staff has the funding needed; the ARPA
discussions will be back in December to get formal authorization to spend the funds;
specific amounts for projects are being fleshed out; $50,000 seems adequate for the
program and timeframe; more information will return in December.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she looks forward to the conversation
returning in December; regarding the rest of the Plan, she agrees with Councilmember
Knox White and thinks more time should be spent on the specific items; she is not ready
to proceed with committing $6 million and does not see ARPA as the appropriate
funding source.
Councilmember Daysog stated staff put together and provided costs for 10
recommendations to meet Smart City goals; the Council is raising questions which will
come back; his question is about better understanding the ISP business model;
Councilmember Knox White is focused on transit; staff provided an envelope of
recommendations; Council has follow up question for certain areas; Councilmember
Herrera Spencer raised questions about the digital divide; staff will come back, which
might result in some things falling off; staff provided a starting point for Council to have
a conversation and get the Smart City program going; having ARPA funds is great;
perhaps other funds will be available in the future.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Daysog; discussed ARPA funds;
stated the way people work has changed dramatically; a Chamber of Commerce
speaker indicated it will take a few years for people to return to offices; infrastructure is
needed to support people working from home; discussed telemedicine; stated that she
has questions about the additional staffing; she wants estimates and funding sources;
ARPA is for one-time expenditures; concurred with Councilmember Knox White's
request for information on where programs have been used successfully; stated the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
6",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-11-08,2,"to the Planning Board for approval. The joint project between the Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (proponent) and the City of Alameda (property owner) is requesting
feedback on the project.
Mr. MCGartherty, project planner for WETA, presented the project to the Board. WETA is
transitioning the operations of the Alameda Ferry System and proposes to locate the
emergency/operations to Alameda. The project would house the over-night berthing for 11
vessels, refueling, light maintenance repair station, a fixed pier. Some dredging and
shoreline reconfiguration will be required. The building is proposed to be approximately
22,500 sf, 4 stories, and 65 ft in height and designed with sustainable design principles.
The project consultant, Roma Design project leader, discussed the planning process and
the reasons for locating to Alameda.
Board Member Auturino asked for the location of employee parking and the current location
of vessel berthing.
The project planner stated that most of the parking would be located off-site. The majority of
vessels are berthed in different locations in San Francisco and Mare Island, not all vessels
would be berthed at the Alameda location, once open. It would only berth the Central Bay
fleet and any future expansion of vessels in service.
Board Member Autorino asked for clarification on the extent of light maintenance.
The project planner stated that the facility will have a crane for light repair services, but not
a dry dock for heavy maintenance.
Board Member Autorino asked whether the Hornet had been contacted about relocating.
Mr. Thomas stated that the Hornet is involved in this location, and that the relocation of the
Hornet would likely be closer to the seaplane lagoon, which ultimately will garner a lot of
pederstrian and tourism traffic. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) fleet would be
consolidated to the lower piers, which is a secured area.
Board Member Kolstrand asked for clarification on the size of the facility and the
approximate timelines for potential expansion of uses.
The project planner stated that the site is 12,000 sf and one acre of water area. The
proposed facility represents the anticipated maximum expansion capacity of 10 permanent
berthing for 10 vessels including one transient vessel berth: three for Oakland-Alameda
ferry service, three Harbor Bay ferry service, two for the South San Francisco ferry service
starting in September 2011 and two for Berkeley starting 2013 (pending approvals).
Board Member Ibsen asked about the distinction between regular and emergency fueling
capacity and how the tank would be secured against spills.
The project planner stated that both fueling options would be served by the 48,000 gallons
fuel tank, with emergency fueling with a 14 to 21 day capacity. The tank has not been fully
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
2 OF 4
PLANNING BOARD 11/8/2010",PlanningBoard/2010-11-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,5,"to the Housing Element of the General Plan pursuant to State Law and Government
Code regulations. The Housing Element provides a seven year plan to address the
housing needs of current and future Alameda citizens. The Planning Board will hold
a public workshop to review and discuss revisions to the Draft Housing Element that
may be necessary to comply with State of California requirements.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided a brief Power Point presentation
about the Draft Housing Element under the City of Alameda's General Plan. He also
outlined the public process and the upcoming schedule to finalize the document.
Jennifer Gastelum, Service Lead for Pacific Municipal Consultants, worked on and
certified 41 housing elements in her career. She presented the remaining Power Point
presentation, which explained the California Department of Housing and Community
Development's (HCD) 8-page response to the City of Alameda's Draft Housing Element
document. The HCD's comments were separated into three categories: 1) Land
Inventory; 2) Constraints and 3) State Law Updates.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked staff to define zoning and allocating land for emergency
shelters.
Jennifer Gastelum, explained that emergency shelters were defined for the homeless not
for natural disasters.
Andrew Thomas explained that he had two requests from the Board. He first wanted to
make sure they understood what staff and the Planning Board were diving into regarding
the schedule and public process. He also, explained that staff is looking for strategies to
make this process as successful as possible.
President Ezzy Ashcraft responded that many people attending the meeting have not
read the staff report, thus she asked staff to give an example of multi-family housing in
the Alameda.
Mr. Thomas explained that in the staff report under attachment 3, there are many
examples of multi-family buildings that the public can recognize, which would help
educate and inform the public. He went on to give an example of the density found at the
221 Clinton Avenue. The building contains 7-units of multi-family rental housing built
many years ago. He found that illustrating various housing types and densities within the
staff report shows HCD that the City has made land available for residential density.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board member questions or comments and there
none.
President Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment.
Joy Chin-Malloy, Alameda resident for 32 years, stated that she has four children and
none of her children feel they are welcomed into the City. Her youngest child would like
to live in the City, and he has moved his family into her home. However, her neighbors
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-07-12,12,"to the Fair Housing Act to exclude certain people. He liked the inclusion of the transit-
oriented mixed-use housing on the two Main Streets. He discussed densities and gave
the idea of putting minimum densities in as a guidepost and not mentioning maximum
densities. He also suggested striking the term ""Mount Trashmore"" from the General Plan.
He didn't agree with the comments that ignored the objective reality of the density
increases they would have to meet and he rejected the claim that putting densities into
the General Plan would encourage demolition of existing buildings.
Leora Feeney appreciated standardizing the name for the Alameda Wildlife Reserve in
the General Plan and choosing a name for it. She requested to consider not using the
term Alameda Point Nature Reserve but to use Alameda Wildlife Reserve. She explained
that the reason for this was because the tag Alameda Wildlife Refuge had been in
existence in Alameda with the Fish and Wildlife Service and others for 27 years. She
discussed all the materials, banners, and documents that had this name. She had gone
over the revised General Plan and had seen five or six ways the property had been
referred to. She hoped they would support calling it officially the Alameda Wildlife
Reserve.
Chris Aria, Chair of the Harbor Bay Club Members Committee, discussed how their goal
was to preserve the location as a recreational space. He discussed how in the first draft
of the General Plan the land use element had the Harbor Bay designated as medium
density residential and now in the update, it was designated as Community Mixed-Use
and he was curious about what motivated this change. He wanted to know more about
what was the Planning Board's goal for the Harbor Bay Club's land. He represented over
100 club members and these were their concerns. He said he would be following up with
an email and wanted to make sure the club members had their concerns addressed.
Chris Buckley, from the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society, discussed a letter that
they had sent the night before and thanked Director Thomas for addressing some of those
questions. He also thanked the staff and the board for incorporating many of the
comments AAPS had previously submitted into the General Plan revision. Responding to
Director Thomas's game plan, there seemed to be a disconnect between where
the Housing Element was going and where the rest of the General Plan was going. He
advised that after the General Plan was together, get the Housing Element together before
sending anything to the City Council. He went over other recommendations that were in
the letter. Keeping the text that was proposed for deletion in section 1.3, he thought that
text was very relevant for preserving the architectural character of existing historic
neighborhoods. For residential densities, he thought the Housing Element should come
up with those numbers. He believed they should be careful about upzoning since it was
difficult to down zone afterward. For section 9 he recommended keeping those provisions
in.
Carmen Reid thanked everyone for their work on the revised General Plan. She
commented on the lot sizes. She believed it was important to retain 5,000 square feet
minimum lot sizes in the low-density residential land use neighborhoods. She believed
that decreasing the size would encourage lot splits and would architecturally disrupt
neighborhoods. She wanted the board to be mindful of the quality of life for the residents
and how decreasing lot sizes would negatively affect neighborhoods. She also believed
that any board member who owned a property larger than 5,000 square feet who would
benefit financially from a lot split should consider recusing themselves from weighing in
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 12 of 18
July 12, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,7,"to the City Manager and request the matter be placed on the agenda.
Mayor Johnson stated the problem with that [individual
Councilmembers directing placing items on the agenda] is that it
gets into the area of one Councilmember directing staff.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Councilmembers are not doing SO.
Mayor Johnson stated agenda items have staff reports; one
Councilmember directing staff to do necessary work, create a staff
report and place the matter on an agenda is in violation of the
Charter.
Councilmember deHaan stated said situation has not occurred on the
current Council's watch.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot remember said event
happening that he has never gone to the City Manager and requested
a matter be placed on the agenda; that he brings up the issue under
Council Communications to get the consensus to agree to place the
matter on the agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated big box is an example; there was not a
full vote by the Council, however, bringing up and discussing the
issue was still a healthy thing; that he wants to put matters on
the agenda to hear more about the issue, costing staff hours is a
different thing.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has not gone to the City Manager and
requested something be placed on the agenda; it sounds like
Councilmembers have not done so; that she views the proposal as
formalizing what is done now; the Council has always been very
generous in complying with requests [to place matters on the
agenda].
Councilmember deHaan stated there have not been problems in the
past; that he does not foresee future problems questioned whether
this [the proposal] is Mayor Johnson's recommendation
Mayor Johnson responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who put the matter on the agenda.
Mayor Johnson responded it was part of the workshop.
The City Manager stated it was an outcome of the workshop ; part of
the task to staff was to develop the form; due to the way the
system is set up, a resolution is required to put a new section on
Regular Meeting
7
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-04-06,11,"to specific crimes that have already occurred; there needs to be clarity as to the reason things
are being posted; due to posts, residents think assaults are up this year; however, they are
down from the previous year; car theft has gone up; Council should be discussing how to
prevent car thefts; the communications goals as-written are mostly great; he does not know how
staff members can be expected to know what the City is asking to have communicated;
expressed support for providing direction that communications goals be fleshed out more in
alignment with public comments and Council priorities.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council can depend on the professional judgement of the Police
Chief and Command staff, as well as the City Manager; he does not think it is a role of City
Council to micromanage social media posts; expressed support for Councilmember Herrera
Spencer putting on the pressure for APD to have the social media account up; noted there had
been an indeterminate amount of time when APD's social media posts would be down; many
residents have shared their opinions about the matter; APD is paid a lot of money to do their
jobs; Council needs to focus on policy instead of telling the City Manager and Police Chief how
to post to social media.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about how long APD social media posts were down
and why posts returned.
The City Manager stated the policy direction was approved by the City Manager's Office and
authorization was given to put APD's social media back up last week.
Vice Mayor Vella stated data and oversight was just requested for people providing essential
services to prevent homelessness; she is shocked to hear a desire for extensive oversight for
homeless services and no oversight for APD; expressed concern about the type of information
being shared and to whom; stated posts impact public perception and can cause people to
become worried about things unnecessarily; Council should be careful about the information
shared to ensure fear is not being caused when there is no reason to raise alarm; it is Council's
job to weigh-in and create policies to ensure people are not misusing social media or following
accounts that are propagating misinformation; there could be more to the proposed policy; the
policy is a step in the right direction; sections of the proposed policy are a huge improvement
from what existed before; there is no clear direction about which accounts to follow or which
posts to like and retweet; it is difficult to develop concise social media policies due to constantly
changing platforms; Council needs to have a more coherent overall structure City-wide for all
social media.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the APD social media posts
related to crimes because assaults are up 9.7% according to the Interim Police Chief; robberies
are up 19%; auto thefts are at a 35 year high up 16% over the previous year; shootings are up
dramatically; APD tips are helpful for the public to be aware of robberies, shootings and violent
crimes; numbers are significantly up and the data from the Interim Police Chief should be used.
Councilmember Knox White stated data is important when contextualized; in the previous year,
assaults were the second lowest in 35 years; a year to year increase can occur; it is possible for
increases from the lowest point; trends should be tracked; trends differ from posting about 14
assaults, which makes Alameda appear to be under a siege of assaults; Council can agree that
people need to be informed about what is happening; having the context to understand the
information is important; he would rely heavily on the Police Chief and APD staff to provide both;
currently, APD does not put out the information and context; outlined his push to have crime
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
April 06, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,9,"to speak.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Congleton noted that the sales tax revenue estimation was based on her professional assessment
of the number of households and amount of affluence adequate to support this store. She added that
if Target needed off-Island customers, they would not be so enthusiastic about this central Alameda
location. She did not see the traffic issues as significant, and noted that intra-Alameda traffic would
also reduce the number of trips off-Island to Targets in other cities. She noted that she was not a
traffic engineer.
President Cunningham would like to see more detailed information to support the report. Ms.
Congleton advised that she could provide a detailed demand analysis.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand whether off-Island shopped would be attracted to this
store, Ms. Congleton replied that Alameda residents would not go to Target stores off-Island if there
was a local Target. She believed that the South Shore location would not attract off-Island shoppers,
as it would if it has easy freeway access. She added that the resident base in Alameda has increased
in income and shopping sophistication, and that the very low discount stores that had been in South
Shore were not attractive to the current demographic.
Vice President Cook would like to see more objective data, and noted that there were no easy
Targets to get to from Alameda and Oakland and traffic from Oakland may therefore be greater than
anticipated.
Ms. Congleton noted that while there had been some negative press about Wal-Mart, she was
unaware of anywhere in the nation where a Target has caused closures of small businesses. She
believed a Target strengthened local retail by meeting shopping needs, resulting in less retail
leakage.
President Cunningham echoed the Board's requests for more data to support that assertion.
Mr. Lynch noted that he liked shopping on the Island, and inquired how merchants' goals had been
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-06-01,13,"to serve the public and create avenues of transparency, so that complaints are fairly
evaluated and heard in a timely manner; she disagrees with the City Attorney's Office
that three complaints this year indicates an unreasonable uptick; the current status of
the Commission falls short of reaching reasonable goals; outlined her proposal for
lessening the proposed five year complaint restriction; stated citizens voices should not
be silenced; expressed concern about political undertones; urged a focus on the goal of
serving Alamedans; outlined the City Attorney's role for the OGC; expressed support for
a goal setting strategy: Carmen Reid, OGC.
Stated that he strongly opposes the changes proposed; there have been
demonstrations for the need of a strong OGC and Public Records Act (PRA)
enforcement mechanism; urged Council to gain a sense of the issues the OGC faces;
stated the City's loss at a recent hearing appears to be behind the proposed changes;
the City wins most cases heard by the OGC; the City should not get to change the rules
due to a loss; expressed support for the independent and citizen-led nature of the OGC;
stated a Hearing Officer model will gut the PRA process; the City has languished at
PRA's; a strong enforcement mechanism is needed; the fines under the Sunshine
Ordinance are minimal; eliminating fines is strategic in order to reduce or eliminate
possible remedies to OGC complaints in court; urged Council to reject the staff
recommendation: Erin Fraser, Alameda.
Stated recent trends are disturbing; City staff has aggressively been promoting its
agenda to Board and Commission members; expressed support for staff pursuing a
more agreeable and collaborative relationship with Boards and Commissions; stated
there have been recent steps taken to gut the OGC; expressed concern about ad hoc
committees being exempt from Brown Act requirements; urged Council help remedy the
situation: Matt Reid, Alameda.
Stated that he opposes the proposed changes; those who have taken the time to submit
correspondence and speak publically oppose the changes; he is familiar with the RRAC
operations; the argument that potential violations of the Sunshine Ordinance should be
brought before the rent control Hearing Officers is not correct; issues and violations of
the Sunshine Ordinance affect all Alamedans; outlined policies set and enforced by
Planning Boards; discussed appeals: William Smith, Alameda.
Urged Council to consider other options and effects on trust in government; stated that
she has experience as a resident looking to participate in local government; now, more
than ever, it is important to have accessibility in order to address issues; it is clear that
the proposed matter is restricting accountability and ability to be involved in local
government: Ashley Lorden, Alameda.
Stated that he is surprised by some of the proposal; the staff report mischaracterizes
some of the recent OGC discussions; the Sunshine Ordinance and OGC are in the 10 th
year of existence; it is a good time to evaluate the last 10 years; expressed support for a
process for access, and Council giving direction to the OGC and staff regarding the
purpose of the OGC; stated an understanding of the role and any expansion or focus
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 1, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-06-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-05-15,9,"to serve and have the force of the Council behind her.
Councilmember Tam stated regional equity and geographic equity are the type of issues
representatives should advocate.
Councilmember Johnson stated the matter should be placed on agenda for discussion.
The Public Works Director stated staff can work with the Planning Board on the internal
policy for the regional boards for greenhouse effects, sea level rise, cost overruns, and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
May 15, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-16,5,"to see the investigative report or decides to reinstate her, she will continue to appreciate
the dedicated staff of Alameda: Jill Keimach.
Expressed support for Jill Keimach remaining the City Manager; stated Ms. Keimach
has elicited a sense of enthusiasm and team unity amongst staff; outlined the residents
siding with Ms. Keimach on the rent and financial ballot measures; stated firing Ms.
Keimach sends a signal that political connections, not professional judgements, matter
to City Hall; urged Council to keep Ms. Keimach, Councilmembers to recuse themselves
and to release all the information: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda.
Stated in the interest of transparency, she requests that Council release the tapes and
all uncensored reports regarding the hiring of the Fire Chief: Jeanne Allen, Alameda.
Stated many are shocked about what is occurring at City Hall; verified reports of the
tape recording seem to show Councilmembers Oddie and Vella were trying to
intimidate, cajole and suggest rewards to get Ms. Keimach to hire their Fire Chief
candidate; the victim is wrongly being portrayed as the perpetrator of the problem;
discussed squandering tax dollars; urged Ms. Keimach continue as City Manager: Marie
Kane, Alameda.
Submitted his comments; expressed concern over Councilmembers interfering with
hiring decisions, the legal advice regarding the recording, and the investigative report
not being released: Michael Metcalf, Former Moraga Councilmember.
Urged the Council to demonstrate true leadership, admit and correct mistakes and put
Ms. Keimach back in service: Jay Ingram, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the public comments being made; stated recording
conversations is illegal; expressed support for Councilmembers Oddie and Vella: Mike
Henneberry, Alameda.
Stated the meeting is not about politics; it is about a line in the law; personal interests
should be set aside: Erik Strimling, Alameda.
Discussed the character of Jill Keimach; urged Council to bring back Ms. Keimach:
Christine Chilcott, Alameda.
Expressed concern over Jill Keimach not being evaluated for almost two years and the
current evaluation being retaliatory: Sally Rudloff, Alameda.
Discussed sharing the investigative report with Ms. Keimach and releasing it to the
public; suggested seeking advice from independent legal counsel; questioned whether
the Council has considered progressive discipline; discussed costs: Don Margolis.
Compared Alameda to Washington D.C; stated that she wants hear the recordings and
read the original investigative report to make an informed decision; urged Council to not
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 16, 2018
5",CityCouncil/2018-04-16.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-07-11,5,"to screen the homes from the adjacent commercial property.
Board member Kohlstrand made a motion, seconded by board member Zuppan, to approve
the project as amended. Approved as amended 5-0.
9-B
PLN08-0479 - 1051 Pacific Marina Review of Compliance with Conditions of
Approval. Pursuant to the conditions of approval of PLN08-0479, the Planning
Board will be reviewing compliance of these conditions at this public hearing.
Any interested person is invited to attend and give testimony regarding the
stated conditions of approval as well as their opinions as to the compliance of the
project with its conditions of approval. Further, at this hearing the Planning Board will
have the authority to modify any condition of approval that they determine as
appropriate to meet the findings prescribed for this permit as well as the spirit and
intent of the Alameda Municipal Code.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch Planning Services Manager, summarized the project history
and noted changes in the staff report given an update by the property owner.
Board member Zuppan asked if the condition of approval regarding the preparation of food
has been addressed.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the commercial kitchen has not been used at this
site by the current tenant.
Board member Zuppan asked for clarification on the business that was operating at this site.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the operator has been the same, however, the
name of the business under which the operator was operating had been different. This
situation has been remedied since the report was written.
The board limited all speakers to three minutes.
President Ezzy-Ashcraft opened the public comment period.
Ms. Maria Powers-Bush, business operator for Hannah's on the Bay, elaborated on the
business operations since December 2010 and the kitchen use to date. She reinforced that
she makes every effort to comply with the conditions of approval as stipulated by the Use
Permit.
Mr. Michael Hershey, member of the Oakland Yacht Club, asked whether there have been
compliance investigation reports in the past and whether these would be available for
review. He also asked who the current business operator is and how they obtained
permission to operate. Further, he asked for clarification on how the current operator can
honor the previous operator's contracts. He would like to see that the conditions be enforced
regardless of operator.
Mr. Thomas Charron, neighbor, elaborated on his past and current investigative efforts on
the various licensing of the operators. He observed non-compliance with the conditions for
APPROVED Minutes
Page 5 of 7
7/11/11
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2011-07-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-07-20,24,"to review, to which Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired why the last, best, and final
offer was provided five days before the meeting.
Mr. Brown responded SunCal has had weekly meetings with staff on the entire Alameda
Point project; stated numerous issues have been addressed; the DDA had to be written
to meet the schedule and the schedule was achieved; two or three drafts have been
shared with staff.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Mr. Brown has
been privy to concerns regarding the job/housing imbalance, economic development
strategy, traffic, and endangered species prior to the staff report going out; stated
SunCal knew what needed to be tackled; that he does not know whether a requested
commercial study has been provided; SunCal's mode of operation has been the 11
th
hour.
Mr. Brown responded the traffic study has been an on-going effort for the last four
years; recently, the public has been engaged.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is different from the
traffic study developed from the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Mr. Brown responded that he does not know, but SunCal's Transportation Consultant
would know.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when SunCal hired its
Transportation Consultant.
Jim Daisa, SunCal Transportation Consultant, responded he was hired approximately 9
months ago or longer.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the traffic study was
prepared.
Mr. Daisa responded that he has not prepared a traffic study; however, he has
developed a transportation strategy.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the PDC traffic study
differs.
Mr. Daisa responded the PDC study was an impact study, which is not what SunCal
prepared; SunCal's transportation strategy is consistent with, and has some level of
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
12
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
July 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-07-17,8,"to rethink the parking requirement for both conditional
permitted uses and permitted uses so that the rezoning must be
accompanied by the valuation.
Mayor Johnson stated that having the policy direction is a good
suggestion.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Services
Manager had recommended verbiage.
The Planning Services Manager stated language could be added to
include that non-residential uses are preferred along the truck
route; however, if residential uses are proposed along the truck
route, design must minimize impacts with truck routes; a parking
policy would be inserted in the guiding section regarding re-
examining the parking requirements to ensure there is adequate
parking for all sites, both permitted and conditionally
permitted uses; the Encinal Terminals height policy would be
moved to the guiding policy; the Planning Board's additional
language would be removed; the height would be described as a
number of feet [not stories) and would be comparable to the Wind
River buildings.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she wants to ensure that there is
consistency in the great strides to reduce the number of
vehicles through joint or shared parking programs in order to
avoid displacing waterfront property and maximizing public
access; she hopes that the issue is clear pervasively, not just
at the Del Monte site.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there are any proposals
for industrial use.
The Planning Services Manager responded industrial use proposals
are not coming in because of the loss of rail and shipping uses.
Mayor Johnson stated Harbor Bay Business Park has a better
opportunity for industrial because the Business Park provides
easy access off of Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan stated noticing was a concern for Alameda
Landing; staff should be vigilant to ensure that notification is
not limited to 300 feet of the existing neighborhoods.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions with
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-12-02,2,"to reimburse; a ledger should be prepared showing the balance of
the reimbursements on both sides; $2 million was spent on the
hospital that burned down; all future updates should show the
balance on both sides.
The Economic Development Director continued the presentation.
Chair Johnson inquired what Catellus is supposed to be doing now.
The Economic Development Director responded Catellus is supposed to
be moving forward with the project; stated milestones provide
outside deadlines i new design review is needed for the alternative
first phase; continued the presentation.
Chair Johnson requested information on the number of people
employed for the Stargell project.
Commissioner Tam stated $3 million was borrowed from the Sewer Fund
because Catellus was not able to provide the match for the STIP;
inquired how the amount would be repaid.
The Economic Development Director responded lease revenues from the
Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) budget stated a minimum of
$90,000 has to be repaid each year; however, the plan is to repay
the full amount in five years.
Commissioner Tam stated that she was asking about the Sewer Fund
because letters have been received about rat infestations at
Alameda Point; there have been sewer overflow issues; that she is
concerned about repayment in the event a major repair is needed.
The Economic Development Director stated lease revenues from ARRA
cover Alameda Point; funds are separate.
The Interim Executive Director stated there are questions about
whether the rat infestation is the ARRA portion of the sewer or
somewhere else; the matter could be addressed later; the loan was
done because staff felt it was important to protect STIP funding.
the Public Works Director would address the Sewer Fund at a later
time.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the CIC has to repay the Sewer Fund;
inquired whether CIC funds are vulnerable to State taking, to which
the Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated FISC funds would be used first.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
2
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-31,4,"to read the material and contact the Planning & Building Department with questions or concerns they
may have. She noted it would be helpful if staff continues to move toward the goal of more advanced
time for the Board to review packets and have questions addressed in a timely manner.
Ms. Woodbury mentioned being able to trust staff to enable staff member to give direction and ideas
to a project. She also mentioned adding conditions and making sure they are enforceable.
Board member Mariani requested e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and extensions for staff.
Vice President Cook noted that she has not received more than a handful of electronic e-mail
communications from the public before meetings but she has received hard copy e-mails before
meetings.
Ms. Jackson informed the Board that generally correspondence received from the public comes in the
day of their meeting and is then forwarded to the Planning Board members.
Ms. Woodbury continued with her PowerPoint presentation. She noted that when projects come
before the Board, it is important to remember that no project is perfect when it begins. She also
noted that the Board could potential approve a project in concept and give staff and the applicant
clear direction. She stated to the Board that she understood the only way the Board could do this is if
they really trusted staff. She assured the Board that staff would continue to work with the Board to
improve communication and gain their trust. She noted there is a comprehensive training schedule for
staff to improve their condition of approval writing abilities since new staff has been hired in the last
four months.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding what the Planning Department's
role is in policing projects to ensure projects are in compliance with conditions and what the penalties
are for noncompliance, Ms. Woodbury responded it depends on the conditions. She noted that it is
the Planning & Building Department's responsibility to monitor and enforce conditions.
Board member Kohlstrand commented on the packet deliver times and feels that packets and agendas
should be available at least a week in advance for adequate review. She also mentioned approving
projects in concept and providing direction to staff. She would like the City Attorney to take a more
proactive role in meetings. She commended the Planning Services Manager, Andrew Thomas, on his
ability to gather the Board's comments to ensure their conditions are adequately documented on
projects he brings before the Board.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Board member Kohlstrand's comment on having the
City Attorney take more of a proactive role an the meetings. She also suggested that some staff
reports be more clearly written to help everyone have a clear plan of action to approve or deny
projects based on findings.
Vice President Cook concurred with Board member Kohlstrand's comment on more assistance and
guidance from the City Attorney during the meetings. She also suggested follow-ups on projects that
have previously come before the Board to ensure that what the Board approved is what the project
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
January 31, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-05-19,18,"to questions.
James Edison, Willdan Financial Services, responded to questions on the transfer tax.
The Chief Operating Officer responded to additional questions.
Mayor Spencer stated she would like the condominium rent chart to include household
size and square foot size.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why street related funds are negatively impacted
if the developer is paying so much into backbone infrastructure costs.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded there are no dedicated street
revenues, thus the cost to maintain roads and sidewalks creates an impact.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if the net impact of distributing $300,000 over 800
units is $375.00 per residence, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point
responded in the affirmative.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point continued the presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many years the $900,000 deficit is
expected to last, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the
assumption is the deficit will last from buildout going forward; more commercial, retail,
and business-to-business users are factors which influence the deficit; assumptions are
conservative.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer -
Alameda Point stated the deficit is paid from a special tax; every development will pay a
fair share of the $900,000 deficit; once development is complete, there will be sufficient
funds to cover the deficit without any impact; the hope is the development will be
successful; using conservative protections going forward is key.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the special tax revenue has already been
assigned to expenditures.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded there will be a gradual increase
in in revenues and expenditures over time; property transfer tax revenues will be
realized when the first townhomes are sold; expenditures increase as calls for service
increase.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the revenue would go to the General Fund or
be segregated to base reuse, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point
responded revenues would go to the General Fund.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point continued the presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
May 19, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2016-10-12,11,"to put people up in hotels or that sort of thing, but we can certainly get the fees to get the folks out.
And we should note this for next year. Or if you want to go next year, we can set that up early and
get everything ready to go. We did it kind of last minute this time, but it worked out just fine.
Anto Aghapekian: After two days of really good fun, waking up early in the morning and hopping
on the ferry boat, and going to a conference, that was fun. But more fun was all the resources that
were available during the two days, I was amazed how much knowledge was being distributed that
day, or during those two days. The one that struck me the most was when they spoke about the civil
rights, and how important it was that we do consider Title 13 to be not only an ordinance, but it is
part of our civil rights, it's part of our Constitution. And that struck me very, very strongly, and I'm
glad that it did, it was a wakeup call. But the rest was just a revision of the standards, architectural
codes, and the guidelines, it was just a revision, a refresher. But also it reminded me that there are
many confusing guidelines between Federal, the State and the local ordinances, each one has its
own definition, and its own guidelines. So, I would call it a moving target, you're guessing,
basically, which code to comply with. So it is difficult to navigate that.
Anto Aghapekian: But other than that, it was very educational, it was captivating, there were some
conferences that were happening at the same time and we jumped going back and forth between the
conferences, listening 10 minutes here to 10 minutes there, just to pick up as to what was going on.
It was fascinating, and I hope that they'll have it again, and I would love to go, and encourage the
other Commissioner also to go, it was very educational.
Elizabeth Kenny: Thank you very much.
La Donna Franco: Excuse me, Commissioner Kenny, if I can just add one more thing and maybe
propose something to the Commission. As far as the service animal workshop goes, there was so
much information, I was thinking and wanted to propose to the Commission if inviting a
representative from the ADA, Pacific ADA Center, to speak on service animals with a brief
presentation, and make that more accessible to Alameda businesses at large?
Elizabeth Kenny: I think that would be a great idea, and we can look into that. Currently our
December meeting agenda is pretty full, we're going to be discussing emergency preparedness. We
have several different presenters. So it would be great to set it up for the February meeting.
La Donna Franco: Thank you.
Tony Lewis: I just wanted to mention along with that emergency preparedness, and I don't know
who the person is that's speaking, but we did have a person from Sacramento who spoke on
emergency preparedness, and how many cities, counties have emergency preparedness plans that
include people with disabilities. And I'm not sure if that's
Kerry Parker: Tony, I wonder what they want to speak to us about. Public Works wishes to have
Sharon Oliver from the Fire Department, and she's our Disaster Preparedness Director, er, I can't
remember what her title is, but it's something like that, she wants to come and speak with the
Commission about that very thing. Sorry to interrupt you.
Tony Lewis: Okay. Yes, well I'm just saying that on a State level, this person was outlining what
was required in terms of emergency preparedness for people with disabilities. So I don't know if
Page 11",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-10-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,8,"to provide input; delaying the project would be the issue.
The Public Works Director stated Council approval would be good for two years; after a
year, an informational meeting would be held, but the decision would still stand.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she wants to resolve the problem of having the
public attend a meeting and Council not being able to do anything about it.
The Public Works Director stated the Council decision would be final provided that the
project commences within two years of Council approval; an informational community
meeting would be held three weeks prior to commencement of the project if construction
occurs one year after Council approval.
The Assistant City Manager inquired whether an informational item would be presented
to Council or a community meeting would be held, to which the Public Works Director
responded a community meeting would be held.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she does not think that people know to water their
street trees; suggested providing information to the public regarding the matter.
Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation with
modifications discussed.
Councilmember Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(11-609) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Sections 6-27.4, 6.52.1, and 22-8.1 of the
Alameda Municipal Code to Allow Sale of Goods from a Rolling Store with Approval of a
Special Event Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or Encroachment Permit; and Adoption of
Food Truck Program Guidelines, including Standard Conditions or Approval for
Conditional Use Permit or Encroachment Permit for Rolling Stores. Introduced.
The Chief Operating Officer gave a Power Point presentation.
Neutral: Mark Sorenson, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.
Proponent: Jon Spangler, Alameda; Brad Wick, South Shore Center.
Opponent: Ken Dorrance, Alameda; and Kaye Pryor, Alameda.
Suggested a revision: Robb Ratto, PSBA.
* *
Councilmember deHaan left the dais at 9:00 and returned at 9:01 p.m.
*
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-21,8,"to provide a sustainable approach for the next two years.
Councilmember Tam stated that she appreciates staff highlighting
that the property transfer tax doubled; Measure P did not solve the
City's problems, but the situation would be much worse if Measure P
had not passed.
The Interim City Manager stated that the City would be short an
additional $800,000 if Measure P had not passed.
Mayor Johnson requested an explanation of the Internal Services
Fund amounts shown on the Ten Year History graph, to which the
Interim City Manager responded that she added a bar to show the
expenditure amount, including Internal Service Funds.
Mayor Johnson requested that the Interim City Manager recommend
policies or practices.
The Interim City Manager stated that she is working on a Procedure
Manual with the Interim Finance Director the Procedure Manual
would become the rule.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that Fiscal Year 2004-2005 and Fiscal Year
2005-2006 had exceptional growth; expenditures were increased; poor
decisions were made in 2005-2006.
Councilmember Matarrese stated during said time medical costs
increased by 10%; the City will have to live with a thirty to
ninety day delay if the State borrows money from the City; the City
will have to live off cash.
The Interim City Manager stated the State will pay at some point ;
money is spent from the General Fund regularly; the General Fund
cash needs help occasionally.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(09-161) - Recommendation to request staff to prepare a report on the
effect of the proposed Alameda Point Development initiative measure
pursuant to Election Code Section 9212 and designate a response
date.
The Redevelopment Manager provided a revised staff recommendation.
Speakers : Jim Sweeney, Alameda, (provided handout) ; Jean Sweeney,
Alameda; Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Northside Association;
Rosemary McNally, Alameda, (provided handout) ; Sharon Loshakoff,
Alameda; Jean Graham, Alameda; Nancy Gordon, Alameda; Darcy
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 21, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,10,"to present a handsome articulation of the wall so it is not an urban eyesore.
President Cunningham suggested that some articulation be written into the design guidelines to craft
protection of the visibility of the marquee; he did not want to block of the view of the Twin Towers
Church, and believed that scale of the intersection should be respected; he believed this was a golden
opportunity to create an attractive and understated contemporary building that would blend into the
existing community; the lighting plan of the project would be very important.
Mr. Stanton advised that the historic theater can function by itself; however, the Cineplex cannot
function without the historic theater.
Vice President Cook would like the architecture team and the developer to address the corner; she
suggested striking the language in 6-c that stated it ""shall project two feet over the sidewalk""; Mr.
Stanton replied that #6 could be stricken completely, or the wording could be strengthened so that
the false brick materials could only be used after a public hearing before the Planning Board. Vice
President Cook would like more specific language in the materials list; Mr. Stanton detailed some of
the exterior materials.
President Cunningham requested that the applicants speak to City staff to provide specific definitions
as they pertain to the project.
Ms. Altschuler noted that the size of the Cineplex sign was not yet clear; the developers were aware
of the signage requirements in Alameda.
Mr. Stanton described the ticket windows, and noted that purchasing tickets online would be used
more often in the future; Ms. Little noted that they would endeavor to reduce the impact of ticket
queuing as much as possible; bicycle parking would be in the garage.
Mr. Stanton noted that they would incorporate comments from the public and the Board, and return
for another hearing; the garage design would be considered in a separate study session in more detail;
No action was taken.
President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.
Board members Lynch and Mariani left the dais following the recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2010-08-12,5,"to other fields throughout the City and make them all better. The City is saying that if
everyone wants to participate in the concept the City will look at it. We are trying to pool
resources.
Commissioner Sonneman asked if the group/s would pay. Director Lillard stated yes,
and there would be a formal agreement.
Commissioner Sonneman asked if they (non-profits/groups) would get to control the
scheduling. Director Lillard stated no, ARPD always controls the scheduling.
Director Lillard stated that there are things that would need to be worked out; it is just a
concept at this point. There are still questions to be answered.
Director Lillard stated that before this happens the concept would have to go through
this body (Recreation Commission) and will need Council approval. Chair Restagno
stated that not everything goes through the Recreation Commission. The Commission
has learned that already. Director Lillard stated that he would bring the item back
before the Recreation and Park Commission.
Director Lillard stated that some cities have turned their fields over to groups in short of
having to lock their gates.
Chair Restagno asked whether it would still be City maintenance staff taking care of the
fields. Director Lillard stated that it could be city staff, or a contractor that the City
approves.
Commissioner Sonneman asked if the City would still be paying for that employee.
Director Lillard stated yes. Even if the concept was approved it will never cover 100%
of the staff costs. But, it would help spread the resources.
11.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
12.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE:
September 9, 2010
13.
ADJOURNMENT
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
5
Minutes - Thursday, August 12, 2010",RecreationandParkCommission/2010-08-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,4,"to offer the City assistance with rental issues: James Treggiari, LAS.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft thanked the organizations that help the vulnerable
citizens; stated that she supports the proposal.
Councilmember Oddie thanked the SSHRB members and all the other organizations for
their work; requested that staff work towards acquiring more funding to do more for the
vulnerable citizens; urged Councilmembers to not just say they would like to do more,
but to actually do more.
Councilmember Daysog thanked the service providers for all that they provide for the
residents of Alameda.
Vice Mayor Matarrese requested follow up once implementation of the proposal has
been decided; suggested the three housing providers assist the City in addressing the
vulnerable population related to current rental issues; stated that he would like a plan to
have the ability to adjust to the current crisis as needed.
Mayor Spencer thanked the SSHRB and the providers for their critical work; stated that
she supports the issue coming back to Council in the future regarding the allocation of
funds to further support the community.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Housing and Community
Development Needs Statement for the CDBG Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2016-17.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-
5.
(16-049) Public Hearing to Consider Call for Review and Adoption of Resolution
Upholding the Planning Board Resolution PB-16-01 to Deny Use Permit File No.
PLN15-0440 to Allow the Sale of Beer and Wine at a Convenience Store (76 Gas
Station) Located at 1716 Webster Street. Not adopted. [The proposed amendment is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 - Projects Which Are Disapproved.]
Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the request for a variance is being made for the
first time and whether the Planning staff recommended approval at the Planning Board
hearing; to which the Planning Services Manager replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie requested clarification on what the basis of the decision was.
The Planning Services Manager clarified the purpose included in the General Plan.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,7,"to move that portion of the project done ahead of time so that the children could use it as
soon as possible. She added that she was encouraged by the letter of September 12, which
described the benefits of the revised plan, and included the biologist's observation that
""overall, the project revisions will result in a net benefit to biological resources and waters
of the San Francisco Bay because of existing hardscape at and over the edge of the Bay
would be removed and replaced with a restored tidal marsh area, establishing a more natural
landscape to the shoreline of the inner Oakland Harbor.""
Member McNamara noted that Catellus was investigating the financial impact of these
revisions, and believed that to split up the shoring up of the wharf, and possibly delaying the
renovation of the area to the west, would not be a cost-effective solution for a developer.
She did not see that as a feasible solution, and believed that the project should be examined
in its entirety. She supported the changes proposed by Catellus, given the structural issues.
She also liked the change that flattened the waterfront plaza, which enhances the use of the
space. She liked the idea of a floating dock, which was a creative solution. She was
concerned about maintenance of the water level landscaping, particularly with respect to
accumulation of litter as the tide comes in.
Mr. Thomas noted that the maintenance would be performed by the City, but paid for by the
project.
President Cook echoed Member McNamara's concern about the maintenance at the
waterfront, and wanted to ensure that the responsibilities were clear.
Member Lynch was confident that the design elements had been vetted, and that he was
comfortable with that. He believed it was an attractive project, and was not concerned with
the viability of maintaining and shoring up the wharf area. He was confident that was vetted
with the City as well. He was comfortable with the EIR, and he did not believe the case had
been made to warrant recirculating the EIR. He noted that he was disappointed about the
placement of the Miracle League field in the third phase, to be completed in 2016, which he
believed was an excessively long time, given its purpose and the need for the field. He
believed the 2016 date was inconsistent with the pace and amount of energy put into the
plans thus far.
Vice President Kohlstrand agreed with Member Lynch's comments regarding the ball field.
She wanted to maintain the relationship with Clif Bar and keep that project moving ahead;
she also wanted the City to maintain its relationship with Catellus and Prologis. She did not
have any issues with the revised promenade, but would like further information about how
the project related to the water's edge. She believed that the loss of the warehouse was an
unfortunate occurrence, and acknowledged that many people were concerned about that.
President Cook inquired whether the Board was at the point of making a decision about
removing that part of the pier, as well as that part of the warehouse. She suggested that the
approval be phased if that were the case. Mr. Thomas replied that the plan may be approved
with direction that when the later phase was presented, that the future of the wharf be re-
evaluated. He understood that demolition of wharf west of Clif Bar would not start until
Page 7 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-09-15,4,"to match the existing parking lot fencing.
Don Oransky, Mastick Advisory Board President, stated that the Advisory Board was in
favor of installing the cell tower in the corner of the Mastick Senior Center parking lot.
Chair Ingram asked where Mastick would spend the revenues from the cell tower rental.
SSM Krause stated that the Council recently cut the part-time secretarial position at
Mastick so the revenues would go toward paying for that position.
M/S/C
REEVES/KAHUANUI
(approved)
""That the proposals to install cell towers at Krusi Park tennis courts and at the
Mastick Senior Center parking lot be approved.""
Approved (4):
Johnson, Kahuanui, Oliver, Reeves
Opposed (1):
Ingram
Chair Ingram stated that he supports the cell tower for Mastick Senior Center but wishes
the City would have a more long-term plan, rather than just popping them up all over the
City.
D.
End-of-Summer Report - (Information Item)
AD Lillard stated that the ARPD Summer programs went very well this summer.
RS Russi provided the Commission with an End-of Summer Report. Attendance in all of
our summer programs increased. The Council put back in to the budget our free parks and
playground programs and attendance in these programs increased over prior years.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Revisions to Long-Term Park Use Policy - (Discussion Item)
AD Lillard provided the Commission with a Draft Long-Term Park Use Policy for review.
There is a policy section and an application process section and a process for an appeal to
Council.
SSM Krause stated that Council wanted the Commission to specifically define what long-
term was (staff came up with 72 hours), emphasized private use and concessionaires.
Also, Council placed an emphasis on placing cell towers in parks.
AD Lillard stated that staff felt that that using 72 hours as defining long-term would be good
because there are some events that the City and non-profits do that could expand to two
days.
Suggested revisions to the Long-Term Park Use Policy were discussed by the Recreation
4
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-09-15.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-02-07,8,"to make sure he interpreted the statute correctly; the options are discussion points and
recommendations the Commission could consider.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she would like to reserve any substantive
discussion for the next meeting; it would be a bit premature for her to start rendering
opinions; as a broad-brush assessment, she read Commissioner Cambra's comments
and thought the topic could be discussed at a future meeting.
In response to Chair LoPilato's inquiry, Commissioner Cambra stated that he prefers to
keep it broad so that each of the Commissioners would have an opportunity to be creative
and suggest things; he wants to make sure everyone understands the statutory scheme
and the Commission's authority versus Council's authority.
Vice Chair Chen moved approval of agendizing a discussion of the statutory hearing
dates at a future meeting.
Commissioner Montgomery seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Tilos inquired about Commissioner Cambra's timeline.
Commissioner Cambra responded he is not married to having it on the March agenda.
Commissioner Tilos stated that he would like to make a friendly amendment to have the
item agendized after March.
Vice Chair Chen stated her motion was for a future meeting; if the training is scheduled
in March and would only take one hour, the item could take only a half hour to be done
rather than waiting until April or May.
Chair LoPilato offered a substitute friendly amendment to add: ""at the next scheduled
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 7, 2022
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-02-07.pdf
PlanningBoard,2018-10-08,9,"to look at the big picture. She said she was in and out of homelessness until she was 21
years old and decided she did not want to be part of that life anymore.
Cindy Acker, Child Unique Montessori, said she hopes her students are the first to bring
music and hear stories from the residents. She said she supports the staff
recommendation.
Samuel Gabato Morse said the facility is a great idea but this is not the right place. He
said it will be called a homeless shelter by children and discourage use by his cross
country team and others event users of Crab Cove.
Keith McCoy said the APC Board has a genuine interest in being good neighbors and
supports the project 100%.
Kristine Moore said it is hard to believe there would be no negative impacts. She said a
different location should be found for this project.
Alan Pryor said it is about time Alameda recognizes its homeless problem and does
something about it.
Karen Bey agreed that we have a homelessness problem. She said she supports a project
like this but not at this location. She said the west end already does its part.
President Mitchell closed the public hearing.
Board Member Teague said APC entering into a lease has triggered the requirement that
they remove the G overlay. He said the zoning code permits the land use for this type of
facility. He said the homeless community is not homogeneous. He said he will support
removing the G overlay, leaving the AP zoning and approving the mitigated negative
declaration.
Board Member Sullivan asked where the petition to turn the space to park fits in.
Staff Member Thomas said if they get enough signatures the question will go on the ballot
and residents will have to vote on it. He said if the space is rezoned open space cities
usually have to pay for the land.
Mr. Biggs said that if they petition gets enough signatures, his understanding is that the
earliest election it could go on would be in 2020.
Board Member Sullivan asked about the concern that there was not enough
communication with the neighbors.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 11
October 8, 2018",PlanningBoard/2018-10-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-04-16,2,"to hire a pension lawyer; suggested allowing more time to review the MOUs.
(15-245) Jane Sullwold, Alameda, expressed concern over rushing through the public
safety MOUs on April 29th; stated the contract may cut off other OPEB options, create
vesting and eliminate options available from court decisions; stated there should be
actuarial and legal analysis; urged providing more time.
AGENDA ITEM
(15-246) Receive a Summary of Proposed Budget for Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-
17.
In response to Vice Mayor Matarrese's request, the Assistant City Manager outlined the
budget schedule.
The Assistant City Manager and Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation and
responded to questions.
Regarding the General Fund FY 2014-15 review, Mayor Spencer requested amounts be
provided in writing.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the workers compensation fund has a deficit; the City does
not have surplus funds if there are deficits.
The Assistant City Manager stated there are outstanding claims.
Vice Matarrese requested that the policy question regarding whether workers
compensation should be fully funded or if the risk is acceptable return to Council.
Regarding projected revenue, Councilmember Daysog requested the assumptions and
changes over time be outlined; stated the changes are particularly important on the
expense side; questioned whether a department increasing expenditures from 30% to
37% might mean another department is not getting its fair share.
The Assistant City Manager stated the matter could be reviewed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council should consider updating the Utility
Users Tax (UUT).
The Assistant City Manager noted amendment would require a vote.
***
Councilmember Oddie left the dais 7:45 p.m. and returned at 7:46 p.m.
***
On the General Fund transfers in, Councilmember Daysog requested staff to review
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 16, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-04-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-12-03,13,"to help inform Council; expressed support for due process.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is difficulty in asking the City Attorney to make the
recommendation when a Councilmember has been identified as violating the Charter;
expressed support for the language stating ""Council appointed special counsel;"" stated
outside counsel is a protection; special counsel is used as a consultant, not as a
delegation of authority; those seeking reimbursement should consult a lawyer as a
safeguard.
Vice Mayor Knox White proposed: ""the Council shall not be precluded from making a
finding.""
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the statement should be made in the affirmative; provided
edits to the statement and recommended: ""Council shall retain the authority to
determine.""
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the language.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft proposed edits to the last sentence: may consult with Council
appointed special counsel to provide necessary advice.'
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the term Council will be included in the
sentence beginning with: ""to the extent..
""
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the latter portion of the policy
makes it clear the Council retains jurisdiction to act.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the resolution, as amended.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.
Ayes: 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.]
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:34
p.m.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(19-675) The City Manager announced the upcoming holiday sing-along at Mastick,
Mayor's Tree Lighting, and a hot cocoa crawl.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 3, 2019
11",CityCouncil/2019-12-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,20,"to have community investment; the community will contribute value to the program
process and BACS will be available on an ongoing basis; 24 hour services for
emergencies and residents are available; however, the line might not be available at all
hours for neighbor concerns.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands a staff person will be on-site at all
hours; inquired whether a concerned neighbor perceiving an emergency could access a
BACS staff member to relay the concern; questioned who the neighbors should call in
the event of a serious concern.
Mr. Russell responded BACS will have staff on-site 24 hours; stated in order for BACS a
meeting for neighbors to discuss concerns will need to schedule during business hours.
The Economic Development Manager stated a BACS staff person will be on-site at
each location 24 hours each day if an immediate emergency arises.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there will be a phone number for neighbors, to
which the Community Development Director responded phone numbers will be
available and can be shared.
Councilmember Daysog stated providing the contract has been helpful; the Program
Non-Compliance Protocols section includes bases for discharge from the facility;
possession of weapons, assault, behavior, theft and destruction of property are listed as
bases for discharge; inquired the definition of assault, theft, and destruction of property
in terms of the list; questioned whether the actions must be proven in a court of law;
inquired how the bases are taken into account if the assault or theft is not targeted at
other residents of the program, but neighbors instead.
Mr. Russell responded the non-compliance protocol process is relative to events that
are internal to the program; BACS staff will manage the investigation; a discharge plan
would be developed for any determination of non-compliance; \incidents do not have to
be defined in a court of law; the same standard would be held for incidents outside the
program site; however, the determination of the incidents would need to involve local
authorities.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Alameda's unhoused population
would solely be housed at he sites, to which the Economic Development Manager
responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director stated the program is allowed to house Alameda
residents only due to the use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding; the funds
do not come with an obligation to go through the Alameda County system or house
individuals from outside the City; staff's priority and focus will be on Alameda's
unhoused population.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any General Fund money will be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 16, 2021
9",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.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,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,2008-08-05,17,"to go forward: inquired whether the Agreement would not have to
include language about where the off site units would be placed.
The Development Services Director responded the Planning Board
acknowledged that if Island High, which was previously identified
in the Housing Element, was the off site location, it would be an
okay location because it meets other requirements.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the nine
units could be built at Island High without going up to the maximum
number of units, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether Warmington
would simply be concerned with building nine units somewhere other
than the Grand Marina site, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the City
could authorize the Affordable Housing Agreement to either require
ten units on site or allow five units off site as long as four
additional units would be constructed.
The Development Services Director responded said explanation stops
short of allowing future credit for additional units; stated if
additional units are not going to be constructed, the [Island High]
site should be retained by the CIC and AUSD for construction of 16
to 18 units.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is trying to separate out
what happens with the off site units; the developer needs to know
whether five or ten units would be on site [Grand Marina] in order
to get the project started; the City is requiring nine units if
five units are moved off site; questioned why the Agreement could
not stop there to get the project going; then, the Island High site
or any other site would go through the routine, normal planning
processi 36 units is an absurd number for the [Island High] site;
the site could carry multiple family units; teachers and School
District employees would have first shot at the units; a project
should not be predicated on putting as many units as possible on
the site, which is not the City's approach; the City's approach has
always been to develop a quality product, such as Shinsei Gardens
and the Breakers; that he would like to cut the Agreement down to
what is needed to get the Grand Marina project started; then, the
process could work for the Island High site or any site where the
units might end up.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
4
August 5, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-07-19,20,"to give the Commission an update on how the City Attorney's office plans to staff
complaints going forward; the vision is to realign how outside counsel would be used to
advise her as she maintains her role as the advisor to the OGC; outside counsel would
be used to provide guidance to the OGC in its adjudicatory role; the City department on
the other side of the complaint would be represented at the hearing by another member
of the City Attorney's office; the ethical wall she mentioned means that any other attorney
from her office representing another department in the complaint process would be
ethically walled off; in practical terms, nothing is discussed in the office; she would step
back from taking significant roles in evaluating and reviewing PRA requests; she provided
the information as it may have some bearing on how the OGC decides to evaluate
revisions to the complaint process.
Commissioner LoPilato continued her presentation, inquired whether there is a desire
to
make a formal request for a different arrangement or if the arrangement will address some
of the issues that have come up.
Chair Tilos responded he would like more time to mull over the issue.
Commissioner Reid stated that she has some concerns about outside counsel not
appearing to be truly independent; the OGC should be making suggestions to the City
Attorney about how to address issues and, conversely, what can the City Attorney can do
to support the OGC.
Commissioner LoPilato questioned whether the Chief Assistant City Attorney would be
willing to take on the role of doing a legal review of complaints; stated it would be really
helpful for the Commission.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding the City Attorney's office taking
on a non-advocacy role, the Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she thinks the
questions are all fair; she is not prepared to commit her office to any certain work plan in
the context of a complaint at this time; a staffing decision was discussed internally and
shared with the Commission to add to the full consideration of the issue; she would need
others from her office to weigh in before committing.
Commissioner LoPilato continued her presentation.
Commissioner Chen stated that she is not prepared to make any decision or
recommendation tonight; inquired whether anyone in the City could be Switzerland; stated
there needs to be someone with no ties to the City in the way that the City Attorney's
office represents the City; the OGC's duty is to find if a complaint has validity; she would
like to put the issue on the next agenda so the Commission could have more discussion.
Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Chen; stated it does sound like a conflict of
interest that the OGC is asking for a neutral memorandum from a City employee.
Commissioner Reid stated there is a greater discussion in that the City Attorney's office
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
20
July 19, 2021",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-07-19,19,"to give specific guidance; it can be packaged all at once, using the existing language and
being mindful of tone.
Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated the letter could be written
asking for consideration of the two points; the letter will be drafted and sent to Council
prior to their September meeting.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated as a point of order, contrary to Commissioner Chen's
comment, the Governor's order ends in September, 2021; it is important to get the
conversation to the City Council prior to that.
The City Clerk confirmed that the Governor's order ends September 30, 2021.
Commissioner Chen inquired whether the 2023 date in the resolution is incorrect, to which
Commissioner LoPilato responded the date references the Bill and not the Governor's
order.
Vice Chair Shabazz and Chair Tilos stated they will write the letters.
4-E. Consider Communication regarding Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Form and
Procedure (Commissioner LoPilato)
Commissioner LoPilato made brief comments.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated the issue seems a little
heftier and could be an agenda item.
Commissioner LoPilato stated it would make sense for the Commission to agree to form
a subcommittee to revise the complaint procedures; then, what the Chief Assistant City
Attorney wants to share could be discussed; she wants a general thumbs up or down on
the items outlined.
Chair Tilos stated the Commission should also discuss whether the OGC will still be the
ones taking the complaints after Council's suggestion of just having a hearing officer.
Commissioner LoPilato stated it was not Council's suggestion; it was the City Attorney's
suggestion, which Council rejected.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the discussion of a hearing officer has not been
agendized and it is a significant enough topic that it should be properly agendized.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated it does make sense
for the Chief Assistant City Attorney to present to the public what was provided to the
OGC.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney gave an overview; stated the purpose of her email was
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
19
July 19, 2021",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-07-07,6,"to get paid and that needs the same security as well.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Navy has reviewed the pro forma, to which
the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the negative; stated
staff has not engaged the Navy regarding the pro forma; staff has to collectively be on
the same page, and then approach the Navy with what is realistic; staff is not ready to
do so.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is currently in the pro forma for the
transportation solutions, including the relocation and construction of a new ferry terminal
and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) within the City, to which the Deputy City Manager -
Development Services responded an estimate of $60 to $80 million.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the question she has
always asked is how much density is needed in order to make transit work, which may
be a very different number than how much density is needed to make the project itself
work.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated upcoming slides in
presentation should answer part of the question; the ultimate conclusion is that the
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) programs make a difference and significantly
reduce the impacts associated with traffic; however, the solutions do not eliminate all
impacts.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation on TOD.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City is not looking to
AC transit to fund additional bus lines, but looking for the project to spin-off enough
money to pay for additional transit services.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the price for the homes and added fees do not seem
realistic.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff agrees and has concerns
as to whether the project is going to be able to support fiscal neutrality and if there really
is enough value to support assessments.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there are examples
of TOD, how the development was financed, what kind of surcharges are required to
make it work, and what safeguards make sure TOD lasts.
The Planning Services Manager responded there was a similar approach to Alameda
Landing, which is not built out yet; an assessment, not something that can easily be
changed later, is needed to ensure an ongoing, annual source of money; studies of how
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
5
Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-01-15,22,"to get around the issue.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether people park at the bus stops
between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a . m.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded feedback did not indicate
any substantial concern other than the previously mentioned Bay
Street location; stated review showed ample on-street parking.
Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on Mr. Edward's
situation.
The Program Specialist II stated plans are to relocate the bus
stop; the bus stop would be moved up 50 feet.
Mayor Johnson requested that staff explore the matter with Mr.
Edwards.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON-AGENDA
(08-033) Patrick Lynch, Alameda, stated that the property owner
adjacent to his home is in default of deed restrictions for a
landscape installation and maintenance agreement.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(08-034) Consideration of developing a transit hub on the land
between Marina Village Drive and the entrance to the Posey Tube in
order to address congestion in the Tubes.
The Supervising Engineer gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $1.3 million estimate would be
for the parking lot, to which the Supervising engineer responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the proposed area is the only
available land for a park-and-ride on the West End; he would like
to have the matter moved up on the priority list $1.3 is a flea
bite of money considering all of the congestion management money
spent to do freeway repair and maintenance that does not relieve
congestion on I-880 and I-580; one way to reduce tube congestion is
to get people out of single occupancy vehicles.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
January 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-07-19,7,"to find an easy place to insert language about the process; she agrees basic training
would be helpful; for the last item, she is hoping to add a new section in the bylaws: an
index of onboarding resources; it will change over time, but would be a straightforward
procedural process for each new Commissioner; it would be a placeholder until more
information is spelled out.
Chair Tilos stated he thinks an index of resources is a great idea.
Commissioner Reid stated that she appreciates all of Commissioner LoPilato's work on
the bylaw revisions; inquired whether a requirement could be added to communicate with
the OGC whenever the OGC is mentioned at Council or other Boards and Commissions
meetings.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she is hearing is the desire to have a statement that if
a matter pertaining to the OGC is brought before another policy body, such as the City
Council, that staff will make the OGC aware of the item; she thinks it is a question for staff
with respect to whether the OGC has the power to require it.
The City Clerk stated if the OGC would like to put in a request to be informed of matters
pertaining to the OGC, staff could do their best; quite often Boards and Commissions are
typically copied on reports.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she noticed the Code of Conduct includes that if staff
is presenting something that relates to a Commission, there should be space for the
Commission chair to be able to respond if there is a dispute; if there is a statement like
that, she may add a mirror image of it into the OGC bylaws because it was a very
significant recent issue.
Commissioner Reid inquired whether some reference to the minimum number of
members required to create a subcommittee should be added.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated another option is to give the Commission the
ability to designate a single member; it could be a subcommittee or a sole member.
Commissioner LoPilato stated she will write something out for the Chief Assistant City
Attorney to review.
Commissioner Reid suggested meeting locations also be included in the bylaw revision if
the City Attorney and City Council wish to proceed with providing Zoom meetings to the
public; she also wanted a possible amendment to increase the time for public speakers
when there are less than five speakers in order to encourage as much public participation
as possible or allow an opportunity to speak a second time.
Chair Tilos stated the meetings have been going beyond 11:00 p.m. since January; time
limits for speakers should not be increased and should remain at three minutes; most of
the speakers comply with three minutes; he does not want to give an invitation for more
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
7
July 19, 2021",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-17,10,"to establish resources to address broader issues: April Madison-Ramsey, Alameda.
Discussed experiences as an African-American living in Alameda; questioned when the
hatred will end; expressed support for staff recommendations and offered additional
suggestions: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Expressed support for the ""8 to Abolition"" initiative; stated the ""8 Can't Wait"" policies are
performative recognition of existing policies and have failed; urged Council support the
""8 to Abolition"" steps: Andrew Acosta, Alameda.
Urged Council to reject the ""8 Can't Wait"" proposal in favor of defunding and abolishing
APD; expressed support for funds being reinvested into Alameda's Black residents and
community care programs; stated reforms only reinforce an obsession with policing and
incremental reforms are not working: Janet Chen, Alameda.
Inquired the process to initiate discussion about creating a program similar to Crisis
Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS): Rob Dekker, Alameda.
Inquired the realistic, legal and fair time-frame to reduce the number of Police Officers in
order to redirect funds to other programs; stated proper notice is important: Amy Little,
Alameda.
Urged Council to make a commitment to the immediate formation of a Police Oversight
Committee comprised of diverse community members, to make a commitment to anti-
bias training for all Police Officers, to remove Police Officers from public schools, and to
address the timeline for adopting Campaign Zero and ""8 Can't Wait"" policies: Celina
Kamler, Alameda.
Stated the ""8 Can't Wait"" initiative is good, but not enough; the solution is to defund the
Police; discussed the two current emergencies: COVID-19 and systemic racism; urged
Council to cut the Police budget and allocate the funds to social service and community
based programs: Jade Aganus, Alameda.
Stated organizations have highlighted the problems and inadequacies with the ""8 Can't
Wait"" initiative; inquired how Council will take steps to redirect funding from APD, how
the Officers involved in the arrest of Mr. Watkins are being disciplined, and how Police
Officers will be retrained in the use of force policy: Emily Klein, Alameda.
Stated that it is absurd the Police have not made a statement or apologized to Mr.
Watkins; the community deserves and needs better; reform and cuts to the APD budget
are needed: Rachel Wellman, Alameda.
Discussed an event near Alameda High School; stated that she wished there had been
a
separate unit of skilled social workers available to call and ensure no violent action
would be taken by the Police: Julie Pruitt, Alameda.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 17, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-06,7,"to decide which program the City should have that included any contracted mental
health services; he does not think the contracting process will slow the process down
much; expressed support for monthly reporting on the change in calls and the related
protocols and for discussions on how to better serve the community; stated the matter is
a simple win due to agreement in allowing people to perform jobs better; requested
Councilmember Herrera Spencer provide direction in iterating and bringing the Felton
Institute and other community players into thinking about how to bring the mental health
direct response into the pilot program; stated the budget for the year has been approved
and includes mental health funding; the question for the City is how to engage with the
Felton Institute; the goal is for other cities to engage in the same system as Alameda;
there is an opportunity to start the journey.
Councilmember Daysog stated the aftermath of incidents involving dancing in the street
have been calling for a reform of the way policing of non-violent calls are conducted;
two programs are before Council which represent the reform sought; the most important
portion of the reform has to do with the delivery of mental health professionals to an
event which is happening in real-time and the ability of mental health professionals to
call on their experience to perform a range of things in order to de-escalate situations
and understand and communicate with individuals; professionals must also transmit
individuals to the appropriate service or set of mental health services; both entities
present for the matter represent the reform being sought; he is of the opinion that the
Felton Institute is the best represented entity for reform; the Felton Institute performs
services at all times and has the comparative advantage of dealing with mental health
issues; staff members in AFD have the capacity and can train-up to ultimately deal with
mental health issues; the level and depth of experience with the Felton Institute, when
compared to AFD, is provided in lived experience; either choice will reform City Hall in
regards to delivery of Police services; the Felton Institute does represent more of the
reform desired by citizens and is more in line with the Crisis Assistance Helping Out On
The Streets (CAHOOTS) model; the Felton Institute is a non-City entity that would
provide a set of services to improve the way in which Police and the City handle non-
emergency calls for service; he has no doubt that AFD will be able to train-up quickly
over the future months; the edge is given to the Felton Institute based on field
individuals responding to calls at 2:00 a.m. that know the proper questions to ask as
opposed to providing the answers which need to be delivered; the residents of Alameda
will be served with reforming Police in regard to non-violent emergency situations;
expressed support for the Felton Institute and the possibility of having contracts being
provided to the Felton Institute in order to provide clinical services in conjunction with
AFD.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the Felton Institute
applying for the program; she is hopeful that the City Manager looks at other agencies
as well; Alameda Family Services has provided counseling at multiple levels for over 50
years; other agencies within Alameda could be well qualified for the program; inquired
whether other agencies will be allowed to apply to the RFP.
Continued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 6, 2021
7",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2014-08-25,6,"to consider a number of potential zoning amendments regarding commercial recreational
uses, arcades, ground floor office uses, and the definition of residential use. The proposed
amendments are categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines 15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitation.
Mr. Andrew Thomas gave an overview of the proposed changes.
Board member Zuppan asked about the definition of ""family' and is there a protection for
the number of people in a home.
Mr. Thomas stated there is a limitation on number of occupancy, but if people are
unrelated there is not a way to gauge.
Board member Knox White expressed concern on how we are trying to do this and satisfy
the State.
Mr. Thomas stated he will contact the State for clarification.
Public Comment:
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director - Park Street Business Association (PSBA), he stated
the days of pinball machines corrupting the public are over and well behind us. He
supports the proposals regarding commercial recreation space and offices in the ground
floor space.
Mr. Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce, asked for the Planning Board to
approve the staff recommendations
Mr. Stuart Rickard, resident, stated he is in support of the staff recommendations.
Board member Knox White asked for a better definition of 'family'.
Board member Zuppan would like for office space to be more precise on the ordinance,
and has reservations regarding the language.
Mr. Thomas clarified board member Zuppan's comment as by-right for retail.
President Burton commented positively on more office space being available. He is
supportive of all the measures and agreed with Knox White on 'family' issue.
Board member Knox White motioned to approve with a definition of 'family' and editing a
typo.
Board member Alvarez-Moronni seconded.
Motioned carried. 5-0
7.D. Board Elections - Tabled pending a full Board.
8. MINUTES:
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 7
August 25, 2014",PlanningBoard/2014-08-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-10-14,2,"to consider Development Plan and Design Review application for a four- to five-story
residential building with 360 multi-family units and 8 Work/Live units as part of Phase / of
the Alameda Marina Master Plan project. 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.
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4154339&GUID=FOC16E65-
ABDF-43AE-8DE1-EB057B54EB8F&FullText=1
lan Murphy, BDE Architecture, gave a presentation.
Board Member Ruiz asked what the building dimensions are.
Mr. Murphy said it is a very long façade, which dictated their tactics to try and break up
the building with different techniques, including the view corridor.
Board Member Ruiz said she was told that the building length would be 485 feet.
Board Member Teague sought and received confirmation that no palm trees were planned
for the project.
Board Member Hom disclosed that he met previously with the applicant to review the
changes to the plan. He asked if the view corridor would be kept open at all hours.
Mr. Murphy said they discussed the possibility of closing the corridor during certain hours,
but that the current intention is to leave it open.
Mr. Thomas said there is a condition of approval in the resolution stating that no gates
would be built blocking public access to the view corridor.
Board Member Ruiz asked if there are any legal or physical constraints preventing the
ground floor units from having some kind of stoop to help activate Clement Avenue.
Mr. Murphy said the four feet of grade change would require extensive stoops. He added
that they went in the direction of having the units feel more private, which allowed them to
provide more landscaping at the edge of the building.
Board Member Saheba asked if all residents would have to rely on the Schiller Street
loading zone, or if there would be an option for residents on the west side of the project.
Mr. Murphy said he expected large truck loading to happen on the Schiller side of the
building.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 9
October 14, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-10-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-02-19,4,"to comply with City policies.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the smaller capacity would be
acceptable, to which the Fire Chief responded some of the equipment
would be moved to other vehicles; the changes would be accommodated
in the interest of moving into a hybrid.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other hybrids were
considered, to which he Fire Chief responded there are not any
other large enough hybrid vehicles on the market.
Vice Mayor Tam stated in the climate of belt tightening and cost
containment, the vehicle is $12,000 more than originally budgeted;
when comparing hybrids, purchasing a Toyota Highlander or Mercury
Hybrid could save $12,000 and capacity would be very similar ;
inquired what is unique about the Tahoe Hybrid that cannot be
accommodated by another less expensive hybrid.
The Fire Chief responded all are considerably smaller than the
Suburban and Tahoe.
Vice Mayor Tam noted that the Tahoe gets 20 miles per gallon, while
the Highlander gets closer to 30 miles per gallon.
Councilmember Matarrese questioned whether the vehicle needs to be
purchased now; inquired whether there is a back up vehicle which
results in two command vehicles.
The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the vehicle is falling
apart, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether or not the vehicle carries
fire-fighting equipment, to which the Fire Chief responded it does
not.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what risk is run if the purchase
is put off for a year.
The Fire Chief responded the Suburban is a 1995 vehicle that was
due for replacement in 2005 : the purchase has been deferred for
three years; the cost of a vehicle will increase next year; there
is risk of the Suburban needing a major repair since it has 100,000
miles; repair could cost more than the vehicles sale value.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City does not have big calls 24-
7; inquired whether people use to the car to drive around.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-08-21,9,"to change the course.
On the call of the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(07 -406 - ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of a Planning Board
denial of Use Permit UP06-0010 to extend the hours of operation for
fuel sales at the Alameda Valero Gas Station located at 1310
Central Avenue within the R-4 Neighborhood Residential Zoning
District. Appellant: L. Zektser and N. Saidian.
The Planner III gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Use Permit was for the auto
repair; inquired whether the need for the Use Permit would go away
if the auto repair goes away.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Use Permit was for auto
repair and restrictions on hours of operation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents ( In favor or Appeal) : Del Blaylock, Alameda; Albert
Vierra, San Leandro; Hadi Monsef, Alameda Susan Battaglia,
Alameda; Charles Dempsy, Alameda; Karen Green, Alameda; Leslie
Fishbach, Alameda; David Bringman, Pastor of Trinity Lutheran
Church; Martin Collins, Trinity Lutheran Church; Eric Scheuermann,
Alameda; Joseph Zadick, Appellent (submitted handout) ; Allen
Michaan, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Philip Gravem, Alameda; Tim
Underwood, Alameda; Gordon Newell, Alameda; Patricia Kinzel,
Alameda; Mariusz Krubnik, Alameda; Donna Gravem, Alameda; Dorota
Krubnik, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson requested that staff review the timing of the signals
at the intersection; stated the requested hours are reasonable; the
owners are offering to close the repair shop on Saturdays the
trade is reasonable; parking is made available to people on
Sundays; the gas station has a service component which was lost
with the closing of the Weber Chevron gas station on Otis Drive.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she recalls a discussion
regarding Public Works and CalTrans working together with Franklin
Regular Meeting
9
Alameda City Council
August 21, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-06,14,"to challenge the issue further inquired whether someone would need
to hire an attorney and file a lawsuit.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the City
Attorney's office cannot provide legal support services to the
general community.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(09-394) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Commission on Disability Issues, Library Board and Recreation
and Park Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Nielsen Tam for the Commission on
Disability Issues; Suzanne Whyte for the Library Board; and Michael
B. Cooper and Terri Bertero Ogden for the Recreation and Park
Commission.
(09-395) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of
California Cities Annual Conference along with Vice Mayor deHaan
and Councilmember Gilmore; the voting delegates passed three
resolutions; one dealt with encouraging local jurisdictions to
enact ordinances or policies that would hold the host responsible
for under aged drinking that occurs at property under the host's
possession, control, or authority; the voting delegates also passed
a resolution that requests the League to put forth a ballot measure
for the November 2010 election that would clean up the loopholes of
Proposition 1A; the League conducted a poll in May 2009 that showed
the level of public confidence with the State Legislature and
Governor declined to a historic low; it is the right time to demand
reforms.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is glad people are paying attention
to what the State is doing.
Councilmember Tam stated the League is eliciting the help of the
local officials to try to gather at least 100 signatures from each
City.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Tam would get
signature forms.
Councilmember Tam responded in the affirmative; stated City
resources cannot be used for political activity; further stated the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 6, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-01-25,8,"to centralize the parking. He said he wants to keep the main vehicular access along the
Fortmann Marina side and not put a road separating the Alaska Basin from the project.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2016-2505
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 27, 2015
Board Member Burton corrected an item regarding retail space on Park St. He said that
he wanted it to be one space and the cafe to be expanded.
President Knox White called for a vote to approve the minutes with Board Member
Burton's correction regarding the retail space on Park St.. The minutes were approved 4-
0-2 (Mitchell and Sullivan were not in attendance for the 7/27/15 meeting.)
8-B 2016-2506
Draft Meeting Minutes - November 9, 2015
President Knox White asked that the motions be better captured by pasting in the Board
Actions from the resolutions.
Board Member Sullivan pointed out a typo assigning the wrong pronoun to her comment
on page 5.
President Knox White called for a vote to approve the minutes with Board Member
Sullivan's correction to page 5. The minutes were approved 6-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2016-2503
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions
Staff Member Thomas said they approved several use permits at Alameda Point and
some minor design reviews.
9-B 2016-2504
Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development
Department Projects
Staff Member Thomas said Bank of Marin and a rezoning request would be coming for
the 2/8/16 meeting. He said the three Alameda Point items would be coming 2/22/16.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
11-A 2016-2439
Approved Minutes
Page 8 of 9
January 25, 2016
Planning Board",PlanningBoard/2016-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-06,5,"to calculate a good impact fee for future development; a policy decision needs to be
made on how much money should be dedicated; that she does not want to run the risk
of needing to close parks until money is available for repair or replacement.
The Interim City Manager continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Park Master Plan would come back in June, to
which the Interim City Manager responded the matter would come back with the budget.
Mayor Johnson stated the plan is good and would provide understanding of the need for
ongoing maintenance and upkeep; making a [funding] commitment would be easier with
a plan; funding was not made available even in good times ten to fifteen years ago.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated rebates and credits are available; [replacing] lighting and
irrigation could have major paybacks.
Councilmember Tam stated a developer usually dedicates [park] land; inquired how
land dedication is factored into impact fees or in lieu of fees.
The Interim City Manager responded the scale of the project is reviewed; under the
Quimby Act, a developer can give a park a dollar-to-dollar basis; an evaluation is made
on what the land and park are worth; most developers are willing to provide turn key
parks because parks are a value to the developer and help sell houses; under impact
fee, the amount is negotiated; impact fee legislation prohibits overbuilding in one criteria
and under building in another; both options are offered.
Councilmember Tam stated sometimes impact fees require a Nexus Study.
The Interim City Manager stated a Master Plan is needed before a Nexus Study; impact
fees cannot pay for past deficiencies and park maintenance, only new things.
In response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated Nexus
Study analysis is based on what Council approves from a policy standpoint; the
Boatworks example of 225 [homes] adds 5% to 10% towards General Plan build out,
but a subdivision of 10,000 homes reaches build out faster.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether owners only choice would be to write a
check.
The Interim City Manager responded 90% of developers provide a turn key park; stated
owners usually write a check for impact fees; the last project that reaches build out ends
up having to build the facility and usually a Mello Roos is included.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated impact fees can only be for support of a development; the
community would need to pay for something over and above.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,9,"to bring the matter to the Transportation Commission to reaffirm the City's current practices
regarding the provision of curbside access at bus stops, and to identify any areas where the
policy could be flexible. He noted that the objections raised at the TTT meeting included:
1.
A disabled resident indicated that having parking restrictions near his home would
be a hardship;
2.
A business owner stated that parking restrictions would harm his business;
3.
A church member talked about parking restrictions exacerbating existing parking
shortages during church events;
4.
A resident stated that many parents use the on-street parking as they drop their
children of at school.
He noted that most of the bus stop consolidation had been implemented, particularly on the 51,
and that other lines could be revisited with respect to relocation or revisiting regarding potential
problems that they cause
Open public comment.
Staff Bergman noted that Chair Knox White also submitted comments on this item:
""Where staff feels that neighborhoods have identified major constraints due to lost street parking,
staff level study and decision-making should be acceptable to see if existing City policy would
allow for consolidation, stop move, etc. Recent changes to the bus stop placement policy allow
for more flexibility in placing stops, as was used in the recommendation for Otis. The City of
Alameda maintains very stringent minimum parking standards for both residences and
businesses. As such, before too much discussion is had about removing bus stops, these
standards and the usage of the mandated parking should be evaluated, or the City should get rid
of the requirement.
""In residential areas, staff should also identify whether the City mandated parking for autos is
being used as well, before studying major stop location redesign. Household garages used for
storage, etc., eat up a lot of onstreet parking as well. Perhaps a policy that neighborhoods do a
parking study, looking at available off-street spots, use of those spots and other street uses should
be considered a first step. For those areas where a high percentage of off-street parking is being
used for parking, then staff can determine if the removal of 2 to 3 spots will necessitate parkers
to walk more than 100 feet, 10 percent of the bus rider maximum walk. If this is found to be the
case, then bus stop removal would be weighed as a measure of total daily ridership versus total
daily parking usage. Whichever is higher would represent the solution which maximizes
community benefit.
""In business districts - Park Street and Webster Street - have parking removed for stops already,
and shops are doing well financially. Staff should try to accommodate parking needs in
neighborhood business districts without removing stops. The Transportation Commission has
historically supported transit in commercial areas.""
9",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-05-10,5,"to be very clear. She was concerned about making a lane transit only during certain times.
Then for policy #24, she felt that Bay Farm was overlooked on the issue of sea-level rise,
and for open spaces, she said that Neighborhood Park was missing from the map. She
also wanted the Bay Area Water Trail mentioned for people who want to enjoy the
waterways.
Director Thomas thanked her for her notes.
Board Member Curtis brought up parking concerns for seniors and families with small
children that still heavily relied on driving their cars and couldn't rely on public transit for
their needs. He did feel that the second draft was a big improvement and was proud of
the work that had gone into it.
Commissioner Randy Rentschler referred to the map showing where most of the traffic
collisions happened (at traffic lights) and discussed how roundabouts would be beneficial
both for safety and money-wise. He also urged for simple policies that didn't put a burden
on the Public Works Department.
Director Thomas said that the city staff agreed 100% and thanked Gail Payne, a Senior
Transportation Coordinator, for really encouraging and researching roundabouts. He
added that people would be seeing roundabouts more in the next 20 years in Alameda.
Commissioner Rentschler also addressed the ""Idaho Stop"" that allowed cyclists to treat a
stop sign as a yield sign. He felt that this created friction between people and suggested
that stop signs should say that cyclists were allowed to do that.
Chair Samantha Soules believed this plan was a shift in what had been done and was
very ambitious. The goals were difficult but achievable and she was happy to see the
connections between land use and mobility. She also discussed the importance of how
this plan took into account all the different needs when it came to transportation and had
to offer choices. She added that they should now focus on safety and evacuation needs.
President Teague told staff this was an amazing document and there was so much good
in it. He was very proud to have their names on it. On pages 23-26 he addressed how he
wanted to keep the Planning Code out of the General Plan since it would create too much
cost to ever change or adjust it. He added that with low-density anything less than 21 units
per acre was not acceptable, but that should be in the Planning Code and not in the
General Plan. On page 29 for LU-2 the ""Complete Neighbors"" that went into F: The Multi-
Family Shared Housing and how non-traditional housing was discussed and how it was
limited to medium density, he was not in favor of that and it should be available to any
districts that involved residents. He wanted it to be clearer that they supported all types of
non-traditional housing, all different types of structures. He was unclear if LU:15 or LU:2
were where they would call out that they needed to optimize their land for housing. He
gave examples of ways to use the land for the best effect. For LU-10, which discussed
Alameda's two main streets, he felt that Alameda Point was being overlooked. He said it
was a shame that they say they only had two main streets when they were spending all
these resources to build a community at Alameda Point, he really wanted to see Alameda
Point designated as a main street or something like that. On page 44, which discussed
Historic Preservation, he felt that they had done a terrible job on protecting their
architecture resources that weren't monuments and wanted to see something like the Mills
Approved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 11
May 10, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-21,22,"to be used for repayment of rent; expressed support for rent forgiveness; stated all
businesses will be working toward being successful.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the proposal could work for the Alameda Theatre; many
businesses operate on a thin margin; expressed concern for profit-splitting with
businesses which do not currently have said business model; stated that she would like
more information related to landlords offering a reduction in rent to be repaid over a
period of time.
Councilmember Vella expressed concern about a blanket policy related to rent
reduction or abatement; stated some businesses are adapting and changing models;
expressed concern about budget impacts; stated, as a landlord, the City needs to work
with businesses to see what is possible; there are retail-oriented businesses that could
benefit from a longer repayment period; there will need to be a combination of
repayment periods or rent reductions; expressed support for the City Manager looking
into the duration which a business has paid market rent; stated many tenants pay below
market rate, which should be factored into the benefit; stated businesses with profit
margins could begin repayment once profits return.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for Councilmember Vella's comments;
stated the perfect program is difficult to craft; expressed support for approving a 90-day
deferral, directing staff with some guidance to return with a longer term program; stated
the government shut down most tenants; Council can show leadership by trying to
abate rent to the greatest extent possible for tenants not able to open and conduct
business; the City is one of the few with money to provide relief; expressed support for
directing the City Manager to look into an abatement proposal; questioned the criteria
for not abating rent while a business was closed; stated deferrals will be needed as well.
Councilmember Vella questioned whether abating rent would be applied to the shelter in
place order or a longer term; stated that she supports abating rent while under the
shelter in place; expressed support for staff addressing whether the intention be to
abate rent past the shelter in place order for businesses to figure out how to restart.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the Alameda Theatre is a good example of a business
not being able to re-open the same as the rest of the City; questioned whether the City
should collect rent payment from the Theatre should this occur; stated there are bond
payments based on what was to be collected; staff can return with more information for
a plan through the end of the shelter in place order; the process is similar to the rent
program offering 30-days past the end of the order.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City is in a unique position to exercise flexibility in an
effort to help businesses; expressed support for staff's recommendation and going
beyond the shelter in place order; stated ramp-up time will be needed to regain
consumer demand, which should be factored into decision making.
Councilmember Oddie stated the intention of the item is to hear other criteria to include;
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 21, 2020
12",CityCouncil/2020-04-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-09-01,14,"to be on hand; the City should be prepared to function longer than
ninety-six hours; the City needs to be diligent.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 12:09 a.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
September 1, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-11-01,4,"to be done in secret from start to finish; this is an exception.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Mr. Kuhn stated the public does not get to control the
litigation; the details were disclosed and made available to the public; if the public wants
to provide participation, they still have the ability to do so; they can voice their concerns
and tell the Council to acquire more land; the open session resolution to acquire the
property to begin with was done in accordance with the City Charter.
Mr. Foreman stated he and Ms. Freeman are here because they think the citizens had a
right to have the proposal presented to the public once the negotiations were completed;
whether or not the Council made a good economic decision is not being challenged.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the Commission needs to be cautious about too much
party to party debate, which is outside of the procedures.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, Mr. Kuhn stated the City was quickly
approaching a trial date; typical when that happens, the parties want to continue the trail
later or take it off calendar if they are engaging in negotiations; that happened in this case;
there were preliminary discussions with Union Pacific in February; it took the City until
September to get somewhere; the litigation was still active and pending at the time of the
Closed Session; the dismissal of the case did not happen until after Closed Session was
completed and the SA was signed.
Mr. Foreman stated he just wanted the Commission to read the stipulation.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she has read and is familiar with the stipulation; it is
beneficial to understand that when a SA is signed by one party, the offer can still be
revoked; if an offer is made and an agreement laid out, then the other party listens to an
open session and learns all the weaknesses of the City's case, the whole deal can be
ended with a simple email to the City Attorney saying the deal is off.
Mr. Kuhn concurred with Commissioner LoPilato; stated anyone can revoke a signature
at any time.
Commissioner LoPilato stated Mr. Foreman outlined what a compliant process under the
Complainant's interpretation would look like; inquired what that timeline and process
could entail.
Mr. Kuhn responded City Council could have gone into closed session, discussed the
matter, stated no decision was reached, put it on a future Council agenda in open session,
get public input and reach a decision; he thinks it is form over substance because the
public did have a chance to weigh in on the matter; Ms. Freeman even submitted a letter
before the City Council hearing; the Recreation and Parks Department held public
meetings about potential revisions to the Park layout and design; ultimately, the City
Council gets to make decisions on pending litigation, weighing the risks and the budget;
laying the cards out on the table for Union Pacific to see would completely change their
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
November 1, 2021
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2016-06-08,19,"to be difficult to have two meetings in a row, but if anybody wants to go to that meeting, park and
rec tomorrow night.
Beth Kenny: I think I can take that.
Susan Deutsch: I will come too.
Beth Kenny: Okay.
La Donna Franco: When is the next library board meeting?
Susan Deutsch: I don't know.
La Donna Franco: Do you think I can find it online?
Susan Deutsch: I just connected with them and I will let you know when I get something.
Beth Kenny: Alright, so are there any other announcements? Well, then I think we're ready to
adjourn. And I want to say that this was a very good meeting, thank you, everybody.
La Donna Franco: Thank you.
Kerry Parker: Concise! Good work!
Beth Kenny: Thank you.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kerry Parker
City Staff Liaison
Commission on Disability Issues
08/17/16
Page 19 of 19",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-06,33,"to be appealed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a grounds for the appeal is typically provided; requested
clarification for the process.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated a stronger appeal provides a
recommended number; there is a very low chance of success in the appeal; staff is
looking for direction toward [appeal] arguments to make and the particular allocation
number desired; staff has a couple days to put together the appeal on behalf of Council.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether an alternative RHNA number around 3,300
exists to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the
negative.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he plans to support the appeal; he does not
plan to support the resolution as-written; requested a friendly amendment to the motion
in listing the following three reasons for the basis of the appeal: 1) 60% of voters
recently voted to uphold the adopted Charter provision which prohibits multi-family
housing from being built making the RHNA allocation thwarting the will of the Alameda
voters, 2) Alameda's uniqueness as an island of the San Francisco Bay is subject to
sea-level and emerging groundwater issues, liquefaction and loss of access to the
mainland should an earthquake destroy bridges and [access] tube, and 3) the City's
transportation and infrastructure constraints; the City is an island with limited ingress,
egress and water supply transported by pipelines on the mainland; unlike many East
Bay cities, Alameda lacks direct access to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) within its
borders; the reasons mirror the comments received from the community in requests for
an appeal.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the friendly amendment; stated she is happy
to include the reasons listed; questioned whether the reasons listed include the
significant geological seismic issues; the language listed in her resolution is broader and
includes more points and reasons; she is happy to provide a number for the allocation.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is ok with the methodology; the City's
uniqueness should call for a proposed adjustment.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for items 2 and 3 raised by Councilmember
Knox White; stated item 1 is more nuanced in understanding the obligation for multi-
family housing; the City has been meeting the obligation through the housing overlay
and density bonuses with the context of Measure A.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she will not be supporting the motion to appeal; she
appreciates the position from other Councilmembers in upholding the will of the people
and voters; there have been a number of subsequent presentations from regional
bodies and other groups about addressing the heart of issues raised; support for the
appeal is apparent; expressed concern for the lack of success in the appeal process;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-06-05,23,"to be a next step for non-payment; in other instances, a lien is placed on the property.
The Community Development Director stated the matter will be added to the list for
December.
(18-342) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Revenue Measures to
Submit to Voters for the November 6, 2018 General Election.
The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Encinal Avenue repairs, the Public
Works Director responded the street is owned and maintained by Caltrans.
Mayor Spencer stated a plan is needed to get Caltrans to maintain the road; she will
have trouble supporting other requests until said plan is done.
The Public Works Director continued the presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why the slide indicates emergency response rather
than seismic repair, to which the Public Works Director responded the wording could be
changed and continued the presentation.
***
(18-343) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the referrals.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the remaining items.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye;
Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Expressed support for the infrastructure bond; stated that he is not too keen on the
sales tax measure; the infrastructure bond can specifically address climate change
adaptation issues; expressed concern over the language ""other;"" stated there is already
a long list that adds up to about $200 million; Council is not going to need flexibility to
deal with other things; as far as Alameda Point, the potable water upgrade should be
funded; money can be recouped through Developer Impact Fees at a later time without
conflicting with the fiscal neutrality policy; the priority should be streets and sidewalks;
the word potholes is not needed; storm drain pumping stations should be called out; sea
level rise is not going to be the City's first problem; the Houston area flooding was not
sea level rise; climate change and parks should be prioritized: Richard Bangert,
Alameda.
Mayor Spencer requested clarification regarding the bond measure timeline.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-04-05,4,"to already have the Commission's opinion written seems like a stacked deck; she is
concerned about the way the documents come before the Commission; it was not until
she saw Mr. Morris's statement that she actually understood what was going on.
The City Clerk stated staff hears the Commission and can come back with a different
format next time with a more neutral staff report with the two opposing sides attached.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated she concurs with the City Clerk about the
discussion to clarify the staff report format issue; emphasized that the proposed decision
submitted by special counsel in both cases is the way that they are advocating; the other
side is open to prepare their own desired decision as well; when attorneys file motions in
court, typically, both sides prepare a proposed order or decision; it is a way for the
attorney to urge the judge; she apologizes that it seems like stacking the deck, but the
proposed decision is truly an advocacy piece; she appreciates the comments and the City
Attorney's office will work with the City Clerk to clarify the process as appropriate.
Complainant Scott Morris gave a brief presentation.
Special Counsel Kristen Rogers gave a brief presentation, including outlining objections
to Vice Chair Shabazz participating in the discussion.
Vice Chair Shabazz inquired whether responses to PRAs are 10 calendar days or 10
business days, to which the City Clerk responded it is 10 calendar days.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether Mr. Morris received the full time frame of the
documents he sought from the other County agencies or if the agencies just gave him
more than Alameda.
Mr. Morris responded each of the other 12 county agencies gave him the full time frame
of the documents he requested, except for the Alameda County Sheriff's office and the
Oakland Police Department, neither of which appropriately responded to his request at
all which is the subject of litigation right now with the City of Oakland.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the notion of limiting it to contemporaneous as
to a specific look back period is something that Mr. Morris saw in a written statute or was
it purely from case law.
Mr. Morris responded the statute of issue has a list of things the City must deliver with
regards to each arrest; current address used to be included; based on that, a Court of
Appeals in Los Angeles interpreted the legislative intent of the law to be that it would only
be for a limited period of time, but what the time would be was not defined and was only
supposed to be what was reasonable; in 1995, the legislature removed the current
address; years later there was a different decision looking directly at the subsequent
section of that statute which defines the list of things that has to be released about every
time a Police Officer goes somewhere and current address was also removed; since the
language was removed, it does not apply anymore; there is no reason that it has any kind
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
April 5, 2021
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-05-03,3,"to allow residents to participate at the maximum level possible; she would also like to
propose an appeal subcommittee in the event the Council disagrees on a proposal
brought by the Commission; the goal would be to draw in as many members of the public
as possible; said type of awareness is necessary in open and good government.
Vice Chair Shabazz responded that he appreciates Commissioner Chen's point about the
objectives of accountability, transparency and restoring trust; if the Commission aligns on
said baseline, then it can determine the method in which to achieve the goals.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she likes the idea of grounding in said objectives; the
intent behind her proposal as an tracking device; it is a way to see the health of the Open
Government Commission (OGC) over the long term and what is done with the
recommendations, the result and the action when a complaint comes in; she is open to
discussions from the Commission or staff on improvements that could be made to her
proposal; how it would look on the website is important to make sure it is effective;
thanked staff for the benchmarking report, which was helpful; stated trust-building and
trust-restoring is an important piece; a big part is creating a pathway for the Commission
to give feedback to the City Council and make recommendations about how to avoid
future problems outside the scope of a specific complaint; posting on the website could
also accomplish accountability; she likes the language of John Knox White's proposal,
which is a good direction for the Commission to go in terms of not getting too into the
weeds of details about the complaint process.
Chair Tilos summarized the Commission members' comments.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he would like to have alignment around some general
principle goals the Commission hopes to achieve, instead of conceptualizing along some
spectrum of trust or punishment.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission could make suggestions about what
it wants to do and then a show of hands to move toward a motion.
Commissioner LoPilato moved approval of the proposal for Section 2-92.4.i.
Chair Tilos seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 5.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the next item is John Knox White's proposal and
whether or not to have an additional appeals process or subcommittee; it would be
productive for folks who are putting forth an affirmative proposal to be heard to figure out
if there is support for a motion.
Chair Tilos summarized the Commission members' position.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he is tired of talking
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
May 3, 2021
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,13,"to all Committee members.
Commissioner Shabazz raised a point of order proposing that, based on time and the
timing of receipt of Commissioner LoPilato's proposal for item 3-D, that Commissioner
LoPilato's proposal regarding the null and void remedy could be addressed at a later date.
Commissioner LoPilato said yes, stated that she anticipated that; stated the long-range
solution, while it can be packaged with Item 3-D's discussion regarding replacement of
the null and void remedy, was an addition to other topics being discussed, so she is okay
with re-agendizing it or handling it at a different meeting.
***
Chair Tilos called a recess at 9:23 p.m. and reconvened at 9:26 p.m.
***
3-C. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed February 2, 2021
Commissioner Shabazz recused himself since he was on the Jackson Park Renaoming
Committee and left the meeting.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney clarified that Commissioner Shabazz's recusal is based
on a common law conflict of interest.
Commissioner Reid stated that she will also recuse herself based on the common law
conflict of interest and left the meeting.
Complainant Paul Foreman gave a brief presentation.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding the discussion structure, Chair
Tilos stated outside counsel will present next, followed by Commissioner questions and
public comment.
James Harrison, Olson Remcho, gave a brief presentation.
Mr. Foreman stated there are no issues that he needs to rebut.
Commissioner LoPilato requested clarification on the delineation between Mr. Harrison's
role and the Chief Assistant City Attorney's role tonight.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded that Mr. Harrison has been appointed as
Special Counsel and is representing the interests of the City and the Alameda Recreation
and Parks Department (ARPD); her role, as it would be in all meetings, is an advisory role
in a legal capacity when questions come up from the OGC; she is not here in an advocacy
role this evening; the two advocates are Mr. Foreman, on behalf of himself, and Mr.
Harrison, on behalf of the City.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired what are the long-range impacts of a Commission
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
13",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-05-16,20,"to address fixed-term leases.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated that he accepts the amendment to the
motion regarding an in depth analysis; he would also be open to hearing the language
for an Ellis Act policy.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated both landlords and tenants need to be considered;
she believes landlords need to be given an opportunity to adjust to the current changes
before adding more; she would like to work with the community and have landlords and
tenants come together to discuss options.
Vice Mayor Vella stated other cities have adopted Ellis Act policies and she would like
to hear options; she is concerned about closing a loophole; she heard staff recommend
looking into the Ellis Act policy due to adding a just cause provision.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Alameda is unique and the City has done a good
job with Ordinance 3148; she would like to wait to see how the current amendments
work.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with Councilmember Matarrese's
suggestion to gather data on all evictions to see if provisions are needed.
The Community Development Director stated reporting is not required on for cause
evictions; data is only collected for owner move-ins, withdrawing from the rental
business and previously for no cause evictions; further stated taking on for cause
evictions would be a large effort; there is a cost associated with gathering data.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like information on the reason for the for
cause evictions due to the abuse by large building owners; he would like mandated
oversite to gather the data to know if there needs to be a next step.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the problem is not only large building landlords;
she would like to have a discussion with landlords and tenants; she would like collection
of data prior to any exemptions being added.
Mayor Spencer inquired if a motion is made, can other provisions be reviewed at a later
date.
Councilmember Oddie stated his motion is to accept staff recommendation and add the
just cause provisions, the May 3rd provision and the in depth analysis.
The City Attorney inquired whether Councilmember Oddie accepted the friendly
amendment to the motion.
Councilmember Oddie repeated his motion to accept the staff recommendation of the
amendments [introduce the ordinance], add the just cause provisions and the two
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
May 16, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,13,"to accept the three-car tandem parking, it is a personal choice.
Ms. Mariani suggested continuing this item to a later meeting.
Mr. Lynch agreed that the uniqueness of the neighborhoods and zones should be retained, and
emphasized that the wording of the text would have a significant impact.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous not to revise the current Code regulations pertaining to 20 foot
setbacks.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Piziali/McNamara to retain the language pertaining to two-car tandem parking.
AYES - 4 (Cook absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Lynch); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,10,"to a unique community.
Mr. Richard Archuleta, 1406 9th Street, spoke again in support of this application. He did not believe
this theater could be compared to the theater on Alameda Point, and that this was a neighborhood
theater that people could walk to. He noted that there was sufficient parking for theater patrons.
Mr. Robert Todd spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern that this business may
expand its services as it became more successful, and would not want to see additional uses, such as
a
restaurant that may serve alcohol. He expressed concern about the actions of patrons as they leave,
causing noise or hazards on the road. He inquired whether this use would have the same noise
restrictions as residential districts, and was concerned that it would become a nuisance in the future.
He expressed concern about the operation of the Building Department.
Dr. Carol Gerdes noted that she was an obstetrician and spoke in support of this application. She
noted that the theater held a Baby Brigade evening on Tuesdays. She appreciated Alameda's family
community, and believed it was important to support this use. She noted that the mortuary use was
more intense.
Ms. Karya Lustig, 838 Central Avenue, spoke in support of this application and noted that she lived
next door to the theater. She and her family appreciated the family atmosphere, and added that their
initial noise and traffic concerns had not been borne out. She complimented the applicant on the way
in which he kept the property up.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1282 Caroline Street, spoke in support of this application and believed this was
a good use of the site. He liked the design of the theater.
Ms. Michele Bealhimer, PO Box 2933, noted that she lived three blocks away from the theater, and
liked the small-town feel that was particular to Alameda. She added that there was no adverse noise
impact from the theater.
Mr. Ronald Pineda, 748 Lincoln, noted that he liked the theater, but was concerned that Alameda
might emulate the character from other towns rather than be a unique community. He believed
Central Cinema was an important component of Alameda's character.
The public hearing was closed.
There was no Board discussion.
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June
13, 2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-10-02,6,"to a multi-million dollar grant to build a parking structure for
ferry riders.
Councilmember deHaan stated Vallejo formed an Advisory Ridership
Committee; inquired what methods would be used for outreach to the
Alameda ridership.
The Public Works Director responded today's newspaper article
provided information to residents; stated a notice was sent to
ferry riders late today informing the riders of tonight's meeting.
Councilmember deHaan stated that a community workshop would be
worthwhile.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the reasoning for the urgency of
the Bill is known, to which the Public Works Director responded
that he did not know.
Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed flying vehicles.
Scott Henning, Alameda, stated that Council's vote will have the
appearance of agreeing with approving the Bill; residents need to
have a voice in how assets are managed the Bill is proposing to
give Alameda's assets to a regional authority where the City's
voice is one of many regional cities; the big concern is that the
Bill would transfer ownership Vallejo is in extreme opposition to
the Bill and is questioning its enforceability; ferry riders have
been invited to attend Public Hearings in the past; Council should
consider not adopting the report until Public Hearings are held,
the City Attorney provides an opinion on whether or not the Bill is
enforceable, and an Advisory Ridership Committee is established.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Short Range Transit Plan is
required to be adopted, to which the Public Works Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Council voting on the Short
Range Transit Plan would not be supporting the Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA) Legislation the questions are the
same as when the WTA made a presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of adopting the Short Range
Transit Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that good suggestions have been made
regarding public meetings; the cleanup legislation is an unknown.
Mayor Johnson stated that language could be added stating that the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-02-27,9,"to Vice President Cook's question whether there would be time for bringing new drawings to the
Board, Ms. Woodbury believed that would be difficult.
Mr. Lillard noted that they hoped to use the building in the summer.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-10 to approve Use
Permit and Design Review approval to allow the construction of a permanent 1,920 square-foot (40'
by 48') recreation building that will replace an existing temporary structure. Pursuant to AMC
Subsection 30-4.19.b(3), a Use Permit is required for structures located on public and private land in
the O (Open Space) District. The applicant would work with the Planning and Building Director
regarding landscaping and additional articulation, and would return to the Planning Board if that
could not be achieved.
AYES - 4 (Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
February 27, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-06,8,"to Rezone Approximately 2.78 Acres Located at 2100 Clement
Avenue/1924 Willow Street, APN 071-0228-001-0 from M-1,
Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R-2-PD, Two
Family Residence Planned Development District Zoning Regulation.
Finally Passed;
(*09-387 D) Ordinance No. 3006, ""Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S.
to Rezone Approximately 1.9 Acres Located at 1913 Sherman Street,
APN 074-0906-031-08, from M-1-PD, Intermediate Industrial
(Manufacturing) Planned Development District to R-2-PD, Two Family
Residence Planned Development District Zoning Designation."" Finally
Passed; and
(*09-387 - E) Ordinance No. 3007, ""Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S.
to Rezone Approximately 2. Acres 1590/1616 Fortmann Way, APN 072-
0381-018-00, from M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District
to R-4-PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District
Zoning Designation to Bring Zoning Designations for Six Properties
into Conformance with the General Plan and Housing Element. ""
Finally passed.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
( 09-388) Telephone Contract Update
The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the new system would provide
the exact location of a 911 call, to which the Deputy City Manager
responded that she would check.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she would like the new system to
have clear transfer and conference buttons.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the new system would have
conferencing ability, to which the Deputy City Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City has the bandwidth
to handle everything.
The Interim City Manager responded staff initially estimated a cost
savings of $165,000 per year; the $165,000 savings could be used to
do something with the overall City computer system, turning a
liability into an asset.
(09-389) Proposition 1A Securitization Proposal
The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 6, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-09-15,14,"to R-2-PD, Two Family Residence Planned Development District Zoning
Regulation; 1.9 Acres Located at 1913 Sherman Street, APN 074-0906-
031-08, from M-1-PD, - Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing)
Planned Development District to R-2-PD, Two Family Residence
Planned Development District Zoning Designation; 2.1 Acres
1590/1616 Fortmann Way, APN 072-0381-018-00 from M-2, General
Industrial (Manufacturing District to R-4-PD, Neighborhood
Residential Planned Development District Zoning Designation to
Bring Zoning Designations for Six Properties into Conformance with
the General Plan and Housing Element. Applicant City of Alameda.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Speakers Tom Dailey, owner of 1913 Sherman Street; former
Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Following Mr. Dailey's comments, the Planning Services Manager
stated the self storage use at 1913 Sherman Street would be
considered a legal, non-conforming use as long as the property is
not vacant for more than a year and not more than 75% is destroyed
in the event of a fire or act of nature.
In response to Mr. Dailey's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the
Planning Services Manager's explanation is correct.
Following former Councilmember Kerr's comments, Mayor Johnson
inquired whether staff is in agreement that the Beltline Property
outline is incorrect and that the Sherman Street entrance was
decided by the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan Committee.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative stated
the map would be corrected for the second reading of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor deHaan moved introduction of the ordinances.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(09-364) Recommendation to Accept the Report of the Economic
Development Commission's Business Retention Subcommittee.
Continued.
(09-365) Recommendation to Accept the Estuary Crossing Feasibility
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 15, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-09-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-12-04,4,"to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with the
Alameda Soccer Club for the Use and Management of the Alameda Point Soccer
Fields, located on the green between Buildings 2,3, and 4, for a total of 3 Years.""
Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
December 4, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,19,"to Council, but Finance never implemented the change; that she
questions whether the memo even went to Finance in 2001.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the policy that he is looking for is
that if there is a dollar figure in a contract, that the matter
should return as a Contract or MOU amendment.
Mayor Johnson stated sending a copy of a memo to the Council is not
a way of notifying the Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the question is not notification;
the question is approval; there is an easy fix: going forward, all
changes will come to Council for a vote.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with the suggestion; stated policy
should be set going forward; the Contract for the new City Manager
states that the amount is a fixed amount a new Contract is being
negotiated with the City Attorney and the matter can be clarified;
inquired what will be done in the interim in the next five months;
stated putting the matter in the open to understand how the City
reached the current status is good; safeguards can be put in place.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council voted to make the legal opinion a
public document and should call the next agenda item to address the
policy.
( 05-365) - Discussion and recommendations regarding City Manager and
City Attorney contract provisions pertaining to vehicle allowance
limit.
Councilmember Matarrese stated his previous comments [ under the
previous agenda item, paragraph no. 05-364] hold.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan concurred.
Councilmember Daysog that he does not have a problem with the
direction to have issues come back to the City Council; however,
when he received the legal opinion in 2001, he felt it was
consistent going forward, Council's request for everything to come
before Council is acceptable.
Councilmember deHaan stated actions should be done equitably among
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.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,2009-01-20,15,"to Council for discussion; staff was directed to work with the
vendor and Bike Alameda.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the issues are important and should be
discussed.
The City Manager stated an Off Agenda update could be provided
on the implementation of bike parking on Central Avenue between
Oak and Park Streets; staff is moving forward on the matter
following Council direction; the consideration of bike crossing
using the Fruitvale Bridge and associated bike lanes is not on a
current work plan; the City works with the County on the matter.
The Public Works Director stated the County was contacted by
Bike Alameda; the County discussed the possibility of restriping
the Fruitvale Bridge to allow a bike lane with City staff; a
three foot bike lane would be feasible; the minimum is four
feet; five feet is encouraged.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he does not want to get into
discussion tonight.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council had a long, involved
discussion on Items 1 and 3; suggested that staff provide an Off
Agenda report; placing the matter on an agenda is premature.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired about Item 2.
Councilmember Gilmore responded staff could pursue the matter
and provide an Off Agenda report when ready; inquired whether
the County started any work on the Fruitvale Bridge.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
lifeline project funding is being pursued, which might include
bike accommodations.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is consensus to preliminary
review all three items and produce an Off Agenda Report that
provides a path forward on Items 1 and 3 and options for Item 2,
including removing a lane of car traffic.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether staff's workload would be
impacted, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
January 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-03-20,4,"to Council annually; Council should initiate the process for naming
or renaming streets or facilities; she does not want Council review
to be in the last step of the process.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the policy states that an
individual needs to be deceased for a minimum of three years, to
which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the Boards and Commissions have violated the
policy for the past two names.
The City Manager requested clarification on whether the Boards and
Commissions would perform an annual review and that recommendations
would come to Council first.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Boards and Commissions would review
the list annually and make recommended changes to Council for
approval requested that the resolution be revised to reflect
recommended changes and brought back to Council.
(07-130) - Resolution No. 14077, ""Directing Staff to Monitor the
Chuck Corica Golf Complex Budget, Consider Results of Operational
Review, and Implement Operational Changes to Ensure a Balanced
Budget. Adopted.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
The City Manager clarified that the anticipated revenue would be
$60,000, which would leave a $20,000 deficit.
Mayor Johnson requested that the Golf Commission be added to the
last Whereas statement and the first NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED; more detailed budget reporting is needed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the unreserved balance would
be $2.2 million at the end of the year.
The Finance Director responded the unrestricted fund balance was
$2,358,000 at the end of February.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the unrestricted fund
balance at the beginning of the year, to which the Finance Director
responded $2,611,000.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the unrestricted fund
balance five years ago, to which the Finance Director responded
approximately $6 million.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
March 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-03-20.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,2016-05-17,19,"to Call for Review a decision of the Planning Board; stressed the importance of
maintaining the process; he is not against gathering information, but he will not vote to
dismantle part of the system.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with the Vice Mayor Matarrese's comments; she
does not see the majority saying they want to change the way an appeal occurs.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 3. Noes: Vice Mayor Matarrese
and Mayor Spencer - 2.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(16-258) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she and Councilmember
Daysog attended a workshop on the City Transportation Demand Management System
and Transit Study; she and Councilmember Oddie attended a meeting regarding the
proposed Alameda County affordable housing bond that will be on the November ballot.
(16-259) Councilmember Daysog stated several citizens expressed concern with the
City's policy with pesticide use and how the pesticides might affect bees.
(16-260) Mayor Spencer stated that she would attend the legislative day in Sacramento
regarding the action that Council took earlier to reject the proposed Shasta Dam raise.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-04-09,3,"to April 23, 2012.
8-B. Public Art. A public workshop to review and discuss a proposed update of the
city's public art policies including public art requirements, section 30-65 of the
Alameda Municipal Code. No action shall be taken at this meeting. Staff is
requesting a continuance to June 11, 2012.
Board member Knox White moved to approve the consent calendar.
Vice President Burton seconded, motion carries 5-0, no abstentions
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. 1051 Pacific Marina- City of Alameda The Planning Board will conduct a six
month review of the existing use permit in effect for the site property. This review
is being completed by the City in fulfillment of the use permit's conditions of
approval.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation recommending
that the Board accept the six month review. Staff is not recommending any changes to
the condition of approval.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if another six month review should be scheduled.
Mr. Thomas responded staff does not recommend another review if issues arise or there
are any complaints, or unusual police activity the permit can be called for review.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to accept the report.
Board member Henneberry seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0, no abstentions
9-B. Draft TSM/TDM Plan.
Obaid Khan, Public Works Engineer gave brief presentation.
David Reinke, Associate Planner from Kittleson & Associates and Project Manager,
supplemented Mr. Khan's presentation with details of the plan.
Vice President Burton requested further research on number and size of small
employers in Alameda indicating it is a critical component to the analysis.
Board member Knox White submitted a series of questions and comments sent by email
the morning of the 4/9/2012 meeting.
Mr. Khan stated that the intention of the plan is to provide guidance and direction, not
policy. The funding requirement from Caltrans requires completion of the work, not
adoption of the plan.
Oral Communication: NONE
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 7
April 9, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-04-09.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-11-01,2,"to 60 deteriorated decorative streetlights along sections of Lincoln, Buena Vista, and
Encinal Avenues with new decorative streetlights. The streetlights are listed as
significant streetlights in Appendix A of the Historic Building Study List. Staff requested
a continuation to the meeting of November 1, 2007.
Simone Wolter, Planner I, presented the staff report to the Board. Juan Ulloa of
Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) responded to questions regarding the replacement
program, the survey of existing lights, and the cost of new poles.
Chair Anderson opened the item for public comment.
Christopher Buckley discussed the specifications, standards and maintenance of the
streetlights.
Richard Rutter discussed material options for streetlights and stated that cast iron was
the best replacement option for the streetlights.
Woody Minor provided input regarding the historical aspect of the streetlights, noting
that the focus should be more on the retention.
Kevin Frederick stated that he opposed the use of fiberglass.
Birgit Evans commented that there should be some way to reuse the old streetlights,
rather than selling the parts for scrap metal.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and
opened the floor for public discussion.
Board Member Lynch expressed concern that staff did not understand that the
streetlights were historical monuments and was very concerned that Alameda Power &
Telecom had gone ahead and changed 20 of the streetlights without any authorization.
The Board requested a complete cost comparison from Alameda Power & Telecom for
different casting companies including the use of different materials and a complete
listing for Phase 1 and Phase 2 for repair and replacement of existing streetlights. In
addition, the Board requested information on how to correct the existing 20 streetlights
that have been replaced to date.
Chair Anderson entertained a motion to continue the item to the February 7, 2008
regular meeting.
M/S (Miller/Lynch)
Ayes: 5;
Noes: 0;
Motion carries.
Minutes of November 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-11-01.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-10-25,5,"to ""non-invasive"". On page 97 about the ferry terminal, strike from the documents
""such as rebates on needs-based parking passes"". Board Member Hom seconded
the motion and a roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
7-B 2021-1419
A Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to
accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the Period 2023-2031 in
Compliance with State Law.
Vice President Ruiz recused herself from this agenda item and yielded the chair to Board
Member Rothenberg.
Director Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5187690&GUID=5F160E3A
308F-4586-AC17-656E73493D12&FullText=1.
Board Member Rothenberg opened public comments.
Zac Bowling gave his thoughts on upzoning residential areas. He believed the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers were too high not to do that. He also
discussed that they had to get the Navy Cap removed from Alameda Point.
Betsy Mathieson, a resident, discussed Alameda's history and how past decisions were
affecting us now. Certain neighborhoods had become denser and transportation needs
had affected housing needs. She spoke strongly about protecting historic neighborhoods.
William Smith urged the board to make the Housing Element more equitable. He
discussed past issues that Alameda had faced and how important public engagement
would be. He added that there needed to be concrete provisions to further Fair Housing.
Dolores Kelleher discussed the proposals that had been given by AAPS to prevent
upzoning and density increases to reach our RHNA numbers. She wanted to see more
action on these proposals and wanted to know what had been to contact the Federal
Government about removing the Navy Cap at Alameda Point.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, discussed a 7-page letter the society had sent and said they
were still reviewing this document. The society had major concerns mainly with upzoning
the R-2 & 6 zones. He discussed ideas that AAPS had, such as looking at shopping
centers for housing.
Josh Geyer discussed the importance of housing and how Alameda needed to do more.
He was very much in favor of putting housing in parking lots but they still needed to put
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 8
October 25, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-08-28,3,"to
without merit.
Another issue raised was the weighing of the interview and supplemental questions. The
ranking would not have changed whether or not it was 40-60 or 50-50. The top three
applicants were selected based upon the scoring conducted by Chris Low. None of the
applicants objected. Also, there was no indication that Chris Low was biased in the
selection of candidates.
There were several comments attributed to Dale Lillard, where one of the Appellants
believes that there was bias in the recruitment process, that the selection of applicants was
a ""done deal,"" these comments were not corroborated. Recreation Supervisor Patrick
Russi denied making comments attributed to him about being a pawn in the process.
Based on her investigation Ms. Kramer concluded that the recruitment was a fair process,
Mr. Lillard's involvement was very limited, and did not impact the final outcome of the
recruitment.
President Peeler thanked Ms. Kramer and asked Board Members for any questions.
Member Malloy stated that Ms. Kramer had mentioned on a number of occasions that
information was not corroborated. Ms. Kramer believed the person that comments had
been made. Ms. Kramer further explained that she did not feel that anyone was
intentionally deceitful. She thinks that it was more of a perception issue.
President Peeler invited the Appellants an opportunity to address the report presented.
Dave Gossman, Business Union Representative for Operating Engineers Local 3 for
Alameda City Employee Association (ACEA), stated that he is representing not only the
Appellants but all union members applying to the City of Alameda. He did find that the
investigation was thorough and complete and stated that there were facts brought up in the
report that the Appellants were not aware of and that there were also facts which show that
the examination should be overturned. Mr. Gossman provided the Board with a report
containing comments regarding the results of the investigation and acknowledged the
findings that there was no issue of discrimination of race, creed, or marriage.
Mr. Gossman stated that their first issue was a preselection issue prior to the investigation
and examination even taking place. He further stated that not only did the applicants know
that Mr. Lillard had a predisposed plan; but that Chris Low also knew that there were
rumors of a predisposition and who the applicants were. Mr. Gossman stated that upon
confronting John Russo, City Manager, Mr. Russo stated that he already knew what was
happening and that he would take care of it.
The second issue was the selection of the test evaluators. Whether there was any
communication between Mr. Lillard and the test evaluators, Mr. Gossman expressed that
Mr. Lillard knew who the test evaluators were due to a previous employment.
Page -3-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,16,"to
address are : how people would be evacuated, whether helicopters
would be available, and what would happen to the water supply;
people need to know how to turn off gas lines; stated that cable
communicatior would most likely be out during a disaster.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a current copy of the City's
Emergency Operation Plan and that the matter be placed on an agenda
for discussion; stated that questions have been raised regarding
the placement of people and the use of public facilities including
the schools; that he would rather not wait until the exercise is
performed in October; the matter needs to be addressed as soon as
possible; recommendations could be made and policy direction could
be given on what is in place now.
The City Manager stated that the Council would be provided with a
copy of the Emergency Operation Plan and that the matter could be
placed on an agenda for future discussion; issues that need
direction would be identified; sheltering questions could be
answered through the City's relationships with other agencies;
tonight's intention was to ensure that the audience knows where
contributions can be made to the current disaster victims and that
the City has a plan in case a disaster occurs.
ouncilmember deHaan stated that everyone has a heavy heart right
now; the gas surge was a best-case scenario; resources were
available to handle the situation; the liquefaction was monumental
(particularly at the Naval Air Station) during the earthquake
tonight's discussion is timely; noted that he was sorry the
discussion had to be within the current circumstances; stated that
the comments are worthwhile and appreciated; the Council has
responsibilities; stated that he takes the responsibility
seriously; he is concerned with communication and support resources
in the City; the Fire and Police Departments are on 24-hour shifts,
but other departments are not; stated that he looks forward to
further discussion.
( 05-437) - Councilmember Daysog requested: 1) an update on the
status of the live/work issues, 2) a timetable outlining when the
matter would be addressed, and 3) an update on the court issues.
(05-438) - Councilmember Daysog requested a review of current and
future developments occurring in the City of Oakland that could
have impacts on the City of Alameda; stated that a recent cable
television show mentioned a project that would be occurring at Jack
London Square.
(05-439) - Councilmember Daysog stated that there seem to have been
a number of accidents at the intersection of Constitution Way and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-21,18,"tipping, or pre-paying for services; expressed gratitude for staff's work on conflicts;
stated staff has exercised good judgement; noted his first choice would be to have the
process contained within staff; stated publicly traded companies should not be eligible;
there may be some issues with franchises; this is just the beginning, many other
proprietors that do not have employees will need assistance and Council should
consider providing assistance; he will not support a delay in the minimum wage
increase; expressed support for understanding how businesses deal with the increase
should it prove to be impactful; expressed concern that the action is not enough; stated
a trigger should be added in the event a high amount of applications are received, the
City Manager could be authorized to fund an additional amount or additional funding
could be considered at the next Council meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated more funding is needed; the City's funding should be
considered as a last resort; businesses should apply for federal grants; outlined
available funding; stated staff has connected with the business community and provided
resources; façade grant funds could be used to help reposition floorplans for businesses
and restaurants to prepare for reopening; she does not support a geographical quota;
good criteria have been created, along with the proposed panel; Council must resist the
urge to be all things to all people; her first criteria is to keep people housed; expressed
support for helping renters and keeping businesses open; stated there is not majority
support for delaying the minimum wage increase; she does not support a blanket delay;
questioned whether staff could provide criteria for allowing a slight delay in
implementing the minimum wage increase, such as an employer providing benefits or
maintaining its workforce in majority or whole; questioned whether the topic lends itself
to subcommittee review; stated the subcommittee could be herself and Councilmember
Oddie; she would hate to see a business go under.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of the staff proposal to start the small business
grant program at $7,500 per grant, adding direction based on Vice Mayor Knox White's
comments related to a business which does not need all $7,500 being able to return a
portion of the grant back to the fund for allocation to other businesses, directing staff to
look at other public-private partnerships and funding available in the future, taking into
account all feedback given from speakers and Councilmembers, directing staff to work
on this immediately and allow the program to begin as soon as possible, and that no
financial institutions or publically traded companies can be recipients of the grant.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, with the understanding that the direction
also includes no bureaucratic hoops be in the way of the program starting.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie proposed a friendly amendment to include the
Community Development Director's panel composition.
Councilmember Vella accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Oddie proposed an agenda item be placed on the next Council meeting
to discuss the matter in the event of popularity.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 21, 2020
8",CityCouncil/2020-04-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-05-06,13,"times just to get around the corner.
The Police Lieutenant stated enforcement would be increased; the
vehicle code allows for three circumstances when crossing a bike
lane : 1) entering and existing the roadway; 2) parking; 3) setting
up for a turn when within 200 feet of an intersection.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether emergency vehicles would not
use any part of the loading zone, to which the Police Lieutenant
responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that many intersections have defacto
turn lanes that work well.
Mayor Johnson stated there are defacto turn lanes everywhere in
Alameda.
Michael Krueger, Alameda, stated that he does not oppose parking
removal, loading and drop zones, or emergency accessi he is
concerned with the creation of the defacto right turn lane; other
alternatives should be explored, i.e. bulb-outs or an official
right turn lane; a temporary measure could be taken with the intent
of a more elegant solution in the future; he would like to see the
drop off zone and emergency access in place for the grand opening
[of the theater]
Mayor Johnson stated that the Police Department believes their
recommendation is safer.
Ricardo Pedevilla, Bike Alameda, stated that he is concerned with
the loading zone.
Debbie George, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) stated that
PSBA supports the staff recommendation.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated the Transportation Commission did not
recommend anything at its last meeting; that he made a motion to
accept the staff recommendation, which was seconded by another
member. ; the vote was lost five to two; the Transportation
Commission decided to move on to other business; he does not think
that an emergency vehicle would be able to make a right-hand turn
with a bulb-out at the corner; suggested that the issue be reviewed
after 90 days.
Kyle Conner, Cineplex Developer, stated that he concurs with the
Police and Fire Department recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has concerns regarding the
Regular Meeting
13
Alameda City Council
May 6, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-02-19,22,"timeline on the budget.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded potential revenue
sources will be reviewed and presented at a workshop discussion in
March or April stated each department's budget is being reviewed;
information needs to be gathered on property tax issues; there
could be additional impacts.
louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the City is
not at the point of considering a moratorium on spending yet.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the issue becomes a
push pull situation regarding not filling positions; public safety
overtime costs are expected to be $350,000; the work still needs to
be done and the public needs to be provided with safety comfort;
recognizing the obligation to protect the health and safety of
residents is important.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he hopes
that the City does not get to that point [moratorium on spending]
.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the public needs to understand the
situation; the City cannot run on a deficit budget the situation
is going to be longer term; choices are to increase revenues or
determine what services are affordable; she wishes that there were
more people here tonight ; the budget needs to be balanced by $4
million in the next four months; the community will have serious
choices to make.
Councilmember/Board  ember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of
the staff recommendation.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
a single-year budget could be done, to which the Finance Director
responded a budget and a plan are done; the second year would not
be adopted until next June.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the real
focus has been the General Fund; two-thirds of the budget is not
being discussed tonight; redevelopment and transportation funds
could be impacted.
The Finance Director stated redevelopment funds could be impacted
if assessed values decline due to the County Appeals Board grants
appeals, which lead to less tax increment for redevelopment.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
10
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
February 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-10-02,19,"timeline has never been provided.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the letter is fine as-written; a significant
percentage of the homeless population being is veterans.
Councilmember Oddie stated the letter is fine as-written; sending the letter with specific
questions could help the VA prepare answers about the project and allow for a
comprehensive presentation.
Mayor Spencer expressed support for sending the letter with the addition of
Councilmember Oddie's language and striking the portion about regaining confidence.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of a substitute motion to send the letter to the VA with
the addition of Councilmember Oddie's language and removing the language regarding
regaining confidence.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the substitute motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(18-558) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Planning Board
and Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB).
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
October 2, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-07-07,14,"timeline clarifications, the Development Services Director stated
debt timelines and caps remain the same; the West End Community
Improvement Project (WECIP) timeline ends 2026; the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) timeline ends 2032.
louncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of closing the
public portion of the hearing.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved introduction of the
ordinance.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore 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 8:09 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
Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-17,26,"timeline and a date certain as to when the item will come back to Council.
Councilmember Oddie stated Scenario 2 is more palpable; he understands the
comparison issue, but Alameda has to stay cognizant that neighboring cities are the
competitors in terms of minimum wage jobs for residents; it is good to look at similar
demographically-based cities; time is running short; concurred with Councilmember
Matarrese to look at other ordinances.
Mayor Spencer stated the bigger chain stores, such as Starbucks, do not have the
ability to change what they pay employees and have to pay minimum wage; she would
like to find out how the big stores would be impacted; she would also like to know the
impact on Alameda's small businesses and whether locally-owned businesses could
increase the pay themselves.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not differentiate between youth;
young people are working to help support their families; Council is putting a lot on staff's
plate; she would like to increase the minimum wage across the board now instead of
doing phasing.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the issue is minimum wage, not a living wage; Alameda is still
below the living wage; she would like to move ahead with something; she prefers
Scenario 2 which is a ramp up; the City does not get a pass; both small and large
businesses are being treated the same.
Councilmember Matarrese stated time is precious; Council should choose an ordinance
to review and model after, instead of constructing a new one to have a shorter
timeframe and Council could voting on the matter in September.
The Acting City Manager stated staff will work as quickly as possible on the issue but,
needs time to do the work; the focus is on the workers but it is important to get input
from WABA and DABA as well; another component that needs discussion is
enforcement; there is no enforcement mechanism right now.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does
not want to task staff with writing an ordinance; he agrees that community outreach is
important.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to see community outreach, but does not
want it to get in the way of or delay the item from coming back to Council in a timely
manner.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to synthesize Council
comments and select an ordinance from other cities that can be reviewed by a
community outreach process and brought back to Council in September.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
April 17, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-20,16,"time; stated the Contractor is hoping for completion at the end of
this year; the first couple of months of 2008 is more realistic.
ADJOURNMEN'T
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:30 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
February 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-07-19,8,"time; if a speaker requests another 30 seconds, he would grant it, but there have been
no requests for time extensions and he does not want to change the rules.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated it is not necessary to increase the speaker time; meetings are
one method of getting things done and take a long time for various reasons; there are
other things like workshops or charrettes; people can individually contact Commissioners
and have conversations; there are alternatives to just opening the floodgates for
additional time, which is not the most optimal method of letting democracy flourish.
Commissioner Chen stated that she concurs with Vice Chair Shabazz.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she agrees with keeping the speaker time at three
minutes; the point is well taken that there are other ways to get ideas out there; a guiding
principle is that Commissioners are very available and can say things during
Commissioner Communications if a member of the public brings something forward.
Chair Tilos stated Commissioner time limits should stay at the eight minute mark.
Commissioner Chen stated regarding the issue of declaring a conflict of interest and
recusal, until she read up on the issue, she did not believe she had a conflict of interest
when she was asked to recuse herself; there needs to be some clarification on the
process; when she read about it online, it was mainly about financial interest.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the topic is definitely one for training and something for the
onboarding resources in the bylaws.
Chair Tilos thanked Commissioner LoPilato for all the work, providing a good framework,
and for being very efficient in asking the questions; he thanked the Commissioners for
their input as well.
3-C. Report from Subcommittee on Practical and Policy Problems Encountered on
Administration of the Sunshine Ordinance
Vice Chair Shabazz and Commissioner Chen gave a brief presentation.
Chair Tilos stated he was given a 45-minute orientation by the Recreation and Parks
Director, along with the Chair of the Commission when he was appointed to the
Recreation and Parks Commission; suggested the same orientation process for new
Commissioners, rather than the two hours proposed by the subcommittee.
In response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner Chen stated it would have been helpful
for the three new commission members to meet with the City Clerk to go over the
Sunshine Ordinance and Handbook; there is a group dynamic; one Commissioner might
ask a question that another Commissioner did not even think about; the idea was just her
personal vision of how to onboard people and existing Commissioners could also join the
orientation as a refresher.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
8
July 19, 2021",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,4,"time. She would like to find a way to discuss Measure A. She believed that Alameda Point presented
a good opportunity to weave itself into the grid of the rest of the City. As a Victorian owner, she
supports Measure A wholeheartedly, but believed that matters were different on Alameda Point. She
would like to have a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of Measure A, as well as the meaning
of density.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft Kohlstrand noted that the City Charter stated that the Planning Board may
shall have power to investigate and recommend plans for future development, location of public
buildings and works, and subdivision of land. She inquired when this dialogue could take place, and
did not believe that any topic germane to the City's current and future development should be off-
limits.
Ms. Mooney noted that for public comments regarded off-agenda topics, the Board may not have
discussion beyond brief responses by Board members and staff, references to further information,
and/or direction to staff to agendize the topic.
Member Kohlstrand noted that the Catellus item would address Measure A, and that August 11 was
the date to place an item on the November ballot.
Member Lynch was neither an opponent nor proponent of Measure A, but was troubled by the sense
that the question may not be raised. He believed that in order for the City to look forward, a
discussion of such issues must be held.
President Cunningham requested that a discussion of Measure A be agendized.
Member Lynch stated that he would prefer that the discussion focus on the merits of the current City
Charter as it related to the planning process and possible buildout of Alameda Point, rather than
various infill issues that may cloud the discussion.
President Cunningham believed that a special meeting may be warranted to hear the public's input.
Vice President Cook was concerned about the timing of this discussion, and would like to hear the
pros and cons of this item being placed on the ballot sooner rather than later.
Board member McNamara expressed the need for a forum for a healthy discussion on Measure A
since it has not happened yet. She was not aware of any planned events by the City Council to
provide an opportunity for an open discussion on Measure A, but she felt there should be one. She
noted this would give the community an opportunity to voice their opinions on Measure A.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would work with the President of the Board to identify options for Board
consideration at the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.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,2018-06-05,16,"time.
Councilmember Oddie stated the Housing Authority is providing legal advice by telling
landlords whether or not notices are sufficient; however, there is not a nexus for
providing defense for tenants receiving defective notices; defective notice are gold for
tenants; telling landlords how to fix notices is helping kick out renters, which is an issue.
The Community Development Director stated the Housing Authority would say they are
not providing legal advice; they are telling landlords what is required under the
ordinance to have an appropriate notice and that any notice that is not done property
has to be rescinded pursuant to the ordinance.
Councilmember Oddie stated doing so is gaming the system and the fee is covering it;
landlords should go with their notice and let the chips fall where they may; the City
should not be paying for folks to be fixing their notices.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the fee study has the total billable hours; inquired whether the
hours segregate whether advice is deficiencies of landlords versus tenants.
The Community Development Director responded the amount is the composite.
Vice Mayor Vella suggested tracking whether questions are coming from landlords or
tenants.
The Community Development Director stated said information could be captured in the
annual report.
Melanie Guillory-Lee, SCI Consulting Group, stated the composite was based on the
total information; the Housing Authority does have their own separate database and
could pull out additional information; that she did not feel said level of detail should be in
the fee study.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether it is possible to get the information.
The Rent Stabilization Program Director responded the Housing Authority does track
the data, which can be provided.
Vice Mayor Vella provided an example; stated the fee study has the breakdown of some
activities, but not others.
The Community Development Director stated the cost is the same whether serving a
landlord or tenant; suggested capturing the data either in the monthly or annual reports.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired why there is a line item for the Capital Improvement Project
(CIP) process for landlords without the cost providing a related service for tenants being
relocated due to the CIP.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf
PlanningBoard,2010-01-11,9,"time to develop an ordinance allowing them. Motion passes as amended 7-0.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Kerr submitted comments on the minutes of the Planning Board of September 28,
2009.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
President Ezzy Ashcraft spoke about Ms. Latisha Jackson, former Executive Assistant to
the Planning Department, who passed away recently from breast cancer. She extended the
Board's sympathies to Ms. Jackson's family.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
11:10 p.m.
Page 9 of 9",PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,6,"time that plan checking would take. She noted that it depended on whether there were any
issues or problems.
Mr. Lynch suggested continuing the item so the Board could hear from the Department in
terms of a realistic timeline.
Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about a jump in the extension from six months to five
years without any background.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board
meeting of September 12, 2006.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-05-19,10,"time debt is issued, which would typically be between twenty-five
and thirty years.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the APIP clock is rolling.
The Development Services Director stated APIP debt falls on lease
revenue and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority;
currently, APIP does not have any debt.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(09-207) Public Hearing to consider introduction of an Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 30-60 (Bay-
Friendly Landscaping Requirements for New City Landscaping
Projects, City Renovation Projects, and Public-Private Partnership
Projects) to Article IV (Water: Conservation Landscaping) of
Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) .
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Teresa Eade, StopWaste.Org Senior Project Manager, gave a Power
Point presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what type of grants are issued.
Ms. Eade responded that Bay-Friendly and Green Building Landscaping
grants are issued; stated project teams and cities need to notify
StopWaste.Org to receive technical assistance; grants range from
$5,000 to $35,000 for Bay-Friendly Landscaping and range from
$20,000 to $70,000 for Green Building Landscaping.
Mayor Johnson stated the City received a grant for the Library.
Ms. Eade stated the idea is to offset costs.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what size project could be funded
through a grant.
Ms. Eade responded the City's policy would be about 10,000 square
feet; stated grants require at least a 2,500 square foot irrigated
area.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(09-208 - ) Appeal of December 17, 2008 Finance Director Decision and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
May 19, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-15,3,"time coming and will be a fresh start for the West End.
Don Petersen, Alameda, stated that he supports the staff
recommendation noted that Wilver is the correct first name;
recommended using the name Wilver ""Willie"" Stargell.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he liked the idea of using both
the given name and famous name; inquired whether Councilmember
Daysog would support the idea.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated all the
hard work should be attributed to the Encinal High School Alumni
Association.
Councilmember deHaan stated he had the privilege of attending
school with Willie Stargell he is pleased to have such a fine
person representing Alameda's gateway.
Mayor Johnson stated the correct spelling of the given name should
be verified; she liked the idea of using the given name and famous
name.
Henry ""Nick"" Evans, Alameda, commended Council for honoring one of
Alameda's greats.
Councilmember Daysog stated that everything written indicates that
Willie Stargell was a great baseball player and humanitarian;
Alameda owes a great amount of gratitude to Willie Stargell. other
young players are carrying on the tradition.
Mr. Cabral stated Willie Stargell gave stars out every time he hit
a homerun; suggested placing a star before and after his name.
Councilmember deHaan stated Willie Stargell had the nickname ""Pops""
which indicated how his fellow teammates felt about him; Willie
Stargell was involved with a Sickle Cell Anemia campaign.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation
with direction to use the name Wilver ""Willie"" Stargel]
and place a star before and after the name.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-413)
Ordinance No. 2949, ""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
Regular Meeting
3
Alameda City Council
August 15, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-02-16,15,"tighter.
Mayor Johnson stated that she thinks the idea is good.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is supportive of the idea; the Health Care District is
asking for support for seismic retrofitting; Alameda Hospital is the only hospital on the
Island that provides emergency services; that she would be happy to serve on the
liaison committee.
In response to the Interim City Manager's inquiry, Mayor Johnson stated individuals
could be assigned to the committee when the item is brought back.
The Interim City Manager stated the matter does not need to come back to Council; that
she could contact the Hospital's Executive Director.
Mayor Johnson stated Councilmembers should let her know if they are interested in
serving on the liaison committee.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that his biggest concern is ensuring that the City still
has a hospital without continuing the tax; the Veterans Administration should be
included; transport sharing opportunities are available.
Mayor Johnson stated all possibilities should be reviewed to provide necessary
healthcare in Alameda.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of directing the formation of a liaison committee
to address issues raised in the Council Referral.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(10-078) Consider Including Recommendations regarding Non-Profit Organization
Operation of Mif in the Golf Course Operating Plan.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Task Force was ready to provide a preliminary report
next Thursday but the meeting has been cancelled; inquired when the Request for
Proposal (RFP) would come to Council.
The Interim City Manager responded a report from the consultant will come to Council
on March 2; stated the RFP would probably be addressed March 16.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Council Referral could be included.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative, if there is consensus.
Speakers: Ashley Jones, Alameda; Norma Arnerich, Alameda Junior Golf; Jane
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
February 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-02-16.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,2016-02-24,8,"through the intersection and not conflict with the right turn lane.
Mayor Spencer stated cars would be turning right; inquired how bicycles would go
through the intersection.
The Transportation Coordinator responded if bicyclists want to go through the
intersection, they go to the bike lane on the West side of the intersection.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether bicyclists could turn right on red after stopping first,
like motorists do, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if cars are going westbound on Central Avenue, do
bicyclists have to wait until all the cars have made their right hand turn to proceed
through the intersection.
The Transportation Coordinator responded bicyclists have to abide by the rules of the
road.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether bicyclists have to go into the center lane or the
through lane if they want to go through the intersection, to which the Transportation
Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether anyone has determined where the bus would
turn if the bulb outs are installed; stated three bus lines run through the northeast corner
the intersection.
The Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated the purpose of the
curb extension is to protect pedestrians from traffic; the presentation is not the actual
representation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the presentation is public and sets an expectation; at
some point, the expectation has to be aligned with reality.
Mayor Spencer inquired if staff considered a safer place for bicyclists to wait to cross
the intersection.
The Transportation Coordinator responded a two stage turn box is an option.
Mayor Spencer stated there were quite a few youth speakers; inquired whether the
design will have elementary school students use the box.
The Transportation Coordinator stated the box is the safest place, but using it is not
required; bicyclists can take a two stage left turn in the crosswalk.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are options for different types of bicyclists.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 24, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,6,"through the end of August; suggested that staff continue to work
with the estate and levy fines on the property tax bill to help the
City recover costs incurred.
Mayor Johnson stated that the matter should be brought back at the
first City Council meeting in September Council expects blight and
health and safety issues to be remedied by September.
The Building Official stated that citations stop if property owners
work with the City.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that staff research the cost of
bringing in a crane and semi-truck to remove the trailers; stated a
decision could be made in August on whether to continue to fine or
attach the abatement cost [to the lien].
Mayor Johnson stated Council should consider removing the trailers
sooner than August because of health and safety issues.
Mr. Russum stated the administrator's resources could be used to
remove the trailers if costs are provided.
Mayor Johnson stated the estate has the responsibility to deal with
the blight and danger, not the City.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of creating a lien on both
properties and not issuing any more citations on the Lafayette
Street property until the matter is brought back at the first City
Council Meeting in September for review.
Mayor Johnson stated Council would expect the daughter to take care
of removing the trailers in the near future.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is not comfortable with
assessing the entire $9,750 on the Lafayette Street property;
intervals of the citations are peculiar.
Mayor Johnson stated the case initiated in 2001; the property has
had a lot of neighbor complaints; the Police and Fire Departments
have been called numerous times; inquired whether citations were
issued in compliance with the ordinance.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated citations
could have been issued more frequently.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that further
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-07-19,8,"through additional pension contributions.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he strongly supports the Police Officers; sixty-four
percent of the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 budget would be one time savings; future
obligations have not been addressed.
Mayor Gilmore stated the OPEB liability has almost been cut in half; significant
structural changes have been made to take care of future liabilities.
Councilmember Johnson requested that the Human Resources Director explain OPEB
changes.
The Human Resources Director stated the OPEB liability would be reduced by
approximately $1 million through the Fire MOU and proposed Police MOU.
Councilmember Johnson stated there are two long-term issues: one is the additional 2%
contribution towards the PERS benefit; the other is that the City would be reducing the
future cost of OPEB; the $70 million liability would be brought down and would not
accumulate to the extent it has; instead of accumulating a liability for a retired employee
and their spouse, the City would be accumulating a liability for the retiree only, which
would be significant.
Councilmember deHaan stated the $75 million liability increased to $82 million in the
last year; in September, everything should be put on the table to understand what
needs to be done to weather the storm.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council has acknowledged that the economy will not get better in
the next four or five years and that the City is heavily dependant on property tax
revenues; Council has opted to discuss issues in September rather than January and
has given direction to the City Manager to initiate talks with all bargaining units.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Councilmember
deHaan - 1.
(*11-398) Resolution No. 14611, ""Approving a Revised Memorandum of Understanding
Between the Alameda Police Managers Association and the City of Alameda for the
Period Beginning February 28, 2010 and Ending June 29, 2013."" Adopted.
(11-399) Resolution No. 14612, ""Affirming the City's Support for the 34th America's Cup
and the City's Participation in the Activities Surrounding These Events."" Adopted.
The Business Retention and Attraction Development Manager gave a brief
presentation.
Speakers: Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship & Yacht Company; Jack Boeger, AC 34
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 19, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-06-02,19,"through June 30 of this year; the estimate for the City could
increase 3% or 4% above the estimated 2% to 6%.
ADJOURNMEN'T
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:32 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
19
June 2, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-10-16,11,"thrilled to continue the partnership and expects nothing but wonderful things going
forward.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:
Councilmember Tam - 1.]
(12-504) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending Section 1-5.4 (Liability for Costs) of Article V (Penalty Provisions;
Enforcement) of Chapter 1 (General) to Provide Reciprocity in Provisions for Recovery
of Attorneys' Fees. Introduced.
The Acting City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she does not like the reciprocal agreement requirement, yet
understands State law requires the provision.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the provision might not apply because
Alameda is a Charter City.
The Acting City Attorney responded the provision does apply to Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
4. [Absent: Councilmember Tam - 1.]
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(12-505) The City Manager announced a special meeting would be held on October 30th
to receive the Pension Reform report and allow input on upcoming labor negotiations.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(12-506) Councilmember deHaan inquired when Council would receive a status report
on Fire Department work shifts.
The City Manager stated the status report was not up for review yet.
(12-507) Councilmember Johnson requested information from the School District on
the wall recently put up.
The City Manager stated the matter could be addressed at an upcoming joint City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
October 16, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-10-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-05-07,6,"three minutes.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Abstain; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Abstentions: Oddie - 1. [Absent: Councilmember Vella - 1.]
Councilmember Daysog stated he would yield his remaining four minutes.
Councilmember Oddie stated he would support one or two minutes, but three minutes is
a lot.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of allowing Councilmembers an additional two
minutes.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Vella - 1.]
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Oddie found the suggestions from
Kevis Brownson to be along the lines of what he would support.
Councilmember Oddie responded Mr. Brownson gave a broad overview; stated he thinks
there is a way to balance the housing needs and increase the housing supply that was
not listed; no one wants the Victorian homes on Central Avenue knocked down; another
meeting where he could bring the issue forward with other options and more people
attending needs to be done; the issue is 50 years ingrained in Alameda history and
deserves more than a special meeting held during a pandemic.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see the topic continue to be discussed;
she would also like to see some agreement that it is important enough to move forward;
Alameda has not built nearly enough multi-family housing; stated there will not be
meetings with 200 people even after City Hall opens back up, as there will be forms of
social distancing; there needs to be a way to move forward and fashion a compromise;
Council needs to be part of the solution, not part of the problem; action speaks louder
than words.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the point of this meeting is to give direction on how to move
forward; if there is no support for putting the issue on the ballot, there is no point to having
another meeting in June; he heard Councilmember Oddie say that, with some appropriate
protections, there is a solution he could support; requested Councilmember Oddie to
provide those options to the subcommittee or staff and have it come back in June for
further discussion.
Councilmember Oddie stated he would be happy to provide his options in writing; felt the
framing of Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's last comments were unfair; he would still like to do
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 7, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-07.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-04-05,15,"three different options: 1) sustain, 2) not sustain, and 3) find it unfounded which means it
has been found to have no merit; inquired whether any Commissioners asked about the
timeliness issue while both parties were still participating via Zoom.
Chair Tilos responded in the affirmative; stated he believed Mr. Morris was asked and
responded he felt the initial response was timely.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she just wanted to make sure the parties
were heard on an issue that seems to be important to some Commissioners.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he did bring the question up during the clarification part;
he noticed Mr. Morris had his hand up, perhaps to respond to the Chief Assistant City
Attorney's question.
Chair Tilos stated there is a motion that was not seconded; asked if there were any other
motions.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated it is the
Commission's prerogative whether to allow Mr. Morris to address the Commission; if there
are more questions, the Commission is not prevented from asking questions of anyone.
Commissioner LoPilato moved to hear from Mr. Morris whether he had concerns about
the timeliness of his request.
Mr. Morris stated the 10 day issue was not really a big issue for him; the fact of the matter
is that the PRA does have a requirement for this agency to produce records promptly;
that is the word that is being danced around; he is surprised that the Assistant City
Attorney did not mention this; when you talk about timeliness or efficiency, there is a
requirement that once a determination is made that there are records available, those
records need to be provided promptly; it is a legal term from statute and what really was
violated here.
Vice Chair Shabazz moved to sustain Mr. Morris's complaint on the basis that the City
did not respond to his request promptly.
Chair Tilos stated he that wants to add the phrase in totality.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he would be against doing so; his perspective is that the
Commission is trying to recognize that something was not done properly; the 10 days is
one part and that was about notifying; in Mr. Morris's case, the information was not
provided until 12 days later; the initial piece is that his request was not responded to in a
timely fashion; then, it addresses the other layers he identified a while ago.
Commissioner Reid seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Chen stated the complaint appears to be about the
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
April 5, 2021
15",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-03-03,14,"three developers that previously submitted responses with the matter coming back in
May.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the request is realistic; stated the staff report
notes staff will return to Council by the end of the first quarter of 2020.
The Community Development Director stated the return date is a holdover from a
previous staff report; it is the second quarter instead; responded staff can strive to
return in May; stated there are constraints with the internal routing process for staff
reports; the urgency is understood.
The City Manager stated discussed timing to meet the second meeting in May; stated
the schedule will cause the Community Development Director to re-orient priorities,
which is possible; stated that he has been directed to stick to deadlines; the request is a
tight expectation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there has been a delay in getting to this point; much of the
heavy lifting has already been done; a subcommittee has been worked to develop the
RFQ; staff is not starting from square one; Council's number one priority is housing; the
project is an integral part of moving forward with Alameda Point development;
expressed support for moving with deliberate speed.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion keeps the rest as
proposed in the staff report, to which Councilmember Vella responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the item is coming back May 19th, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated if the date cannot be committed to, there is no point in
not moving forward with the RFQ.
The City Manager stated priorities will be re-oriented in the Community Development
Department to make the May 19th deadline.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(20-134) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Provisions to Section 4-32 (Firearms and Weapons) of Article V (Firearms and
Explosives) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety), Requiring Safe Storage of
Firearms and Enhancing Enforcement Provisions. Introduced; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 3, 2020
11",CityCouncil/2020-03-03.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,2007-07-17,9,"three amendments outlined by the Planning Services Manager
regarding parking, height limits, and uses along the truck
routes, which would be placed in the guiding policy or
appropriate sections that apply to the entire Northern
Waterfront, not specific projects.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Gilmore requested that Work/Live parking
regulations and general parking regulations be brought back to
Council for discussion.
The Planning Service Manager stated staff is working on
commercial parking requirements with the Development Services
Department; the matter is scheduled to come to the Planning
Board the first meeting of September and would then come to
Council.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Rolling Ten rule
would be addressed.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Rolling Ten analysis
would be addressed when the commercial parking recommendations
are presented to the Planning Board.
Mayor Johnson stated caution must be taken when addressing
policy for the downtown areas; changes do not have to be made
everywhere; downtown and other appropriate areas could be
excluded.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he hopes that opportunities
would be available to discuss shuttle services as larger
developments come forward; hopefully, the Transportation
Commission would start working on the issue.
(07-347) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14137,
""Authorizing the Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste
Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills.
Adopted.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a letter was received from a lady
who could not attend the Council meeting due to medical reasons;
inquired whether the lady would be exempt.
Regular Meeting
9
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-04-16,9,"thoughtful in pursuing input from the full community or money must be spent to get the
desired responses.
Councilmember Daysog stated the question needs to be answered whether the polling
should include the renter population or homeowners.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the motion does not say what needs to be done.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Public Works Director has sufficient
information.
Councilmember Vella stated that she did not read anything about a poll; she thought the
City would be conducting a survey, which is different; inquired whether the poll would be
specific to property owners.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the scientifically valid poll
would be in writing by mail for property owners; Council might want to do both and test
out similar questions in a telephone poll with a segment of responders that are renters.
In response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry regarding costs, the Public Works
Director stated a telephone poll could be done by July for about $30,000.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated it would
be difficult to separate property owners from the sample; there would be cross over; a
telephone poll would have broad representation of all Alamedans.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council may want to hear from all Alamedans; having a
general election would raise the threshold for passage; inquired whether Council wants
to wait and discuss the issue once the results come back.
Councilmember Oddie stated the results would inform Council; the poll indicating 80%
of the people like it would guide the decision; Council is being asked to foreclose a path
without the data.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Council needs to hammer out the nature of the
election earlier rather than later; residents might have a different take depending on who
would get to vote.
Councilmember Vella stated the motion does not include polling; the motion would need
to be amended to have a mail or phone poll; the question is whether the fee should be
based on intensity or a flat fee; questions will dictate the response; feedback is needed
before Council can decide what to pursue.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the type of fee, the Public Works
Director stated there has to be a nexus to the services provided and the property; any
approach would probably end up at impervious service units, which depends on the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-04-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-07-07,10,"thought he was here for questions and did not know he had a presentation.
Mr. Brown stated there are a number of things SunCal obviously disagrees with in the
staff report; thanked the Deputy City Manager - Development Services and the
Planning Serves Manager for help in completing the application process and finding it
finally deemed complete, and also for continued efforts in the weekly meetings; stated
they are professionals and he very much appreciates the continuing dialogue that
SunCal has had with them and looks forward to doing it [dialogue] in the coming
months; a couple of weeks ago, Vice Chair/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan
asked both staff and SunCal not to come back here with a cat fight over statistics and
facts; as staff indicated, information has been traded back and forth over the last
several weeks; unfortunately he, nor anyone on his team, received the pretty extensive
and detailed report both from staff and the City's consultants until Friday of last week,
just before the holiday weekend, so it has been relatively difficult for SunCal to digest
the information and give a more comprehensive report; that he disagrees with many of
the conclusions presented tonight; turning to some of the areas where there was
conversation, and probably the first one talked to is home valuation; a lot of time was
spent on that [home valuation]; that he gave extensive comments several weeks ago at
a prior review; putting aside all the numbers, SunCal has had conversations with the
City's consultants extensively on valuation; there is a fundamental disagreement
between the way SunCal views the piece of property, the project SunCal proposes to
build, and the way, apparently, the City looks at it; although the community of 4800
homes and millions of square feet of commercial will be built in Alameda, is intended to
be integrated into the community of Alameda, can be a part of the City of Alameda and
the marketplace, both on the commercial level, as well as on the residential level, it is
not simply Alameda [involved]; SunCal views the property and opportunity, as
something that is going to be an asset to the entire Bay Area; when looking at
valuations and comps, SunCal looked at current sales across the entire Bay Area;
SunCal looked at areas in the East Bay, as the City's consultant did, and also looked at
areas in San Francisco; SunCal does not comp to a bigger size house in San Francisco;
similarly, houses in other parts of the East Bay may need to be increased; SunCal
looked at the totality of the market and said this is not a community of 100, 200, or even
400 homes; this is a community of 5,000 new home sites, it is a destination that is going
to be a significant piece of the residential and commercial marketplace in the Bay Area
for years and years to come; the amenities designed into the project support that and to
simply go back and look at, as the report appears to do, that is the fundamental
difference; all the details and numbers can be discussed; saying the project is simply an
Alameda project that needs to be compared to Alameda comps comes to a different
conclusion than SunCal's project view; said view of the project has not changed on over
the last three years; SunCal has always expressed the vision of the project as much
larger than just another subdivision in a wonderful community; that is the fundamental
difference.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the $1,042,000 home price is medium home
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
9
Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-02-02,23,"those from other cities; stated Alameda is an easy target; more Police enforcement is
needed: Michael Murphy, Alameda.
Stated racist attitudes, comments, and actions by Police Officers are inexcusable; there
is a problem with Police racism; any hint should be investigated; questioned the quality
of life described by previous commenters; stated assertions of a decrease in quality of
life are based on personal experiences and anecdotes and run counter to data; bringing
more housing does not bring more crime; efforts that are discriminatory and damaging
should not be duplicated: Josh Geyer, Alameda.
Expressed concern about LPRs and having an outside agency evaluate City data;
stated that he is not convinced the LPRs will do anything to deter crime; expressed
support for adequate steps being taken to prevent abuse of LPRs by Police Officers and
other agencies; stated that he would like personal identifying information to be protected
by any agency evaluating data: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification relative to the armed individual at the MLK Day
peaceful protest.
The Interim Police Chief stated APD is still looking for help from the public in identifying
the suspect; the investigation is ongoing; urged anyone with information to call APD;
saying APD has not taken the incident seriously is incorrect; available resources were
sent to the scene; the handling of the matter has been discussed internally at APD to
learn from; a call for de-escalation and restraint is needed at large group events; APD
wants to bring the individual to justice.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether APD would do anything differently should
another similar event occur.
The Interim Police Chief responded appropriate response is part of the internal
conversation; stated if Officers rush in, a shooting is possible; the argument can be
made that Officers handled the event appropriately due to there being no active
shooting; split second decisions are made by Officers in situations.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the communication around an event is as important as what
transpires; noted a Press Release was not issued until the evening after the event;
expressed support for communication in real-time.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would appreciate updates; expressed support for
communication with the community to the extent possible; stated there can be the
perception of work not being done unless work is shown as it is being done; an absence
of information causes confusion and distrust; there is concern about conflicting
information and the Capitol insurrection; she would like clarification from City staff.
The City Manager stated that he has asked staff to look into any social media posts; no
[Capitol insurrection] support has been found within current APD Officers; promotion of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
February 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,8,"those districts were given notices by mail, legal notices in the newspaper and posted ads.
All responses were provided to the Board.
Mr. Piziali noted that he had not noticed any strong reaction to the proposed zoning
language change.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason confirmed that this use would be a
conditional use in all C-1 districts. She confirmed that it would not allow this commercial
use within a residential zone.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding retail and other parking within the
C-1 districts, Ms. Eliason replied that the C-1 District was subject to the City's overall
parking standards within the Zoning Ordinance. There were special provisions for new
uses; buildings over ten years old with uses that do not change substantially according to
the Zoning Ordinance, parking is not required to be provided.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the validity of the CEQA findings, Mr.
Garrison stated that everything under CEQA may be challenged. If it was determined to
be categorically exempt, the City must prove that.
Vice President Cook advised that a speaker slip had been received from the applicant.
Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, wished to address the parking issue and noted that they
were trying to get cars off the street. He noted that he lived a block from the theater, and
the population density in Alameda was such that people could walk to the theater. He did
not believe there was a serious parking problem, and recalled that an adjacent neighbor
spoke at the last meeting and stated that on one occasion, they had to park a block away.
He noted that he did not advertise because the theater was intended for the neighbors'
use.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding avenues for challenging this use if
parking was determined to be a problem, Ms. Eliason replied that each individual
boutique theater would come before the Planning Board for a discretionary review. A use
permit would be associated with it, and individual cases would be considered by the
Board.
Vice President Cook advised that periodic review for a variety of parking issues had been
attached to use permits in the past.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she supported this kind of activity in neighborhood areas, and
that it was a positive contribution to neighborhood commercial districts.
Vice President Cook noted that she was in favor of this amendment.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-21 to
recommend approval of an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
GolfCommission,2011-01-19,6,"this so we can have a meeting on the 25th. Whatever is going to happen, I think,
they maybe do it in front of the golf community."" Chair Sullwold: ""They darn well
better present their piece before the public comments start, because if they ask for
public comment before they even, I mean, that's one of my frustrations, they have
public comment, they close public comment, then they start discussing things and
get things wrong and there's no opportunity as we saw December 7th for anybody to
correct them, because they won't listen to anybody who wants to correct them.
I
actually expressed my views to Marie Gilmore that night saying that there's
something dreadfully wrong with the process whereby you can't get input into issues
once you start discussing them from the people that elected you. But, certainly, I'm
hoping at least Kemper will give its presentation, there'll be some preliminary
discussion from the Council and then they'li open it for public comment. But, I think
we need to get everybody up there to say, if they're thinking 27 holes is the great
solution for the golf complex, we've got to get people to say that's just ridiculous.
We have a Par 3. We have a charitable foundation that's willing to put out more
than half the cost of improving the Par 3 to the point that it's going to be a really nice
little course. Why do we need to spend $1,000,000 of our money to build a new Par
3, and ruin, in the process, nine holes of one of our regulation courses. That's a
message. The only way you do 27 holes and a new Par 3 is if the Mif is gone and I
think the message has come clear that everybody wants the Mif, but I also think
certain people on the Council think if we give you another Par 3, then we solved all
your problems. And I don't think there's been enough before them saying forget it,
we need both of our 18 hole courses.""
Commissioner Gammell: ""We've talked a lot about that, Jane, about needing the
Commuters, the Junior Golf, they've heard that. I've talked about it."" Chair Sullwold:
""And the point that you said you're going to make, Betsy, is: to do something that
closes the Mif and gives it to developers is betraying the representations that we
made to the Alameda Court system when we acquired this property in the 40's in the
first place. We told them we needed it for public park lands. And that was the
premise under which we got it. To give it to a developer is just a betrayal.
Unfortunately, Terri Highsmith is the one that gave the legal advice that it requires
an open meeting and a vote of four of five of the Council members to do that.
Maybe they'll find a new City Attorney who'll have a different interpretation of that.'
5-B
Update on Golf Complex Finances
Chair Sullwold: ""As you can see, we don't have our usual financial director here.
Bob is in trial and did not have the opportunity to evaluate all the information that
was contained in the packet. Suffice it to say, that the little report that is included
from John Vest and the City says a lot of it. The interesting thing to me is, it's
astonishing to me that the rounds keep going down month after month.""
Commissioner Schmitz: ""We had pretty bad weather, it's been cold, and that affects
the golf this time of year."" Chair Sullwold: ""But the problem is that we've had bad
weather in other Decembers, too. What's different now?""
6
Colf Commission Minutes -Wednesday, January 19, 2011",GolfCommission/2011-01-19.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,14,"this building was grossly out of scale for the street, and did not believe anyone would want to
renovate the proposed design in the future.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, did not understand the pedestrian flow from the parking
garage, which forced customers to walk outside before entering the theater. He did not see much
detail for the historic theater portion, and would like to see more information. He wished to ensure
the historic theater was not dwarfed. He would like to see live performances in that theater, and
would like the Planning Board to plan accordingly.
Mr. Robert Gavrich, 1517 Fountain, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern about
the design and the financial details of this project with respect to the developer.
President Cunningham suggested that the financial questions be directed to the City Council, and
that the design issues be addressed at this hearing.
Mr. Gavrich noted that the elevation was drawn from a distance of 200 feet, and noted that
perspective would not be available in reality. He was concerned about the canyon and wind effect on
the street, as well as the noise from the cars driving in the parking garage.
Mr. Richard Rutter noted that the staff report for the parking garage stated that the site survey raised
questions regarding the property line along Oak Street and the associated width of the public right-
of-way. He noted that there would be a ripple effect into the right-of-way or the building. He
complimented historical consultant Bruce Anderson on a good and reasoned analysis. He believed
the staff report was at odds with his findings. He would be hesitant to support this project at this
point before such open issues were resolved.
Mr. Jerrold Connors, 2531 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, but would favor a
more modest three-screen theater like Piedmont Cinema or the Grand Lake. He would like a theater
with more character befitting Alameda, and believed it should be scaled back.
Ms. Judith Lynch, 1372 Versailles Avenue, noted that she was a member of the HAB but was
speaking as an individual. At the June 13 meeting, she had been concerned that the staff report was
based on inaccurate HAB minutes. She thanked staff for making those corrections, but believed that
the staff report was still inaccurate with respect to Bruce Anderson's comments on page 9. She
generally supported the project, but would like it to look better; she did not believe it was compatible
or harmonious in its present state. She believed the Art Deco heritage of Alameda should be
celebrated in this design. She displayed an example of a Deco theater, and urged the Board to
consider changing the design.
Ms. Paula Rainey spoke in opposition to this item and didn't believe this project met the needs of
Alameda. She believed it was too big, and believed that Ms. Hanson's sketch demonstrated how
good design can bring people together.
Mr. Mike Corbitt, Harsch Investments, 523 South Shore Center, spoke in support of this application.
He noted that this theater would help stop leakage to Oakland, San Leandro and surrounding
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2016-12-14,11,"things, like you said, you have to overcome. So getting input from the group and the diversity in your
group alone, not to mention the diversity all throughout Alameda. We speak 41 different languages
in Alameda, so there's a lot of diversity here to work with, and that's the point about pulling in the
community to say, what does it look like for Alameda? What does it look like for your group? What
kind of disabilities are we facing? How can we plan and prepare so that we are able to serve the
community and work together in answering some of your questions?
Sharon Oliver: We are a small city so we don't have enough staff to meet everyone's needs, it's
imperative to engage the community to help us come up with solutions and be part of the solution in
the planning effort and figuring out what will really work. And then once we make that plan, we have
to test it. We really need to set up a shelter and have you folks come and say, ""Well that was great,""
or ""That didn't work at all."" And then we'll go, ""Okay, we thought it was going to work and it didn't.""
So that's the circle and the way you have to go to make it work. I know you have more and a long
presentation coming, so if there's no more questions, I will let you get on with business.
Elizabeth Kenny: Yes, I would just like to make the motion that we create a work group that will be
part of the task force on functional limitations for emergency preparedness and I would like to
volunteer for that group.
Sharon Oliver: Yes, thank you. I volunteered the whole audience, I don't know if you noticed.
[laughter] You don't want the group to be too big, but you definitely want to have people on it who
are interested most importantly, and that understand the diverse group that we have.
Kerry Parker: And I hear you have fun meetings.
Sharon Oliver: We have fun meetings. I know it's Disaster, but we're a fun group. [laughter] It doesn't
have to be all doom and gloom to have a great plan. I encourage it. Will you work with Kerry to get
a group and once you feel you have a group ready to go, we'll plan a kick-off meeting in 2017?
Probably more like February than January.
Kerry Parker: We can make sure this gets out to the group if there's a task force that's building, we
can send it out to the listeners so that everybody knows.
Sharon Oliver: Yes if they want to be a part of it.
Sharon Oliver: How long can you keep water? I don't have the definitive answer, but if you talk to
East Bay MUD, they say they never wanted to stop moving. I keep water in a large 55 gallon drum
that I dump and refill every 6 months. And I keep some bleach on hand SO if I have to purify it further
and I have some little purifying straws. I have a variety of ways, but our water is awesome so I water
my plants and refill. I don't buy flats of water because of my ecological bent.
Sharon Oliver: You just want to rotate everything. You want to have it in your normal daily business
to rotate, so if you buy water. Whatever you do, use it. Eat it, drink it, rotate it, buy some new, put a
date on it because I can tell you, ""do this,"" and you think, ""I got it,"" and then you look and you go,
""Oh, 10 years has passed."" And I'm not even kidding, and there's cobwebs and it's horrible. We did it
in the police station. We had some bottled water and we went to look and they were all deformed and
weird, and it was in a cool dark place and it was deformed from age. You just have to put it in your
daily practice of checking. You put soup cans in, you eat it, you get some new, you rotate it or you
donate it to the food bank, and you rotate more in. You're making a paradigm shift in the way you
handle life.
Elizabeth Kenny: Thank you very much.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-12-14.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-08-28,9,"things
Mr. Riddle stated that maybe someone should make a motion to grant Mr. Wong's appeal
and then grant the other two candidates appeal. His understanding is that if there is not a
motion to grant any of the three appeals, the effect of that is to deny the appeal.
President Peeler asked based on the City saying that the top three were chosen and Mr.
Wong is now in the top three can the Board move that he be appointed to the position.
City Attorney Kern stated that what is before the Board is whether or not the processes
were fair, not who should get the job. The Board is deciding if the process was fair. It is
not the Board's decision on who should get the job.
Member McHugh moved that the Board grant the request of the Appellants, not for
all of the reasons given, but as to what was brought out in Ms. Kramer's
investigation; there was a need to rush, mistakes were made, lack of deciding what
the rating criteria would be in advance, and announcing the job posting. All are
things that normally do not happen. For those reasons the test should be redone.
Batchelor seconded. Motion passed 4-1.
President Peeler stated that the test will be redone.
4.
ADJOURNMENT: 6:50 p.m.
Holly Brock-Cohn
Human Resources Director &
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board
Page -9-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,12,"they would take transit. She believed that bicycles should be more completely addressed as a mode of
transportation.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that Objective D-3, which reads, ""Impacts to traffic operations, including all
modes of transportation did not sound right, and that an expression of multimodal
accommodations should be included.
Ms. Kohlstrand understood that the Beltway was being preserved for the light rail line, and inquired
whether it would be eliminated. Ms. Hawkins replied that it was in the current General Plan. Ms.
Kohlstrand believed that other solutions besides light rail should be examined. ""Ms. Kohlstrand
wished to clarify that she was referring to the policy regarding the light rail preservation of the
Beltway, not whether the light rail line itself would be eliminated.""
""President Cunningham made note that he would like the Transportation Commission to identify
any areas that would qualify for funding of grants to help implement policies with less of a financial
impact to the City.
No action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that she had nothing new to report.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani advised that there was nothing to report.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Cormack advised that the staff report on the West End Retail Implementation Strategy was
provided for information only.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
April 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
GolfCommission,2007-03-21,2,"they would quit under the new program, 65% said they would wait and see what happens, and
10% said it made no impact. Mr. Mountain mentioned that there is currently a good crew of
marshals and he does not want to loose any of them. Many marshals in the audience spoke
against the proposed benefit changes to the program. The suggestion was made to have a
discussion group made of marshals, Golf Commissioners and management to try and come up
with a possible amicable program for everyone. The motion was made by Commissioner
Schmitz to rescind the Golf Commission approval of the Management Practice #7, Volunteer
Marshal Work Program of February 28, 2007 and refer the matter to a committee composed of
two or three representatives from the Marshal Program, two or three representatives from the
Golf Commission and two representatives from Management. Commissioner Delaney seconded
the motion and the Golf Commission passed the motion unanimously.
4-B
Discuss Possible Marketing for Golf Complex 80 Year Anniversary.
Commissioner Delaney reported that the 80th Anniversary of the Golf Complex is on May 28,
2007 and in light of all the negative press the Complex has received recently this may be an
opportunity to promote the Chuck Corica Golf Complex in a positive way. Commissioner
Delaney continued that the Golf Complex has a very unique history and it should be promoted.
It was mentioned that here are many people in Alameda who have a lot of history about the Golf
Complex. The goal should not only be about giving free items away but building a bridge
between the Community and the Golf Complex. Commissioner Delaney put together a Power
Point Presentation titled ""Respecting the Past, Reshaping the Future"" and would like to contact
other Alameda businesses to contribute monetary or service donations for the anniversary
celebration. Commissioner Delaney would also like to approach one of the local newspapers to
feature a retrospective of 80 years of golf in Alameda. The citizens of Alameda have had a
quality golf course and a place for entertainment and camaraderie for many years and that should
not be forgotten. Commissioner Delaney also stated that the City of Alameda needs to do a
better job of promoting the Golf Complex and the 80th Anniversary could be a stepping-stone
towards better marketing. Commissioner Delaney would like to contact local businesses to get
an idea of the interest level. The idea is to get most of the items donated or at a reduced price.
The suggestion was made to roll back the prices to the 1927 price, although in light of the current
financial status that would be impossible unless a business wanted to sponsor the event and pay
the rate difference. Commissioner Delaney would also like to possibly get a local Public
Relations firm to help with the planning at no cost. The motion was made and seconded to
authorize Commissioner Delaney to send out letters and contact local businesses about
sponsorship. The Golf Commission passed the motion unanimously.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Golf Services Manager Matt Plumlee.
The Golf Services Manager reported that he is currently surveying local golf course operations to
see if the salaries are competitive for the part time employees. Also the request was made to
have the part time employees go back to wearing uniforms and he is working on that. The Golf
Shop will now have course specific registers for the Earl Fry Course and the Jack Clark Course
check in due to the new rates, which are different for each course. The free Junior Golf Clinics
will begin in May 2007 and continue through August 2007. The clinics will be held on each
Tuesday and Thursday at 4:00 PM for the four-month period and the sign up sheets are in the Pro
Shop.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 2
3/21/07
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2007-03-21.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-12-10,4,"they would probably close by 10 or 11 Sunday through Thursday. They would like to
offer late-night dining on Friday or Saturday nights after the theater.
President Cook inquired whether the use permit would be subject to revocation if it
became a public nuisance. Mr. Thomas replied that Condition 1 could be left as is, with a
2:00 a.m. closing time, and add that a review be performed after six to 12 months, such as
with the coffee house. He noted that the other approach would be to modify the closing
hours by day or time, with the understanding that the applicant could request a
modification.
Board Member Lynch suggested that the Board consider a one-year review to allow the
Board and community to learn about the use and see the cycle through; he believed that a
six-month cycle would be too short a cycle. He was not in favor of restricting the hours at
this time, because the business model was tied to the number of people who attend the
theater.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed some concern that the San Francisco locations
did not warrant a later closing time, and did not want to see other problems created on
Park Street. Mr. Reese noted that he was involved with 15 other restaurants, and noted
that weather would keep people inside; they would like to help Alamedans enjoy their
post-theater dining experience.
Mr. McGann noted that their other locations did not experience any problems with the
neighborhood, and that they would be happy to adjust their hours as required. He noted
that the business volume would dictate the operating hours, and added that his track
record indicated that they operated a family-friend restaurant.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07-
to
approve a Use Permit for extended hours of operations from 11 am - 2 am Monday
through Sunday pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(a). and use of an outdoor patio for up to
24 seats pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(b), with the following modification: The one-
year review will commence on the date of opening.
Board Member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0
Absent: 2 (Cunningham, Mariani). The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. Large Format Retail Store Workshop - Applicant - City of Alameda. The
City of Alameda will consider proposed zoning text amendments to the Alameda
Municipal Code related to large format retail stores and the location of retail uses
throughout Alameda. The proposed text amendments include a definition of large
format retail store and proposed provisions requiring a use permit for different
types of retail uses in certain zoning districts. The proposed amendments would
Page 4 of 12",PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf
GolfCommission,2009-02-18,3,"they will look into having it recarpeted in the near future. Staff development
is
continuous. Mr. Vest had a meeting with the Marshals and Independent
Contractors. He is also looking into recarpeting the Driving Range down the
road (although it is not a top priority at this time), and is also looking into
replacing some of the mats. Also, some of the old range balls have been
sold, so it may be necessary to purchase new range balls in the near future.
5-B
Golf Complex Maintenance activities report
Superintendent Matt Wisely said we have had 5.41 inches of rain in February
since the start of the month, whereas for the whole month of February 2008
we only had 1.44 inches; accordingly, we should expect play to be down in
February. New flagpoles and cups were purchased, and family tees have
been installed on the Clark course, with everything set up at 150 yards
temporarily. Sections of sod have been replaced on greens 4, 7, 9, 12 and 17
on the Clark course and number 5 on the Fry course due to damage of salt,
heavy traffic and poor drainage. All 36 holes on the golf course have been
aerified to improve overall condition of greens. He is also looking into some
tree work to be done on holes 10 and 13 of the Clark course and 1 on the Fry
course. Two city employees were moved to the Recreation and Park
Department and he is in the process of conducting interviews to hire
replacements, with an overwhelming response to a Craig's List job posting.
The irrigation flags that were used as distance markers in the fairway have
been removed, and he is looking into finding something more aesthetically
pleasing and functional with which to replace them.
5-C Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich
In April, there will be a tree planting ceremony for a nine-holer that passed
away. Mrs. Arnerich will meet with Matt Wisely soon to explain the Tree
Beautification program.
5-D
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course
No report
6.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
6-A
Marketing and Promotions, Commissioner Gammell
Commissioner Gammell stated that a family of four can play the family tees
on the Clark course after 12:00 p.m. on weekdays for $50.00 including carts,
and for the same rate after 2:00 p.m. on the weekends. She further noted
that the Pro Shop is currently promoting club fittings.
6-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Delaney
- 3 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, February 18, 2009",GolfCommission/2009-02-18.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
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2007-06-18,4,"they have identified a possible representative to participate on the PAPCO Commission. She
will follow up to confirm that has been done.
4.
Commissioner Absences:
Commissioner Berger reiterated the need for consistent attendance and Chair Lord-Hausman
reminded that the Commissioners need to call the Board Secretary for non-attendance. Chair
Lord-Hausman stated she would contact those Commissioners who have not abided by these
policies.
5.
Construction Safety Complaints:
Commissioner Berger suggested that we need to educate the public on who to call for possible
construction complaints. Chair Lord-Hausman responded that Pedestrian Friendly Alameda
has such a list on its website regarding who to call for these types of complaints and suggested
that the list also be included on the Commissioner's webpage.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2007-06-18.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
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,11,"they cannot get permission from Union Pacific to fill on their property. There is a fixed
elevation along the boundary. The developers may make public health and safety
improvements to Corps property, but not other improvements (under the moratorium of
the Army Corps of Engineers). They cannot get permission from the Corps to lower the
grade on the waterfront edge, and they cannot get permission from the railroad to raise
the grade on the railroad edge. The project planner did not have any other workable
design solutions other than those included in the plan.
Vice President Cook did not believe the space should be called an amphitheatre if it
cannot function as such, and suggested that the space be may be used for chess and picnic
tables.
Mr. Lynch noted that the value of this space may not be known until the project has been
completed. He suggested that since the space would be landscaped, that a condition be
placed that one year after the Final Certificate of Occupancy has been issued, the issue of
the public space be revisited.
Ms. Eliason stated that staff could look at the landscape maintenance agreement, and
could require that this part of the project be brought back to the Board as a condition of
that agreement. Mr. Lynch agreed with that suggestion. Ms. Eliason stated that she was
aware of several locations that had flat spaces in front of the amphitheatre; people would
bring their own chairs if there was a concert or other performance.
Mr. Lynch would like to see some drawings to accompany the text document of the
landscape maintenance agreement.
Ms. Eliason suggested that a condition be added, stating that prior to Final Occupancy of
the last building, to have that space reviewed for its use.
Mr. Weile noted that the staff of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
now calls that space a ""glade"" instead of an amphitheatre because it was not sloped.
Mr. Lynch suggested that it be called ""open public space"" that is landscaped. He did not
believe the specific activities needed to be itemized.
Vice President Cook advised that her vote against this project was primarily based on the
interrelationship of the buildings with the waterfront.
Ms. Mariani noted that she was not excited about the transformers, and noted that they
had not been specifically presented previously. She believed the present transformer
placement was the lesser of two evils.
President Cunningham advised that he had spoken to a representative at Alameda Power
& Telecom, and they did not recommend placing the transformers underground given its
location. The transformer would require more maintenance when placed underground.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,11,"they analyzed the inclusion of a BART Station at Alameda Point.
Colin Burgett said there were different ideas about constructing a second BART tube crossing,
but realistically that would take a long time to be fully realized.
Commissioner Miley stated the study showed how the City would address transportation
throughout the island, but the constraining point is the tube. So he felt queue jump lanes should
be analyzed for the tunnel because when the tunnel is congested, it defeats the point of rapid bus
service.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied he endorsed the idea of a joint meeting between the
Transportation Commission and Planning Board because he would like the City to aim for higher
transit usage.
Colin Burgett said if the City decided to go for an aggressive Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan, the system would have the capacity to accommodate double the
ridership.
Staff Naclerio suggested to the Commission that staff meet with AC Transit to discuss the
preferences on Santa Clara and Lincoln Avenues and staff would bring the comments back to the
next Transportation Commission meeting. Additionally, staff would schedule a joint meeting
with the Planning Board and Transportation Commission to discuss the results of the meeting
with AC Transit.
5C. Guidelines for Installation of Parklets
Staff Naclerio presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas called for public comment.
Donna Eyestone, Alameda Resident, assisted with the Park(ing) Day installation on September
21, 2012. She saw a lot of people come by and create a community building experience.
Furthermore, she believed it would be good to have this public gathering space so residents and
visitors could see what businesses are along Park Street and talk with their neighbors. She also
thanked Staff Naclerio, Board member Knox White, and Board member Burton for their support.
David Burton, President of the Alameda Planning Board and President for Community Action
for a Sustainable Alameda, spoke as a citizen and resident architect to encourage the
Commission to adopt the guidelines so one or two parklets could build around town as quickly as
possible. He mentioned that parklets provide great opportunities for community building and
casual encounters in the public realm. He thanked Board member Knox White and Donna
Eyestone for their support. During Park(ing) Day, the installation setup began at 8 am and ended
at 8pm and over 300 people came by to view the installation.
John Knox White endorsed the change that Staff Nacliero mentioned in terms of the approval
because there was some concern that parklets would sprout up like tulips and parking would
diminish. He noted the guidelines would create market forces that would prevent an
Page 11 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-08-14,6,"these were privately owned homes, and that the mortgage documents had requirements to require
appearances to be maintained.
With respect to the exterior design, Mr. Kirk Peterson, Peterson & Associates Architects, noted that
they looked at many designs, and wished they could have had more parking. He noted that this block
did not have the typical charm of Alameda, and noted that he tried to follow the 19th century models
for their simplicity. HardiPlank siding, corner details, double-hung windows and leaves were used to
follow that design palette.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft respected the historical aspect of the buildings and wanted to see the project
noted that the City moved forward as well.
Member Mariani liked the simplicity of the design when surrounded by the commercial clutter.
Member Kohlstrand believed the existing courtyard developments in Alameda were more attractive,
but she accepted the fact that 16 off-street parking spaces must be provided. She believed the design
should be accepted as presented.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be preferable not to look at the development from the street
and see rows of parked cars have a row of cars parked on the street if possible.
President Lynch was confident in the designers' capabilities, and believed that they addressed as many
design features as possible before adding the City's requirements.
M/S Mariani/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-31 to
approve a Planned Development and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of eight
new dwelling units consisting of four two-story duets on a lot previously used as a carwash, with the
additional modifications as noted by the Board.
AYES - 6 (Cunningham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
August 14, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-08-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-11-28,3,"these tree removals, which are not appealable in the current MSTP, are proposed to remain
non-appealable. Mr. Naclerio also stated that the City Council's approval to remove any
tree(s) is final, provided the project commences within two years of the City Council
approval. This is the standard effective approval period for planning projects. Furthermore,
should construction of the project occur after one year of the City Council approval, an
informational community meeting is to be held prior to commencement of the project.
Board member Kohlstrand mentioned that the staff report states that the tree will be posted
three weeks prior to removal and the proposed revisions state that it will be posted two
weeks prior.
Mr. Naclerio stated that the correct time frame is three weeks.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked that when a CIP goes before the City Council for approval
that it not be placed on the Consent Calendar.
Mr. Naclerio stated that the projects will not be on the Consent Calendar.
Board member Zuppan asked why if the City Council approval is good for two years why a
informational community meeting will be held in one year regarding the removal.
Mr. Naclerio stated that the meeting is a way to refresh everyone's memory that the project
was previously approved.
Board member Zuppan asked that the informational community meeting be held an
appropriate amount of time before the removal to allow for any City Council action if
necessary.
Mr. Naclerio stated that the project is still approved for the two year period and the meeting
is just a courtesy reminder but saw no reason that the meeting can't be held three weeks
prior to the removal.
Vice President Autorino stated that three weeks notice of the pre approved project is more
than generous.
President Ezzy Ashcraft asked that when these projects are brought for approval that the
Planning Board and City Council be given renderings of the projects. She also asked to see
a rendering of the Park Street Streetscape project. She also suggested that the Public
Works take a look at the City of Oakland site which describes all of the projects going on in
Oakland for the public's information.
Mr. Naclerio stated that the Public Works Department is working on a contract to do a
rendering of the Park Street project.
Vice President Autorino stated that once a project is approved it should not have to be open
to everyone coming back and opposing the project unless a significant change has been
made.
Approved Meeting Minutes
11/28/11
Page 3 of 11",PlanningBoard/2011-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,11,"these issues. She said if the vote moves forward they would continue the conversation with AC
Transit and the Commission.
Commissioner Bellows stated that staff and WETA have done a lot of outreach already and the
HOA are on board. She explained that the concept is not ideal, but it is better than the status quo.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if they would see this plan again before it goes before the City
Council.
Commissioner Bellows replied the concept would go before the City Council.
Jennifer Ott replied if the Commission approved the plan it would move forward to the City
Council on June 7. She explained that in the fall, they would provide the Commission with an
update on how the plan is going and answer questions and receive comments about the details of
the plan.
Commissioner Vargas recommended to place on the top of the list to look at keeping the parking
charges at the minimum or close to the $2.00 range, similar to the Fruitvale BART and Vallejo
Ferry parking models. Regarding the residential parking permit program, he would look to the
HOAs to come up with a plan and he hoped to not scare motorists away with parking ticket
prices, but maybe with a first offense issue a warning.
Commissioner Hans moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Vargas seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 4-0; 1 abstention by Commission Schatmeier who could
not take part in the Commission discussion or vote.
5.C. Discuss the Citywide Transit and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans
Existing Conditions and Goals/Objectives
Jennifer Ott introduced the presentation.
Brian Sullen and Bill Hurl, CDM Smith, were hired to prepare the plan and they presented the
report.
Staff Payne replied they were comparing apples and oranges a little bit when speaking about the
""Travel within Alameda"" slide. She said ultimately, staff is attempting to show the magnitude of
the magnate schools and charter schools in the west end, but it became a little convoluted.
However, she said the main point is Alameda Unified School District enrollment has been stable,
but there has been an increase in student enrollment citywide because of this 1,500 students who
are charter school students.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if density was then the main indicator for success for the bike
share stations.
Brian Sullen explained that he was referring to the bike share station density and how many
stations there are in the area.
Page 11 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.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
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-11-14,5,"there would be an increase in the number of dispensaries, whether it is delivery-only or
delivery-required.
Commissioner Dieter stated that she understands that the Assistant City Attorney is in a
position of defending the City and that he believes there were no substantive changes;
the Commission's role is to defend the public to what a reasonable person would
understand; she would consider the changes substantive because a cap on retail
businesses was removed; the changes were not included in the staff report or agenda
title.
The Assistant City Attorney clarified that the legal standard Commissioner Dieter refers
to does not apply to the general agenda description because the changes happened
before the first reading and before Council introduced the ordinance.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he understands substantive or non-substantive is
not the issue; inquired whether the City's position would be the same if Council changed
the retail cap to eight, as long as they corrected it by the second reading.
The Assistant City Attorney responded he does not like to opine on hypotheticals, but
responded in the affirmative; stated the standard that applies is the notion that there is a
description for the members of the public to decide whether or not they should appear.
Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether there was a basis to dispute Ms. Chen's
claims that community advocates might have attended the meeting had they been
aware of the changes.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that it would be speculative to speak to that;
stated that he has attended every meeting regarding the cannabis issue and is
surprised by the amount of support versus the amount of opposition to the issue.
Commissioner Schwartz inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney was aware of a
vocal minority of public health advocates who are opposed to the additional public
dispensaries, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded Ms. Chen and one other
speaker are the only ones he is aware of that attended and spoke at the November 7th
meeting.
Commissioner Dieter stated the public did not know that more retail businesses were
going to be open; at the beginning of the process, there was a lot of concern about the
amount of retail, but the public was relieved and reassured by the City Council that
there would be a cap; the Council directed staff to bring back a report which included
the cap; the cap was then removed; Ms. Chen's complaint is not about what happened
at the November 7th meeting, it is about the first notice and whether members of the
public were alerted to changes made before the second notice.
Chair Little clarified that the ordinance clearly states ""add two cannabis retail
businesses.""
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
5
November 14, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-11-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-09-25,7,"there will be many public meetings going forward.
The City Planner noted the Planning Board is having another hearing on October 14th to
address the town center plan and Alameda Point zoning.
(13-425) Provide Comments on the Disposition Strategy for Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.
***
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:04 p.m. and returned at 9:07 p.m.
*
Mayor Gilmore stated commercial and retail is one of the top priorities; questions have
come up why the City is leading with commercial and retail.
The City Manager stated Alameda's economic deficits and revenue streams have been
reviewed; staff is focused on the budget and long term financial problems; the City does
not have enough money to maintain the roads on a proper schedule; money has not
been set aside for post-employment benefits; PERS is going to impose smoothing,
which will cost extra; the Council has done a very good job in making strategic cuts and
increasing reserves; in the next two years, the City will go to market for infrastructure as
the highest bond rated municipality in the East Bay; cutting more services is politically
infeasible; the budget has two sides: cost and revenue; the glaring hole in Alameda's
revenue package is retail sales tax; therefore, the number one priority for the City is to
bolster retail and bring businesses that generate business to business sales tax;
discussed retail leakage; stated growth has to be strategic; leading with housing creates
a constituency which could want to stop future commercial, industrial and retail growth
and almost always excludes revenue needed generators; staff is concerned with the
consequences of California's tax structure; housing units can be assess on the front
end, which helps build infrastructure; however, in 30 to 50 years, residential will
generally not pay for the service demands it generates based on the Proposition 13 tax
structure; uses should be reviewed which balance and give the City financial
wherewithal at the front end and in the long term; staff is not interested in big box retail,
such as Costco or Walmart; staff will present retail proposals in the next couple of
months; retail is a priority for financial, phasing and political reasons and because there
is a real need; traffic trips will be created; however, trips of Alamedans driving cars off
Island to shop would be diverted; retail would not exclude, but would complement,
housing.
Councilmember Tam stated that she understands the academic need for sales tax
revenue; however, the City will have to deal with financing infrastructure; there is a huge
backbone infrastructure need; the City has huge sales tax leakage, which needs to be
dealt with long term; inquired whether studies show that retail can pay for Alameda
Point infrastructure which has a price tag of $575 to $600 million.
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
7
Planning Board
September 25, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-04-02,11,"there was suggestion that the organizers fundraise to help buy the property from the
School District; inquired about the reaction to the suggestion.
The City Planner responded Project Leaf people are smart and understand the
challenges; raising money as a nonprofit neighborhood organization is hard; buying
residentially zoned property in Bay Area cities is very expensive; Project Leaf members
understand the hurtles and the need to raise money; the City has been very clear that
funds are not available; the City has other major park efforts underway, like the Beltline,
to create more open space; Project Leaf starting to generate revenue or resources
might create opportunities to partner with the City; during conversations with Project
Leaf representatives, staff has suggested that the group reorient its thinking and
continue to raise money to buy the School District site, but the City will not down zone
the property because down zoning is dangerous for the City; the School District giving
the property to Project Leaf or selling the property for a reduced price is an issue
between the group and the District; staff also informed Project Leaf that another piece of
property in the neighborhood might be a lot cheaper to purchase because it is zoned
industrial, has no active use, and has an owner who would love to sell the land;
although the City does not currently have funds, plans include acquiring a piece of the
land for Clement Avenue extension, which is a long term effort; a lot of work and energy
would be required, but a partnership to purchase the land is a potential to pursue.
Councilmember Tam stated that she knows the matter is a subject for another day;
inquired whether the School District has indicated its desires or plans for the site.
The City Planner responded staff has been working with the School District on a
number of issues; stated that he believes the School District would like to sell the site;
the Alameda Housing Authority has funding for affordable housing and has expressed
interest in purchasing the property.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquire whether Park Street north of Lincoln Avenue has a
minimum sidewalk width.
The City Planner responded the regulations address private property, not the public
right of way, and assume the existing sidewalk on Park Street.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the minimum sidewalk width is for Park Street,
to which the City Planner responded that he believes 12 feet.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she met with several Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society (AAPS) members and Wedge neighborhood residents; one
concern raised was that buildings with zero setback limits prohibit increased pedestrian
safety or sidewalk cafes if the sidewalk is wide enough.
The City Planner stated that he believes the Park Street sidewalk is wide enough; some
businesses have sidewalk cafes; however, more successful sidewalk cafes are actually
on side streets.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
April 2, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-01-15,15,"there was a $20 million deficit; Alameda had four cross island
buses; Alameda had to give up one of the lines; residents desired
to have a route that went across the entire Island; AC Transit is
not so desperate now; that matter can be reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Transportation Commission
recommended other places.
Mr. Bruzzone responded the Transportation Commission thought the
bus could be used better someplace else; stated a huge schedule
analysis was done on the 51 bus line; two afternoon buses were
added to the schedule; a run time analysis showed that the buses
were running early; two buses were wasted.
Councilmember deHaan stated multiple devises have been installed at
the Lum School crossing and getting across is still a chore; adding
to the confusion does not make sense; buses travel at approximately
35 miles per hour with children present; safety needs to be first
and ridership second; two light controlled intersections would be
lost by going down Shoreline Drive to Eighth Street Wood School
students are the vast majority of Grand Street and Otis Drive bus
riders; Whitehall Place is almost the same distance to the hospital
as a secondary stop proposed in front of Willow Street. more
traffic congestion would be created; run time was not addressed
before, only adding two stops; Alameda Point is concerning.
The Program Specialist II stated currently Encinal Avenue does not
have a route; Santa Clara Avenue would be the nearest parallel
route if the route extended along Shoreline Drive to Westline
Drive.
Councilmember deHaan stated 500 people signed a petition not to
have a bus stop at Grand Street and Otis Drive; the rule is to run
buses where there is density.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how the scenario would work if the
bus stop dropped at Shoreline Drive and traveled up Grand Street,
ran by Encinal High School during school hours and cut out the
Monarch Street end.
The Program Specialist II responded staff estimated that the
Encinal High School and Alameda Point adjustments would total four
minutes and bring the bus back on schedule; adding the Shoreline
Drive component would put the schedule two minutes behind.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how many minutes would be saved by
ending the line at the Alameda Ferry Terminal.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
January 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-10-15,21,"there should be some sort of reimbursement option for consideration and adoption.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 3. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.
(19-584) Recommendation to Accept $1,600,786.50 Grant EMW-2018-FH-00229 from
the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Program; and
(19-584 A) Resolution No. 15603, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Fire Grants Fund
Revenue and Expenditures Budget by $2,595,870, Each, and the General Fund
Expenditures Budget by $995,084 to Allocate the Required Matching Funds mandated
by the SAFER Grant Program."" Adopted.
The City Manager stated the action was previously supported with the budget; a
presentation is available if requested.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion.
Urged Council to reject the grant: Stephen Slauson, Alameda.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the firefighters have already
been hired.
The City Manager responded the positions have been budgeted for but employees gave
not been hired yet; stated the recruitment process is in progress; the money has been
budgeted for; if the grant is not accepted, the funding for the fourth ambulance would
have to come from General Fund.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the vehicle has been purchased, to which the
City Manager responded in the affirmative.
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
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
October 15, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-10-15.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,2012-05-08,6,"there is no longer a firewall between Alameda Point and the General Fund; core City
services need to be preserved.
Tim Kelly, Keyser Marston, responded [staff report] Exhibit 5 was done assuming a
holistic approach of developing the entire Base; infrastructure costs are much higher
than the current market can support; the converse is that the infrastructure has to be the
size that can be supported by the private market or lease revenues.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the infrastructure amount includes schools, to
which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded parks, a sports complex
and school fees are included.
The City Manager noted the infrastructure costs are well above the norm for the Bay
Area.
Mr. Kelly stated the table indicates that doing the whole project at once is not feasible;
pieces have to be carved out.
Councilmember Tam stated the prior developer looked at a higher [housing] unit amount
and a higher number for commercial space; inquired whether the fewer [housing] units
and commercial space should have a lower infrastructure cost.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded a lot of the costs are fixed.
The City Manager stated the phased approach is being brought forward because the
entire infrastructure bill cannot be paid at the outset; all of the infrastructure cannot be
done under current market conditions.
Councilmember Tam stated the sum of the parts need to add up to the whole at some
point; without understanding future phases, the sum of the parts would not add up to the
whole.
The City Manager stated the project cannot be planned from the first day; any numbers
can be assumed; staff does not know what the market will look like in ten to fifteen
years; eliminating entitlement risk and controlling the Plan would allow projects to be
approved when the economics work.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding the project description, the Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the Base Reuse Plan with alternatives would
serve as the project description.
The City Manager stated the CEQA document would be the master document; more
focused CEQA documents might be required for certain portions in response to market
conditions in the future; digesting bases in one bite is not possible, but course headings
need to be set; the proposed process does so without being tied to a particular
developer or plan.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 8, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-08-19,6,"there is no decline in play.
Ms. Sullwold responded in the affirmative; stated the approved
budget anticipates a 10% decline in play.
Mayor Johnson stated the goal is to break even; the Golf Commission
should consider a surcharge for maintenance and infrastructure
costs; the Golf Course cannot continue to deteriorate.
Ms. Sullwold stated that she would be concerned with imposing a
$2.00 surcharge after adopting the fee increases; the Request for
Proposals (RFP's are due on August 27, 2008; good solutions might
be provided; a surcharge would not generate enough money needed for
capital improvements.
Mayor Johnson stated a lot of people want to leave things as is.
Ms. Sullwold stated that she is hearing a lot of resistance to
privatization; that she feels the Golf Course needs a strong
manager on a full-time basis.
Mayor Johnson stated operating costs need to be covered as well as
long-term maintenance and infrastructure improvements.
Ms. Sullwold stated that she has not heard a lot of negative
feedback on the proposed fee increases.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the golf courses have always
had separate fees.
Ms. Sullwold responded in the negative; stated separate fees were
initiated in April, 2007; a consultant suggested separate fees
because the Earl Fry Course is the premium Course; the consultant
thought that the Earl Fry fee increase would transfer more demand
to the Jack Clark Course; the problem was that there was not enough
of a fee differentiation; Golf Digest sent a letter to the Golf
Course stating that the Jack Clark Course is recognized as one of
the top one hundred municipal courses in the country.
Vice Mayor Tam requested clarification on the $700,000 Golf Course
estimated shortfall for the next fiscal year; inquired whether the
fee structure was examined to bring fees up to a level that the
market could bear and would close the estimated operating gapi
further inquired whether the surcharge was intended for
maintenance, operation, and capital improvements.
The Interim Golf Manager responded the approved budget contains an
estimated $150,000 expenditure for Risk Managers and results in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
August 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-05-08,7,"there is a parking problem or not. She said she is very clear what the problems are with
the business at the current location. She said they are clearly in violation and is inclined
to revoke the use permit. She said she could also support giving staff more time to
consider if notices were properly provided if the board feels that is necessary.
Board Member Curtis said he agrees with Board Member Zuppan. He said the city is not
the villain and the property owner is not a victim here. He said the expectations were very
clear after the November meeting. He said he would be inclined to revoke the use permit
as well.
Board Member Sullivan raised concern about what would happen if the business went
away. She said the family trust and condition of the property would lead it to sit for a long
time, as the Party Warehouse has. She said the lost tax revenue would be significant as
well and that it was a difficult choice.
Board Member Mitchell said he does not want to make any knee jerk decisions. He said
an owner-operated business might lead to better results. He said he is fine with the current
use and likes to see a mix.
Board Member Burton said the intent and compliance of the conditions are what matters.
He said it is clear that they are not being met, even if the wording was imprecise. He said
there have been enough chances and would support revoking the use permit.
Board Member Knox White asked if there was a reason why they could not move forward
if the city cited the wrong section of the use permit in the notices of violation.
Staff Attorney Roush said that the board could still revoke given the totality of the evidence
and complaints made, even if the notices did not perfectly identify which section of the use
permit was being violated.
Board Member Knox White asked if they could add a requirement to the permit to have
the business be owner-occupied.
Staff Attorney Roush said that would be a significant limitation and said he would generally
caution against such a condition.
Board Member Knox White said he met with the Garfinkles and with Big O. He said the
board may have revoked the use permit in 2015, but took the easy way out hoping that
the tenant's plan to move to Oak St. would solve the problem. He said it is a difficult
decision. He said he would not support continuing the use permit with the current
language. He said he does not see a significant difference between customers that park
in the neighborhood for this business versus other businesses on Park St. He said we
could revoke the use permit, or loosen the conditions after getting more information about
the parking conditions in the neighborhood.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 10
May 8, 2017",PlanningBoard/2017-05-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-08-19,21,"there is a land plan that represents Measure A.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal
is not working on a Measure A compliant plan as part of the
community process.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
SunCal would have a fallback position if the measure did not
qualify.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded staff
would recommend terminating the ENA at that point because there
would not be a project.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
SunCal would be willing to stay in the project if the measure did
not pass.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal
might be willing stated the question is whether the City would be
willing to keep SunCal as a partner.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what
SunCal's position would be if the measure did not pass.
Pat Keliher, SunCal, responded that SunCal wants to have some type
of fallback plan; stated SunCal is looking at Measure A compliant
plans internally.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
SunCal would still be willing to be in the process if the plan was
Measure A compliant.
Mr. Keliher responded that today, SunCal would not want to walk
away from Alameda Point stated SunCal would like to look at other
alternatives.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
SunCal was in for the long-term, to which Mr. Keliher responded of
course.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked SunCal and
D.E. Shaw for transparency and honesty with the public; stated the
City went through a very long, public process to select SunCal as
the Master Developer ; D.E. Shaw has a lot of say in the term sheet
provisions regarding what could potentially happen at Alameda
Point ; that she will be looking very closely at the Operating
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
4
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
August 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,2,"there is a bus only lane and two 45 mph traffic lanes creates discomfort for bicyclists who are
comfortable on Webster Street because there is no other safe place to go when riding down
towards the tube. He suggested that AC Transit consider sharing the bus only lane with cyclists
and there are other places in Alameda that share the lane with cyclists.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if that could be reviewed and eventually brought back as a
future agenda item. He also asked staff if Alameda Public Works controls the striping.
Staff Patel replied that the bus only lane would be Caltrans, SO he would have to approach them.
Next Transportation Commission meeting would be Wednesday, March 23, 2015
4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27, 2015
Jim Strehlow referred to the May 27, 2015 minutes. He explained that it was not until the July
meeting that the Commission decided to rescind the approval of the meeting minutes.
Additionally, he said the revised minutes did not state that Jim Strehlow made corrections to the
minutes after the Commission approved the minutes and then the Commission decided to rescind
the minutes until further review.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied the minutes are a sense of the meeting and the Commission
does not approve a transcript.
4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2015
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes of May 27, 2015 with the notation that when
the Commission originally approved the minutes Jim Strehlow then spoke and made corrections.
The Commission then rescinded the vote and reviewed the minutes. Commissioner Miley also
moved to approve the minutes of November 18, 2015 and Commissioner Schatmeier seconded
the motions. The motions were approved 6-0.
5.
New Business
5.A. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
Commissioner Miley felt that the Commission recently voted around mid-last year.
Staff Patel replied he was not involved in that process.
Commissioner Bellows replied because Commissioner Vargas took more responsibility with
High Speed Rail it was around January 2015.
Commissioner Miley said he would like to nominate Commissioner Bellows as chair since she
has been doing such a great job.
Page 2 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-07-23,7,"there had been some question about the driveway for Catellus and future installation of a
right-hand turn. She suggested that if the street had been designed with parking, that would
have been an option for creating a turn pocket. She would rather see something more
similar to Santa Clara Avenue than Tilden Way.
Mr. Obeid Khan, Public Works, noted that while the intersection of Webster and Willie
Stargell was under CalTrans jurisdiction, in order to design the street so that Stargell comes
off Webster, it would not be desirable for a car to exit from the dark Tube into Alameda,
with a queue extending into the Tube.
Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the inclination was to build it to the highest standards,
but she would like to hear more debate about the issue.
Board member Mariani acknowledged the frustration of not having a visual illustration, and
believed there should have been more information to address the neighbors' issues.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve
the Development Plan for landscaping and public right-of-way improvements along
Mitchell Mosely Avenue and Fifth Street, with the added condition of re-examining the
understory on Fifth Street to incorporate more pear trees.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft wished to add a condition to incorporate the Bay Friendly
Landscape Guidelines throughout the project, as set forth in the publication Bay Friendly
Landscape Guidelines, available at www.stopwaste.org.
The amendment was acceptable to the maker of the motion.
Mr. Behan noted that he would like to examine the document before agreeing to the
condition. They had discussed using sustainable materials in their project specifications,
as well as using indigenous materials for planting and hardscape.
Board member Lynch suggested modifying the condition to include the words ""where
appropriate"" in incorporating the guidelines in the landscape plan.
Mr. Behan noted that he agreed in spirit, but was concerned that the document may make
recommendations that they could not incorporate, such as using reclaimed water.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had raised this issue previously, and added that
while the City's green building ordinances were not yet in place, she noted that the website
was related to the Alameda Waste Management Authority. She noted that many Bay-
friendly landscaping guidelines used by other Bay Area communities were delineated, and
would appreciate the applicant reading it with that in mind. She was willing to use the word
""suggested,"" but would like those practices to be adhered to as much as possible.
Page 7 of 9",PlanningBoard/2007-07-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-07-07,12,"then there is a fundamental disagreement; SunCal thinks the City is looking at the
wrong place to judge single family homes of a 4,800 unit community; a lot of time was
spent on the matter a couple of weeks ago, so he does not want to belabor it because
frankly, not much has changed since that time; he shared an exhaustive premium
analysis from every block of the development with the City Council and staff in early
January of this year; premiums are values above the base price of the home because of
location, proximity to features, views of downtown San Francisco, or the water all of
these premiums are easily annexed onto properties; SunCal came up with its premium
analysis and that was its methodology; 1% is a typical premium used for a flat piece of
property in the middle of nowhere; there are premiums for oversized lots, for cul-de-
sacs, corner lots, etc.; that [1%] is the number that he typically puts into pro formas; that
he does not understand why a detailed analysis was not done, on such a unique
location; that he heard negative use was taken into account; he has not seen the
analysis other than said statements; SunCal views every feature of the community, such
as the existing buildings that will remain and be put into adaptive reuse and the harbor
uses, as positives to the community, not negatives; SunCal views the project as a
unique opportunity for an incredible architectural and land planning statement; further
stated SunCal agrees with the absorption numbers that EPS has come out with; SunCal
is happy with the numbers, which there are somewhat more conservative than SunCal
numbers; for the record, SunCal does agree with them [numbers]; the issue of
construction costs and SunCal's pretty exhaustive survey of 15 to 20 builders of projects
for various types of construction, SunCal detailed construction costs builders are
currently experiencing, made that information available, used that to develop estimates;
that he does not understand the comment about making sure to include union wages,
which are absolutely included in SunCal's number; SunCal stated that on the exhibit
and spreadsheet provided, costs from builders that did not include prevailing wage
include a 25% premium to costs where appropriate to come to the estimation of direct
construction costs; in the last several weeks, SunCal has not received any detail as to
how the City's team came up with its number; the one detail is from a prior report that
referenced a particular book; -questioned where is the detail on conversations with
builders, who did the City talk to and what projects were referenced; SunCal does not
have detail so response is difficult; Sun Cal has received from EPS and the staff report,
the statement on the project financial performance, which came up with a -12%; SunCal
has not gotten to the guts of the analysis; from SunCal's superficial analysis, on Table 2
of the June 2010 Alameda Point Financial Feasibility Analysis, EPS has increased
home sizes from the pro forma size for the 30-unit 1,200 square foot product and the
1,700 unit 1,400 square foot product to 1,500 and 1,900 square feet respectively; the
analysis increases the size of homes, increases the prices, increases construction
costs, and then tells SunCal it is upside down.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Brown is aware of an investigatory report
prepared by Mr. Colantouno that was presented to the Council last night and made
available to the public.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
11
Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf
GolfCommission,2015-03-11,4,"then make a recommendation at a City Council meeting, and at the next meeting, the
City Council will vote on it, so it's a two meeting procedure.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
7.
OLD BUSINESS
Bob Wood stated that the presentation that he made at the November 12, 2014
meeting regarding the fire tower can be made available to anyone who was not there
at the meeting. Mr. Wood stated that he felt there were actions that should have been
taken early this year, and as of yet, no action has been taken.
Mr. Campbell stated that he would have to look into the contract to see if Greenway
even has any legal responsibility regarding the tower, and Ms. Wooldridge stated that
she and Mr. Campbell would work together to look at the lease, and stated that the
City does have a shared responsibility in this, but also stated that this commission can
make a recommendation, but any plans, either to keep or demolish it, would have to
go to the Planning Board.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - July 14, 2015
10.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chair Blatt asked for a moment of silence for the passing of Golf Commission
Chair Tim Scates.
Mrs. Arnerich stated that the Alameda Commuters will be having a memorial service
on April 11 at 10:00 AM at the golf course.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:52 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
4
Golf Commission Minutes - -Wednesday, March 11, 2015",GolfCommission/2015-03-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-02-27,3,"then dock space. He said they have spoken with many companies, including Bay Ship,
over the years.
Board Member Sullivan asked if there was a market study to determine how much
maritime commercial could work at the site.
Mr. Whiskeman said they have spent a lot of time and money pursuing commercial
opportunities for the site and spoken with commercial real estate brokers about the market
demand. He said there is not any commercial demand for the site that could pay for the
infrastructure upgrades that are needed.
Board Member Burton asked for clarification about what exactly is being asked for by the
developer with respect to the development agreement and environmental impact report.
Staff Member Thomas said the city needs to decide whether the project will require a
supplemental EIR and master plan amendment. He said the board could also decide if the
proposal is consistent with the previous master plan. He said staff has decided that the
project will require a disposition and development agreement amendment approved by
City Council. He said the number of outbound morning trips as compared to the 2006 plan
would be a major factor in decided what actions and approvals would be required.
Mr. Whiskeman said their master plan anticipated changes in use as long as they stay
within their predicted number of trips. He said they have designed the project to do just
that.
Board Member Burton asked for clarification about the nine units of affordable housing
from the current phase of Alameda Landing that would be applied to the requirements for
the final phase.
Mr. Whiskeman said they made a deal with the city to build Stargell Commons nine units
larger than required that would be applied towards the waterfront plan.
Board Member Burton asked where that agreement is codified.
Staff Member Thomas said he did not know.
Board Member Burton asked whether the water shuttle would be guaranteed in the plan
or just aspirational.
Mr. Whiskeman said they would build an ADA compliant dock at a cost of about $2.5
Million. He said they would also finance the boat cost and that TDM revenues would fund
operation.
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 10
February 27, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2017-02-27.pdf
GolfCommission,2011-02-23,7,"them. I will present them with the information I have at that time and let them decide
what they want to do.""
Bob Sullwold: ""Is it true that there is no exclusive negotiating agreement with
Kemper?"" Lisa Goldman: ""There's no signed document in the sense that we had a
signed document with Sun Cal, known as an exclusive negotiation agreement. We
are exclusively negotiating with Kemper because that is the direction that the City
Manager received on March 16, 2010. There's no signed document.'
Bob Sullwold: ""Secondly, if you were to explore other options, is it a requirement of
City law, that you have to go through the formal RFQ-RFP process, or could you, for
example, write a one page letter to one of those 65 companies, to whom the original
RFP was sent, saying here's what we want, we want a 36-hole golf course, we want
to know if you want to do a long term lease or a management contract and want to
know if you'll put any dough into the deal. Would that be lawful?"" Lisa Goldman:
""I
don't know the answer to that question, but let me answer it this way, that I believe
that this current Council is interested in having open and competitive processes, so I
would imagine they would direct Staff to open it up via the RFQ-RFP process rather
than sending a letter. But, I don't know the exact answer to your question about
whether we could do a one page or not.'
Bob Sullwold: ""Third question, you probably won't want to answer, if you are aware,
we know you not only have to speak truthfully, but that you have to disclose all
material facts necessary to make the statements that you do make not misleading.
In your view did Kemper's presentation to the City Council comply with that?"" Lisa
Goldman: ""I believe that they believe that the way the deal was going to be
structured, and Ann Marie did discuss with them, that the City floated the bond but
they were responsible for paying the bond via their money or whatever revenue they
made at the golf course. They thought we were all on board and knew what the deal
was that Ann Marie discussed with them."" Bob Sullwold: ""They heard what you
said, they heard what the Council members said, which obviously indicated that
none of you was fixing to do anything about a bond issue. Why did this guy from
Chicago get up there, make this presentation and fail to say anything about, well, we
understand the deal is, you issue the bond, we're responsible for the debt terms?
Lisa Goldman: ""I can't really answer your question, Bob, because I'm not Mr. Blake
from Kemper. All I can say is I do believe that it came as a big surprise to them that
I didn't know what they had discussed with Ann Marie. So they thought I got it,
which meant they probably thought everybody else got it, and I didn't get it
obviously. And so I don't know the answer, [but] I believe he thinks he was making
truthful statements, that's all I know.""
Bob Sullwold: ""And all of the negotiations with Kemper were conducted by Ms.
Gallant?"" Lisa Goldman: ""That's correct."" Bob Sullwold: ""Mr. Lillard had no
involvement with that?"" Lisa Goldman: ""He was in some of the negotations, but not
every single call she had with them."" Bob Sullwold: ""Other than Ms. Gallant, no one
knew about the funding?' Lisa Goldman: ""I don't know if anybody else knew; I sure
didn't know. It seemed to be a surprise to Council when I talked to them. I talked to
our financial advisor about it, and he didn't know about it.'
7
Golf Commission Minutes-Wednesday, February 23, 2011",GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-05-11,3,"their work.
Ms. Patricia Riley, resident, spoke in favor of the project. She said that there would be nice
dining and other shops at Site A. She said that the City needed this project and thanked
staff for their work.
Mr. Kame Richards, of Alameda Community Sailing Center, said that the proposal is taking
care of the details that need to be addressed, especially regarding the interface between
the land and the water. He said he was very excited about the proposal and urged its
passage.
Mr. Jerry Cervente, resident, said that the plan was long overdue for the City. He said he
was very excited about all of the community input into the plan. He said that traffic has
always been a problem in Alameda, but said that, otherwise, it was a great plan.
Mr. Tony Kuttner, speaking on behalf of the Greater Alameda Business Association, said
that he and his organization had no complaints about the project. The only reservation his
group had was that they wanted any shuttle service mentioned in the TDM for Site A to be
accessible for all of Alameda's residents.
Ms. Leslie Cameron, director of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, said that she was
encouraged that the housing was designed for renters and low-income people. In addition,
she said that the plans would make Alameda Point one of the most desirable places in the
East Bay. She said that the infrastructure boosts are badly needed for the area, added that
the project was overdue for the City, and urged approval.
Mr. Dean Satner, managing partner of Navigating Systems, said his business has been at
Alameda Point since the Base closed. He said that this project would highlight the
revitalization of Alameda Point, and thanked staff, the Board, and the development team
for their work. He said that he was concerned that it would be detrimental for the area were
the project not approved.
Ms. Angela Hockabout, of the Alameda Renters Coalition, said that the City needs housing
at all socioeconomic levels as soon as possible. She urged passage of the plan, and called
it an innovative solution of putting workers and housing in the same area. She warned that
the failure of the project would lead to people and businesses to leave the Island. She said
that the proposal was awesome, and that it was important for renters that the plan pass.
Mr. David Mars, resident, said that he was a renter at Alameda Point. He asked if there
was a timetable to displace renters currently in the area Mr. Thomas said there was no
timetable or plan to displace any renters.
Mr. Casey Sparks said that he was a commuter to the area. He said that he liked how the
plans encouraged non-traditional ways for commuters to get to and from work. He said that
the Site A project allowed for easy access for transportation, and urged approval.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 10
May 11, , 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-05-11.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2006-02-09,6,"their last meeting in February. Project will go to bid in April. It is anticipated that
the project will be complete by mid-summer.
Commissioner Ogden asked about the status of the Woodstock Park renovation.
Staff will be meeting with Babe Ruth, Little League, and Alameda Soccer to
determine a schedule. Staff does not want to have more than one field down at a
time. Tentative schedule would be:
1. Opening of Bayport Park
2. Godfrey Park Renovation
3. Woodstock Park Renovation
4. Rittler Park Renovation
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
AD Lillard provided the Commission with a memo from City Attorney regarding AB 1234.
As a result of an audit of some public entities, which showed unreasonable expenditures by
public officials, a new State law was passed, and became effective January 1, 2006. The
law attempts to increase accountability for compensation and reimbrsement of members of
legislative bodies, and impose ethics trianing on members of legislative bodies and elected
officials. The law expressly says it applies to charter cities, which is an unresolved legal
issue. The legislature asserts the law should apply to charter cities because it addresses a
statewide concern, (e.g., transparency in the activities of local government).
AD Lillard wanted the Commission to be aware that members of city legislative bodies and
any elected city official must get two hours of ethics training every two years, if the city
provides compensation or reimbursement to any legistlative body member. The city must
provide infromatin on availab e trainining to these individuals at least one a year.
Incumbents must complete their training by next January. Newcomers must receive the
trainin in their first year. Records must be kept for five years.
Chair Ingram stated that he will be contacting a few architects to walk through the Veteran's
Building.
Chair Ingram suggested that the Commission visit the new assisted senior living facility
across from Chevys Restaurant.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
-
Chair Ingram asked for a status report on CIP's at the next meeting.
-
List of names for facilities.
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, March 9, 2006
12.
ADJOURNMENT
6
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 9, 2006",RecreationandParkCommission/2006-02-09.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-10-02,3,"their homes instead of rehabilitating a structure or they do work without permits. She
asked that the board approve the project.
Mr. Eric Jackson addressed the board. He stated that the remodel will improve the
structure, which ultimately helps the neighborhood. He also said that the rehabilitation
will improve the house structurally and will prolong its useful life.
The meeting was adjourned and reconvened in Council Chambers.
The public comment was closed.
Board Member Lynch had questions for Mr. Mackenson. She asked about the
difference between a terrace and a porch.
Mr. Mackenson replied by saying that the porch will be very narrow. Porches provide
covering and trellises are more open allowing more sunlight to come into the area and
structure. He also spoke to some of the windows and doors and that they were altered
in a way that isn't in character with the structure. He pointed out that French doors are
very common in modern remodels and the doors will be in character with the windows
and house.
Board Member Lynch feels that they have been struggling with this project but she
understands it better. She is inclined to change her mind regarding the project.
Board Member lrons pointed out that the building in the Architecture and Historic guide
is similar to the project, which makes him feel more comfortable with the project.
Mr. Biggs clarified that staff's recommendation is to approve the project after reviewing
and discussing the revised plans and drawings.
Acting Chair Miller likes the project except for the porch. He feels that the project still
doesn't address some of the issues and still doesn't meet some of the standards and
requirements. He is concerned with the proposed setback of the porch and its visual
impact. He still objects to the porch and he feels that it goes way beyond restoration
and is more of a modification to the house.
Motion (Irons) / Second (Lynch) to approve the Certificate of Approval with conditions.
Ayes: 2; Noes: 1
Motion Carries
(7-B). Review and Comment on SunCal's Preliminary Development Concept for
Alameda Point.
Mr. Andrew Thomas gave a brief summary of the Alameda Point Development Concept
and introduced Mr. Phil Tagami and Mr. Pat Kelliher.
Mr. Christopher Buckley addressed the board. He asked if all three board members
need to be present to provide comments. He submitted pictures to the board consisting
3
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-10-02.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,2,"their familiarity with the original project study report and proposed improvements. The City of
Alameda had some familiarity with the improvements but was not fully aware of all of them.
They knew about the Martin Luther King exit and knew basically direct access to Alameda was
not provided.
Because Oakland and Alameda could not find a solution for direct to Alameda, a portion of the
funding was set aside and it was decided that at a later time a feasibility study would be
conducted to look at Alameda access. This is the study currently under way. The primary
stakeholders are: the City of Alameda, City of Oakland, Caltrans and ACTIA. The secondary
stakeholders were: Port of Oakland, Congestion Management Agency (CMA), Chinatown, West
Alameda Business Association (WABA), and developers from Alameda (Catellus and Alameda
Point Community Partners) and Oakland (Signature Properties and another developer).
Staff Hawkins stated that Alameda supports going forward with a proposal so that the
stakeholders would support it. Having the stakeholders support the recommended solution
would be an important step in securing funding. The feasibility study is only looking at the
feasibility as to which ones they can build, which ones are structural impossible and which ones
impact too much on historic sites, etc.
Staff Hawkins noted that currently Oakland does not support the construction of a new Harrison
Street off-ramp. One possible solution that may enable the Broadway off-ramp to meet the needs
of both Alameda and Oakland is a ""Texas U-Turn"", which would allow drivers to exist at the
Broadway ramp, make a U-turn before reaching Broadway, and accessing the Webster Tube.
Staff Hawkins noted that it will be expensive to build all these improvements. The
Transportation Commission could help by providing recommendations regarding priorities or
steps that could be taken to facilitate coordination with other agencies.
Commissioner Parker asked what the life of an elevated freeway would be. She asked how any
other proposed projects could relate to potential phasing of the Broadway-Jackson
improvements.
Staff Hawkins said that Caltrans is currently working on a seismic retrofit down by Oak Street.
Otherwise, Caltrans does not see any additional safety project needs within the next 50 years.
Chair Knox White asked what options have been already eliminated from consideration.
Staff Hawkins said that she couldn't detail all 13 alternatives, but a number of them included
superstructures.
Commissioner Parker asked about project timing. Would it be phased? How would the timing
match up with development in the area?
Staff Hawkins said in terms of funding we have approximately $12 million is allocated to the
project. But in the countywide transportation plan we could get up to $28 million, much of
2",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,3,"their discretion if they want additional time to look at documents. The Board may want
additional information before it is said and done as well. It is up to the Board's discretion.
Mr. Gossman stated that the Union has no objection to moving forward.
Vice President Horikoshi moved that the meeting/hearing continue; Member
Batchelor seconded the motion which passed by a 5-0 vote.
President Peeler invited the appellants to speak.
Mr. Gossman stated that he would provide an opening statement and then he has three
appellants that would like to give a three minute speech and then we could proceed from
there. Mr. Riddle agreed they would have a full 10 minutes between all of them to begin.
Mr. Gossman provided a six-page document/report (with attachments) to the Civil Service
Board.
Mr. Gossman stated that he was at the meeting today to represent three appellants who
were former employees of the City of Alameda and that they have been program park
coordinators for 10 to 11 years working for the City. In March 2012, they were informed
that the City was planning to eliminate their positions. At that time there were four positions
occupied. They were advised that the Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD)
would be eliminating the Park Program Coordinator to create a new classification of
Recreational Program Specialist and that one of the four would be laid off because there
would be four positions cut down to three.
Mr. Gossman also stated that the resolution was taken to City Council and it was stated
that this was going to save $400,000 for the City by going to this new classification. In
essence, that is a false smoke screen because these employees were already being paid
out of the Athletic Trust Fund and not paid out of the General Fund. The fact that they were
changing to a new position had nothing to do with the $400,000. But, when we went to a
union meeting, a meet and confer, the reason for the new classification was to save
$400,000.
Mr. Gossman continued that prior to the testing, two managers who worked for the City,
approached the employees and stated that they were not going to get the new jobs and
Page -3-
G:Personnel\CSB\ Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-03-19,8,"the year.
The Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated there is a combination of
factors, including the Department being down one staff member, which decreases the
amount of work that can be done; staff is working diligently to bring projects to bid;
unlike most operating budgets, capital project budgets include facility maintenance and
span fiscal years; once a project is funded, developing the plans, going out to bid, and
awarding the contract all take time; construction may actually occur in the next fiscal
year.
The Controller stated that the budget for capital and maintenance projects is in a
separate capital improvement fund, which is excluded from budget actuals because the
fund is project oriented instead of fiscal year oriented.
Councilmember/Agency Member Tam noted license and permit revenues are
accelerating; inquired whether revenues will exceed the $1.7 million amount in the
budget by the end of the fiscal year.
The Controller responded in the negative; stated the revenue from business licenses
and permits will be at the [$1.7 million amount] budgeted.
Councilmember/Agency Member Tam inquired whether the $11 million debt from the
Redevelopment Agency mentioned by the speaker is obligated specifically to the
Islander Hotel and Jack Capon Villa.
The Controller responded in the affirmative; stated the bulk of the $11 million was used
to purchase the Islander Hotel and convert the hotel to affordable housing units; the
funds were used as matching grant funds; the matching funds had a time limit and the
City did not want to lose the opportunity.
Councilmember/Agency Member Tam stated that in past years the City has earmarked
$400,000 for the planning and replacement of Fire Station 3; 23% of the $400,000 has
been spent and project funding has not been identified; inquired how much of the
$400,000 would be used by the end of the fiscal year.
The Public Works Director responded that he does not have an exact number, but
would provide information to the Council; stated the public engagement process and
preliminary design are completed, and a consultant has been hired to do initial work.
The City Manager stated the Fire Chief provided a preliminary report and the budget
would not be brought forward until the project can be afforded.
Councilmember/Agency Member Tam inquired whether the $400,000 funding would be
exhausted by end of fiscal year, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to
the Community Improvement Commission
2
March 19, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-03-19.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,6,"the way it's drawn. Secondly, if the landing can continue across the front of the building it might
break up some of the massing.
Board Member McNamara stated on the proposed north elevation drawing, there are two sets of
recessed elevations that the drawing doesn't do justice.
President Cunningham advised the Board that he received a speaker's slip to speak on the item.
M/S (McNamara/Piziali) and unanimous to re-open the public hearing.
Ms. Dian McPherson, 1539 Versailles Ave., spoke in favor of this item. She stated that Mr. Wong
and his family were wonderful neighbors and strongly suggested that the Board approve the Variance
for their home.
The public hearing was closed.
Julie Harryman addressed two questions the Board had. The first one she wanted to clarify with staff
in reference to the parking and if there were two existing legal non-conforming parking spaces already
at the property, so no variances would be needed on those parking spaces to which Mr. Brighton
responded in the affirmative. The second was the discrepancy in the noticing question posed by the
Board, where Ms. Harryman suggested that Board would vote to continue this item until the next
meeting, and have staff re-notice the item with the correct square footage and it would come back to
the next meeting as a consent calendar item.
M/S (McNamara/Kohlstrand) and unanimous to have staff re-notice this item with the correct square
footage and continue it to the next meeting as a consent calendar item.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that this item could be removed from the agenda, as the APAC no
longer exists. Staff noted her request.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing to report at this time.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,10,"the vision is right for a successful financial operation; he would like to learn more about
what a link style course could mean to the community and whether the risk could be
assessed.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she wants to know the associated cost for each of Kemper's
""green"" levels; the City is in a very fortunate position of having two excellent operators
competing to operate the Golf Course; that she does not see that a wrong decision
could be made; either operator would be excellent; Council has the happy but difficult
decision to pick the firm that would be the best operator for the City.
The City Manager stated the two firms will have until April 10th to make any final, written
changes to the proposals; the review committee consists of the Golf Commission Chair,
Junior Golf Chair, the Assistant City Manager, Mr. Sams, and the Recreation and Park
Director; the review committee will review changes on or about April 13th and
communicate any final questions to the two firms; the two firms will have until April 20th
to address said questions; the review committee will make recommendations to the City
Manager by April 25th; the Golf Commission will hold a special meeting the last week of
April to discuss policy questions regarding any major or minor changes to the Golf
Course; staff will report recommendations of the review committee, Golf Commission,
and staff to Council on May 3rd; the final proposals will be presented to Council at the
May 15th City Council meeting; that his intention is to complete negotiations by the end
of June in order to present Council with a lease in July.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(12-155) The City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the first Oversight Board
meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(12-156) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Transportation
Commission.
Mayor Gilmore nominated Sandy Wong for appointment to the Transportation
Commission.
(12-157) Councilmember deHaan discussed an airport meeting; questioned when the
Open Government Commission would meet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-02-22,3,"the various houses of worship throughout the city. Also, he noted that the housing
providers were not included. They should be included to ensure a smooth transition, by
helping them they help the tenants. He thought the short-term actions had been great in
helping businesses. He agreed that they need to evaluate the slow streets and
reconfiguration of Park and Webster Street. Overall he thought the plan was amazing and
that trying things out is the best way to see if it works.
7-B 2021-664
Adoption of Amended and Restated Objective Design Review Standards. The revised
Objective Design Review Standards (Objective Standards) consist of a checklist of
architectural and site design standards that apply to residential development projects.
Adoption of the revised Objective Standards is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the common-sense exception that CEQA applies only to
projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and
Section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning.
Allen Tai, City Planner, introduced the item, and Heather Coleman, Urban Planning
Consultant, and David Sablan, Planner III, gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4795898&GUID=431C9BF9-
FF27-4002-8B78-971861EC1108&FullText=1.
President Teague opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Rothenberg asked if they thought they fulfilled the last statement ""obtained
stakeholder input regarding good design vs. containing cost"" and how they fulfilled it. She
also suggested providing a red line copy and a clean copy in the future.
Staff Member Tai apologized for not providing a red line copy. He continued by saying this
had been a very difficult process. He felt that the draft they had presented hit on the most
important design principles and was a good faith effort from the staff as well as Board
Member Ruiz and Vice President Saheba.
Board Member Rothenberg asked if this document could have been written in a less
prescriptive manner.
Staff Member Tai said absolutely and added that the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society (AAPS) had submitted letters asking for more specificity. He said after reading
their letters they decided against adding too many prescriptive requirements.
Board Member Ruiz asked about item 2B - limitation on blank walls - she asked for
clarification on the requirements, she thought it was a bit confusing.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 12
February 22, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-03-17,8,"the utility shut-off provision is directly tied to the declared emergency; every provision in
the ordinance is tied to the COVID-19 declared emergency; should the COVID-19
emergency cease, the prohibition against landlords shutting off utilities, unrelated to an
emergency, will go away; outlined the emergency utility shut off scenario and non-
emergency shut off scenario; stated staff can take direction on landlords and tenants
conversing; the direction will require additional administrative efforts, which could prove
difficult to undertake; staff is attempting to limit the impairment of existing contracts and
using the City's regulatory powers to alter contracts which are in place
Councilmember Daysog stated his drafted language is not an effort for the City to insert
itself into the discussion between landlord and tenant; the language is to say that
landlords and tenants must have the discussion; should litigation be initiated by either
landlord or tenant, the question will be asked if communication efforts were made;
should communication efforts not be made, the protections listed will not be awarded to
either party; there is no role of the City; the communication is part of the procedures that
landlords and tenants must take as a result of the ordinance.
The City Attorney stated should Council desire to place a procedural limit upfront about
conversations, staff will take direction; previous statements related to administration
relate to any pro-rata rent payments; pro-rata rent payments delves into the rent
program reviewing full or partial rent payments.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the provision requiring reimbursement
over time.
The City Attorney stated the provision is related to pro-rata of rent up-front; there will be
some administrative work; the City Manager may have input related to ensuring rent is
correct; changes made to existing contracts relates to pro-rata, which changes and
creates new lease terms; staff is proposing a time stop on evictions without changing
the existing lease provisions; rates and payments do not change; payments can be
made when the emergency is over; the current ordinance is simplistic and creates a
time stop allowing for a delay in payment.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated how the City can act as landlord should be reviewed;
provisions for small business administration might allow some landlords to qualify.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed gratitude for Councilmember Daysog's comments;
stated the explanation given by the City Attorney confirmed his understanding of the
ordinance; evictions are not being stopped; the pro-rata would go further than San
Francisco or the current ordinance proposes; questioned whether Councilmember
Daysog intends for landlords to receive less money over-time.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the repayment is set to be 100%.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 17, 2020
4",CityCouncil/2020-03-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,4,"the ultimate location of the ferry terminal has not been determined
The transit center would probably be at the Main Street terminal, at least in the early phases of
the project. In addition to the ferry, various transportation options are being considered:
shuttle between Alameda Point and the 12th Street BART station, operating on 15-minute
headways during peak hours
""eco-pass"": a portion of homeowners fees will go toward transportation, so people will be
able to use shuttles or other services it without paying an additional charge
water taxi service to Oakland
queue jump/HOV lanes for bridges or tubes
transit barge
Commissioner Krueger asked if the shuttles would be integrated into the regional transit
network, rather than being stand-alone services.
Staff Thomas noted that the City has begun discussions with AC Transit, BART, the City of
Oakland and the Port of Oakland to explore a range of options. Options include:
BART extension from downtown Oakland to Jack London Square to Alameda
Light rail across Alameda to Fruitvale BART - While alignment in Alameda is mostly
available, connecting to the BART station will be a significant problem. Also, this will not
serve people traveling from Alameda Point to San Francisco.
Aerial tram to West Oakland BART - This may not work well, as BART trains to San
Francisco are generally filled by the time they reach West Oakland. Also, if the tram
connects to the BART platform, Oakland will not benefit from the project, so it may be
difficult getting this option approved.
Staff Thomas stated that there are currently too many options in terms of both modes and
alignments. The City hopes to narrow down the list of options to one or two of the best
candidates by June and study the feasibility of those options.
7B. Work/Live Regulations
Commissioner Krueger asked if any data were available regarding parking and trip generation
for work/live development as opposed to purely residential
Staff Hawkins indicated that she was not aware of any such data.
Commissioner Parker stated that the work/live regulations have been in place for several years,
but no such projects have actually been implemented. She indicated her support for keeping the
regulations in place to enable the City to see the impacts of project implementation.
Chair Knox White stated that the regulations seem to support the City's transportation goals.
Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment
4",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-07-19,8,"the two measures.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated most of the renter's
initiative is substantively different than the City ordinance.
Mayor Spencer inquired what would happen if Council does not include the new
language.
The Assistant City Attorney responded items that could be reconciled would be; with
items that cannot be reconciled, the measure that receives the higher number of votes
would prevail.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether whichever one has the higher number of votes would
prevail.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that if the City sponsored measure does not
have the provision and it receives more votes than the renter's initiative, there would be
the conflict described earlier.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the language added to the City ordinance would state
the City Council has discretion to amend or repeal what the people vote for at any time;
inquired if the City ordinance passes, could the Council repeal the ordinance entirely at
the next Council Meeting.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the distinction is the
measure that the City Manager is referring to is an ordinance, not a Charter
amendment; an ordinance can be amended.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City is asking voters to approve the ordinance and
also asking to give Council the power to repeal the ordinance entirely, to which the
Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney stated the Council currently has the ability to repeal or amend the
ordinance; the process takes two readings of the ordinance and has to be noticed; the
advantage is an ordinance allows flexibility to make modifications.
Mayor Spencer stated her objection is that if the ordinance passes with the highest
votes, the Council could change the outcome the following week; she feels there is a
significant difference.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the signatures submitted by the landlords failing
the random sample check would require a higher threshold of examination.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated if the check of signatures falls into
the 95 to 110% range, the signatures go to a complete check and every signature will
be checked.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 19, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-02-17,3,"the tree ordinance; expressed concern over tree removals; outlined an email he sent to
Council with suggestions for the ordinance.
(17-099) Scott Dawson, Alameda, urged Council to move forward with a plan to update
the tree ordinance, especially protection of trees on private property; urged milestones
be established.
(17-100) Anna Rossi, Alameda Deanery Refugee Support Group, expressed support for
addressing referrals 26 regarding inclusionary housing, 30 on aiding the homeless, and
32 on minimum wage; urged action be taken within 60 days.
(17-101) Sylvia Gibson, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA),
encouraged the Council to consider how decisions will affect future generations;
provided suggestions for prioritizing sustainability, including protection of wetlands, local
marine jobs and renewable energy.
(17-102) Pat Lamborn, Alameda, expressed support for the referral process; suggested
referrals be grouped at special meetings and heard earlier at regular meetings.
(17-103) Janet Gibson, Alameda, read a letter submitted by the Alameda Citizens Task
Force Steering Committee urging the Council to revise the workshop agenda.
Strategic Workshop
(17-104) Introduction of Workshop by Mayor and City Manager; Strengths and
Opportunities: Characteristics of Effective Governing Bodies; Vision and Strategic
Initiatives: Priorities - What's Most Important?, Concluding Discussion, Review of Day
The City Manager and Mayor Spencer made brief comments regarding the workshop.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of addressing strengths and opportunities after the
vision and strategic initiatives.
The motion FAILED for a lack of second.
Bill Chiat, Alta Mesa Group, facilitated the meeting taking the attached notes; addressed
means versus ends and strengths.
***
Mayor Spencer left the meeting at 10:57 a.m. and returned at 11:02 a.m.
***
Mr. Chiat provided a handout and reviewed opportunities and the vision for 2020.
***
Mayor Spencer left the meeting at 11:42 a.m. and returned at 11:44 a.m.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 17, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-02-17.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2012-05-10,6,"the time until next year to become familiar with the fee schedule and the dynamics of the
groups. Financially, the Recreation and Parks Department is on solid ground for this coming
budget year, and there's time to look at all these issues. She had already spoken with staff to
look for possibilities to be more efficient.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
11.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE:
Thursday, June 14, 2012
12.
ADJOURNMENT",RecreationandParkCommission/2012-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-05-04,10,"the time to move the matter forward; at some point, the City will have to modify the CIP;
expressed support for the City working with smaller mom and pop landlords when the time
comes to modify the CIP; stated the Council can consider the matter in 18 months.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated based on public comment, neither side seem
supportive; requested staff to clarify the reasons the matter is appropriate; questioned
whether staff understood the opposition prior to the comments.
Special Counsel stated staff understood concern from both sides; Council previously
directed staff to return; staff had an obligation to bring the matter for consideration; the
current policy is too onerous for both landlords and tenants; if a CIP is approved under the
current policy, the result is not a pass-through, but a rent increase and is added to tenants'
base-rent and can have a cumulative effect; staff desired to move away from the current
process and provide a more traditional pass-through; provisions limiting pass-through
amounts prevent landlords from placing increases annually or bi-annually; staff understood
the proposal would not be embraced by either the landlord or tenant groups; however, there
was an obligation to bring the matter back for consideration; staff vetted the matter with both
groups and attempted to address concerns from both sides; the policy decision is up to
Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she thinks staff will need to return again with
another proposal; expressed support for multiple options being provided for consideration in
the future.
Councilmember Knox White stated some people are concerned that the proposed matter
has pass-throughs similar to San Francisco which allows a pass-through for many different
types of fees and taxes; requested clarification about the pass-throughs.
Special Counsel stated the landlord would be limited to 5% of the rent regardless of the
amount of CIP improvements; the amortization period may extend to longer than 15 years;
however, the proposed ordinance requires the cap of 5%; the improvements must be
substantial such as foundation work, Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
systems, pet damage, water conservation systems and updating units to provide
accessibility; the program is limited and is not a pass-through for taxes or other fees and
charges and is limited to the CIP improvements identified in the ordinance.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council previously made amendments to the ordinance
to set the time to initiate pass-throughs as one-year after the local emergency; the matter
can come back without any delay in actual implementation; the recommendation is the
second part of a two-part decision made in September 2019 when Alameda had moved
from rent stabilization to a rent control regime with a significant Annual General Adjustment
(AGA); Council gave direction to come back to ensure there was a CIP process allowing
people to maintain some level of return for large projects; expressed concern about
someone with less units having a harder time qualifying for the larger expenses; stated
should Council send the matter back for additional thought and consideration, he would like
to understand the options to ensure a balance in access for both large and small landlords;
the Culver City program is tighter and stricter; however, a couple points could be good for
consideration; expressed support for the total cost of the project amount being the total;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 4, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,9,"the thirty-foot height limit she is concerned that staff made
changes after the fact and did not involve Applicant input.
Mr. Buckley stated that the Guide to Residential Design states : ""In
order for a design review application to be approved, finding must
be made that the project conforms to the Guide to Residential
Design.'
Councilmember Matarrese stated the elevation is less busy than what
would be for the right side elevation.
Councilmember deHaan stated the driveway is a concerning factor ;
old architecture allowed driveways slops down into the basement;
level driveways have a nicer feel.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff advised the Applicant
that they could raise the building twelve inches with a thirty feet
limit in height, to which the Applicant responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the Applicant questioned what
happened to the extra three inches.
The Planning Manager stated the three inches are a compromise.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is trying to get to the point of
blending form and function; inquired whether the twelve inches
would allow sufficient room for handicap accessibility.
The Planning Manager responded in the affirmative stated the
garage roof layer would be raised to the height the Applicant would
need; adjustments would be made to the peak of the roof.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she does not understand what is so bad
about raising the structure by fifteen inches.
The Planning Manager stated that staff developed a compromise
between what was originally proposed which is not raising the
building height at all and what the Planning Board approved, which
is not allowing a building more than thirty feet.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff recommends changing the slope
of the roof.
The Planning Manager responded the Applicant would need to change
the upper slope to either achieve what staff recommends or what the
Planning Board approved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.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
RecreationandParkCommission,2018-10-25,2,"the teens. Attended the pathway walk, very interesting and also attended one of the input
meetings. Read her ""Alameda at Play"" book and did her own tour of some of the parks. Walked
Woodstock Park and noticed there are no available basketball courts. Thanked Amy for getting
Krusi Park approved.
Commissioner Chen: Bikes with friends around the island on Saturdays and complimented the
Park Maintenance for keeping up parks so well.
Commissioner Robbins: Rode in Bike for the Parks. Noticed some portions along the Estuary
are in very poor condition. Can that be looked at to improve their condition? Director Amy
Wooldridge: Will look into it as these are mostly privately owned/managed. Connected with a
number of tennis people - how they can raise funds to build more Pickleball courts. On Nov. 9
is speaking with the Kiwanis Club and will use an updated presentation, including a ""Call to
Action"" to think about how they can help.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Commissioner Alexander asked if they were still going to tour of the parks
in Alameda. Director Amy Wooldridge: Yes, she will schedule.
NEW BUSINESS
7-A
Presentation on Measure FF from the East Bay Regional Park District
East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Legislative Assistant Lisa Baldinger gave presentation.
Measure FF extends existing funding that maintains and improves public access, natural habitat and
visitor use facilities in parks:
Alameda Point: Sea level rise prevention, operations including police services and wildlife
management.
Crab Cove: Extended to full year operation, shoreline work and work for a portion of the beach
that needs to be a more natural filtration system. Additional services for programming and
ongoing programs.
Also funds 3 categories that cover all parks: Access to parks, wild fire management, water
40% natural resource enhancement projects such as 50% watershed, new bottle fillers, etc.
10% is board identified priorities.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Robbins: Asked how much funding will go to Alameda? Answer: 7 million to the
future Alameda Point Park and Crown Ceach.
Limoges said it would be great to have a joint meeting with the commission and board members
of EBRPD. Answer: There is presently a joint meeting with two city council members and two
EBRPD board representatives which is an opportunity to discuss collaboration and issues. The
Recreation and Park Commissioners could attend that meeting and give input.
7-B
Presentation on Inclusive Playgrounds from the Commission on Disability
Susan Deutsch, Commissioner on the Commission on Disability gave the presentation.
Shared information about the Tatum's Garden Park, in Salinas, CA, which is an inclusive
playground for children and adults with all types of disability with the importance of valuing
all people.
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2018-10-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-11-18,5,"the structure to restaurant use is the best choice; marina services
and water related businesses are appropriate on the shoreline; the
interpretation of mixed uses along the waterfront should be
reviewed i the Economic Development Commission should make some
recommendations Chevy's has been closed for two years; the
Tidelands closed years ago; advantage should be taken of sailing
and service boat centers.
The Supervising Planner stated the General Plan allows uses other
than a restaurant; marine services and retail uses would be
allowed; office space is limited in the General Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter should be reviewed
because the office space limitation would restrict commerce that
would be more appropriate than a restaurant.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Alameda has limited waterfront dining
opportunities and sites; Harbor Bay Business Park and Marina
Village Parkway Business Park have extremely high vacancy rates;
inquired whether said areas have restrictions regarding the number
of employees, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the
negative; inquired whether the Carriage House and Cardinal Point
take up a lot of office space which results in a deficit of
permitted, available office space.
The Supervising Planner responded Cardinal Point was developed with
a General Plan amendment that allowed 5,000 square feet of office
space; the development was shifted from the entire district to just
the east side; the Carriage House came in with a proposal that
would use 4,000 square feet of the 5,000 square feet that was
allowed within the district.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is nothing at the Carriage
House site.
The Supervising Planner stated the area is vested under a Planned
Development amendment.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Carriage House has an expiration
[for development], to which the Supervising Planner responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance should be changed to include an
expiration time.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much additional office space was
given to the Carriage House.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
November 18, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-11-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-05-17,11,"the street that needs sewer replacements just to have to repave the street again.
Mayor Spencer stated Section 2-61.4, states: ""City Manager is authorized to award
informal contracts pursuant to lowest responsive, responsible bidder;"" inquired if the
word ""responsive"" is new.
The Public Works Director responded the word responsive has always been in the
ordinance; explained the difference between a responsive and responsible bidder.
The City Attorney inquired if the direction given to staff to come back to Council with an
assessment of implementation is direction and not part of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated the direction is not a part of
the ordinance.
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:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(16-252) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending Chapter 30 Clarifying Text Amendments to Sections 30-58 through 30-59.3
of the Zoning Ordinance Related to Water Efficient Landscaping. [The Proposed
Amendments are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use
Limitations]. Introduced.
The City Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance amending the
Alameda Municipal Code by amending Chapter 30 clarifying text amendments to
Sections 30-58 through 30-59.3 of the Zoning Ordinance related to water efficient
landscaping.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(16-253) The City Manager announced there will not be fireworks on 4th of July.
Mayor Spencer stated there will still be a 4th of July parade and South Shore and Site A
will also be having festivals.
The City Manager stated the Fire Department received a grant from Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to replace equipment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-05-17.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-06-11,10,"the staff report, and did not believe there was any leeway around the requirements of this
issue.
Ms. Mooney noted that there had been some clerical difficulties in assembling the packet,
and noted that the resolution had not been included in the packet; staff had distributed the
resolutions during the meeting. She noted that when making the findings, the Planning
Board should make specific findings as they are found in the Alameda Municipal Code.
She recommended that the Board members be specific when stating which findings could
not be made.
Board member Kohlstrand concurred with her fellow Board members. She believed this
was an unfortunate situation because she perceived there was a large population in
Alameda that would like to see expanded hours for this gas station. She understood that
the findings were specific. She also agreed with the speakers who were unable to use the
gas station before and after work hours. She believed the Board members' hands were
tied in terms of making a finding to allow the expansion of hours to occur.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was a regular customer of this gas station,
and found it to be a very nice, well-run business. She had difficulty with some of the
findings, and believed them to be both vague and subjective. With respect to the location
of the use being compatible with surrounding uses, she noted that the Code prohibited the
expansion of non-conforming uses. In terms of the other land uses in the area, she found
it to be a commercial district in a neighborhood that included a coffee shop/café, private
businesses, a children's art center, a pub and a nail salon.
With respect to the finding that the proposed use would not adversely affect other
properties in the vicinity, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that one speaker stated
that their property values would be lowered. She believed that property values in that area
have remained strong for some time, and added that page 6-7 of the staff report identified
no offending noise coming from the site. She believed the public bus that ran along
Encinal Avenue generated more noise than the car doors or fueling activities. She was
concerned about the safety of schoolchildren, but noted that this interaction was
signalized. If the crossing time was not adequate for parents with strollers to cross the
street, she believed that Public Works should extend the time of the green light across the
intersection. She noted that the crossing guard stood at the corner of Encinal and Paru,
near the playground. She believed the children could be instructed to walk on the one side
of the street leading to the crossing guard. She added that she favored supporting local
neighborhood businesses. She noted that this application had generated 13 pieces of
correspondence in opposition, and 237 pieces of correspondence in support, as well as six
telephone messages and the petition of support provided by Ms. Battaglia. She would like
to find a way to be responsive to the community in support of what seemed to be a
reasonable neighborhood business.
President Lynch agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's statements, and noted that
paragraph 2 on page 4 of the staff report specifically stated under ""Zoning Use Permit
History"" stated that the first finding could not be made legally. For a legal
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
June 11, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.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,2015-10-20,22,"the site location indicated; screening; 1 year revisit, including number of truck trips.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the use is fitted for zoning, keeps jobs in Alameda and
provides potential for additional jobs.
Councilmember Oddie stated it is good to get the industrial use out of Spirits Alley and
place it where the ships and tidelands industrial use is more appropriate.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not see the containers as fitting the vision
along the waterfront.
The Chief Operations Officer-Alameda Point stated staff feels the use is good; it is in a
tidelands area that does not have a lot of use potential; Matson is willing to pay market
value; the use is restricted and there is less potential for demand; the building has been
vacant for 21/2 years and needs a $500,000 roof; Matson is putting $4,000,000 into the
building; removing a previous tenant cost the City over $1,000,000; Matson would put
significant dollars of investment into a building that is falling apart.
Mayor Spencer inquired about the current lease term.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded Matson is a subtenant to
West Coast Novelty, who terminated their lease, the sublease will terminate at the end
of the year.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Matson is looking for a new lease.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
Matson is a maritime use and the new site is a maritime building; other interest in the
building passed when they found out how much they would have to invest; the City has
tried to lease building for 21/2 years; Matson needed a new building.
Mayor Spencer inquired if a 5 year lease is possible.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the negative; stating the
entire agreement would have to be renegotiated; Matson has to finance the
improvements.
Mayor Spencer inquired how much the improvements would be.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded the roof is $500,000 and
Matson plans to put $4,000,000 more into the building.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated it is an investment into a building the City owns that no
one wants to invest in; the tenancy will attract other marquee names; getting cruise
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,9,"the sign and then pull into the stop. However, the near side is substandard because the bus often
does not have enough space and must pull into the stop at an angle. The far side approach takes
up less parking and allows the bus to go through the intersection and pull into the stop.
Commissioner Wong referred to the Santa Clara Avenue and Morton Street bus stop proposal.
She noticed that moving the stop on the far side would create conflict with an existing fire
hydrant shown in the staff presentation on page 18. She is wondering about the impact of it.
David Fyfe replied that the fire hydrant would be moved.
Robert del Rosario said they would not want the bus to dwell near a hydrant for long periods, but
the driver could move out of the way if there was an emergency.
Commissioner Wong replied SO there is not a code or regulation of distance for placing a bus stop
near a fire hydrant.
Robert del Rosario said not for a bus stop.
William Buller, AC Transit Traffic Engineer, said the back end of the bus would be 10 feet away
from the ramp and the hydrant.
Commissioner Wong asked staff for the approximate distance needed between bus stops.
William Buller replied 800 to 1,300 feet.
Commissioner Wong referred to the Santa Clara Avenue and Eighth Street bus stop, and she
wanted to know the location of the Ninth Street and Santa Clara Avenue stop.
Robert del Rosario replied that the Ninth Street stop is on the west side near the corner store.
Commissioner Wong said since it is in front of the corner store, which is the same distance as
Maya Lin School, then there are two bus stops on each corner even if the stops are not used by
the same bus route.
Robert del Rosario replied the bus stops have different routes that pick up and drop off and the
policy of distance is based on the same route.
Commissioner Wong said when consolidating the stops down to Ninth Street and Santa Clara
Avenue and then Webster Street and Santa Clara Avenue there would be two bus stops on the
same block by Maya Lin School and another by the corner store.
Robert del Rosario replied they would consider removing the Ninth Street bus stop and the stop
sign per route policy. However, the point of the policy is to have access to a line for all
passengers and not the fact that there are two bus stops on one block. Otherwise, their
passengers have to walk further to access the service.
Commissioner Morgado asked staff if they contacted the Alameda Police Department when
Page 9 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-04-16,9,"the shelter provides a critical sanctuary for the community; the funding that is being re-
programed for the Boys and Girls Club is a very modest amount and keeps with the
City's desire to help the community develop more community gardens.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(13-171) Recommendation to Receive a Report on the 2010 Community-Wide
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory and a Draft Estimated Revision to the
2005 GHG Baseline Inventory.
The Utility Energy Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if the target is a 25% reduction over the 15-year period
from 2005 to 2020, to which the Utility Energy Analyst responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the orange line on the chart pointing to 2010
represents an 8% reduction between 2005 and 2010, to which the Utility Energy Analyst
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether data on the 2013 status is available, to which
the Utility Energy Analyst responded in the negative; stated the reports are a big
undertaking; the City does not currently have a system in place to provide the
information.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the baseline is being updated and goes out to
2025, to which the Utility Energy Analyst responded the baseline is not being updated;
stated 2005 is maintained as the base year; reductions are compared to the 2005
baseline number; the baseline is being updated to be accurately represented.
Councilmember Chen stated the baseline figure is being updated, not the baseline year;
noted the numbers are actually changing.
The Utility Energy Analyst stated Councilmember Chen is correct; the report is updating
the figures to reflect current technologies; the protocol used to do the calculations has
been updated to reflect more segments.
Councilmember Daysog noted Alameda is susceptible to global climate change and
rising tides and needs to take GHG issues seriously; stated that he appreciates
Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) taking the lead on this issue.
Mayor Gilmore expressed her appreciation for the report; stated residents should know
that the community is very adamant about recycling; the report is a nice way to check
whether or not the community's collective efforts are making a difference.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 16, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2014-11-20,3,"the services they provide, and work more closely with Claudia, and to be an asset to the community-at-large.
They are currently the only CDC in Alameda, and soon will be the only CDFI.
Troy Gilbert, Executive Director of the City of Alameda Food Bank (AFB), shared that the AFB is open 6
days a week, and in 2013, served 5,100 residents of Alameda. The AFB started in 1977, as an all-volunteer
organization providing a ""Bread Line"", and now, its three paid staff and 150+ volunteers provide a balanced
food package, with clients having the opportunity to receive food six times a month. Approximately 36% of
those they serve are children, 10% are seniors, and a number are disabled. Bi-lingual volunteers are recruited
to better serve their diverse clientele, many of whom are first-generation immigrants. In response to questions
from members of the Board, Mr. Gilbert shared that the AFB benefits from donations of locally grown
produce from Alameda Backyard Growers and Farmer's Markets. Regarding trends in the need for food in
Alameda, he stated that the AFB's high point was in 2008, when they served 5,600 Alamedans, and that the
number has gone down approximately 100 clients a year since then.
Discussion included comments that, given the lack of additional funds available, and the continued need for
safety net services, it would be appropriate to craft a letter to the Mayor and City Council that was similar to
last year's It was suggested that the letter also take into consideration the public comment received this
evening, as well as that heard at the Community workshop in October. It was also noted that the Board's
recent Homeless Count identified Alamedans who have already fallen through the safety net, and that we
should keep in mind that these individuals continue to need assistance.
A motion was made that the Board continue to recommend only one area of need: preserving Alameda's
""Safety Net"", but that the letter to the Mayor and Council also refer to the other needs mentioned above that,
due to lack of funding, cannot be addressed at this time. The motion also contained direction to President
Biggs to work with member Radding on crafting the letter.
M/S Williams/Blake Unanimous
3-B.
REPORT ON BOARD'S ROLE IN THE FY15-16 CDBG NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT-PUBLIC SERVICES FUNDING PROCESS
Member Radding reported that President Biggs had received copies of the draft 2015/156 CDBG Public
Services RFP, HUD Requirements, and Evaluation materials, and that he and President Biggs had reviewed
them to assure that the RFP clearly explained the requirements and conditions needed for funding. Once the
completed applications have been received, it will be the Board's role to evaluate and score them, and make
funding recommendations to CDBG staff.
3-C.
REPORT ON 2015 ALAMEDA COUNTY HOMELESS COUNT AND DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE ROLE THE BOARD MIGHT PLAY AS IT RELATES TO THE
HOMELESS IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
Staff reported that President Biggs had contacted Everyone Home, the organization conducting Alameda
County's 2015 Homeless Count. Rather than having the Board / Alameda volunteers play a role in a count
specific to the City of Alameda, Everyone Home asked that the Board help recruit volunteers for the
County exercise. The Board still has the opportunity to discuss conducting another City of Alameda Homeless
Count at a future meeting. Staff distributed a flyer from the County. (Attachment C)
3",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2014-11-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,7,"the securitization of the $2.28 million that the State will borrow
from the City under Proposition 1A and return with interest of 2%
within three years; the City expects to get 2.4% on investments;
inquired whether it is possible to get up to 3.5% in the same
investments.
The City Treasurer responded in the negative; stated 3.5% is the
current yield on owned securities; new securities would be
purchased at the current interest rate.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the rate is more along 2.4%, to
which the City Treasurer responded possibly for a three-year term.
Councilmember Tam stated that securitizing is a good idea; moved
approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(09-412) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 30-5.14
(Barriers and Fences) of Article I (Zoning Districts and
Regulations) by Adding Subsection 30-5.14 (e) to Require
Administrative Use Permits in Non-Residential Districts for
Temporary or Permanent Barriers or Fences Within a Required Setback
or Along a Property Line that Faces a Public Street or a Public
Access Easement. Applicant: City of Alameda.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired how long a fence could remain, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded the timeframe could be
conditioned through the use permit process.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance should include an outside time
period; property owners should not consider a fence as a long-term
situation; a distinction should be made between an on-going
business and vacant lot.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a time limit is needed.
The Planning Services Manager stated the administrative use permit
could have a time limit of six months the property owner would
have the ability to come back and request another six months under
unusual circumstances a year may be too long.
Mayor Johnson stated six months is sufficient.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-03,22,"the second floor theatre seating.
Chair Johnson stated the Façade Grant Program is one of the most
important things the City does, especially for small businesses;
the Buena Vista Avenue and Park Street electrical project will
affect all of Park Street and became an issue when the Market Place
was established.
Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether underground
projects cannot be taken from Alameda Municipal Power's (AMP , s)
undergrounding efforts.
The Development Services Director responded the City has a list of
priority underground projects; stated the City needs to partner
with AMP and the Redevelopment Agency to perform multiple economic
efforts.
Speaker : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association.
Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff
recommendation in the following amounts : $450,000 for water
repairs $150,000 for electrical upgrades and $200,000 for the
Façade Grant Program for a total of $800,000
Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(09-06 CIC) Recommendation 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.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Speakers Karen Ulrich, Alameda Wine Company owner; Jon Spangler,
Alameda; Jim Foster, Alameda.
Chair Johnson stated operating hours were outlined in the lease
because the Commission did not want dead zones near the theatre ;
the business plan does not seem to be fully implemented the owner
needs to determine whether she can run her business in a way that
complies with the lease requirements; otherwise, the owner should
consider moving to another location.
Commissioner Gilmore concurred with Chair Johnson; stated the
Commission considered many potential tenants for the space and had
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
2
and Community Improvement Commission
February 3, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2016-02-25,3,"the screening was limited to AUSD staff and students and lay representatives of the Muslin
community.
President Biggs announced that members will receive access to the CDBG applications early
next week, and that staff will inform members as to when they need to complete their
evaluations.
He added that, on March 3, he will meet with representatives from APD, AFD, AHA, BFWC,
AFS, to discuss a plan to collaborate in providing services, including permanent housing, for
Alameda's homeless individuals living on the street and/or in encampments.
Staff announced the LVW Meet Your Public Officials event will be on March 31, and reminded
members to complete their on-line ethics training.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 PM. M\S Williams / Hyman Unanimous
Respectfully submitted by:
Jim Franz, Secretary
3",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2016-02-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-06,3,"the rights and obligations of the Regents of the University of
California to Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. Accepted.
(07-523) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Repealing
Article I (Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and
Technical Codes) in Its Entirety and Adding a New Article I
(Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and Technical Codes)
to Adopt the 2007 California Building Code, the 2007 California
Historical Building Code, the 2007 California Electrical Code, the
2007 California Plumbing Code, the 2007 California Mechanical Code,
the 2007 California Energy Code, the 1997 Uniform Housing Code, and
the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings, and by Amending Chapter XV (Fire Prevention) by
Repealing Section 15-1 in Its Entirety and by Adding a New Section
15-1 - to Adopt the 2007 Edition of the California Fire Code.
Introduced.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired what is the City's stance on monitoring
soft story buildings, provisions of enforcement, and eventual phase
out because of seismic integrity.
The Building Official responded staff is working on an ordinance
addressing soft story buildings and providing standards for
retrofitting and the option to make it mandatory or voluntary.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether said ordinance would be in addition
to tonight's ordinance, to which the Building Official responded in
the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *07-524) Ordinance No. 2974, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Repealing and Amending Various Sections of Article I (Parking
Lots) and Article II (On Street Parking Meter Zones) of Chapter XII
(Designated Parking) and Adding a Definition Section (Section 12-0)
Applicable to All Articles to Provide for the Regulation of Public
Parking Surface Lots and Parking Structures Administered by the
City of Alameda. Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07-525) Public Hearing to consider adopting Amendment #1 to
Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Community Development Block Grant Action
Plan, and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
November 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-06.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,2005-07-19,20,"the rest of the people who receive automobile allowances and i
adjustments should have been made accordingly after the opinion.
Councilmember Daysog stated the car allowance for others is taxable
and done through payroll.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount is a gross amount; if the car
allowance for other employees is $250, like the City Manager and
City Attorney, the amount is taxable and other employees receive
$160.
Councilmember deHaan stated a select two were isolated to receive
the adjustment, rather than reviewing how the law affects other
employees.
Mayor Johnson stated changes in the Contract should be done through
a vote of the Council; sending a carbon copy to the Council is not
a vote of the Council the Council can only act by voting and
cannot act by non-response or consent by silence; concurred with
Councilmember Matarrese's comments that it is a process question;
the process that was used was not appropriate.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has a problem with stating that
something that happened in 2001 was inappropriate; any
Councilmember could have objected when the memo was received; no
one objected; things are being done differently in the new era.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council should have clear expectations of
how to handle Contract amendments.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Council is indicating how the matter
will be handled in the future.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council has to vote to change a Contract.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated that extra benefits always have to be
declared for tax purposes Council seems to be putting the benefit
on payroll and covering the tax burden, which seems awkward.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council is trying to undo the past
practice [of covering the tax burden]; Council wants to have the
amount set as the amount the employee receives regardless of the
tax consequences.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a decision has not been made [ about
setting the vehicle allowance amount] ; that he was only requesting
that changes require a vote of the Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.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,2007-09-04,4,"the resolution; stated that he hopes that the owners do not
continually request additional hours.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Condition of Approval 16
requires the owners to redo the process in September 2008.
The Planner III responded in the negative; stated the owners will
be able to operate under the conditions of the Use Permit if they
are in compliance with the Conditions of Approval Condition of
Approval 16 states that the owners have until September 4, 2008 if
they choose not to vest the Use Permit.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*07-423) Ordinance No. 2971, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding Section 2-19 (Youth Advisory Commission) to Article II
(Boards and Commissions) of Chapter II (Administration) ,
Establishing a Youth Advisory Commission and Prescribing Membership
and Duties of Said Commission. Finally passed.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07-424) Proclamation declaring September 15, 2007 as Coastal
Cleanup Day and September 16 through 22, 2007 as Pollution
Prevention Week.
Mayor Johnson read the proclamation; requested that the City Clerk
forward the proclamation to Doug Siden, Board of Directors, East
Bay Regional Park District; stated the City has battery drop off
locations; the Public Works Department has scheduled an electronic
drop off event for October 20.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the beach is a beautiful City
asset; the shoreline is beginning to gain some character and is
superb; the sand is course and beautiful: he encourages everyone to
help clean up the beach; sand had to be brought in to keep erosion
from occurring in the past; mother nature has done a great job.
Mayor Johnson stated the back page of the Park Street Business
Association newsletter indicates that the electronic drop off
location is at the Towne Centre on the north side of Safeway.
The Environmental Services Manager stated that there would be two
electronic events this year; the Chamber of Commerce and Greater
Alameda Business Association (GABA) event is first; the City event
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-01-05,23,"the resolution and introduction of the ordinance].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the location is ideal for commercial
and should be zoned mixed use; discussed Bayport; expressed support for a smaller
scale neighborhood serving commercial site.
Councilmember Spencer inquired whether the matter requires three votes to pass with
the location being City property.
The City Attorney responded Council is not voting on property disposition; stated the
actions being taken are to rezone, which requires three votes.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(21-018) The City Manager encouraged use of the vaccine as it becomes available;
discussed an extension of time requested by the policing subcommittees due to the
holidays; stated a report back to Council is due the week of January 20th; a public
engagement process is anticipated; the matter is scheduled to be on a Council meeting
in March to allow time for public engagement; three separate meetings are available for
public viewing; announced the APD armored vehicle matter will return for Council
discussion.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(21-019) 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). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(21-020) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she and Councilmember Spencer
attended the 100th anniversary celebration for the Alameda Rotary Club via Zoom;
discussed the christening of Saildrone's Surveyor SD-1200.
(21-021) Vice Mayor Vella announced that she attended an Alameda County Lead
Abatement Board meeting; stated there is concern about delaying lead testing children
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
January 5, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-02-01,7,"the requests came in; that transparency and information should be available on the City's
website; it may be a bit more work for staff on the front end, but on the back end the
readily public has access to the information.
Chair Tilos concurred with Commissioner Chen; stated he would prefer to receive the
report in a format that can be filtered rather than in a PDF.
Commissioner Chen stated the report format is not an issue; that she would like to be
more transparent in the future ahead of the game; as an example, if there were 10
requests for information on the Wellness Center, she would like to see a paragraph stating
there were 10 questions relating to the same issue, which indicates the public's concern
regarding the topic; the City should be transparent about the context, rather than just
listing the requests; she would like to see how the Commission could improve services
by looking at all the different questions that keep popping up repeatedly; there should be
a way to foresee these things in the future and be more transparent up front.
Commissioner Reid concurred with Commissioner Chen's points; stated Commissioner
Chen's concerns could be achieved through a filter and is doable.
The Assistant City Attorney stated there are some practical considerations regarding the
suggestions; the sorting of the spreadsheet sounds like a great idea, but meta data needs
to be produced in order for that to happen; for each request, tags would need to be
created that can be coded and then sortable; the task is achievable, but is comprehensive
and at a considerable cost; another consideration is augmenting the report to include all
requests, not just ones that come through the City Attorney's office; to the extent that this
will impact how other departments handle and document requests, it is difficult for the City
Attorney's office to commit the other departments; the comments and ideas are good, but
how to effectuate it is also important.
The City Clerk stated documents posted for the agenda are converted to PDF; there
would have to be a different distribution if the Commission would like Excel or another
sortable format; there are definitely repeated requests, but sometimes even repeated
requests on the same topic are for separate pieces of information or different documents;
the system devised by the City Attorney's office is very specific to their office; her
department uses a simple tracking system; other departments use a similar tracking
system; sometimes not every request is captured, especially, if it was a simple request
which was completed immediately; the Clerk's office has compiled an online database of
documents for requests that was built over time, which includes campaign filings, all of
the Council records and legislation.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he appreciates the explanation from the Assistant City
Attorney and the City Clerk; he understands the challenges of the task and does not want
to regulate the processes, but wants to encourage information to be available, get the
metrics, and have transparency without telling staff how to do their jobs; he is concerned
that the information is only the requests for the City Attorney's office; his request for the
2013 through 2018 PRAs did not come from the City Attorney's office; the list is
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 2, 2021
7",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,26,"the rent an unlimited amount.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is no cap on rent increases.
The Community Development Director stated the 5% is a trigger that would require
initiating the RRAC process.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the cap is for a new tenant's rent, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the point of the policy was to disincentivize
evictions to raise rent, to which the Community Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilemmber Oddie stated increasing by 25% no disincentive.
The Community Development Director stated which is why staff is requesting direction
on a cap.
Councilemmber Oddie stated Mayor Spencer's suggestion is if a tenant received a rent
increase in the last 12 months, then the new tenant could not get a rent increase for 12
months; if the tenant was eligible for a 5% increase, then the increase should be 5%.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what if the in place tenant is evicted; would the
landlord have to pay relocation benefits and cap new tenant's rent.
Mayor Spencer stated according to the Code section the next time the rent could be
increased would be when the previous tenant would have been eligible.
The Community Development Director requested clarification on the percentage cap.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft recommended 5%.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether such a clauses exists in other cities.
The Community Development Director responded most other cities with rent
stabilization do not allow no cause evictions; stated the City is accommodating the
requests from landlords while including limitations to address the important issue of
economic evictions.
Councilmember Daysog stated the landlord would be penalized twice; the landlords
would have to pay the relocation benefits plus not be able to impose a rent increase.
The Community Development Director responded that Capital Improvement Plans
(CIP's) would be different grounds for eviction; staff is requesting direction on what the
percentage cap should be.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-05-15,17,"the renovation plans for the North course will make it excellent as well; Rees Jones is a
big name and will generate national publicity; people coming to the Bay Area from out of
town will have read about a new Rees Jones course in Alameda, will fly into Oakland
Airport and be right there; the South course is going to be more popular, but the North
course is not going to suffer in anyway in terms of popularity, especially with locals.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding the North course
improvements, Mr. Kelley stated there is going to be new grass and new tees; greens
will be slowly converted to bank grass which is one of Greenway Golf's trademarks;
bunkers will be redone; drainage will be installed; there will be significant improvements.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Greenway Golf's intention is to make the
course a walker friendly course, to which Mr. Kelley responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of directing the City Manager to negotiate with
Greenway Golf.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.
Councilmember Tam stated the staff recommendation is well designed and tries to
minimize risk; inquired whether the motion is to have the City Manager enter into
negotiations with Greenway Golf for the long term operation of the golf course; however,
should the negotiations fail to yield a lease within 45 days, the City would look at
KemperSports.
Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager clarified the lease would be negotiated within 45 days; the City's 12
day notice period would not count as part of the 45 day period.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she wants thought given on how to hold the company's feet
to the fire once the contract and renovations are done; the City hears complaints from
golfers about maintenance issues not being addressed in a timely fashion; that she
wants thought to be given to addressing said issues going forward; the process has
been really good; the Council reserves the right to make the decision that feels correct
after having thoughtfully listened to the input of both staff and residents.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember deHaan stated staff should set up solid milestones.
*
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 11:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:51 p.m.
*
(12-245) Adoption of Resolution to Accept the Parks/Urban Greening Master Plan. Not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
May 15, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf
GolfCommission,2008-06-18,4,"the remaining revenue and anticipated expenses. This will require further
incursions upon the Enterprise Fund, which stands at about $1.1 million at the
present time. City Council has asked City Staff and the Golf Commission to come
up with proposals to fill the gap.
Chair Sullwold believes that closure of the Jack Clark South course is shortsighted
and ill advised because it would make the Golf Complex a much-less attractive
proposition for an outside vendor, which would have to budget for the expense of
bringing the course back, thus reducing the amount it would be willing to spend for
capital improvements and lease payments to the City. In addition, although the
Fry course does not receive as much play as it did ten years ago, it alone could
not handle as much play as the two courses together generate at the present time.
Accordingly, revenue would be substantially reduced.
Although Mr. Lillard has refused to provide the Golf Commission with the detailed
budget worksheets that would allow in-depth analysis of projected expenses, Chair
Sullwold believes staff has done their best to cut those expenses wherever
possible. There is no more fat to cut out.
If expenses can be cut no further, one must consider ways to increase revenue.
Over the past six months the Golf Commission has initiated and/or supported the
following measures at the Golf Complex with that goal in mind: (1) reinstituted
a
junior golf clinic on Saturday mornings that is currently bringing about 120 children
and their parents to the Complex each week, resulting in increased play on the Mif
Albright course, expenditures in the restaurant, and creation of a future customer
base; (2) made adjustments to tournament policies in an effort to bring more
tournaments to the Golf Complex; (3) requested reconfiguration of the Mif Albright
course back to its original plan, and instituted lowered rates that have brought play
levels up substantially on that course; (4) urged more vigorous and effective use of
website marketing to promote special rates; (5) urged additional ""demo days"" by
golf equipment manufacturers that have increased sales in the golf shop;
(6) ended much of the complimentary golf rounds at the Complex; (7)
recommended several fee adjustments, including raising the rates on the Jack
Clark course to be consistent with those charge on the Earl Fry course and
instituting a reduced super twilight rate to encourage play in the final hours of the
day when the courses are otherwise nearly empty; (8) recommended that the Golf
Complex engage a company that has offered to provide handsome scorecards for
the Fry and Clark courses in exchange for the right to include some modest and
tasteful advertising in the scorecard booklets; and (8) established a marketing
subcommittee composed of Golf Commissioners, friends of the Golf Complex, and
a marketing executive who is volunteering his time to come up with further
marketing ideas. Unfortunately, however, none of these efforts is likely to
generate anything like the amount of money that is necessary to fill the budgetary
gap. The only thing left to do is to increase fees at the Golf Complex.
Chair Sullwold first considered a plan whereby all fees at the Golf Complex would
be raised by the same percentage. Assistant Golf Professional Mike Robason
pointed out that increasing fees for non-resident golfers is likely to backfire
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 4
6/18/08
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2008-06-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-09-19,12,"the regional housing funds yet.
The Community Development Director responded the funds are being sequenced;
stated the focus is local jurisdictions funds; County pools are following in quick
succession.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there will be a full hearing of the Board of
Supervisors to determine regulations that will apply.
The Assistant Community Development Director finished the presentation.
Urged Council to consider global maximum increases versus project by project
recommendations for affordable housing: Philip James, Alameda.
Urged Council to create a local affordable housing bond: Richard Bangert, Sierra Club.
Urged Council to support the Alameda Point and Del Monte projects; stated that she
supports staff's recommendation: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what are the City's funding sources; how much will the
City be able to raise and how much the project will cost; whether staff has the figures
quantified.
The Community Development Director responded staff has not quantified the figures
yet; stated staff is reviewing how to fund infrastructure in the City; boomerang funds
vary from year to year.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the goal is to increase the overall percentage of
required affordable housing units as defined by the current General Plan and State
housing laws; he questions financial stability and what profits are being taken away from
a project; he is interested in local revenue that the City can generate to serve
Alamedans first; he would like to review in lieu of fees and how to deliver affordable
housing units for less than $600,000 a unit; he would like to review tiny houses and
mobile homes as an option for affordable housing; he would like affordable by pricing,
not affordable by design; making housing smaller does not mean the price will be lower.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not support adopting all in lieu fees;
affordable by design has a lot of merit behind it; tiny houses are an option with the new
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance; there is a definite need for housing in
Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella stated new housing needs to have disability access, ensure livability,
visitability, and meet environmental goals; she would like to find ways to incentivize
affordable housing and structure ADU fees to be paid over time instead of all at once;
she would like more workforce housing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 19, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-09-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-07,7,"the redevelopment agency; stated a subsection would be created to
deal with said groups.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the general policies and principles
need to apply to the entire City; accounting principles apply to
everybody; human resource management should apply to everyone and
needs a lot of work; debt management should apply to everyone; the
""how to"" would be specific to each; policies should address what
has to be done, how it is done is fund and agency dependent; ""how
tos"" should not be addressed too heavily.
Mayor Johnson stated clear disclosure of what, if anything, is not
being paid for is needed; the City has not been making needed
investments in the Finance Department; running a City on dinosaur
technology is inexcusable the Council did not know about the
matter until today; questioned how the Council can prioritize
without knowing about assets.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese, the Interim Finance
Director stated an appendix could be added to address the ""how tos""
on a larger scale.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the policy that the City shall utilize
one-time revenues for one-time expenditures should be throughout
the document, similar to deferred maintenance; one-time revenues
should not be allocated for on going maintenance or salaries under
expenditures, surplus revenues [Policy I.E.2] includes a laundry
list, but does not include unfunded liabilities like OPEB.
The Interim Finance Director stated the list would also include
reducing deferred maintenance liabilities some things need to be
constantly restated.
Mayor Johnson stated the City always needs to have a plan for
operation and maintenance before approving new infrastructure;
inquired whether said concept is included in the policies.
The Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative; read
language suggested by the Public Works Director.
The City Manager stated the issue is addressed in Policy I.G.3, but
needs to be reemphasized.
Councilmember Gilmore stated certain principles that are important
enough should be a general theme throughout the entire document a
couple that are so overarching and impact the way the City should
be doing business have already been identified.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-09-28,5,"the recommendations should be presented to the Council in November or December, and
that December is also the scheduled date for the final stakeholders' meeting.
Alameda Point Transportation Study: Staff Hawkins stated that the Alameda Point
Transportation Study would be presented to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA) on October 5, but presentations are not scheduled for any City boards
and commissions. She indicated that the intent is to clarify issues for the developer and
that ARRA will hopefully accept, not approve, the study.
Theater/parking garage: Staff Hawkins stated that a use permit hearing is scheduled for
September 29. She noted that issues to be discussed include the conversion of angled
parking to parallel parking on Central Avenue between Oak Street and Walnut Street and
installation of a bike lane along this block once the main library building has been
completed. To address the needs of bicyclists on Oak Street, the proposal is to add shared
lane markings (or ""sharrows"") and signs. She stated that there will be discussions with
the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) to address their parking needs in the area.
Staff Hawkins also noted that the environmental document for the project has gone
forward.
Chair Knox White said that the TC recommended the installation of sharrows from
Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, not just to Central Avenue. Staff Hawkins responded
that this would be addressed in the implementation process.
Chair Knox White suggested that when the Commission makes recommendations to the
City Council, that it might be easier for the Council to review the recommendations if
they were presented in a different format. Currently the Council receives a copy of the
TC minutes. Chair Knox White suggested preparing and sending to the Council a brief
summary of the main recommendations in addition to the minutes. Commissioner
Parker supported this recommendation.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM.",TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-01-17,11,"the reality of Alameda; the issues with moving on and off the island, and around the
island, have to be looked at; the behavior and incentives that will change the
percentage of drive-alones also have to be reviewed; he would like to see the
Transportation Commission recommendations explicit in the plan; as a top priority the
Transportation Commission should deliberate and give the Council their
recommendations by vote.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the highest ranking project is getting on and off the Island and
the on-island transit issues; she thinks they are also separate issues; there is a lot of
concern for West End estuary crossings when evaluating long term; she primarily uses
bike and public transit to get around the island and only drives to work; finding ways to
get people comfortable with using public transit is important; estuary crossing is
important; the City needs to plan now and be serious about it; for the people who want
to get their cars off the road, the City should serve them by providing long term options
and the means for doing so; she would like feedback from the Commission on
Disabilities Issues as able-ism should not be assumed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she concurred with her colleagues and
commended staff for looking at Citywide strategy; parking management strategy has
great objectives; reducing incentives by parking strategy should be used in tandem with
other objectives and not discourage people already inclined to use public transit; safe
alternatives for students should be provided so parents are willing to allow their kids to
walk, ride bikes, or take the bus, and there would be less congested traffic; finding a
way to pay for free shuttle is a continuing obligation; not everyone needs to be offered
the service for free; students, low income, and seniors, could be included, but she would
like the incentive to be more need-based; the free shuttle is a great idea but would be a
challenge to underwrite; inquired what are the next steps and when they can begin.
The Base Reuse Director responded next steps would include finding a way to package
the incentives in a way that provide more of the connections and make the plan more
comprehensive; staff has been working with the consultant on tool kits to create
standardized TDM and take the strategy to the next level; the intent is to spend the next
couple months putting a draft plan together, and returning to Council in the summer with
a draft plan; the plan would go through the whole circuit of the Planning Board,
Transportation Commission, and the Commission on Disabilities Issues; a draft plan will
be presented first, then a final plan.
Mayor Spencer stated that she has concerns about the public opinion survey and the
demographics; trying to figure out how to make the plan sustainable is the issue; she
would support the plan but would not support raising taxes to support it; figuring out
ways for funding needs to be addressed; Alameda has serious transit problems, rush
hour and access to and from schools is always an issue; there are ways to do the plan
with the support of the community; establishing a sustainable long term plan to meet the
needs is important; the priorities include sustainability with no money from the General
Fund; Council could continue to advocate, but figuring out how it is going to be done
here is important; considerations can include grants, things that can be improved,
working with the Coast Guard, and figuring out a bridge; feeling comfortable and safe
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 17, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-01-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-03-28,3,"the public meeting. There were positive comments, and one interesting comment came from a
business owner who would tell customers to use High Street instead of 23rd or 29th Avenues to
access his business. This project will benefit the local community by providing a direct route. He
pointed out that this project is for the trade corridor improvements for the northbound ramps and
that is how staff was able to secure funds. He believed the configuration suggestions posed by
the speaker were analyzed to solve many of the problems that came up, but were ultimately not
used.
Marilyn Bowe, Alameda resident, stated that she knows Tom Straus and she wanted clarification
on whether most of the traffic would feed in and out of the street in front of Straus Carpet
Company.
Commissioner Moehring said this is correct.
Marilyn Bowe questioned whether the intersection of Ford Street and 29th Avenue would
become a bottleneck.
Commissioner Moehring replied that the meeting's purpose was to get answers to those
questions.
Marilyn Bowe stated that she lives on Puddingstone Road, which is a Planned Unit
Development. The street in front of her house has now become a feeder street and creates a lot of
traffic.
Garrett Gritz noted that the intersection of Ford Street and 29th Avenue would become a hub,
where a traffic signal will be installed and the Park Street triangle will be restriped.
Staff Khan mentioned that the project has been presented to the Planning Board, City Council,
and Transportation Commission and advertised on the Alameda CTC's website. So, this is not
the first time that the project has been in front of the public. In terms of the impacts, the City
recognized those impacts and fought hard to have those concerns addressed. There were
concerns about traffic backing up onto Park Street, especially during the am peak hours.
However, staff has analyzed that the traffic queues on Park Street will dissipate quickly. He
stated that the City requested many improvements, including public transit improvements on
Park Street because it will be congested by the years 2030-2035. The City asked for queue jump
lanes on Park Street and signal coordination from Park Street and Encinal Avenue to the 23rd
Avenue on-ramp. The proposal includes queue jump lanes for transit buses at the 23rd Avenue
on-ramp. Staff is now working with AC Transit and Caltrans to review and provide comments on
this proposal. The Public Works Department received a Caltrans grant for Park Street signal
coordination with the support of the Alameda CTC.
Garrett Gritz replied that the project accommodated a future item as part of the area on the 23rd
Avenue overcrossing. One of the lanes will be striped out. When the buses are equipped with
advance detection then the buses will be able to bypass the queue.
Carol Gottstein, Alameda resident, asked if the street that features Bay Auto Center will become
Page 3 of 12
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012",TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2020-06-24,6,"the public and the leadership with guidance on what the Commission can still do about
said items.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the concern in the City Attorney's office is the
longer period of time someone has to file a complaint, things might move forward; to be
able to undo it becomes problematic; the Commission can decide to extend or shorten
the timeframe, but there have been no problems with the current 15-day window and
keeping items within the Commission's jurisdiction.
Commissioner Little inquired what the difference is between the 10 and 15-day timeframe,
to which the City Attorney responded according to Mr. Foreman's proposal, the section
dealing with public meetings and problems with public participation, as those tend to move
forward more quickly, the 10-day rule would apply in that situation; the 15-day rule would
apply to other violations because there would likely be no timing issues with an additional
five days.
Commissioner Pauling inquired if the Commission votes on this, would it give power to
recommend the Council delay the second vote for final passage.
Chair Schwartz responded Mr. Foreman's proposal would delay action until the complaint
is resolved or rejected by a supermajority of the Council; Vice Mayor Knox White's
proposal would ask the Council to review the Commission's recommendation and render
a final decision.
In response to Commissioner Pauling's inquiry, Chair Schwartz stated the timing issue
has to do with the timing of complaints and timing for the hearing.
Commissioner Little suggested combining Items A through F as one, rather than going
through line by line.
Chair Schwartz concurred; inquired whether there is support for amending the timing
requirements with respect to complaints and hearings as proposed by Mr. Foreman.
Commissioner Little moved approval of adding Items A through F of the Vella/Foreman
proposal to the Sunshine Ordinance.
The Assistant City Attorney clarified that the days for filing the complaint are calendar
days, and the days for the hearing are business days.
Commissioner Little stated the clarification is very important, suggested adding the
information to the proposed language; amended her motion to include the language
regarding calendar days.
Commissioner Shabazz suggested an amendment of business days rather than calendar
days.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
June 24, 2020
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.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
PlanningBoard,2010-02-08,3,"the proposed windows intrude into the neighbor's privacy that measures be taken to lesson
the impact to the neighbor's privacy.
Board member Cook supported the project and stated that the Board should not be too
restrictive when it comes to the placement of windows on new projects, as any new project
should have equal access to light. She stated that the compact development and the nature
of many historical residences in Alameda, sets a precedent for windows that may have
privacy impacts on neighbors.
Board Member Zuppan seconded the previous comments, commended the applicant for his
efforts to revise the project and noted her support.
Board Member Kohlstrand supported the previous comments and supported the project
without the addition of any restrictions on the second story windows.
President Ezzy Ashcraft commended the applicant for revising the project.
Vice-President Autorino moved, seconded by Board Member Zuppan to approve the major
design review application. Motion passes 6-0.
9-B
Density Bonus Ordinance - Applicant - City of Alameda. Proposed caps and
limits on concessions and/or incentives for Density Bonus Projects on sites in a
residential zone district or a site with a general plan land use designation of
residential.
Staff gave an overview of the proposed changes to the density bonus regulations.
Vice-President Autorino asked for clarification on the reduction to minimum lot size
requirements.
Staff clarified how the reduction would be applied to a density bonus project.
Board member Cook asked how the Density Bonus Ordinance impacts senior housing and
the Guyton units.
Ms. Faiz, City Attorney, noted she would review this issue and report back to the Board.
Board member Cunningham asked for an example of how the Density Bonus minimum lot
size would apply to a property that is zoned R-4, Neighborhood Residential District.
Staff clarified how the reduction would be applied to a project in an R-4 zone district.
President Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period.
Mr. Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Representative, supported the
Density Ordinance, but stated that the lot coverage requirements be either deleted, or
amended to restrict the lot coverage to less than 40 percent. In addition, he suggested that
a side yard setback of 3 feet would be insufficient in a historic neighborhoods.
Approved Meeting Minutes February 8, 2010
Page 3 of 6",PlanningBoard/2010-02-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-07,6,"the proposed new club; inquired what is the connection of the video to the agenda item
regarding 200 Packet Landing Road.
Mr. Wallace responded the video is setting context; stated HBIA is very proud of the
accomplishments over the last 40 years and HBIA intends to pursue the new club on
North Loop Road; the best uses which are consistent with the commercial recreation
zoning will be considered for the Packet Landing Road site; concurred with the Mayor
that approaching the issue with caution is prudent; stated the predecessor Mayor and
City Manager urged HBIA to pursue a hotel/conference use for the Packet Landing
Road site.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether HBIA is overlooking the current Mayor
and administration, to which Mr. Wallace responded in the negative; stated he was just
explaining where the hotel/conference idea came from.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not find any criteria or compelling
reason that would cause her to support a change in the zoning designation; she is
concerned with the regional housing shortage as it impacts Alameda; Harbor Bay was
well planned 40 years ago by Ron Cowan, including the Harbor Bay Club that residents
currently enjoy; the General Plan and zoning designations serve their intended purpose
well and she supports the advisory motion.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he has not heard anything to keep him from affirming
the current zoning; it is not an easy vote; the development works with the zoning; he is
ready to affirm the desirability of the commercial recreation land use tonight.
Councilmember Daysog stated the proponents for the alternative have not satisfied the
burden to prove their case, due to their presentation's marketing focus on the North
Loop Road site and not getting the ball rolling on the rezoning of Packet Landing Road;
Mr. Coffey and his supporters have made a definitive case in defense of the status quo;
that he supports maintaining the current General Plan and zoning designations for 200
Packet Landing Road.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not plan to add anything further; property owners
throughout the City are good neighbors; treating each other with respect and
considering each other's needs is important for the community.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he wants to make it clear that Council cannot change
the zoning tonight, regardless of the vote; the zoning of Packet Landing Road will
remain the same whether Council votes to continue evaluating residential uses or
affirms the desirability of commercial recreation zoning; voting to affirm has no teeth; he
does not want to create false expectations because nothing the Council does today
guarantees the current use of 200 Packet Landing Road will continue; he would like to
see the community get together to talk about the best use of the site if the current use is
extinguished; he prefers the option to do nothing and is leaning toward abstaining; not
changing the zoning does not mean the property could not have some other use; he is
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 7, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-12-02,5,"the project, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would happen if there were not
enough funding.
The Interim Finance Director responded a public hearing would be
needed to change the assessment.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(08-502) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Ian Wolfe Ross
Urban Design in the amount of $98,254 to develop zoning regulations
and design guidelines for the Park Street Commercial District and
authorize the City Manager to approve a Contract amendment of up to
ten percent, if needed, for unexpected contingencies.
Mayor Johnson requested the Ranger Pipelines Contract [paragraph
no. 08-503 be addressed at the same time; stated contingencies
need to be monitored; the City expects contractors to come in at or
under the bid amount.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether funding has been approved or
is waiting Council approval.
The City Engineer responded the City is obligated to finish paying
for the project; stated the City is not obligated for projects
going out to bid; recently, contingency funds from other sewer
projects were used for a sink hole at the intersection of Lincoln
Avenue and Eighth Street; contingency uses can be tracked.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) urged approval
of the recommendation to approve an Agreement with Ian Wolfe Ross
Urban Design; stated the Planning and Building Department noticed
loopholes in the CC district; that he hopes the issue will be
addressed along with the north of Lincoln Avenue zoning.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendations.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(08-503) Recommendation to award a Contract in the amount of
$315,210 including contingencies, to Ranger Pipelines for Alameda
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 2, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,6,"the project) : Rosemary McNally, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Pat
Bail, Alameda; Ani Dimusheva, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Richard
Rutter, Alameda; Robert Gavrich, Alameda; Kristianne Koenen,
Alameda; Kevin Frederick; and Nancy Kerns, Alameda.
Speaker in support of staff recommendation (Option 1, Reject the
bid and negotiate with Overaa Construction) : Lars Hansson, Park
Street Business Association.
Chair Johnson closed the public comment.
The Development Services Director responded to comments.
Commissioner deHaan provided a handout inquired whether using the
parking contractor as an alternate is legally acceptable.
Legal Counsel responded Option 1, contracting with the parking
garage contractor low bidder who has not been selected, would be
legal under the facts of the situation; stated economy of scale is
possible, making the option legally permissible.
Commissioner deHaan stated the displaced contractor has done an
admirable job on the library; inquired whether the parking
structure budget would be close to $900,000 with contingency.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has provided
information on the cineplex portion, to which the Development
Services Director responded the developer has a project estimate in
excess of $5 million; he has been getting estimates; his formal
cost estimates will be in next week.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has seen a major
increase.
The Development Services Director responded the developer is fairly
confident; four contractors are sharing preliminary estimates.
In response to Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding project
costs to date, the Development Services Director stated $3,378,500
has been spent, including acquisition of two properties.
Commissioner deHaan outlined cost increases since 2002; stated cost
estimates were $17. 6 million in 2004; today's costs are around
$33.6 million; there has been growth.
The Development Services Director stated construction costs could
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
6
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-02-05,18,"the project proponents efforts to combine the 0.5 acre parcels; the effort in combining
parcels is to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR); stated he believes the wrong decision
was made regarding combining the third parcel of 0.5 acres; the project could still
continue, but on a smaller scale allowing for negotiation of wider building coverage at a
lower height of three floors.
Councilmember Oddie stated the land is made for the purpose of developing; vacant
space does not equate open space; there is no evidence of new or more severe
impacts; the project complies with City standards; outlined the composition of Planning
Board members; stated the unanimous approval by Planning Board speaks volumes to
the project; expressed support of denying the appeal and supporting the Planning
Board's decision.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of directing staff to review the safety of the
intersection at Mecartney Road and Aughinbaugh Way, and moved approval of denying
the appeals filed by Brian Tremper and Laborer's International Union of North America.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested to give staff direction on the traffic implications.
Councilmember Vella withdrew the first motion and agreed to give staff direction
instead; stated the comment related to misuse of CEQA is disingenuous; concerns
brought forth are not CEQA concerns; outlined the need for hotels to be built; stated the
Planning Board intends to look at design concerns as they come forward, creating a
community-based process; certain contemplations related to building height date back
to many years prior, giving lateral to making design and development choices as the
community and needs evolve.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Council can make a finding to uphold the
appeal without making a finding that there was inadequate CEQA related to the issue of
combining parcels to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the issue is difficult for those directly impacted; outlined
positive impacts of the City's legal and planning staff; stated Council does not have
discretion to create more environmental work, or to discuss building height; requested
consideration of removing up to 25 parking spaces related to parking study findings, and
to pull the building back an additional 15 feet from the water; expressed support of
denying the appeal.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether Vice Mayor Knox White is requesting to give
direction.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he would be requesting as part of the motion
denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Board's decision with direction to
remove the parking and bring back the siting of the building as part of design review.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
February 5, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-02-05.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
PlanningBoard,2007-04-18,7,"the project as outlined in the EIR; the FAA has only recently declared the low-frequency
noise to be a negative impact, and there are currently no construction mitigations to
reduce that sleep-disturbing low-frequency noise. He believed that Alameda needed low-
income, not market-rate housing, and that the City jobs/housing balance needed more
jobs, not more housing. He did not believe that an environmentally challenged areas
should be rezoned. He did not believe the City should build homes in a low-frequency
noise area generated by the Port and the airport. He did not believe that the doors and
windows should have to be closed all the time. The City would lose its leverage with
Port and airport with respect to noise it if chose to build homes in this area. He noted that
the City would have to issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations. He requested a
complete discussion of the Southeast Plan of the Airport and low-frequency noise in the
EIR, and noted that this was not a necessary project. He did not believe there was a need
to change the General Plan
Mr. Ron Lappa submitted a speaker slip but was not in attendance to speak.
Ms. Nita Rosen noted that she has lived on Bay Farm Island for 42 years and opposed
changing the zoning of the business park in order to build homes. She noted that Amelia
Earhart and Bay Farm Schools have added so many modular rooms to accommodate
more students that the playgrounds have become much smaller. She expressed concern
about the effects of earthquakes on the fills.
Ms. Leslie Robey believed the home design was very nice, but did not believe they
should be built in this area. She was very concerned about air pollution from the planes
and the cars, as well as the noise.
Ms. Betty Anderson noted that her home faced Catalina, and added that the vibration
noise from the freight planes between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. often knocked her pictures
askew. She was concerned about the carcinogens from the planes, and did not believe this
was an appropriate site for homes. She cited the study from SeaTac regarding pollution
other than noise, and had suggested it be included in the study of this site. She opposed
the rezoning of this business park.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Board may submit comments, but that a dialogue would not
be appropriate at this time. He added that they may be provided in writing before May 4,
2007.
Member Mariani supported submitting comments in writing.
Member Kohlstrand noted that the public comments about noise were well made, and
was sure that the noise analysis met the CEQA requirements. She was interested in Mr.
Nido's comments regarding low-frequency studies, and would like to see new
methodologies explored in that area, even though it was not required by the EIR or the
FAA. She was cautious about further contributing to the impacts by the Port and the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
April 18, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-04-18.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,3,"the processing of the request.
Following a summary of the City's responses, Chair Tilos inquired about Nextdoor.
The Assistant City Attorney responded there are two separate Nextdoor accounts; stated
one is the Agency account, which is managed by the City's Public Information Officer and
is intended for one-way communication, although comments are allowed; records were
produced from said account since it is under the City's custody and control; these records
were in addition to providing the custodian of records of the personal Nextdoor account.
Chair Tilos inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer's comments were on the
City's Nextdoor account, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the City provided
records from the City's Nextdoor account to the Complainant; the Complainant then
stated he was not interested in the records from the City's account, but was interested in
records from the personal account.
Chair Tilos clarified the reason records were not produced from the personal account was
because the City did not have access to them.
The Assistant City Attorney concurred; stated the City produced the records from the
personal account after receiving them today.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Mr. Shabazz stated that he did not have any
expectations about the particular technology, medium or method in which the records
were maintained or retained; he asked for the correspondence and was aware of one
instance which included his name put on a crime thread; he did not know the particulars
of how the information would be obtained.
In response to Commissioner Montgomery, the Assistant City Attorney stated when
referring to the agency account, it is possible for a member of the public to comment on
it, but it is not possible for them to initiate a new post; new posts can only originate from
their own personal Nextdoor account.
Commissioner Montgomery inquired whether Mr. Shabazz requested communication
from Councilmember Herrera Spencer's own Nextdoor account as well as comments she
made under City posts.
Mr. Shabazz responded in the affirmative; stated that he requested correspondence to
and from Councilmember Herrera Spencer and comments by her on the Nextdoor
platform; he was not aware of any particular distinction between the City's account and
Councilmember Herrera Spencer's personal account.
Commissioner Montgomery stated the Commission could not access the complete
comments as only screenshots were provided; inquired whether Mr. Shabazz received
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-07-23,12,"the problem is and calculates rates at present value, which is probably a good deal.
The Finance Director stated staff would definitely have to do a lot of analysis if Council
is interested in the program; pension obligation bonds are typically taxable, which
results in a significantly higher rate; the rates are probably around 4% if the City
refinances bonds; however, pension obligation bonds are 6.5% to 7%; the rates would
continue to go up to 10% to 12%; he is only aware of Beverly Hills, and no other cities in
California, proceeding with the option.
The City Manager stated the debt would incur 6% or maybe a little more; however,
medical premium estimates currently increase by about 11% to 14% every year.
Mayor Gilmore stated the Finance Director has indicated two main drivers cause costs
to increase: one is a larger pool of retirees and the other is healthcare costs; discussed
Obama Care; stated the City is presupposing premiums are going to continue to
increase at the same rate, which might occur; in 2006 or 2007, Bartel and Associates
thought there would be national healthcare, which the Council did not want included in
estimates since it was far away and might have never happened; now national
healthcare has sort of happened; more analysis is needed on what national healthcare
might look like for the City; the City should have a better idea of exactly what is being
tackled because Obama Care is probably going to make rates go down or up.
Councilmember Tam stated the Affordable Care Act is very complex; the Congressional
budget office is completing estimates; Alameda Hospital has affiliated with the County in
reaction to the Affordable Care Act because a competition increase is anticipated;
healthcare premiums should go down by 10% to 18% in the next five years; that she
does not know how projections are being done; the matter should be considered.
The City Manager stated in spite of the Affordable Care Act, the aging population
believes it has a right to live forever, so he is not very optimistic; the Affordable Care Act
might provide a mitigation to what would have been a larger increase; demographics
cannot be changed; being 80 years old and feeling entitled to a third knee is not going
to change because of legislation.
Councilmember Tam stated the City made significant progress with the last MOU
negotiations; actuarials show 80% of public safety spouses outlive the retirees; retirees
do not typically live longer than 12 years after retiring.
The City Manager stated healthcare is provided for current public safety retirees'
spouses; most employees were hired before June, 2011; there will be relief in the long
term; however, how to handle the next 30 years is the problem.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like more information about how Obama Care is
likely to affect the City; the City might decide the information is not relevant or might not
want to put all eggs in one basket in terms of rates; moving forward without that piece of
the puzzle seems irresponsible.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 23, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-06-24,2,"the previous two speakers. She said she worries about noise, garbage, and mental health
impacts on neighbors.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
*None*
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-B 2019-7015
PLN19-0051 - Proposed Final Development Plan Amendment, Design Review, and
Tentative Parcel Map for 1310, 1430, and 1410 Harbor Bay Parkway- Applicant: Joe Ernst
on behalf of srmErnst Development Partners. Public hearing to consider a Final
Development Plan Amendment and Design Review to develop three new single-story flex-
space buildings, totaling 310,945 square feet on 18 acres of vacant land. The application
includes a Tentative Parcel Map to create commercial condo maps for each new building.
The project is located in the C-M-PD (Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development)
Zoning District. A Final Environmental Impact Report for Harbor Bay Isle, including the
Harbor Bay Business Park, was certified in 1974 and the 1988 Addendum to the EIR was
certified in 1989 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no new significant impacts have been
identified and no additional CEQA review is required.
David Sablan, Planner Il with the Planning, Building, and Transportation Department,
gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3983776&GUID=0999FE08-
5A3B-41F2-8F42-9A36611019A5&FullText=1.
Board Member Curtis asked which water feature was being removed.
Staff Member Sablan explained that the water feature connecting the two existing
buildings to Harbor Bay Parkway would be removed for landscaping and parking.
Board Member Teague asked what the required number of parking spaces was when the
original development agreement was approved.
Staff Member Sablan said he did not have that information at this time.
Board Member Teague asked how many parking places would be included in the entire
parcel when the project is complete.
Staff Member Sablan said that the three new parcels will have 711 parking spaces, but he
does not know the number of existing parking spaces on the two established parcels.
Joe Ernst, SRM Ernst Development, said the original plan included 1900 spaces for the
all office plan, a 3.25 per 1,000 square foot ratio. He said the buildings they are adding
include 2.25 spaces per 1,000 square foot for the R&D/manufacturing use and that they
still have the shared parking easements in place across all five properties.
There were no public speakers.
Approved Planning Board minutes
Page 2 of 9
June 24, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-06-24.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-03-10,5,"the previous meeting were now included in the document. The Commission discussed and
reviewed the goals and objectives.
M/S/C
REEVES/KAHUANUI
(approved)
""That the Annual Commission Goals, Objectives, and Accomplishments be
approved.""
Approved (3):
Ingram, Kahuanui, Reeves
Absent (2):
Johnson, Oliver
C.
Status Report on the Sports Advisory Committee's Recommendation
regarding Field Use Fees - (Discussion/Action Item)
Acting Director Lillard informed the Commission that as they had requested at the previous
meeting, staff has met with the Sports Advisory Committee and begun drafting a policy to
develop a per player fee. A draft has been developed and, once finalized at a future
meeting, will be brought before the Commission for approval.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
See attached Activity Report.
B.
Recreation Division
See attached Activity Report.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
See attached Activity Report.
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
1.
Status Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair
Reeves)
No report at this time.
2.
Status Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)
No report at this time.
5
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.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
RecreationandParkCommission,2008-08-14,2,"the presentation. Mr. Hawke introduced Marty Buxton, Mission Valley Properties, Tim
Hurley, BMS Design Group, and Herb Hampton, BMS Design Group who helped with the
presentation.
Director Lillard asked if there were any pocket parks. Mr. Hurley stated no.
Commissioner Mariani asked if the street was private or public. Mr. Hurley stated that it
would be a public street maintained by the HOA.
Mr. Hawke stated that State Lands Trust has control of the property even thought the City
owns the property. The Trust has overlying jurisdiction. To take the property out of the
State Lands Trust there would need to be a swap. The area that is landscaped would stay
in the State Lands Trust and the area that the homes would be built on would be swapped
out of the State Lands Trust for other properties that the City owns. One of the areas that
could potentially be swapped would be Mt. Trashmore (the old dump site). There is a list of
other properties located around the island which could also be considered. Ultimately what
will happen is that all the paving and the area identified as passive and active will stay
within the State Lands Trust.
Commissioner Brown asked who would maintain the area. Mr. Hawke stated that the HOA
would maintain the area. This project is self-funded so there would not be any long-term
maintenance needed from the City. Ms. Ott also stated that it will also still be owned by
the City and publicly assessable.
Commissioner Cooper asked Mr. Hawke to explain the land swap. Mr. Hawke stated that
throughout the State of California, primarily along coastal areas, there was a State Lands
Commission that was set up and lands that were along the coastal areas were put in a trust
with the ideas that they would only be developed for maritime use.
Commissioner Cooper stated that for clarification that the area where the homes were to be
built would be taken out of the Trust and Mt. Trashmore would be put in the Trust.
Commissioner Cooper asked how much the developers will pay to the City in addition to
the land swap for the property. Mr. Hawke stated that those negotiations are still being
held. All of the money paid for the property will go into improvement of the marina slips and
marina properties. Once the Marina operator gets the improvements his lease rates
increase. That will be the revenue that goes to the City. The City negotiated an extension
of the lease and a higher rent for the existing lease as it is today, and any future
improvements the City partakes in the increased revenue stream. Ms. Ott stated that those
revenues will go into a Tidelands revenue fund that can be used to build additional parks
and make improvements to other tidelands areas.
Mr. Hawke stated that this is a very complex transaction/process, and political process.
Legislation will have to be passed through the State.
Commissioner Mariani asked how long the project has been going on. Mr. Hawke stated
that they have been working on it for approximately seven years.
Mr. Hurly stated that there would be approximately 350 parking spaces provided in the
project. Director Lillard asked if there would be parking in the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Hurly stated
no, there would not be room.
Commissioner Cooper asked how many units would be built. Mr. Hurly stated there would
- 2 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - Thursday, August 14, 2008",RecreationandParkCommission/2008-08-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,30,"the preferred provider to the extent allowed by the law; and 6)
amend the Public Benefits schedule to include that one of the
public benefits state: ""visually enhances surrounding areas which
represent a key Alameda gateway.""
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated Lowe's
and Best Buy are examples of why retail cannot be limited to 50,000
square foot.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the
leakage study shows smaller footprint type retail would capture
sales leakage.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the leakage
study assumes that Target would be at the Alameda Towne Center; the
study would show different leakage in the event that Target does
not go to the Alameda Towne Center; the idea is to be complimentary
and not competitive.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated higher
end tenants are usually not over 50,000 square feet.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he is not
arguing for big box stores he would rather have smaller, boutique-
type stores.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated retail
mix, leakage factors, Council briefing, and business associations
are important.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Catellus is
willing to come back to the CIC in the event of deviation from the
table.
Mr. Marshall stated Catellus would be in default of all development
documents if the leakage study were not followed; tenant
discussions would be a challenge in a public forum.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated Council
could receive a confidential Off Agenda Report if Catellus does not
comply; the matter would not need to come to Council for public
discussion.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Catellus
has a development in Fremont.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
19
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-06-16,17,"the power of Police; stated the Police system was designed to suppress; urged Council
to redesign the system of policing and reallocate funding from the Police Department to
fund an outside investigation which evaluates Police Department policies, training
manuals, and responses: Susanne Heim, Alameda.
Expressed support for defunding the Police; stated the need to review and reallocate
the budget is essential; discussed impacts to families with public school aged children;
discussed reallocation of programs: Lesie Van Every, Alameda.
Urged Council to listen to the demands of the youth activists and to consider previous
comments; expressed support for discussing the public non-housing public services, for
redirecting funds and setting priorities; stated continuing changes is critical; urged
Council not to pass the budget amendment until an alternative with financially backed
anti-racist policies is available: Amy Chu, Alameda.
Stated Alameda does not approve the mid-cycle budget resolution; no detail should be
spared when reviewing the Police budget; discussed student fundraising; urged Council
to overhaul the budget, and assemble a civilian review board: Kevyn Lauren, Alameda.
Stated defunding the Police has fallen on deaf ears; major cities are making defunding
commitments; urged Council to listen to the demands and communities of color; noted
more social and mental health services will be funded through defunding Police; urged
Council to re-look at the budget, defund the Police, fund social services, vote no and
postpone the budget: Vinny Camarillo, Alameda.
The following comments were read into the record:
Discussed experience as a resident of Alameda; urged Council to reject the mid-cycle
budget resolution; stated recent protests show a historical turning point in the City of
Alameda; urged Council to solicit more input from the community, shift patrol positions,
reallocate overtime funding and sell military equipment: Molly Montgomery, Alameda.
Discussed experiences as an Alameda resident; stated policing in America has failed;
urged Council to divest from APD and invest in the community; stated inequality exists
due to healthcare, housing, social and education systems designed by White people;
systemic change is required: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.
Discussed the detention of Mr. Watkins; stated a radical and immediate response was
warranted; a vote for the mid-cycle budget is a vote for systemic racism; urged Council
to table the budget, shift APD patrol positions and overtime, sell APD's military grade
equipment and vote against systemic racism, the status quo and the mid-cycle budget:
Erin Fraser, Alameda.
Urged Council to take immediate action to start the process of addressing systemic and
pertinent issues of policing by rejecting the mid-cycle budget; stated the City should
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
June 16, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-16.pdf
GolfCommission,2020-10-13,3,"the possibility of larger mats for the teeing areas on the Mif Par 3. Mr. Patel stated he
would report back regarding this at the next meeting. Commissioner Carlson asked
about financials, and Mr. Patel stated that due to the change in management and that
the annual report had not been prepared earlier in the year.
Mr. Patel stated that a few weeks ago Commissioner Carlson had requested to go out
on the course and check the pin placements, and this request was denied. Mr. Patel
stated that he felt his team, that in total have over 50 years of experience, are
following the correct protocol and pins are changed daily by a predetermined plan, and
he has faith in his staff.
7-B
Jim's on the Course Restaurant Report
Tom Geanekos welcomed the new golf commissioner and introduced himself to Mr.
Finkenbinder. Mr. Geanekos stated that their staff is complying to the county
mandates for Covid-19, and had read news today that in the week of October 19, they
will be able to open inside at 25% capacity. They've been able to hold on to a majority
of their employees. The air conditioning system had been changed in the last few
months. Commissioner Loud asked about the event center, and Amy Wooldridge
stated that they are still not able to discuss at this time.
7-C
Recreation and Parks Director Report
Amy Wooldridge stated that the parking lot project is not yet complete, as the striping
will be coming, and will be done in pieces, not to impact parking during the day.
Redgwick has been put on notice regarding the lot as the City is not happy with the
results, so the slurry will be completed again. They believe that it needed a second
day to cure, so they will slurry again and allow a second day to cure.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - November 10, 2020
Greenway Report
Jim's on the Course Report
Recreation and Parks Director Report
10.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:55 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
3
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, October 13, 2020",GolfCommission/2020-10-13.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,2014-05-06,10,"the performance would be strong based on past performance and based on outside
sources.
Outlined Alameda Family Services (AFS) case management services, including
expansion to seniors; provided an example: Ebony Brown, AFS.
Mayor Gilmore inquired how many seniors were served through the AFS program, to
which Ms. Brown responded approximately 60 seniors.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether AFS's requested funding is just for the senior
component, to which Ms. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated the funding would
extend the existing program to include a dedicated case manager just for seniors.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many hours per week would the case worker
provide, to which Ms. Brown responded 20 hours: 16 hours for case management
services and four hours for outreach.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Ms. Brown stated the case worker
would not be a licensed social worker.
Councilmember Daysog stated AFS seems to be youth-focused, inquired whether AFS
has experience assisting the elderly.
Ms. Brown responded providing direct service to the elderly is a new focus for AFS;
stated AFS developed a partnership with Mastick Senior Center after learning about
seniors' needs.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether other agencies can help seniors apply for the
services AFS provides.
Ms. Brown responded that she is not aware of any other agency providing the in-home
support services in Alameda.
Councilmember Chen inquired without similar services, the case manager is much
needed; inquired what would happen if AFS loses income next year.
Ms. Brown responded sustainability is an on-going issue; AFS is always looking for
funding streams; even if AFS only provides the service for one year, seniors can
connect to the family support center.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether AFS would lose the family support center if
there is no funding.
Ms. Brown responded in the negative; stated AFS has provided services in Alameda for
34 years; if the new senior case management program is not funded, AFS still has other
programs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
May 6, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-05-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2020-06-24,5,"the perceived conflict of interest; the City Attorney's office responded that they were not
asked to do so; he agrees with the City Attorney's office that it is not within the charge of
the OGC to tell the City Council to retain independent legal counsel.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the comments provided by the City Attorney's office to
Mr. Foreman's proposal is just preliminary thinking; the Office plans to do a more thorough
analysis once concrete direction is received from the Commission; the supplemental
memo from the City Attorney's office should be considered as a starting point for the
Commission to work with the City Attorney's office in developing a satisfactory proposal
that can be repackaged for the Council; it would be helpful to staff for the Commission to
weigh in on each item, so the City Attorney's office is clear on how to draft the proposal.
Chair Schwartz concurred with the Assistant City Attorney; stated that he would like to
address each item; suggested breaking down into a few parts: 1) Section 2-92.2 of Mr.
Foreman's proposal that further action on an agenda item shall be delayed until the
complaint is resolved; 2) Section 2-93.8, Council shall accept the recommendation unless
4 Councilmembers reject it; 3) keep or eliminate the monetary penalty.
In response to Commissioner Little's inquiry, Chair Schwartz stated the discussions can
include the Vella/Foreman proposal; added a fourth category regarding timing issues in
general, which would encompass the rest of the changes; a fifth category could be
discussed regarding independent legal counsel; regarding the timing issue, a member of
the public commented that there will not be time for the public to weigh in if things are
rushed.
Commissioner Pauling stated that she agrees with Commissioner Little and would like to
work through the list item by item rather than bouncing around.
In response to Chair Schwartz's inquiry regarding timing, Commissioner Pauling stated
that she concurs with the proposal to delay action on the second reading to address any
outstanding issues and to do it within the regular meeting agenda framework so that
Council can be notified quickly.
Chair Schwartz inquired whether the method would cut people short in their ability to
participate if complaints must be filed and responded to so quickly.
Commissioner Pauling responded that she is ok if the second vote is delayed by two
meetings to allow proper reparations.
Commissioner Little stated it is important to have transparency in the process and provide
the boundaries of what can and cannot be brought forward; the situation could end up
where something has gone through and an issue arises 30 or 40 days out; it should still
be brought forward to the OGC; by setting the boundaries, the Commission knows what
can happen; otherwise, there will be a pause in the entire process and it will be extremely
muddled; as long as it is clear that the timing keeps business moving forward and
hopefully allows enough time for the public to respond; this type of framework provides
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
June 24, 2020
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2020-06-24.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,10,"the people that were reading the applications could figure out who they were by not being
able to answer the questions. There were certain people who did not have aquatic
experience or senior experience and you would have to leave it blank because they could
not answer it.
Ms. Blumkin stated that for Mr. Low to state that was unbiased because there were no
names, Dale Lillard informed those people whose those papers were and they could figure
it out themselves. Ms. Blumkin is almost 100% certain that if you gave her the other
person's name from Hayward, they (appellants) would also know who that person is
because the recreation community is very close and all work together. This was an unfair
process, totally unfair by Human Resources and the outgoing ARPD Director Dale Lillard.
He is no longer working here, but if he was brought into this room today you (the Board)
would be totally shocked.
Ed Tsang, Alameda resident, retired from Alameda County Superior Court and father of
appellant Marcia Tsang, asked what is the racial makeup of the new Recreation Services
Specialists and what the racial makeup of Recreation Program Coordinators are. Ms.
Blumkin stated the ones that were hired are all white. The ones laid off were two Asians
and a Hispanic.
Sandi Bertero, Alameda resident and former employee (retired) with the City of Alameda-
currently part-time, stated that she loves working for the City and working in ARPD. She
really feels that this was an unfair process. She worked with the union for many years and
worked to get the union in the City. Most of the time when they have to do budget cuts,
they usually do layoffs and most of the time it has been by seniority. This was not by
seniority. They decided to reorganize the Department which is fine, but she wanted the
Board to know that in the past it had always been by seniority. Because it was a
promotional thing, her personal opinion is that anybody that qualified in the specific area.
She does feel that there is possibly one person that may not have been qualified to even be
considered for the job. Lastly, in all of her 40 work years, and she has interviewed for
many departments and many jobs, she has never in her life interviewed over the phone. If
you wanted a job you had to be at the interview and that was not the case in this
promotional job.
Mr. Wong stated that going back to April 19, 2012, on that afternoon he had to go back to
work for an event, a Teen Job Search Work Shop showing teens how to interview for a job,
etc. He actually had to sit there and act like everything was okay. His heart was in the job
itself and the recreation field and his commitment was to Patrick and the ideal of ""Parks
Make Life Better"" not what one person has done or did not do. Because it was
a
community event, if he did not show up it would not have been professional to let down his
teen staff, the kids, and some of his colleagues of the department and neighboring
departments. When he was at the event a lot of people were shocked that he was not one
of the few selected.
Mr. Wong is asking the Board to please look at the results and questions. His job search
experience from now and up to the layoff had been that he has put in two applications. He
Page -10-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,8,"the parking structure must be weighed against the total budget of the project.
Mr. Robert Wood, 259 Oyster Pond, noted that he would reluctantly criticize the design because the
parking garage had been anticipated by the area for decades. He believed this structure had the most
minimal of design aspirations of almost any structure in the area. He supposed the garage was
mechanically ventilated, and was afraid that the massing and scale of the building would be
oppressive. He believed a massing study should be done, and that the top two floors of the garage
should be set back; he believed that 15 parking spaces would be lost in that scenario. He would like to
see a Specific Plan for this area, and was concerned that Long's may develop a 60-foot-high building
on the block because the City did not take the initiative to study and provide limitations on such
structures.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item and believed the structure
was extremely unattractive and uninspired.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that in his seven years of residence in Alameda, he's
never had a problem parking on Park Street, partly because he rode a bicycle often, and partly
because he did not mind walking a few blocks. He endorsed Mr. Buckley's comments. He agreed
with Mr. Woods' comments about the massing, and believed the sunlight would be blocked in the
morning. He did not believe the massing would be appropriate, and expressed concern about the
visual pollution that would be caused by the uplighting. He believed planters should be interspersed
between the storefront-size poster displays. He did not believe artwork and vinyl were compatible; he
suggested that a bas relief mural would be appropriate. He believed bike logo signs and bike text signs
that specify that bikes are allowed to enter at the bike logo area, and in the main driveway. He noted
that this was not the first design choice, and would like the design to be redone so that it is the first
choice. He urged the Board to take Mr. Buckley's and Mr. Woods' comments into account.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding parking, Mr. Stanton confirmed that the sixth
floor would contain parking on the whole floor. He displayed the façade and stated that the rationale
behind the vinyl art wall was that it was a property line wall that required significant four-hour
construction. The Building Official believed that penetrations would be inconsistent with safety
standards for the City, particularly with a relatively high hazard occupancy like a garage. Given the
limited budget for the project, they tried to invest in the best quality materials and desirable on the
permanent Oak Street façade. It was hoped that the Long's site will eventually be redeveloped in a
way more consistent with downtown Alameda; a corner parking lot on a major intersection was not
the standard pattern of Alameda's commercial districts. He noted that vines had been considered, but
the north facing façade and height of the building made that impractical. A reciprocal easement with
Long's for trees had been explored, but did not pan out. He noted that any art may stay on the façade
for up to three years, but that the form and medium was in the preliminary stage.
Ms. Ott described the Public Art Ordinance, and noted that they were making a good faith effort to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-06,10,"the parking rate; the meter schedule, which is different from what
was adopted in the resolution, may state $1.00 but is not what the
meters reflect and does not reflect the action taken by Council;
the proposed resolution separates the parking meters from the
Master Fee Resolution.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has no problem with bringing
something back to raise meter rates throughout the City; the garage
rates should start out at a lower rate and for a longer period of
time to encourage long-term users to park in the parking structure;
other cities have shorter term parking in high priority areas;
garage structure rates will be easy to adjust to because there are
no individual meters; the rates can be changed later if necessary.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that the resolution does not address how and
where the funds would be expended and would be governed by the
existing ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there
would be future discussion on how the funds would be expended and
whether or not the funds should be designated for Park Street.
The City Manager responded the matter would be addressed in the
budget discussion, which could include input from PSBA.
Councilmember Matarrese requested input from the Boards and
Commissions identified in the report when the overall parking study
is completed.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he feels a flat rate charge
throughout the City would be better.
Mayor Johnson stated the Webster Street District might be a concern
because said District is not as robust as the Park Street District;
the matter needs to be reviewed; directed staff to review raising
meter rates throughout the City.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(07-527) Resolution No. 14157, ""To Increase Civil Penalties for
Parking Violations. Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
November 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,21,"the other; the Interim City Manager should be directed to negotiate with both the non-
profit and for profit to show the numbers for the options that do not work; then, a
decision can be made.
The Interim City Manager stated various scenarios could be provided, but the
negotiations would take longer now.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how much time would be needed, to which the Interim City
Manager responded six months.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Kemper interim management contract would be
extended, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated in the interim, some of the non-profit money should be
used to maintain the par 3 course to ensure that children have a place to play in the
spring and summer; that he would like to see an interim contract for both Kemper and
the non-profit.
Councilmember Gilmore clarified that the Interim City Manager would negotiate with
both entities; in the meantime, Kemper would have a short-term contract to maintain the
status quo of the Mif Albright course and other two courses; meanwhile, the non-profit
would continue raising money.
Ms. Sullwold stated the problem is that donations have to go to a 501(3)(c) corporation
in order to allow deductions; most, if not all, donations would diminish if there is not an
agreement that the non-profit would operate the Mif Albright course; donations are
based on whether the plan [for long-term non-profit operation] goes forward.
The Interim City Manager stated the question is how long it will take to get all of the
pieces together; there are too many moving parts; 90 to 180 days are needed for
negotiations which should allow enough time to generate some revenue commitments;
inquired whether people would not make commitments until after a deal is made.
Ms. Sullwold responded the people have committed to putting money forward to a non-
profit operation; stated that she does not know if commitments would be made on an
expectation of getting a contract.
Mr. Van Winkle stated the funding put together is predicated on Council giving direction
to negotiate with the non-profit.
Councilmember Tam stated a long-term operator has been selected; direction has been
given to negotiate with both Kemper and the non-profit; in the meantime, the Interim
City Manager needs 180 days to negotiate with the parties; the City has a renewable
clause with Kemper for every 30 days; inquired whether the Mif Albright course and two
18-hole courses would stay open for the next six months until a long-term agreement is
reached.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-08-05,7,"the options.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of adopting the Alameda Free
Library Strategic Plan and authorizing staff to initiate working on
short-term improvements to the neighborhood libraries and bring the
[implementation] plan back to Council for authorization to start.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated there is no deadline for
use of Measure O money.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Measure O has a finite period of
time; more revenue could be generated if the City asks for an
extension from the voters.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the RFP process would help generate
estimates and establish various improvements that Council would
review and prioritize, to which the Library Director responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired what would be asked in the RFP, such as
interior or structural work.
Ms. Page responded the list of short-term recommendations would be
used as the basis for the RFP; stated the City could pick and
choose the items.
The Library Director responded the RFP would be for an
architectural firm with structural engineering, some historical
preservation and interior space planning experience in libraries.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the RFP would include interior and
structural improvements.
Ms. Page responded the short-term goals involve very little
structural changes.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the electrical and HVAC system are
included in the short term goals, to which Ms. Page responded in
the affirmative; stated said items are mechanical systems.
The Library Director stated the shell of the buildings would not
change.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether priorities would be set before going
out with the RFP .
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
August 5, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-11-12,2,"the opinions of individuals.
a.
Pedestrian Plan Task Force
There was no report.
b.
Bicycle Plan Update Group
There was no report.
c.
Alameda Point Advisory Task Force
There was no report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
There were none.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
a.
Monitoring of Oak Street and Central Avenue Intersection
Staff Khan summarized the extensive staff report and detailed the background and scope
of this item. He described the monitoring plan, and added that Public Works and
Alameda Police Department (APD) coordinated the work with the community groups,
addressing their concerns. In response to a request by APD, City Council approved the
change to the Municipal Code on June 17, 2008 regarding the use of the garage by
skaters and skateboarders.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Moehring about additional bike racks in the
area, Staff Bergman replied that there was not a current proposal for anything on the north
side of Central near the theater. Staff Khan added that staff would continue to examine
that issue, and that racks would be installed in Lot C.
Commissioner Krueger noted that page 4 stated that there was a pedestrian crossing time
of 4 to 7 seconds, and inquired why there was a maximum walk time. As a pedestrian, he
expected that the flashing hand time should be equal to the crossing distance divided by
the average walking speed, and that the green signal should last through the crossing
time. He would like to see the crossing time maximized.
Staff Khan replied that based upon the studies, 7 seconds at a signalized intersection was
the maximum to coordinate with the cycle.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it would be possible to have a white hand and
countdown that changed to an orange flashing countdown as the crossing time ran out.
Staff Khan stated that a $50 parking permit was being considered for Monday through
Friday parking. Staff would consider the PSBA request to increase the parking time from
four to eight hours.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the truck that hit the
2",TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-03-21,13,"the onus is on the City to find the matching dollars; Alameda's pavement condition has
moved to good range for the first time in a decade according to Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC).
The Finance Director continued presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired why staff did not budget enough on parking meters.
The Interim Public Works Director responded the credit card fee was a difficult variable
to know during the development stage; staff now knows the charges with the data.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the fee is flat, to which the Interim Public Works
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the parking meter revenue is, to which the
Interim Public Works Director responded $1.5 million.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why is there a request to increase funds if the
program is pulling in money.
The Finance Director responded it is accounting; stated gross revenues and gross
expenses have to be recognized separately; the two cannot be connected.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what other funds are being contemplated to
draw from.
The Interim Public Works Director stated there are not many transportation funds to look
at; the objective is to find matching dollars.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the department would be able to keep
the pavement management program operating at the level now, even with the $78,000
re-appropriation, to which the Interim Public Works Director responded in the
affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Interim Public Works
Director stated pavement condition has improved and is a top priority; the $78,000 is not
going to make an impact on the pavement condition.
The Finance Director continued presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Fire Station 3 needs to be replaced; she does not
understand how staff did not anticipate that the EOC would need IT equipment, new
gear, and new furnishings to be purchased and installed; she would also like to know
what the updated total cost is to build the EOC and the additional costs Council should
anticipate; there is a contingency plan built into every contract; there are lessons to be
learned.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 21, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,4,"the only situation voted upon, which came from the community
itself.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council acts via consensus.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot recall ever going to
the City Manager and requesting a matter be placed on the agenda;
what happens is Councilmembers have brought up items under Council
Communications and the Council as a body has directed the City
Manager to place the matter on the agenda; this [the proposal]
formalizes the process.
Mayor Johnson stated that she sees the matter as formalizing what
has been done.
Councilmember deHaan stated former Councilmember Daysog has done it
[placed matters on the agenda] quite a few times; a few times
former Councilmember Daysog would say that he wanted a matter to be
part of the agenda.
Mayor Johnson stated not that she was aware of ; that she served on
the Council with former Councilmember Daysog and she does not
recall that [Councilmember Daysog putting matters on the agenda] .
Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated that she recalls
Regular Meeting
4
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-07-22,2,"the next six months to get the study off the ground. He anticipates that the study will last
for a couple of years and the results will be reported back to the City Council. He said
Gail Payne will attend almost every single Commission meeting to present the tasks
that she is working on, which is developing the scope of work and the RFP for the
consultant which he anticipates will be able to be presented at the September 23rd
meeting. Moreover, the Commission will be able to weigh in on the information
presented. He said he will support Staff Patel who came back to staff the Commission.
However, he mentioned that given the lack of staffing for the next six months and
depending on where Gail Payne will be placed permanently staff will be fairly restricted
on what they can do and what they can staff. Yet, staff will support the Commission and
the Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC) with AC Transit.
Commissioner Miley said he looked forward to having Gail Payne present to the
Commission as the process moves forward.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Bob Haun how he saw this fitting into or
supplementing the Transportation Element (TE) of the General Plan.
Bob Haun replied that was yet to be determined and he was not sure if the study would
drive changes to the TE. However, the City Council will be very involved in the study.
He also said they will generally try to change Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) travel,
review the ingress and egress of the island and try to improve those routes.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the role the Commission would play in the study
and what would be the ultimate relationship with the Planning Board.
Bob Haun replied the Planning Board would have a lot less input than the Commission
and although Gail Payne was assigned to the Planning Department, this is not a
planning function necessarily. He said they have not discussed who Gail Payne will
report to although she will probably report to the Planning Board. He explained that the
general feeling within the City is that the Planning Department started this because
there was a large report on transportation that began with Jennifer Ott and Andrew
Thomas. Therefore, since they initiated and have ownership of the study then the
natural direction would be for the Planning Department to complete the study.
Commissioner Miley stated that it would be useful to have the chair of the
Transportation Commission speak with the chair of the Planning Board to schedule a
joint meeting at some point about this issue.
Bob Haun said he suspected that at some point there will be a joint meeting because
there will be a development portion of the study including how to handle the additional
traffic from the developments.
Commissioner Bertken stated that if the development was a given as a supposed to
constrained by transportation, then part of the study will be dealt with where the TDM
approach would be worked out along with the development.
Page 2 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-05-27,2,"the next six months to get the study off the ground. He anticipates that the study will last
for a couple of years and the results will be reported back to the City Council. He said
Gail Payne will attend almost every single Commission meeting to present the tasks
that she is working on, which is developing the scope of work and the RFP for the
consultant which he anticipates will be able to be presented at the September 23rd
meeting. Moreover, the Commission will be able to weigh in on the information
presented. He said he will support Staff Patel who came back to staff the Commission.
However, he mentioned that given the lack of staffing for the next six months and
depending on where Gail Payne will be placed permanently staff will be fairly restricted
on what they can do and what they can staff. Yet, staff will support the Commission and
the Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC) with AC Transit.
Commissioner Miley said he looked forward to having Gail Payne present to the
Commission as the process moves forward.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Bob Haun how he saw this fitting into or
supplementing the Transportation Element (TE) of the General Plan.
Bob Haun replied that was yet to be determined and he was not sure if the study would
drive changes to the TE. However, the City Council will be very involved in the study.
He also said they will generally try to change Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) travel,
review the ingress and egress of the island and try to improve those routes.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the role the Commission would play in the study
and what would be the ultimate relationship with the Planning Board.
Bob Haun replied the Planning Board would have a lot less input than the Commission
and although Gail Payne was assigned to the Planning Department, this is not a
planning function necessarily. He said they have not discussed who Gail Payne will
report to although she will probably report to the Planning Board. He explained that the
general feeling within the City is that the Planning Department started this because
there was a large report on transportation that began with Jennifer Ott and Andrew
Thomas. Therefore, since they initiated and have ownership of the study then the
natural direction would be for the Planning Department to complete the study.
Commissioner Miley stated that it would be useful to have the chair of the
Transportation Commission speak with the chair of the Planning Board to schedule a
joint meeting at some point about this issue.
Bob Haun said he suspected that at some point there will be a joint meeting because
there will be a development portion of the study including how to handle the additional
traffic from the developments.
Commissioner Bertken stated that if the development was a given as a supposed to
constrained by transportation, then part of the study will be dealt with where the TDM
approach would be worked out along with the development.
Page 2 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-05-27.pdf
GolfCommission,2017-11-14,7,"the new South Course prior to opening
OTHER
Transferable
May transfer once during term with paid transfer fee of $1000
$1,000 refundable deposit to hold a spot. Within 10 days an additional $4,000 is
Finance Plan
required. Balance of $10,000 due on or before 2/1/18.
Refund
Nonrefundable once application is submitted
Change of
In the event Greenway is no longer the management company, the prepaid
Management
membership will transfer to the new operator.
Other
Offer valid until first twenty are sold or 12/31/17
Final details of the membership terms will be confirmed by Greenway before the applications
are finalized. This membership program will be implemented consistently with no special deals,
exceptions or individual modifications offered outside of the final terms of the program. This is a
very limited program designed not to be the right fit for all, but more specifically for a few which
will assist Greenway's efforts to raising funding for club improvements while also creating some
strong committed fans that can help promote the new South Course to a broader audience.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This program is designed to raise funds for Greenway Golf in order to implement additional club
improvements sooner than originally planned.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive informational report on Corica Park Founding Membership Program
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director",GolfCommission/2017-11-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,8,"the new City Council an opportunity to speak on the issue prior to future votes.
Stated having the new City Council reexamine the previous City Council's actions is
appropriate to determine if there were problems with the process or if additional studies
are needed; however, if there were no problems, it appears to be reneging on a deal;
issues were addressed in the year-long process; a hard fought compromise was
reached; urged moving forward if nothing grievous occurred: Eric Strimling, Alameda.
Stated the process has been slow and he would hate to see the Del Monte project in
jeopardy; the majority of the public are in favor of the project: Don Sherratt, Alameda.
Expressed concern over impacts to traffic and schools; urged going back to the drawing
board and renegotiating with the developer: David Mancy, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the rescission; stated rescinding the ordinances does not
address concerns and would jeopardize the Del Monte building: Richard Hausman,
Alameda.
Stated the Master Plan is legally insufficient because it does not include a preliminary
site plan, floor plans and elevations for low income housing; outlined Density Bonus
requirements; urged the ordinances be repealed before the Development Agreement is
signed: Paul Foreman, Alameda.
Urged Council to reject the proposal to rescind the ordinances; expressed concern over
the lack of publication of the rationale for rescinding; showed a video: Bruce Knopf,
Alameda.
Stated the project has been through the process; discussed the type of people who
would be interested in living at the site; stated that she would prefer to have residents
rather than truck traffic: Kathy Moehring, Alameda.
Stated there is more at stake than just traffic; expressed concern over losing the project;
questioned whether the item complies with the Sunshine Ordinance: Michael
McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.
Stated there have been many opportunities for public comment during the lengthy
approval process; the chief concern seems to be the outgoing Council taking action
after the election; the outgoing Council was required to continue fulfilling its
responsibilities until replaced; outlined the project benefits; urged moving forward: Helen
Sause, Alameda Home Team.
Questioned the purpose for the delay; stated everyone has had ample opportunity to
weigh in on the project; the developer has been open and has worked with the
community: Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda Home Team.
Expressed concern over the rescission; stated the project has been vetted and is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-06-20,16,"the motion; the design review requirement adds to the cost for potential applicants; she
is confident that the Planning Board and staff have put together guidelines to ensure
standards would be met.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a cost incurred for having the
public notification.
The Planning Services Manager responded the design review application cost is $600
plus $1,000 deposit, which covers staff time and public notification.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the deposit is refundable.
The Planning Services Manager responded the deposit can be refundable, but the
$1,600 fee pretty accurately reflects the cost.
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.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:19 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
(17-391) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15280, ""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.
Councilmember recused himself and left the dais.
The Acting Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
[Absent: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.]
(17-392) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15281, ""Approving the Engineer's
Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments,
Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove). Adopted.
The Acting Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution approving the
Engineer's Report, confirming diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of
assessments, Maintenance Assessment District Marina Cove.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 20, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-06,19,"the most vulnerable community members; opponents have tried to propose tearing
down the same buildings in order to build a park; opponents are trying to overturn the
HAB's decision to allow the buildings to be torn down; the hypocrisy is appalling and
transparent; urged Council end the hypocrisy, help those in need and uphold the HAB's
decision: Browyn Harris, Alameda.
Stated that he is not opposed to the wellness center; he is opposed to destruction of the
buildings due to family members serving in World War Il and the Korean War;
expressed support for keeping the historical aspect of the site; discussed family
members' military experience in Alameda; the Measure statement noted the buildings
would be reused: Dan Tuazon, Alameda.
Stated that he is a champion for the homeless, but not for the project; he objects to the
certification of demolition; substantial changes have been made to the wellness center
scope and size; an EIR should be initiated by the developer at once; urged Council to
demand an EIR be obtained prior to demolition of the historic buildings; discussed the
staff report addendum; stated there will be a significant impact and effect to 620 Central
Avenue; an EIR is required for any project with significant effect on the environment; he
is a proponent for wellness centers: Brenden Sullivan, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the HAB decision to approve the Certificate of
Approval to allow demolition of two main buildings and four accessory buildings at 620
Central Avenue and associated resolution.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that his concern is that the people of
Alameda have spoken in favor of having a wellness center at 620 Central Avenue; a
wellness center must happen at the site; the proposition before the residents was for
reuse of the buildings; other parts of the ballot referenced using existing facilities; the
context of the language was clear the project would be completed within the existing
structure; outlined cost implications for construction projects; stated there may have
been a realization that the project will cost more money; the evaluation should have
been done prior; the perspective of reuse has been set and put before the voters; the
ballot language did not reference demolition; the contents of the materials put before
voters is most important; if needed, a discussion should occur related to costs within the
contest of reusing the buildings on the site; he respects the City Attorney's assessment
of the matter; however, the voters voted for something in Measure A which had been
framed a certain way; the matter does not necessarily constrain City Hall and Council by
remaining within the framework of reuse.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she filed the appeal because she does not
think the City Code section has been followed; a question was posed to the HAB about
whether to remove the building from the Historical Building Study List (HBSL); there has
not been a discussion in regard to the monument list versus the HBSL; it is incumbent
upon staff to follow the Code section; expressed support for staff trying to separate
Continued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-03-12,12,"the most viable argument since the 25% affordable policy back fired slightly against the
City and redevelopment dissolved.
Board member Henneberry asked if staff discussed the plan with the development
community.
Mr. Thomas said staff has not had specific discussions about the 30 units per acre plan,
but they have had general discussions over the years. They have had many
conversations over the last few years since the City adopted the density bonus incentive.
Developers have to come in the Planning Department to ask how they can use this in
order to make their multifamily development project work. At the end of the day, there
are many factors affect a project's financially viable including the configuration, parking
requirements, and conditions on the site. He thinks the discussion of the 30 units per
acre versus the 40 units per acre is an important discussion, but he doesn't think it is the
only piece of the conversation in terms of what it will take to make that development
viable.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Mr. Thomas could bring representatives from the
development community to the next Housing Element Workshop on May 14th in order to
talk to the Board about developing this type of housing in the economic climate and
elimination of redevelopment funds. Also, in terms of how state law trumps local law in
order to construct higher density she asked if any of this precludes some or all of these
sites from being a mixture of affordable and market-rate. In the past, the Board
discussed not placing all of the City's affordable housing units in one area of town. She
referred to Chapter 6, page 6, which states that inclusionary units can under some
circumstances and if the Board approves be built at a different site. When the Board
discussed the development of Grand Marina some years ago, there was strong
consensus to not segregate the unit types.
Mr. Thomas stated that City policy requires every project to include at least 15% of its
total stock for affordable units. The City also has ordinances and policies that do allow
developers to apply to move those units offsite. Staff had one of those applications in the
last 10 years and that did not go well. However, he wanted to make sure everyone
understood that the City created the affordable housing policy. Under the state
requirements, all the City has to do is provide 30 units per acre even if they didn't have
inclusionary requirements.
Board member Zuppan brought up the need to be realistic before reducing parking
requirements. As transit service declines, transit-oriented development that were
effective today might not be in the future and in some parts of town there is not adequate
parking for residents. Also, not every very low and low-income job type allows
employees to use public transit because transit might not be running during their
commute time. Additionally, she asked Mr. Thomas to present a recap on how the
Multifamily Overlay Zoning designation relates to Measure A.
Mr. Thomas said Measure A has two primary components: (1) it prohibits multifamily
housing throughout the City; and (2) the maximum density is 21 dwelling units to the
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 23
March 12, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2017-06-08,2,"the money is used. Has almost no criticisms of Mastick Senior Center's policies or their
programmatic level. Feels there's a great deal of attention paid to what members need. Does
not know what other remedy this group of Commissioners can offer. Feels his role on
Commission and as past-President of the MSCAB was to listen. Issue is have we listened,
have we heard what was said and have we determined the best way to move forward for the
majority? There are 3,400 members of Mastick. We are an appointed group of ARPD and feels
both ARPD and Mastick are well advised and operated.
Chair Tilos: Feels feedback is definitely being heard even if the outcomes are not always what
are wanted. Outreach has been done and procedures are in place for feedback and believes
there are avenues for seniors to be heard. Received a packet of information from seniors
directly that was not provided to staff or other Commissioners. Letters focused on the
Wednesday fitness class with no other themes. Hears a lot of positives but only negative
heard is this fitness class issue going from 3 classes to 2 classes. Example, if we always went
with what the majority wanted in parks, then smaller lesser known sports wouldn't get field
time. Feels there is an avenue for voices to be heard.
Speakers
Patricia Bowen, Mastick Senior Center Member: Does not agree that the Senior Advisory
Board represents senior's needs. Completed survey online and still has not seen results of it.
Read a letter regarding a previous ballroom class and fitness class.
Paul Hauser, Mastick Advisory Board President: Board doesn't have jurisdiction to hire or
fire staff or evaluate staff's performance. The board does advise staff on issues relative to
functionality of senior center, such as financial and program and facility recommendations.
Have over 12 active committees reporting to the Board.
Edmond Lee, Mastick Senior Center Member: Letter attached regarding seniors not having a
voice about class selection.
Commissioner Limoges made a motion that the Recreation and Parks Commission accept
recommendation from staff on program evaluation for Mastick Senior Center programs.
M/S/C Commissioner Limoges / Commissioner Chen
All present in favor with a 3 - 0 vote.
4-B Review and Recommend Alameda Soccer Club Project Scope to
Renovate the Tennis Courts Adjacent to the Hornet Soccer Field.
Recreation and Parks Director Amy Wooldridge and Eugene Demmler, Past President of Alameda
Soccer Club (ASC), gave update on the Alameda Soccer Club Project.
Highlights
The field will be inclusive of other groups. ASC wants to open it up to other sport uses when
ASC isn't using it.
This will also be a great field for youth with physical and mental challenges, already being
served in ASC's Challenger League.
Potential to renew a five-year Hornet Field Lease Agreement that will include this project.
Reached out to San Jose Earthquakes and US Soccer Foundation about funding.
US Soccer Foundation will fund one of the three courts to do an acrylic surface so it can
be used for Futsal.
US Soccer Foundation will fund the ""Soccer for Success"" program.
2",RecreationandParkCommission/2017-06-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,14,"the message that would be sent; stated that he had an opportunity to weigh in on the
process and does not need a second bite at the apple; people have concerns, which he
shares, especially about traffic; Councilmember Daysog's referral is a positive step for
the Council to take responsibility for traffic; the risks of repeal do not outweigh the
possible benefits.
Councilmember Daysog stated people are right to be upset about the project being
approved on December 16th, which was not right; people are also right to question
affordable housing and traffic issues; Mayor Spencer rightfully raised the repeal to hear
community questions and concerns; however, his bigger concern is the possibility of
litigation; the City needs to be clear when reaching a Development Agreement; that he
has raised the concern in the past, specifically with regards to the Mammoth Lakes
case; entering into a contract with a developer is high stakes; evaluating the upside
benefits against the downside risks means, at best, stymieing the project for the new
Council to weigh in and possibly reduce the number of housing units; the benefits have
to be contrasted against the downside risks; the downside risk of greatest concern is a
lawsuit similar to Mammoth Lakes; outlined the Mammoth Lakes case; stated that he
believes the downside risks of rescinding are far out of proportion in an unfavorable
manner to the City relative to the possible benefits; traffic issues will have to be
addressed outside of the project.
Mayor Spencer stated there was a short window for the new Council to hear the total
project; moving forward, Alameda can do it better than having late night decisions and
special meetings; good questions have been raised about what the application should
look like to gain a Density Bonus; that she agrees everything required was not done; the
Council should move forward together; multiple projects will be coming to Council;
clarifying the Density Bonus is very important; Councilmember Daysog deserved an
opportunity to explain his legitimate concerns regarding transit to the new Council; the
State tells the City how many housing units it has to build; the City has to decide what
the housing will look like and how to move forward; that she will support the project and
looks forward to doing it better; the Council is going to ensure ordinance requirements
are met and projects are reviewed in totality; the December 16th vote had legal
ramifications; the new Council needed to hear the matter to determine whether future
votes on the project would be supported in good faith or whether there were
unanswered questions that the new Council did not have the opportunity to address; the
new Council plans to address concerns when considering Councilmember Daysog's
referral and by looking to staff to completely meet all requirements; expressed concern
over late night meetings; stated there are ways to work better; concurred with the
League of Women Voters' concern about transparency; stated voting at 2:30 a.m. is not
transparent.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of not repealing the December 16th decision [not
adopting the ordinances] and giving direction to staff to return an evaluation of the
Density Bonus Ordinance within 45 days, relative to the Planned Development and
associated ordinances to allow the Council to provide direction; also within 45 days,
having staff return with a moratorium on any new Density Bonus applications until the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,14,"the matter should be placed on a Council agenda for action.
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
14
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-04-06,14,"the matter is in line to be reviewed and is in the back of the queue due to the amount of
documents; it will be quite some time before staff is able to get to the request.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has informed Councilmember Herrera Spencer
about having the e-mails.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated he communicated to both
Councilmember Herrera Spencer and the other PRA request after the Council Referral was
submitted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it has not been confirmed whether or not e-mails have
been deleted; she would like e-mails retrieved if emails were deleted; staff has not addressed
the point about deleted e-mails, which is a concern; a gmail account is not a City e-mail
account; when PRA requests are made, the City needs access to all records; there has been no
statement from the City about whether or not e-mails have been deleted.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about where the matter is leading; stated members of
various Boards and Commissions are volunteers; questioned whether there will be PRA
requests for members' private e-mail accounts; discussed members deleting personal e-mails;
questioned whether a member of the public has a right to file a PRA request for access to
information from personal e-mail accounts related to matters presented at the OGC, Planning
Board or any other Board or Commission; questioned how to go about verifying whether or not
e-mails have been deleted from personal accounts; stated the matter seems to be a slippery
slope; requested clarification from the City Attorney about where the matter is leading Council;
stated there are many volunteers working in civil engagement on Boards and Commissions that
are not given a City e-mail address and documents are received by said volunteers at times;
inquired the implications.
The City Attorney responded staff's recommendation for conducting City business is to use a
City e-mail address; stated a City e-mail is the easiest way for the Information Technology (IT)
Department to download information; staff recognizes there are times where City officials end
up using private e-mails; outlined a City of San Jose case; stated when City officials receive City
information on private e-mails, the Supreme Court made clear that the City may make a request
to the private individuals private e-mail for information asking the public official to certify that
they have provided all information to the City; the subcommittee gmail address is a novel issue
of law; the gmail address is not associated with any individual and was created for one purpose:
City communications; the City has requested the password so that all e-mails may be
downloaded; the City Attorney's office is happy to review all information received.
Councilmember Daysog stated the gmail address was posted on the City's website; the issue
raised by Councilmember Herrera Spencer is unique to the situation; the issue raised by Vice
Mayor Vella is separate; the City Attorney has reflected that City officials may have to provide
private e-mail transmittals to the extent that the transmittals have public aspects; the information
is valuable; expressed support for providing the e-mails; Council is depending on the City
Manager and staff to properly vet certain situations; he prefers not to tell people website
protocols or how the website should look; the case being raised is valid; the account created
should not have been a gmail account; a City e-mail account should have been created with
clear rules regarding the public's ability to access information and should have been an obvious
choice.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
April 06, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-07,18,"the matter is Council approval of funding for the program; now is the time to increase or
decrease funding for the program.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the program is coming to its conclusion.
Vice Mayor Vella stated an increase in funds does not necessarily mean a change to
the program requirements; side direction to have the matter return to Council needs to
be provided; inquired whether the allocation of funds can be returned if the need arises
and whether the timeline has passed in order for staff to make changes to the program.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2021
10",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-06-07,12,"the matter come back in one year and include that the entire package.
Vice Mayor Matarrese and Councilmember Oddie agreed to amend the motion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like a better assessment showing
the program is needed.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(16-279) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending Section 5-7.1 Penalty for Nonpayment of Annual, Quarterly or Semi-Annual
Business License. Introduced.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the decline of $1 million in business
license revenue is because of the penalty.
The Finance Director responded in the negative; stated the business license revenue is
going down because the City does not have enforcement; continued the presentation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he supports having someone other than Council have
administrative waiving rights for delinquent business licenses; stated Alameda has a low
business license fee; he is in favor of relieving Council from having to adjudicate when
someone requests a waiver.
Councilmember Oddie concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is in favor of making changes; the 100% increase for
being late over a six month time period is too much; the proposal is a reasonable
compromise.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with Mayor Spencer; she supports
the Finance Director adjudicating lenience in collecting the penalties.
The Finance Director clarified if someone does not pay the business license fees,
placing a lien on properties, will still come back to Council.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance: amending the
Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 5-7.1 penalty for nonpayment of annual,
quarterly or semi-annual business license.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, with an amendment to direct staff to return
with an adjustment to the business license tax.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft agreed to amend the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 7, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf
GolfCommission,2016-05-10,2,"the maintenance yard is there for two purposes, one to fill in the bare spots on the
fairways and and bounding will be done around the maintenance facility. They have
started backfilling around cart paths and some bare areas, and are overseeding.
Regarding the range mats, more will be coming as they rotating the old ones out and
new range balls will be coming. Some areas of the range have been resodded.
Mr. Campbell stated that Jason Cook, Greenway's Western Regional Superintendent,
will be relocated to Chuck Corica later this month. He will be the senior
superintendent on property responsible for the grow-in on the south course. He has
been with Greenway since about 2008, and his expertise is in grow-ins and top quality
turf conditions. Jason will be overseeing the overall maintenance of the property, and
reporting directly to Marc. This will assist Vinny in the day to day operations as this is
a large property. Jason will be working on building forward tees on some of the longer
holes on the Par 3 course.
Commissioner Downing asked about the grow-in and Mr. Campbell responded that
they are still looking to grass the entire front nine of the south as well as 10 and 18 this
summer. Decisions have not been made yet as to when the course will be open, or if
they will open nine first, and those items are still in discussion.
They are continuing to work on the plans for the remodel of the golf shop, the
restrooms and the exterior of the building. They are working on updating the plans for
the north course renovations, which includes the stormwater ponds and canals. They
are working on a proposal for the City to incorporate into the north course remodel.
Mr. Campbell stated that they are working to see if there is way to incorporate the
entryway into the north course remodel, so the City would not have to do it, and that is
still in the works, and that is the reason it was removed from the agenda. Mr.
Campbell was asked when this information might be available, and he responded
maybe July or August is the target.
Commissioner Downing asked about the lease fees since the lease is in the fourth
year, and that Mr. Campbell had previously mentioned about approaching the City
regarding revisiting this in consideration of the north course renovation, and Mr.
Campbell stated that the lease fee increases on September 1, 2016, and that they are
planning to meet with the City prior to the increase, to talk about considerations that
they feel are warranted for the bigger investment that they had originally planned. At
the time of the original lease, they had anticipated that the South course would be
open, and it would be a challenge with the increase without the course open. Mr.
Campbell stated that the original permitting stage along with weather delays were not
anticipated. Commissioner Downing asked if the remodel of the golf shop along with
the Jim's renovations were items that were beyond the original plan, and Mr. Campbell
stated that they are not contractually obligated to do, but had felt these items were be
addressed from capital reserve funds, and they feel these things need to be addressed
sooner, and there is not a capital reserve fund yet. They are working with Jim's and
the City on having a main water line from the street to the clubhouse, with the estimate
at $150,000.
2
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, May 10, 2016",GolfCommission/2016-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-06,35,"the mainland in an earthquake should destroy Alameda's bridges and tubes; and 3)
Transportation & Infrastructure: Alameda is an island with limited ingress and egress
and water supply transported from pipelines on the mainland. Unlike many East Bay
cities, Alameda lacks direct access to BART within their borders.
Councilmember Daysog stated that his friendly amendment to ground 1 is to place a
comma at the end while adding:
recognizing that the City of Alameda has adopted
the Density Bonus law and the multi-family housing overlay to meet State law regarding
multi-family housing and RHNA obligations.""
Councilmember Knox White stated Density Bonus should be omitted as it is not allowed
to be used in the RHNA determinations; mentioning the matter in the appeal will only
confuse things and appear like the City does not know what it is doing.
Councilmember Daysog stated Density Bonus law is at the heart of modifying Measure
A; the Density Bonus has two components, one of which is regulatory and allows a
project to be free from Measure A, and the second is a quantitative formula; the Density
Bonus allows projects to be free from Measure A.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council adopted a multi-family overlay to get around
the State regulations; the Density Bonus law allows the City to go above the multi-family
overlay; RHNA and Housing Element law do not allow the City to use the Density Bonus
to achieve RHNA numbers; the letter appealing the allocation is not going to look
sincere or authoritative when including things which show that the law is not
understood.
Councilmember Daysog stated every time a project proponent wants to build multi-
family housing project, a Density Bonus trigger must first be pulled; the part of the
Density Bonus trigger being pulled speaks to getting relief from the regulatory local
regimes which constrict affordable housing; the second part consists of a mathematical
formula which can increase the number of units; the Density Bonus law is a critical part
of the City meeting the affordable housing obligations; outlined the staff report
calculation of Density Bonus law; meeting affordable housing numbers is needed at 36
units per acre; the units are already calculated.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has a couple of choices to make; Council can
include everything included in the matter, or vote on an appeal which includes a
reference to Density Bonus law and multi-family overlay or vote on an appeal which
does not include either; Council may also choose to include the proposed unit amount.
Councilmember Daysog stated it is important for Council to adopt a number to include in
the appeal; the number should be 2,650; expressed support for adding the language:
""
recognizing that the City has employed the State Density Bonus law into its own
local ordinances as well as created a multi-family overlay, in an effort to build multi-
family housing;"" the language strips reference to the RHNA aspect.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-03-11,6,"the location was suggested to the applicant by city staff. She said the martial arts center
next door to the proposed location meets the definition of a youth center.
Linda Asbury, representing WABA, said the good neighbor policy being implemented by
the applicant will make them a good addition to Webster St. She asked that the board
support the permit.
Ryan Agabao said he fully supports the use permit. He said businesses were enthusiastic
that a new business will be bringing people to Webster St. He brought a petition of
business owners, managers, and residents that support the business.
Rosalinda Fortuna submitted signatures from merchants that are opposed to the
dispensary. She said the business is not good because of the children in the area, lack of
parking, and would lead to impaired people crashing their cars, and increased crime. She
said there has not been adequate notice about the proposal.
Joanna Lau, manager of the Chi Institute, said they oppose the location of the business
because it does not respect the needed buffer for a youth center. She submitted petitions
of people opposed to the dispensary. She asked if there would be more police on Webster
in response to this business. She said they do not want to see lines outside, and worried
that this business would send the wrong message to children.
Anthony Germono said his children attend the martial arts school next door to the
proposed facility. He said this is the wrong location for this business. He asked the
members to stand up for his and other children.
Rasheed Shabazz said the zoning decisions did not meet the equity guidelines in the
ordinance. He worried that the location was chosen because the mosque and martial arts
school might be the path of least resistance because they do not have the same political
power as other groups. He said the area has been historically subjected to the war on
drugs and now other people who were not subjected are poised to profit from cannabis
legalization.
Cass, a neighbor, said she is concerned about double parking and would like to see the
business address this problem. She said the location is highly trafficked by children and
there are more appropriate spots along Webster that should be zoned for this use.
Regina Hall said that cannabis is safer than alcohol. She said a dispensary is safer than
a liquor store. She said that the parents are responsible for protecting their children and
regulating will help control access to cannabis.
There were no more speakers. President Sullivan closed the public hearing.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 10
March 11, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-03-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-09-17,11,"the loan because the interest rate would most likely be lower than the bond.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the loan would impact the District's bond rating,
to which the Finance Director responded it should not; provided information on interest
rates.
Councilmember Chen stated that he is very comfortable with the interest rate, which is
very good; securing the loan with collateral should not be a problem; the collateral
would not be touched if the School District pays the City back.
The Finance Director stated the City has never issued any lease or bonds without
collateral; auditors might consider the amount an expenditure if a loan is not done.
Councilmember Chen inquired when staff was provided with the letter from the School
District, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded today at 3:15 p.m.
Councilmember Tam stated that she appreciates the need for a pool; discussing the
best and highest use is prioritizing; the City is resource constrained and has to decide
what will not be funded if the loan is made; requested staff to elaborate on the option to
pursue an aquatic facility at Alameda Point if the School District does not accept the
terms by October 18th
The Recreation and Parks Director stated staff tentatively explored an indoor pool
adjacent to the Navy gym; the site would require complete renovation and the existing
pool would have to be taken out; work needs to be done to establish an accurate cost
estimate; negotiations will cease in 30 days if resolution is not reached and staff would
move forward with finding a way to build a City pool.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the project differs from the Alameda Point Sports
Complex, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded the Sports Complex
Master Plan includes the pool at the same Alameda Point location; the building shell
would be used; noted cost recovery for an indoor pool is much higher.
Mayor Gilmore stated the funds would not automatically be shifted to an Alameda Point
pool if the School District does not accept the loan offer; there is $750,000 which could
be used to complete designs; however, the project funds would have to be
appropriated; a lack of security when granting funds would be a deal breaker for her.
Urged the Council to approve the staff recommendation to allow the deal to be
completed by October 18th: Kevin Gorham, Alameda.
Urged greater cooperation and that the resolution be rewritten and brought back:
Donald Krause, Alameda Island Aquatics.
Mayor Gilmore noted the two meetings referenced by the Recreation and Parks Director
were the Council/School Board subcommittee meetings and did not include the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 17, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-09-17.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,2009-02-07,16,"the level of detail being proposed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Recreation and Parks
Department currently has the same cost centers.
The Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated
the cost centers remain the same in some cases; further stated the
goal is to break down everything into programs to see the cost of
providing the service.
Mayor Johnson stated the programs should be broken down to the
correct level even if it cannot be done in a year; for example, the
cost of the Fire Academy should be known; Council needs to know the
cost in order to set priorities.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the categories provided [in Attachment
C) would feed into the template for the upcoming budget inquired
whether costs could still be obtained even if the deeper level
would not be added to the template until FY 2010-11
The Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative. reviewed
the format.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how cost recovery is captured for
non-revenue generating departments, to which the Interim Finance
Director responded the department's portion of cost allocation is
shown as revenue.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Finance Department gets money
from other departments.
The Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative; gave a
brief explanation of cost allocation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether technology costs, including
hardware, are part of cost allocation, to which the Interim Finance
Director responded user departments are charged for IT.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether other municipalities have
similar systems in place so Alameda does not have to reinvent the
wheel.
The Interim Finance Director responded the format presented is a
standard program performance budget there are a variety of budget
formats the proposed format is the way to identify service costs.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Interim Finance
Director provided background information on program performance
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
February 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-02-21,11,"the last mile bike and pedestrian access to BART; figuring out transportation off the
island is crucial.
The Public Information Officer stated there are more details and examples in staff report
regarding transportation; the last mile was included.
Mayor Spencer stated the plan needs to be spelled out as a priority for Alameda; a bike
bridge or access to BART should be included; Council is not voting tonight, just
recommending changes.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how staff will catalogue all the changes, to which
the Public Information Officer responded she will review the video.
The City Manager inquired whether Council would like the legislative items to come
back on the Consent Calendar, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing the City Manager to take the
input from tonight and bring a revised list to Council.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the report will come
back fully fleshed out, to which the City Manager responded staff will track the changes
and bring it back.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(17-129) Recommendation to Review the Strategies Matrix and Provide Direction for
Drafting the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP).
The Economic Development Manager gave a brief presentation and Sujata Srivastava,
Strategic Economics, gave a Power Point presentation.
(17-130) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items [the
Bladium Map, Williams-Sonoma lease and referrals].
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval [of considering the remaining items].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested hearing to the end of the regular items and
not the referrals.
Mayor Spencer stated Councilmembers not being able to support hearing remaining
items, especially the referrals, is a problem.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
February 21, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-09-06,5,"the last fiscal year budget ended; staff does not want to direct the conversation but
would like to open it up to Council and community comments.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff would provide a first quarter review, to
which the Assistant City Manager responded staff would provide whatever information is
available.
(11-423) Introduction of New Community Development Director
The City Manager introduced the Community Development Director.
The Community Development Director stated that she looks forward to working in
Alameda and thanked Council for the opportunity to be part of the team.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(11-424) Discussion of Confidentiality of Applicants During Recruitments.
Councilmember deHaan made brief comments.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she is unclear on the concept of Councilmember deHaan's
referral.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is asking Council to recommit to upholding the
confidentiality of what is done in Closed Session and the selection process.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she is offended that Councilmember deHaan is
saying that Council is not committed.
Mayor Gilmore questioned why a recommitment is necessary; stated Council has
affirmed to keep to the strictest dictates of confidentiality; stated that she is unclear why
Council needs to recommit to something that is already being done.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a breech.
Mayor Gilmore inquired on which occasion, to which Councilmember deHaan
responded the most recent occasion.
Mayor Gilmore requested that the Human Resources Director explain the [recruitment]
process.
The Human Resources Director stated the Human Resources Department keeps
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 6, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-03-03,5,"the last Council meeting; that she does not have the real flavor of
the speakers' comments and is uncomfortable voting either way on
the matter.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would withdraw his motion
and defer the matter until the next Council meeting.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(09-095) 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
(09-095A) Resolution No. 14311, ""Granting the Applicant's Appeal
and Overturning the Historical Advisory Board's Denial of Planning
Applications Numbers, PLN 08-0211 and PLN 02-0970, Requests to
Delete 2413 Buena Vista Avenue from the Alameda Historical Building
Study List and a Certificate of Approval to Allow Demolition of the
Building. "" Adopted.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of appeal) : Bill Phua, Appellant/Applicant
Hugh K. Phares, Alameda; John M. Costello, Alameda; Leonard Goode;
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ; Debbie George,
PSBA: Donna Layburn, Market Place.
Opponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Adam Garfinkle, Alameda; Patsy
Paul, Alameda, (submitted comments) ; Rosemary McNally, Alameda;
Randall Miller, Historical Advisory Board (HAB ) ; Valerie Turpen,
Alameda; Betsy Mathieson, Alameda, (submitted handout) ; Richard W.
Rutter, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS)
;
Christopher Buckley, AAPS; Erik Miller, Alameda; Nancy Clark,
Alameda; Melanie Wartenber, Alameda; Corinne Lambden, Alameda.
Neutral Mark Irons, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese requested information on the zoning of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 3, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-01-05,34,"the landlord about whether to provide time versus money or a combination.
Councilmember Daysog stated that his suggestion is an exemption.
Mayor Spencer inquired where the Council is on length of tenancy.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she likes what the ordinance says.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is afraid that tying the benefit to length of tenancy
will encourage landlords to get rid of tenants sooner.
Mayor Spencer concurred.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the suggestion is to have a flat amount for
everybody, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the amount of time would be four months, to
which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
34
January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-06-03,5,"the land.
The City Attorney responded the Council can order an impact report to allow staff to
analyze impacts.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council ordered an impact report in 2000 regarding the
Alameda Beltline/Jean Sweeney Open Space initiative.
The City Attorney concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated in 2000, Council
ordered an impact report and added a companion measure on the ballot as a
mechanism to delay the effectiveness of the open space initiative until a funding source
could be determined.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the additional $5,000 cost would cover all
measures, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the cost was only
for the initiative measure.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has a due diligence duty to inform themselves
and the public about what the measure would involve; that she would like a companion
measure; inquired whether the City Attorney would be allowed to make suggestions on
what would be included.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated her office can lead the charge
and provide a thorough analysis from a legal perspective.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she would also like to add fiscal analysis; the City does not
own the property and there is potential to affect another entity's property rights.
The City Attorney duly noted Mayor Gilmore's comments.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the initiative will be
placed on the November Ballot whether Council approves the item tonight or July 1st
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ahscraft concurred with Mayor Gilmore regarding a fiscal analysis.
Stated the community values open space: Doug Siden, Alameda.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Measure WW funds would be used to pay for the land.
Mr. Siden responded the answer could be found in the result of a study.
Stated Measure WW was adopted in 2008 and the area was designated a park; there is
great support for the measure and submitted information: Gretchen Lipow, Friends of
Crown Beach.
Urged the Council to order a complete report: Jane Sullwold, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 3, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-09-04,15,"the item can come back to the Council after the Planning Board.
The Assistant Community Development Director confirmed doing so is possible.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the width of the roads for Alameda
Marina, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded two lanes.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the roads are wider than 64 feet.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that he cannot recall; stated
they are very similar; the designs are built for trucks.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Alameda Marina has more access points than Encinal
Terminals.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of sending the matter back to the Planning Board to
address issues enumerated for the safety of residents and people driving on the roads.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council is two steps ahead of
the decision on street widths; the proposed street meets the minimum width
requirements; the street could be wider, but said decision would be made when the site
plan comes forward; the Council has not decided whether or not to support a spine road
as recommended by Planning Board; the first order of business is to make a decision
about the spine road; the second order of business would be to review the amendment,
making stronger, binding language that ties the Tidelands activity to Fortman Marina;
incentive should be included in the form of a true mixed-use project, not a residential
project, in order to move the project forward; he is amenable to accepting the plan set
forth.
Mayor Spencer stated in all fairness to the developer, the difference between Site A and
this project is that the Site A developer did not have to buy the land like this developer.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Site A has a negative value of $1 million per acre,
with $88 million of needed infrastructure extending past Site A; comparison us unfair.
Councilmember Oddie clarified the Site A developer did buy the land and was offered
infrastructure credits.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there is a great need for housing; inquired how the City could
ensure housing would actually be built.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded it is very, very hard for the
City to ensure that housing gets built since the City is not funding any portion of the
project; private investors are funding the project; the best way to try to increase the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-09-04.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-04-13,6,"the issue, but said that the architect wanted Board comment and input on the current
design.
Ms. Patel introduced Mr. Nikhil Kahn, architect. Mr. Kahn gave a presentation.
Board Questions:
Board Member Zuppan asked Mr. Khan about the poles on the terraces in the illustrations.
Mr. Khan explained that the poles are meant to hide the parking garage from the public
view.
Vice President Alvarez asked about the size of the parking garage. Mr. Khan said the
garage would be one story tall on one side and two stories tall on the other.
Board Member Köster asked about the possibility of shrinking the size of the hotel. Mr.
Khan said he discussed the idea with staff, but it would come at the expense of the
building's design. Board Member Köster asked how irrigation would work on the top of the
building. Mr. Khan described the various irrigation and planting designs the team was
considering.
The Board opened public comment.
Mr. Dan Reidy, on behalf of the Harbor Bay Business Park Association, said that his group
felt that the project would help the business park and expressed support.
Mr. Ty Hudson, with Unite Here! Local 2850, said that there are other, non-structural
issues with the plan. He said there were issues with the adjacent parking agreements. Mr.
Hudson said that the project might not merit the claims for an infill exemption from CEQA.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Comments:
Board Member Tang asked if the hotel's proposed meeting room would be used
exclusively for guests. Mr. Thomas said that is what the applicants are proposing. Board
Member Tang asked if the parking ratio would be the same as other hotels in the area. Mr.
Thomas replied in the affirmative. Board Member Tang asked about the setback
requirements. Mr. Thomas said that the applicants met the setback requirements.
Board Member Zuppan said that the hotel sharing parking is her chief concern. She added
that the plan to limit use of the meeting room limitation to guests only is meaningless to
her. She said there should be some way to accommodate those who want to use the
meeting room without having to rent a hotel room. She said that she would be open to a
shared parking agreement between the hotel and other businesses. She asked if there are
other ways to refine the massing of the building and expressed concern about the amount
of water use that the plants might use depending on the conditions.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 10
April 13, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-04-13.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-04-05,24,"the issue is the legislative agenda appears to be a general roadmap; the question is how
would someone know; it is not common practice to add a specific bill to the legislative
agenda; that has not been done before in Alameda and to her understanding it is not
common practice in neighboring cities; it falls out of the scope of the regular process.
In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated there is already a motion
on the floor.
Commissioner Chen provided an example of the process to get a resolution passed;
stated anyone can present something to the Council, whether it is controversial or not; if
the Council decides to put it on the agenda, when the agenda is published, the public has
a chance to see it and has the opportunity to pull it for discussion; when that happens,
typically, people will come out who might be against it; if the Council still wants to support
it, they can vote on it; everybody gets a fair chance; she does not think the public had a
fair chance in this instance; if the Council wanted to put bills on the Consent Calendar,
name them and give the public a chance to see that and pay attention; if someone was
watching the meeting they would not be able to do research fast enough to figure what
was going on; it is important to give the public a fair chance.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she agrees with Commissioner Reid regarding
transparency and with Commissioner Chen regarding everyone getting a fair chance;
there probably are improvements that could happen to the process; she thinks the
Commission could find a vehicle to potentially provide recommendations; in the context
of the current complaint, there was no violation of the Sunshine Ordinance.
Commissioner LoPilato seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: No; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes:
3. Noes: 2.
3-D. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Concerning Potential Amendments to
Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal
Code, as Amended, to Replace ""Null and Void"" Remedy. Not heard.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Shabazz stated the meetings have been going long; suggested Chair Tilos
work with staff to prioritize and set the agenda.
Chair Tilos responded he thinks the amount of complaints received in the last few months
is what is throwing the meetings off; inquired whether there are any complaints on the
table, to which the City Clerk responded there are none at this point.
Chair Tilos stated that he is keeping his fingers crossed and hopes to be able to get to
Item 3D on the next agenda; the complaints are what controls the agenda right now.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
April 5, 2021
24",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,4,"the island in an emergency. She asked what the process would be in regards to coming
back to this body before it goes to City Council for a decision.
Staff Member Payne said they would come back to the Transportation Commission with
a preferred option later in the year before proceeding to Council.
Commissioner Soules asked if the parking was going to remain in all options.
Staff Member Payne said parking will remain on both sides of the street. She said the
more detailed design may remove some spaces in the corridor for daylighting purposes.
She said there is also the option of using the parking near Croll's for a peak hour turn
lane.
Chair Miley said the analysis should look at where it may be appropriate to add loading
zones.
Commissioner Johnson asked what the rules were for delivery trucks blocking the bike
lane.
Alameda PD Sgt. Foster said at no point are you legally allowed to block a bike lane. He
said that it is not something that frequently enforced unless there is an immediate safety
issue or ongoing complaints.
Commissioner Hans said he was okay approving the study of the four options and will
look to see how much parking is lost under each option.
Chair Miley relayed a message from Commissioner Nachtigall that she supports moving
forward with studying the four options.
Commissioner Hans made a motion to approve the staff recommendation to study
the four proposed alternatives. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.
Chair Miley asked that staff include all the comments as items to consider when studying
the options.
Staff Member Payne reminded the commission that there are two actions required,
adding the recommendation to extend the protected bikeway from Paden School to
McKay Ave.
Commissioner Hans added the staff recommendation to extend the two way
protected bikeway from Paden to McKay to his motion. Commissioner Johnson
confirmed his second of the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
4",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,14,"the investigation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted a public comment referenced Council not supporting APD
enough in stopping crime; inquired the ways which Council can further support APD.
The Police Chief responded that he has felt supported since his arrival at the City;
stated everyone needs to work together and approach safety in Alameda as a group;
staffing challenges are contributing to the issue; direction is needed; he clearly provides
direction to APD; it is too early to make requests of Council at this time; APD is headed
in a good direction and he feels Council support; he will be seeking guidance and will
make requests as time progresses.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council does need to stop and realize that the Police
Chief's first day was June 8th; the 90-day update takes time to prepare; the first 90 days
have been exciting and ambitious; Council looks forward to hearing more from the
Police Chief.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the previous Interim Police Chief reported a
total of 17 shootings for 2020; inquired the current number of shootings for 2021, to
which the Police Chief responded 16.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the amount of shootings is why people feel as
though there is an issue; the jump from 7 shootings in 2019 to 17 in 2020 is a problem;
she hopes the amount of shootings for 2021 does not break the record; the City is at the
highest amount in four years; inquired the amount of assaults for the year.
The Police Chief responded assaults are up 215% through July 31; stated August
numbers are up 194%.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the numbers are a significant increase;
robberies are shown at a negative 8.8% year to date; inquired how many of the
robberies included guns; noted not every robbery includes a gun.
The Police Chief responded the elements of robbery are the theft of personal property
by use of force or fear; stated the instrument can be hands, brandishing a weapon or
making threatening remarks; thefts by use of force are categorized as robberies; he
does not have the breakdown for the robbery data; reports are generated and rank
crimes higher than others; if someone commits a shooting and a robbery, the crime will
be listed as a shooting.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the Police Chief sharing the
data for 2021 shootings being 16.
The Police Chief stated the amount reported is through July 31; the number will be
higher going through August.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
10",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,7,"the internal policies; the matter will be brought back to Council.
Councilmember Daysog requested information on the process of
bidding out goods and services stated it is important to know that
there is a competitive process and that the City receives goods and
services at the lowest price and best quality.
Mayor Johnson requested that the bid process be brought back to
Council as a separate agenda item.
Councilmember deHaan requested information on how much revenues
have increased.
Mayor Johnson requested that the matter be brought back to Council
with incorporating the internal purchasing policy into the
resolution; stated that the Finance Director has been instrumental
in the improvements made.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated the Council should lead the
unification of Alameda; he would prefer to have major redevelopment
projects placed on a ballot.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated that PSBA is in favor of the proposed
resolution; the staff report referenced a partnership between the
City and the Chamber of Commerce; PSBA, the West Alameda Business
Association (WABA) and Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA)
should also be involved in the partnership; requested a meeting
with the Finance Director to discuss improvements that have been
made; suggested the City consolidate paper purchasing.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(
06-209 - ) David Kirwin, Alameda, inquired when the Civic Center
scale model would be prepared; stated that currently the project
costs are approximately $30 million without financing costs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the theater cost is not $30 million;
requested clarification on the costs.
The City Manager stated that the theater, parking structure, and
Cineplex costs are approximately $28 million; the historic theater
is the largest component because of restoration costs.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the historic theater cost is
approximately $13 million; the parking structure cost is
approximately $9 to $10 million.
The City Manager stated that a model should be completed by June
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-02-02,14,"the idea of converting the site should be reviewed.
Mr. McDougall stated the site can be classified as adaptive reuse and will count toward
RHNA.
Councilmember Daysog outlined the Housing Element being previously out of
compliance for many years; inquired whether key triggers encouraged HCD to accept
Alameda's Housing Element in 2012.
Mr. McDougall responded the progression started with Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
laws, State law, and density bonus law; Measure A conflicts with the ability to
accommodate RHNA and provide multi-family zoning.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether HCD has used the State fair housing law
against any city thus far.
Mr. McDougall responded the use is peripheral; stated HCD has not directly utilized the
State fair housing law much; however, there is potential for use; there have been
changes to law and the Government Code for all public agencies, which may cause
issues with Measure A.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the affirmative fair housing laws, the
role of equity in reaching RHNA numbers and the factors HCD reviews.
Mr. McDougall stated HCD's duty to affirmatively further fair housing goes back to the
Fair Housing Act of 1968; the program has been around for over 50 years and it is fair
to say a great job has not been done; the Obama administration took a refresh and a
stronger approach to implementing the long standing obligation; with the change in
administration, the measures went away quickly; California's Governor and legislature
took the obligation and put it into State law; outlined Government Code Section
8899.50; stated the obligation falls on all public agencies to affirmatively further fair
housing in all programs and activities related to housing and community development;
the matter is not just about discrimination, it is about proactively promoting more
inclusive communities; there is analysis related to displacement; site evaluations must
be done in a way which promotes fair housing; HCD examines local information, such
as patterns, trends, policies, practices and demographics, and compares neighborhood
to neighborhood; HCD compares Alameda to its surroundings to determine whether the
City reflects a composition of the broader region; HCD examines specific actions being
taken to overcome patterns of non-compliance; meaningful actions must be shown by
the City; HCD focuses on zoning and practices which limit housing choices.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many problems are present with Article 26 that are
detrimental to the City.
Mr. McDougall responded there are requirements around a variety of housing types;
stated HCD will not find Alameda in compliance if it does not have zooming for a variety
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
February 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-12-02,7,"the history; stated that she heard there was not a lot of interest
in the property.
Commissioner deHaan stated five developers were boiled down to
three and all were substantial companies capable of completing the
project.
The Economic Development Director stated the 2003 changes
recognized the office market was gone.
Chair Johnson stated housing would not be built right now because
houses would not sell even if financing could be secured.
The Economic Development Director stated half of the potential
tenants from one year ago do not exist.
Sean Whiskeman, Vice President of Retail Operations for Catellus,
gave a brief presentation on the history of the company and
project; stated Catellus has a signed letter of intent with Target
and is in active negotiations with several other retailers;
Catellus is in a position to justify a project that is quite a bit
larger than the project that went through the community and staff;
the City's [ 2004] Retail Study put the project on hold; Catellus
has not been sitting idle; the real investment ] number is close to
$20 million, including entitlement money, designs and plans,
without any return.
Chair Johnson stated the City has been involved in the steps; not a
lot has happened in the past couple of years.
Mr. Whiskeman stated it is a new market; the rules changed
September 2008; retailers have put expansion plans on hold, filed
bankruptcy or liquidated; Catellus has to have a tenant in order to
justify the construction expense building cannot be done on a
speculative basis; discussed the Target negotiations and deal ;
stated Catellus hopes to commence the process in early 2010 and is
excited about discussions with a potential second anchor.
Chair Johnson stated the fundamental question is whether Catellus
will be able to meet the first performance milestones.
Mr. Whiskeman stated Catellus is very aware of the timeframes,
believes milestones can be met and is reviewing commencing the
first residential phase, which would have a significant lead upi
Catellus is trying to advance aspects other than just retail.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
7
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-12-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-07-03,6,"the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution Approving
Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering
Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Light District 84-
2, All Zones.
Councilmember deHaan clarified that the motion was for the present
assessment.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing to consider
Adoption of Resolution Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming
Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island
City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, Zones 2 and 3
[paragraph no. 07-322A] would be tabled to allow the ballots to be
tallied.
(07-323) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14132,
""Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment,
and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District
01-01 (Marina Cove) "" Adopted.
The Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the hearing.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07-324) - Public Hearing presenting the Master Fee Schedule for
Fiscal Year 2007-2008.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated that the golf fees are fine; there is an
Regular Meeting
6
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-07-03.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-05-03,9,"the group's time: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated he does not support increasing the threshold for complaints;
he agrees with the speaker that the intention of the penalties is to prevent people from
just filing a lot of complaints; people have an opportunity through the informal resolution
process to address any issues or complaints; if the Commission develops the clarity
around the options and language that it can consider, it is not the binary of ""unfounded""
or ""sustained"" and it would not be harsh or punitive.
Commissioner LoPilato stated the Commission all agrees not to create a binary process;
she does not support Commissioner Reid's proposed changes.
Commissioner Reid moved approval of adopting her proposed option 2 in Section 2-
93.8.D that filing three unfounded complaints prohibits filing a complaint for the next three
years.
The motion failed due to a lack of second.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated there will be a discussion later related to whether or not there
will be subcommittees; perhaps that would be a conversation as part of the subcommittee
and could be brought back to the full group; if there are no other additions to this item
related to replacing null and void, he would like to recommend that the Commission share
the package with the City Council and ask them to make a decision on it.
Chair Tilos inquired whether there was anything else missing that needed to be
discussed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated the additional items at the end of Commissioner LoPilato's
proposal regarding proposed revisions and posting information could be handled by the
subcommittee, so the Commission does not have to pick through it tonight.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated that staff has been
at this for some time; there have been discussions about moving with more deliberate
speed; the plan was to get the input, put it all together and bring it to Council.
Commissioner Reid stated she would not approve the package if the penalty section
remains as is.
***
Chair Tilos called a recess at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:12 p.m.
***
3-C. Accept the Annual Report and the Report Concerning Responses to Public Records
Act Requests
The City Clerk made brief comments.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
May 3, 2021
9",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-01-28,2,"the grant, they used the application as a starting point to review the existing transit plan and
identifying the sections that needed to be updated. They considered the idea of prioritizing the
scope of work because of possible funding constraints.
b.
Bicycle Plan Subcommittee
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White, Staff Bergman noted that the consultant contract
was being finalized, and staff was working on preparing the document to be addressed by the
consultant. A public meeting would be held in the near future.
Chair Knox White requested that the plan come before the Transportation Commission. Staff
Bergman noted that a preliminary product could be brought before the Transportation
Commission, and Staff Khan agreed that the policies issues should be brought before the
Transportation Commission.
Chair Knox White noted that he had wanted such items to before the Transportation
Commission, and inquired why this was not brought forth. Staff Khan noted that during the
December 10, 2008, the City Attorney's office had recommended that not every item be brought
forth as an action item, similar to the Planning Board's Consent Calendar.
Chair Knox White noted that he would like further clarification on this item. He believed the
Estuary Crossing Funding Study should be discussed before being publicly reviewed, and he did
not want to indicate support without seeing it. Staff Khan described the items in the study:
1.
Fixing the Posey Tube Pathway (short term)
2.
Intelligent Transportation Systems: increased throughput for transit through the
Tubes;
3.
Movable bridge near the Tubes, possibly near Pasta Pelican or Alameda Landing.
Chair Knox White inquired whether that included transit. Staff Khan replied that the agencies
included AC Transit, but that did not appear viable at that location.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether this could be tied in with the Jack London Square
Streetcar study, or with high-speed rail. Staff Khan replied that the opposition was to the
Broadway connection, not to transit itself.
Chair Knox White would like to see a working group formed between the Transportation
Commission and the Planning Board to address the draft policies.
c.
Pedestrian Plan
Staff Khan noted that the plan was adopted by the City Council, and that the design guidelines
are currently under review by staff. He noted that staff has been occupied filling out paperwork
for the Stimulus Package, and believed that Alameda County would receive $40 million from the
federal government. He described some of the items on the list included in the federal package.
Chair Knox White hoped that the City would look at adding bus shelters to the grant packages.
2",TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-02-19,7,"the fundraising and expenditures for that past year, and plans for the upcoming year; if
the Council is not satisfied, staff can be directed to terminate the agreement by giving
the 120 day notice.
Councilmember Daysog accepted the clarification to the motion.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the amended motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(13-071) Recommendation to Acknowledge Rent Increase Concerns at 350 Central
Avenue and Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter Encouraging the Owner to Comply
with the Rent Review Advisory Committee Recommendations. Not heard.
(13-072) Recommendation to Acknowledge Rent Increase Concerns at 1514 Benton
Street and Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter Encouraging the Owner to Comply with
the Rent Review Advisory Committee Recommendations.
The Housing Programs Manager and Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) Chair
gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the letter being sent would be enforceable,
to which Mayor Gilmore responded in the negative.
Encouraged the City to do everything possible to embrace a fair approach for the
renters as well as the landlord and explore how to implement some type of rent cap for
seniors and those with disabilities and limited incomes: Audrey Lord Hausman,
Alameda.
Explained the reason for rent increases: Michael Shepperd, Attorney for Property
Owner (submitted information).
Stated the Rent Review Advisory committee should resolve the issue at hand: Sally
Han, Alameda Association of Realtors.
Stated her parents and disabled sister had to leave their home due to rent increase and
urged the Council uphold the Rent Review Advisory Committee's recommendation:
Amparo Adlao, Alameda.
Expressed support for the Rent Review Advisory Committee's decision; stated Alameda
residents deserve as much protection as Victorian houses: Emil Sobiro, Tenant
(submitted information).
Suggested Alameda consider Rent Control to protect the residents of Alameda: Geoff
Thorpe, Tenant,
Urged large rent increases be prevented: Frank Adlao, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 19, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-06-15,16,"the funding; inquired the amount of City money for the project.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded there is no City match requirement
for the project; stated the City is receiving the full grant amount from ACTC; the money
is in response to a letter submitted by Council in November 2020, which requested
ACTC fund the project initiation and project study report for the bicycle-pedestrian
bridge.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City could have used the funding
for other projects; requested clarification about Bay Area entities supporting the project
as a regional benefit.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the regional aspect of the project.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the ACTC Board approved
the funding as part of the Broadway-Jacksor project; the money being used may only
be used for the Broadway-Jackson project.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter is important; the project has an
estimated cost of $200 million; inquired the current project cost estimate and the
anticipated potential funding sources.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the project is not a City
of Alameda project; stated the project is regional; the funding for the project will come
from regional, State and federal sources; the City of Alameda cannot afford to build a
$200 million bridge; the effort will be long-term in order to help build bicycle and
pedestrian improvement connections between the two cities; the region recognizes the
need for the effort, which is the reason funding is being provided by the region; the City
of Alameda is acting as the project sponsor.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the estimate for the annual operation costs;
questioned whether regional monies will pay for the operating costs in the future.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the bridge will be owned
by the region; the City will not own the bridge and does not own any of the current
estuary crossings; either Caltrans or the County own the current crossings.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about whether the bridge will
be available 24 hours per day, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she plans to support the project.
Councilmember Daysog stated the $200 million cost is not the correct use of funding
relative to the benefits.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 15, 2021
7",CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-09-15,10,"the funding timeline.
Mr. Sherrat responded the funding requires that the shovel be in
the ground by the end of the year; that he does not want to go back
and ask for an extension again; the designated building fund is
restricted; the Boys & Girls Club has interim financing to bridge
the gapi Measure WW funds would not need to be drawn upon until
May.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what would happen if funding does not
materialize.
Mr. Sherrat responded the project would not go forward unless
Council commits to supporting the application.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Boys & Girls Club has a fall
back position.
Mr. Sherrat responded the Boys & Girls Club would only move forward
with a commitment from the City.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what would happen if less than a $2
million commitment is made.
Mr. Sherrat responded most likely, the Boys & Girls Club would not
be able to move forward.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether money could be taken from the [Boys
& Girls Club] endowment.
Mr. Sherrat responded having funds available for on-going
operations is critical.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated losing 65% in [Measure ww] funding in one
shot is concerning; projects would have to be funded by a different
source such as the General Fund, which is in a weak position.
Mr. Sherrat questioned whether resurfacing the Washington Park
tennis courts would cost $350,000. stated the Harbor Bay tennis
courts were resurfaced for $17,000 and $20,000 the Woodstock Park
Recreation Center renovation project would not need to be done if
the new [Bays & Girls Club] facility is available.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the list needs to be revisited; the model
in place for the past fifteen years has been fee-type recreation.
Mr. Sherrat stated Little League, the soccer program, and Alameda
Youth Basketball are run by non-profits on City facilities.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 15, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-09-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-07,24,"the fund balance is $1. 1 million less should be made clear.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is recommending that the fund
balance reflect the true amount, not that the amount be taken out
of the General Fund and the ISF deficit be zeroed out she prefers
the three year repayment plan.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the IT amount is reflected if it has not
been spent, to which the City Manager responded the number
represents the amount projected to be spent by the end of the
Fiscal Year.
Mayor Johnson requested a breakdown of the IT number.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the plan is good; the amount will be
accounted for on the front page of the fund balance; departments
would be charged for three years to catch upi staff would account
for future costs; Council reprioritized IT funds years ago;
requested that IT give a presentation breaking down how the
$600,000 would be spent and the plans going forward to modernize
the City, including cost.
The Interim Finance Director suggested the information be presented
as part of the Finance budget.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council has ever made cuts in
the amounts departments pay to the IT ISF.
Councilmember Gilmore stated IT was a separate department when
Council cut the budget.
The City Manager stated that the IT ISF started a year ago.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not recall IT being cut.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he could not support paying off the
[ISF] deficit without knowing the history, which should be
provided.
Councilmember Matarrese stated IT is the ideal situation to
contract out; server farms can be maintained by companies offsite;
that he wants separate direction given; the Council seems to be in
consensus that the fund balance on the front page of the budget
should be the true number; separate direction should be given about
whether the debt should be repaid over three years or zeroed out
now.
Mayor Johnson stated money should not be taken out of the fund
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
February 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-07-15,9,"the fund balance and refinancing bonds ; that she is surprised to
hear that the Alameda Association of Realtors would actively oppose
any increase.
Mr. Platt stated that the Alameda Association of Realtors opposes a
$12.00 or $14.00 rate; there is an overwhelming opposition to any
increase given the current state of the economy.
Mayor Johnson stated that cuts would need to be made if revenue is
not increased; it would be helpful to know what the Alameda
Association of Realtors would oppose or support.
Mr. Platt stated that he is not in a position to provide said
information; he would guess that opposition would be less vigorous
if the increase was lower.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is sympathetic to Mr. Platt's
position, but the membership should be concerned that potential
buyers would be faced with the possibility of closed parks,
decreased library hours, and possible fire station brown-outs.
Councilmember deHaan stated Council has been working through the
budget for quite a while; Council had discussions with the real
estate community in the past and needs go through an education
process regarding the current crisis.
Mr. Platt stated the City Manager spoke to the Alameda Association
of Realtors last week; the Association did not have much time to
discuss the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he apologizes for the short
notice.
Mayor Johnson stated budget problems have been discussed at many
public meetings.
Councilmember deHaan stated the media reported that the City has a
balance budget, which is not the case.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council was very clear [regarding
the budget) ; funds are available for three months of Fire
Department overtime before possible brown-outs; closing all of the
libraries and parks would not balance unfunded liabilities ADA
compliance requirements total $29 million.
Mayor Johnson stated Council was not happy with a band-aid approach
to balance the budget and wanted to explore options for revenue
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-01-20,13,"the former Naval Air Station is a 2006 price; the world has
changed; he does not want to pay the 2006 price; citizens need
to keep an eye on the Afghanistan situation to ensure that the
matter does not turn into something that the Russian's
experienced back in the 1980's the issue needs to be tied
directly to financial hearings.
Councilmember Tam stated teasing out specific scenarios on the
amount of federal funding the City would have received if not
for the war would be difficult; the 2007 Resolution was very
expansive; the issue is a moving target; Council needs to be
very clear on how the City would be impacted in budget
deliberations.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated a sixteen month troop withdrawal was
one of the President's strong platforms; Afghanistan is a
concerning factor; the Russians were extremely unsuccessful and
brought their economy to its knees; he has mixed emotions the
Iraq situation is heading in the right direction;
the
Afghanistan situation is a wait-and-see approach.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the August 2007 resolution was sent
to Governor Schwarzenegger; suggested that the resolution be
sent to President Obama.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested pointing out that the overall
Iraq expenditure is a drain and continues to be.
Mr. Halpern stated the 2006 Resolution is vague on withdrawal
timetables; there is no mention of the 180,000 contractors in
Iraq; information on budgetary priorities can be provided; there
is a website that translates the costs of the war to cities.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a cover letter would be
submitted with the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese responded a cover letter was attached to
the previous resolution.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is comfortable with
reaffirming the City's commitment to peace; in 2007, Council
called upon the President, Congress, Governor Schwarzenegger,
and State legislatures to take immediate steps to establish a
diplomatic approach ending the violence in Iraq; now there are
new players; suggested the resolution be sent to new bodies.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
January 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-15,2,"the following two 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: 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 6:35
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 15,
2022",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-11-16,3,"the following second roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No;
Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3; Noes: 2.
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Knox White recused himself and left the meeting.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. [Absent: Councilmember Knox White - 1]. [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*21-726) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Amy Wooldridge,
Recreation and Parks Director and Elizabeth Mackenzie, Chief Assistant City Attorney,
as Real Property Negotiators for the Potential Grant of a Revocable License for a
Certain Section of Lincoln Park at 1450 High Street in Alameda. Accepted.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(21-727) Conference With Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8); Property: Certain Section of Lincoln Park at 1450 High Street
(between ballfield and 9 residences located on Central Avenue); City Negotiator: Eric
Levitt, City Manager; Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director; and Elizabeth
Mackenzie, Chief Assistant City Attorney; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and
Property Owners at 3283, 3281, 3275, 3273, 3271, 3267, 3265, 3261 and 3257 Central
Avenue; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Revocable License
Following the Consent Calendar vote, the Closed Session reconvened and the City
Clerk announced that regarding Lincoln Park, staff provided information and Council
provided direction with no vote taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft 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
November 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,8,"the focus should be on rehabilitation of the historic theater
suggested the City consider operating the renovated historic
theater.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the City bonded for a project that
included the theater, off street parking and some retail; everyone
is looking to accomplish the project; the look will have to be
adjusted the cost of the historic theater has led to tonight ;
Development Services has come up with a way to handle costs; money
will have to be taken from elsewhere to fund the renovation project
if the 60 days do not prove successful; that he would not support
general fund money for the project or lowering the contingency
budget he does not support Option 5 because he does not want to
can the project.
Commissioner Daysog stated that he voted against the bonds because
it was putting the cart before the horse and the true cost of the
project were not understood; now the City is trying to pick up the
pieces and realizes there are no funds; perhaps everyone could be
happy with just having the historic theater.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the project has to have a contingency
fund to go forward; staff has included a contingency fund she
would not support a project without a healthy contingency fund of
15 to 20%; that she is in favor of the 60 day negotiation period
because the City will have learned valuable information about the
historic theater even if there is no contract at the end of the
period; gathering additional information is a good thing;
negotiating does not commit the City to go forward; she has a
problem with Option 5 because she would not support acquiring the
historic theater without having a plan; the City should not be
stuck with a piece of property without the knowledge of whether the
property can be developed economically; the timeframe for acquiring
the theater is sooner than alternatives could be created if the
project is rejected.
Chair Johnson stated the 60-day time period is reasonable after the
time and effort that has been spent; that she supports the staff
recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan stated his concern is that an opportunity to
review other options would be missed by allowing 60-days to
negotiate; a 15% contingency might not be enough for the historic
theater project value engineering might not work and other options
should be reviewed to determine how existing funding can complete
the entire project; all of the funding might have to go to
renovating the a $7 million loan is included because
enough money was not bonded. other options should be reviewed
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
8
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,24,"the first time there is a notice of a first rent increase, whether it is a year from now or 24
months from now.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a tenant does not want to accept a one
year lease and would like to go month to month they would not be penalized, to which
the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether they would still need to pay the rent increase, to which
the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if month to month tenants would still be protected for the
next year.
The Community Development Director responded that month to month tenants would
get the same protections like the ones provided in a lease.
Councilmember Oddie stated tenants that do not have formal leases or have oral
agreements would get standardized terms.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if staff is suggesting the Glendale model, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the negative.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like it to stay the same and not have the
provision apply to the existing tenants.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation to
offer the lease to existing tenants.
Councilmember Daysog stated he needed more time.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with staff recommendation.
The Community Development Director stated a majority agree; she stated staff would
capture the one time lease offer for prospective as well as in place tenants.
Mayor Spencer clarified the in place tenants would be when there is a rent increase.
The Community Development Director responded in place tenants with an existing
lease would be offered a new lease 60 days before the current lease expires.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether it would be just once, to which the Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to not have the tenant bear the cost
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-04,3,"the first quarter of 2007.
The Finance Director stated the increase is an excellent trend if
the trend continues; she does not anticipate that the increase will
continue some of the larger more substantial sales will be
decreasing; yacht sales have been an increasing trend but may
decrease in the second quarter of 2007.
Councilmember deHaan stated some yacht sales have been closed down
for the Grand Street development.
The Finance Director stated yacht sales would not disappear
completely and would occur in another location.
Mayor Johnson stated that Alameda's sales tax percentage is
significantly lower compared to surrounding communities; people
need to be provided with more opportunities to buy in Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -5.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the next Quarterly Report be
placed on the Regular Agenda for discussioni stated the public
needs to see the trends and understand how much money is needed to
fund the Police and Fire Departments, Library and parks.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the staff report provide
background on sales tax proportions in the General Fund along with
a forecast stated the City will be impacted with situations
occurring on auto row and with property taxes.
Mayor Johnson requested that the report include information on how
much sales tax revenue supports surrounding communities; people
need to know the impact that sales leakage has on the community.
(*07-421) Recommendation to approve amendment to Consultant
Agreement with Sally Swanson Architects, Inc. to increase the
Contract amount by $5,000 for the update of the City's Americans
with Disabilities Act Transition Plan and Self Evaluation.
Accepted.
(07-422) Resolution No. 14143, ""Approving the Appeal of Nissan
Saidian and Leon Zektser and Overturning the Planning Board's
Denial of Use Permit UP06-0010 for 1310 Central Avenue. "" Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan commended staff for including all elements in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-04.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2008-07-10,4,"the fields would be Alameda Soccer, Alameda Little League, Alameda Babe Ruth, and
Alameda Football.
Commissioner Mariani asked for clarification on percentage of Alameda residents with Bay
Oaks. Director Lillard stated that it was 33 percent.
Commissioner Restagno asked about practice use. Mr. Seiwald stated that every club
provides some practice space to Bay Oaks. Alameda would provide some space as well.
PM McDonald stated that 340 hours were games 398 hours for practice from April to June.
Staff is reviewing how permits are issued. Permits will be given out by days, games, and
hour. That way staff will know when and where the practices are and will also know who is
supposed to be out on the field at that particular time. Director Lillard stated that in prior
years staff would issue permits with blocks of time to one person and that person would
then parcel out the times and dates to the various groups.
Mr. Seiwald stated that Bay Oaks does not plan to have a repeat of what happened in the
spring. With the new rules they will manage it appropriately and make sure that there are
alameda kids on alameda fields.
Commissioner Cooper asked which fields Bay Oaks uses. Director Lillard stated that it
changes from season to season, scheduled field renovations, etc.
Commissioner Brown stated that she is concerned that with the drought issue we are
looking at the possibility of damaged fields. If we start looking at exceptions there will be
others who will make the same types of requests and then we are putting the Recreation &
Park Department in a position of trying to make exceptions for other groups.
M/S/C
MARIANI/BROWN
(approved)
""That use of City of Alameda fields be limited to Alameda residents only during
these drought restrictions. Groups allowed to use the fields are: Recreation
Department, AUSD Schools, and Alameda non-profit organizations with 75%
residents. Groups not meeting the requirements are not allowed to use fields during
this time. Policy will be reviewed in 90 days or sooner.""
Approved (5):
Ogden, Restagno, Brown, Cooper, Mariani
Absent (2):
Kahuanui, Sonneman
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Discussion of Furniture Guidelines for the Dog Park Located at Lower
Washington Park - (Discussion/Action Item)
Director Lillard stated that this item was discussed at the last Recreation & Park
Commission Meeting. The Recreation & Park Department has received numerous
complaints regarding furniture being left in the Washington Park Dog Park. Issues include:
Safety concerns created by old rusty metal type chairs being left in the park.
Vandalism - Chairs often end up in neighbor's yards, tennis courts, or on the
property owned by the East Bay Regional Park District.
Overall unappealing and junky look of some of the items.
- 4 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - Thursday, July 10, 2008",RecreationandParkCommission/2008-07-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,30,"the few cities that has a reserve many cities are being hit hard;
the League of California Cities cautioned all cities regarding
Proposition 1A; it is easier for the Legislature to raid local
government than it is to go up against the educational lobbyists.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City of Oakland was audited; $3
million is questionable on payrolli inquired whether an operational
review or audit would be beneficial to Alameda.
The Finance Director responded an operational review never hurts;
there is a great deal of coordination between Human Resources and
the Finance Department a review could be scheduled later in the
fiscal year and there has been some practice with the conversion of
the new payroll system.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated operational reviews were performed with
significant findings for AP&T and the golf course.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that the City of
Oakland did a performance audit; inquired what would be the cost
for such an audit.
The Finance Director responded a Request for Proposal (RFP) would
need to be done.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated AP&T and the golf course
are enterprise funds and are different.
The Finance Director stated a RFP could be issued in the spring.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated expenditures are 23% to 25% generally;
some are lower; inquired whether some categories are over budgeted,
such as Police Contract overtime, abandoned vehicle abatement, and
advance life support.
The Finance Director responded the Police Contract overtime does
not follow a straight line and is based upon the need of outside
persons to contract with the Police Department for overtime, such
as for school dances.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is enough in the budget
for additional animal shelter staffing and improvements.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded a grant fund could be
used; stated funding impacts would need to be identified.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
16
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
GolfCommission,2015-07-14,2,"the fence, so by lowering it and putting some additional plant materials along the fence
line, will improve the safety. Mr. Logan stated that they are about 90 days behind
schedule, due some to the dirt import, as the dirt has to go through a screening
process. Some nests have been located near hole 7, which stopped construction
within 150 feet of the nests, but, hopefully by next week, they will be given the okay to
proceed. The storm drainage is complete through seven holes.
The anticipated plan is to be through hole no. 14 by the end of the year, which leaves
4 holes left into next year, weather dependent.
Cart paths and irrigation will begin within the next two weeks, and will hopefully be
completed by October.
Mr. Logan stated that a survey was required, which he presented to the golf
commission, and will be emailed to golfers for feedback.
The kikiyu overplanting is improving the condition of the North Course.
Ron Carlson entered at this time. Vice-Chair Blatt welcomed Mr. Carlson to the golf
commission
4-B
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich
Mrs. Arnerich stated that the East Bay juniors was played in the last two days with 168
players each day, and several compliments were received, especially from out of
towners.
4-C
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course
See Agenda Item 5-A
5.
AGENDA ITEMS
5-A
Presentation on Jim's on the Course Proposal
Tom Geanekos stated that their restaurant in Alameda has been opened since 1960
and has been at the golf course since 2006. Revenues at that time were around
$580,000 per year, and last year, revenues were $1.5 million, with limited resources.
Mr. Geanekos stated that he is looking for the golf commission's approval along with
their trust, and this expansion will compliment the construction project of Greenway's.
Due to the age of the building, it is economically impossible to tear down the old
building and construct a new one. He stated that these improvements hopefully will
attract new customers and golfers to play the new South Course, as well as retaining
their current clientele. He stated that there is a lot of space on the outside of the
restaurant that is not being utilized, so, if they create a patio enclosure, they will be
able to seat approximately 180 more people.
2
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, July 14, 2015",GolfCommission/2015-07-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-07-05,4,"the federal government without Holland + Knight's assistance.
Councilmember deHaan stated an additional $4,000 per month was added to the
Contract in January 2011; inquired what type of activity has taken place.
The Assistant City Manager responded staff is working on an Office of Economic
Adjustment grant for planning at Alameda Point; stated the Mayor had some very
productive meetings in January and May; approximately a year and a half ago, Council
supported Congresswoman Jackie Spear's bill on wetlands; unfortunately, the bill did
not go anywhere; when an issue came up with the Federal Drug Administration
regarding closing its office in Alameda approximately two or three years ago, Holland +
Knight was able to prevent the closure; the scope of service changes as thins come up.
Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda Point was specifically considered when the
additional amount was added to the Contract; seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Manager stated three weeks ago, he had a conference call with Holland +
Knight regarding preparing for his lobby visit in September.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the Contract amount would not change by adding
the wetlands to the scope, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
The City Manager stated needs cannot be predicted in the legislative process; adding
the wetlands would not be a problem.
Councilmember Johnson stated the list is not limited; Holland + Knight watches out for
the City.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City is getting a good value for the money.
(*11-357) Recommendation to Appropriate $21,484 in Transportation System
Management/Transportation Demand Management Fund (Fund 225) and Award a
Contract in the amount of $204,611, Including Contingencies, to transMetro, Inc. for the
Estuary Crossing Shuttle Service. Accepted.
(*11-358) Recommendation to Accept the Work of W. R. Forde Associates for the Cyclic
Sewer Replacement Project, Phase 8, No. P.W. 01-10-03. Accepted.
(*11-359) Recommendation to Approve a Consultant Agreement with Pacific Waste
Services, Inc. for Professional Services to Operate and Maintain the Alameda Doolittle
Landfill. Accepted.
(*11-360) Recommendation to Approve a Consultant Agreement with AMEC for
Professional Services to Complete Semi-Annual Field Monitoring, Sampling, and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 5, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-07-05.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
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2015-12-03,2,"the fact that many LGBTQ students and faculty did not feel safe. During the summer, LGBTQ
students worked with a graphic artist to design a poster, and they were joined by Roundtable
members to develop a campaign that conveyed the message that everyone has the right to be
safe and free from harassment and bullying.
The result was the ""Everyone Belongs Here"" campaign, with a message that expanded to
include all those who might face discrimination and harassment: all races, cultures, ethnicities,
gender identities and expressions, sizes, nationalities, faiths, and abilities. The campaign's
pledge is ""To confront all forms of hate, bigotry, and bullying. To not stay silent in the face of
intolerance"". Its message is consistent with the Education Code to protect all students from
discrimination and harassment.
Member Hyman added that the posters are on display in almost every AUSD classroom. Not by
mandate, but by support of AUSD teachers and administration. Superintendent McPhetridge
hopes that the poster will hang in every coffee shop in Alameda. The campaign is currently co-
sponsored by the Alameda PTA Council, AEA, and the Harvey Milk Day committee.
Staff added that the Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth, and their Families (ACCYF) has
voted to sponsor the campaign. The request tonight is for the Board to support and co-sponsor
the EBH campaign, and to encourage the City Council to do the same. Staff added that
co-sponsoring this campaign would be consistent with SSHRB's Charter and Ordinance
authority ""to create an environment which will encourage and bring about mutual understanding,
respect, and goodwill among groups of people in the community"" (Alameda Municipal Code
Section 2-11.5).
After a short discussion, a Motion was made that the Board support and co-sponsor the
Everyone Belongs Here Campaign, and to encourage the Council to do likewise.
President Biggs requested a roll-call vote for this item.
M/S Hyman / Williams Unanimous
4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 PM. M\S Radding\ Williams Unanimous
Respectfully submitted by:
Jim Franz, Secretary
2",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2015-12-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,19,"the expense of the boat operation.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the City Attorney' S
office budget reduction impacts.
Mayor Johnson requested further explanation on the impacts of the
City Attorney's office reductions.
The City Attorney stated that the duties of two full-time positions
that are being cut would be absorbed within the existing staff and
would result in some delays in quantity and timeliness of the
workload.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the reduction would cause delays in
reviewing contracts, to which the City Attorney responded that the
current contract review time is two days; contract review will
continue to be treated as a priority.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether two days is an average time for
contract review, to which the City Attorney responded the two-day
turnaround time was the average time for contract review during the
last five months.
Mayor Johnson inquired what service impacts the City departments
could expect; stated that a Charter change might be necessary if
there was a delay in the City Attorney's office approving a
contract.
The City Attorney responded that the existing workload would be
spread among existing staff; phones may need to be placed on voice
mail at lunch time there may be a delay in document production and
routine tasks; stated the City Attorney's office is trying to work
smarter the workload that is handled by the Administration
Management Analyst would need to be spread among the remaining
staff; there would be a need to have Department Heads do more in
terms of contract preparation and review.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a way to advise the
Department Heads which contracts need to be approved by the City
Attorney's office and which do not.
The City Attorney stated that she has tried to triage the contracts
by preparing a training program and getting forms and options on
line to enable the departments to do more of the routine tasks; the
level of the budget cut requires that things be done differently.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
4
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-11,15,"the expansion to phase two rather than phase three since there appears to be a need
for the improvements now.
President Kohlstrand invited the applicant to address the Board.
Randy Kyte, representing Harsh, addressed the Board. He stated that arbitrarily
changing implementation of the mitigation measures to phase two disregards the fact
that the nexus for these measures was determined to be in phase three.
A board discussion ensued on the mitigation measures planned for phase two and
phase three.
Randy Kyte stated it is a matter of fairness, and Harsch would like to be treated the
same as any other applicant. If the nexus is determined to be in phase three he would
like that timeline to be respected. He is willing to deal with identified impacts but does
not want to be treated unfairly.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she appreciated the work done by Harsh, and
believes there is a spirit of wanting to move forward, but the applicant should not have
to bargain in public, this can be done privately and revisited publicly.
President Kohlstrand stated she understood the applicants' position and would like to
find a way to move the project forward.
Randy Kyte stated he would agree to tighter mitigations.
President Kohlstrand stated the Board needed to tighten the timeline.
Staff stated that phase two of the redevelopment covers the period from 2008-2010.
Changing the mitigation timing may hold up issuance of building permits.
A board discussion ensued regarding correlating contributions to issuance of the first
permit in phase three.
Board member Cunningham moved and Board member McNamara seconded the
motion to adopt the Environmental Impact Report as amended. The motion passed 5-0.
Peter Galloway clarified when traffic counts were taken for the traffic analysis. His firm
also performed traffic counts in 2003. The most recent counts were done in 2005. At
that time, the center was undergoing renovation and some driveways were blocked off.
As a result city staff had the highest 2003 counts incorporated into the document.
Counts from at least four intersections were taken. Dowling performed more recent
traffic counts for the Transportation element update in 2007.
A board discussion ensued regarding Mitigation Measure 10-2 and adding language
that states the city can make the determination to implement this mitigation, using level
Page 15 of 21",PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,31,"the establishment of seventeen movie theaters in town.
(05-370) David Kirwin, Alameda, expressed concern about the
megaplex theatre and parking structure project and funding;
questioned whether there would be a $1,000 parcel tax; stated
parking lots adjacent to businesses are sufficient; there is a need
for increased public awareness regarding the project.
Mayor Johnson responded there is not a parcel tax; requested staff
to inform Mr. Kirwin where he should go for information.
The Acting City Manager stated Mr. Kirwin, and others, could meet
with staff in the City Manager's Office or Development Services
Department.
Mayor Johnson stated information could also be mailed or e-mailed,
if preferred.
(05-371) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated
people opposed to the [theater and parking structure) project have
been providing misinformation; stated PSBA would have opposed the
project if a $1,000 parcel tax were involved; noted the Downtown
Vision plan from May, 2000 indicated that informal talks about a
mutli-screen - theater were underway
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-372) - Councilmember deHaan stated that he visited the Bayport
site; the transit shelter on Tinker Avenue is less than adequate;
the size of the sidewalks at Bayport are extremely narrow, do not
match other sidewalks in Alameda, and are not pedestrian friendly;
said matters should be considered when other developments are
built.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:17 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
31
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
GolfCommission,2012-05-22,3,"the end of June because these are higher revenue months. Bob said he was reluctant
to make predictions because the finance department sometimes imposes surprising
charges on the Golf Complex.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Commissioner Gammell asked about a letter sent to the other Golf Commission
members concerning their eligibility for reappointment. She did not receive the letter
as she is termed out. The City Clerk advised Chair Sullwold that she and Vice Chair
Schmitz are eligible for reappointment, but only for one more year, Commissioner
Gaul may be reappointed for another full term of four years, as he was originally
appointed to fill out the term of Tony Santare, who resigned. Commissioner Wood is
eligible for reappointment for three more years. Commissioner Gaul said that he
understands June will now be the anniversary date for Golf Commission terms rather
than October.
Bob Wood asked about the Public Works project that is underway at the entrance to
the Golf Complex. Chair Sullwold said that Public Works is replacing pumping
equipment that services all of Bay Farm. Commissioner Gammell stated that the black
fence along the Mif course will remain, and when the new pump is in place, Public
Works will be planting a flowering vine that will grow along the fence.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA
Status Report on Long Term Lease negotiations, including Golf Commission
recommendations, if any
Update on Golf Complex Finances
10.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
3
Golf Commission Minutes - Tuesday, May 22, 2012",GolfCommission/2012-05-22.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,16,"the door and are using this ruse. These people who were rehired they do not know what
the models are and have not been doing those models. They (Recreation Services
Specialists) are running around saying what do we do now, what programs do we use?
Member Malloy asked if the weighted average concept of using 60% interviews and 40%
supplemental questions is standard. Or, was it decided by the department what ratio to use
and how did we (the City) get there? Mr. Low stated that the practice is that Human
Resources tries to go to the essential job duties, knowledge, skills, abilities and tries to use
those as the anchors within a supplemental questionnaire and the relative weighing of
someone to prepare written responses to the questions, also using the same essential job
duties, knowledge, skills, abilities to give the weighing to the interviews. Human Resources
felt that they would put the weighing at 60% interviews and 40% supplemental questions.
Member Malloy stated that it ranges from 50-50 to 60-40 as the range. Mr. Low stated yes.
Member Malloy stated HR chose the 60-40. Mr. Low stated yes.
Mr. Peterson asked if they (public) were going to be able to ask a question. President
Peeler stated not at this time Mr. Peterson stated two of the people that were hired did
not meet the basic qualifications. One of them did not have a degree in recreation and one
did not have any degree. So they should not have even been allowed to take the test. This
whole thing is a charade. If you hire two people who were not qualified to take the test how
can you base anything
President Peeler stated the Board will look into all of that.
Mr. Peterson stated as long as the Board knows the facts because they (HR/City) are not
giving them (Board) all the information.
Mr. Riddle stated that he wanted to clarify what issues are on appeal before the Board and
what issues are not before the Board. There has already been a determination made by
the Council, before it came to this Board, to create this new classification and the reasons
why that was done. That is water under the bridge at this point. It was a decision that was
already made. There was a decision to layoff some employees and that issue is also not
before this Board. The issue before this Board is whether the exam that was given to make
appointments to the new classification was fair or not fair or violated the Civil Service Rules.
A member of the public asked if the Board will ask for the applicants' actual positions and
what they filled out on their applications to see if they were qualified. President Peeler
stated that is something the Board will determine after they look at all of the information.
City Attorney Kern stated that if it would assist the Board the City Attorney's Office would
be willing to, at the Board's direction, hire an independent person to investigate factual
issues, interview people involved, and how the testing went and come back to the Board
with that report, if it would be helpful. While the Board looks at documents and asks
questions, if the Board would like to direct that the City Attorney's office do the investigation
Ms. Kern would be happy to do that.
Mr. Peterson asked if she was directing the Board to only look at the test and not people
Page -16-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-09-25,13,"the document gives staff leverage to have projects in the pipeline while saying the City
needs to focus on retail and job creation; reviewed Oakland housing projects examples
for context; stated parts of the Alameda Point project, such as the Town Center, will not
take 30 years; 1,400 housing units could enter the pipe within 15 years; housing will
have to occur close [in time] to retail or enterprise area development because the City
will need some kind of bonding to pay for infrastructure; Phase I infrastructure will cost
around $190 million, which says something about the density of land uses; the strategy
staff put together will help the City achieve the vision; for housing density, emphasis
should be on multifamily, which would draw younger adults with spending habits which
differ from families or someone in their late 40s or 50s without discretionary income; the
Town Center should have higher density to bring a demographic that would lend itself to
a funky, eclectic environment.
***
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft left the dais at 10:28 p.m. and returned at 10:32 p.m. and
Member Tang left the dais at 10:33 p.m. and returned at 10:35 p.m.
*
Councilmember Tam stated that she appreciates having a joint meeting with the
Planning Board; the discussion has been thoughtful; further stated the multi-prong
approach staff is recommending dovetails with Board Member Knox White's guiding
principle strategy on priority areas; areas present opportunities to review land banking;
as the City Manager mentioned, the City will have no trouble getting single family home
developers, which might be an area that should pay for itself and be land banked while
focusing on multifamily housing and the Town Center; the criteria should help staff
make decisions as inquiries are received from developers; discussed subsidies and the
of the Stargell Avenue project example; stated the disposition strategy should be
melded with Board Member Knox White's comments.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's request for clarification, Councilmember Tam stated
that she liked the mapping which showed priority, opportunity, and land banking areas;
criteria should define what the City envisions in the areas and whether the City would be
willing to consider financial subsidies or tax incentives.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she understands the concept of the priority areas; however,
she does not understand the criteria addressing the development desired in the areas
because that is addressed by the zoning and EIR.
Board Member Knox White stated the zoning has a lot of flexibilities and does not have
a lot of guidance right now; the zoning does not have specificity or indicate where to put
a shopping mall; that he thought Councilmember Tam is saying the criteria should
evaluate whether or not projects meet what the City want to do while having flexibility
staff wants.
Mayor Gilmore stated the ability to respond to market conditions and have flexibility has
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
13
Planning Board
September 25, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-17,11,"the dispute; inquired whether there is a reason why the property managers did not
attend the RRAC meeting.
Mr. Villareal responded a similar RRAC meeting was held about a year ago; his
colleague provided the same data, which was not listened to or well received by the
RRAC; the matter reached an impasse, so the company decided to let the matter
escalate to the Council.
Following brief questions regarding past experience at the RRAC, Mayor Gilmore stated
the Council is strongly suggesting that the property managers go back and present data
to the RRAC.
(12-403) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or His Designee to Enter into
Purchase Agreements Not to Exceed $69,000 and Financing Agreements for an
Amount Not to Exceed $2,171,000 for the Replacement of Fire Department Apparatus.
The Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the equipment would be leased.
The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the truck, engine and ambulance
would be leased.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the annual cost, the Fire
Chief stated about $190,000.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether depreciation would be done.
The Assistant City Manager responded the depreciation ordinance was contingent on
the passage of Measure C.
Councilmember deHaan stated depreciation should go forward with the procurements.
Councilmember Johnson stated the City does not have money to pay for depreciation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much money is in the reserves for procurement.
The Assistant City Manager responded the equipment replacement fund had a
beginning balance of $3.4 million in the current fiscal year.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about other departments and
would prefer having all purchases at one time.
The Assistant City Manager stated the purchases were all included in the budget;
Council approved a total appropriation and spending of $1.036 million out of $3.4
million.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 17, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-12-02,13,"the developer: Nick Cabral, Alameda.
Discussed the number of cars; compared the project to the SunCal project: Mike Kara-
Vasilies, Alameda.
Stated progress is slow in Alameda; outlined delayed projects; urged approval: Don
Sherratt, Alameda.
Stated that he is in favor of the project because of the trucking and blight; problems will
be alleviated by the Clement Avenue extension: Robert Byrne, Alameda.
***
(14-505) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting after
11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Tam - 1.
***
Expressed concern over the increase in the number of units: Patsy Baer, Alameda.
Expressed concern over following historic guidelines and traffic: Melvin Lim, Alameda.
Stated the matter should be delayed for the new Council; the public needs to
understand the TDM plan, which has been changed; financial issues should be fully
vetted: Jane Sullwold, Alameda.
Commended the architect; discussed height limits, live-work and parking: Stuart
Rickard, Alameda.
Expressed concern over traffic: Kurt Peterson, Alameda.
Stated that he is opposed to the project because of transportation and parking issues;
discussed bus service: Lester Cabral, Alameda.
Stated that he has waited 46 years for something to be done with the Del Monte
building; urged approval: Art Lenhardt, Alameda.
Stated that he supports moving forward; discussed development; expressed support for
the project, including affordable housing: Dong Kim, Alameda.
Stated the Alameda Home Team supports the project; discussed the decreased
demand for parking and transportation: Patricia Young, Alameda Home Team.
Expressed support for the project; discussed the plans and project benefits; stated the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
December 2, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,11,"the developer's operation.
The Development Services Director responded that there are two
projects: 1) the potential historic restoration project conducted
by the City, and 2) the multiplex and retail stores, which would be
constructed and owned by the developer; the developer would own and
lease the retail spaces.
Councilmember deHaan stated the mass must remain for the theatre;
inquired whether there would be the ability to design without the
protrusions by removing retail square footage.
The Acting City Manager responded that staff would need to review
the matter and return to Council.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not believe that there is
any need for signage other than the renovated marquee  noted that
vertical accent latitude should be left to the architect.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the community and staff have taken
their best shot at the design guidelines; design guidelines are not
going to be perfect, especially in the abstract.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation with
removing the word ""contemporary"" from the Theatre Design
Guidelines.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he sees the
design guidelines as a platform that allows more discussions
involving members of the Historical Advisory Board; the guidelines
do not lock the City into bad design; there is a major challenge
ahead in trying to have an economically viable theatre which
minimizes the projection problem at the same time.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has been working on the
theatre project for years and has been very supportive; thanked
staff for all of their work.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested that the Transportation Commission
review traffic issues on Oak Street and provide Council with
recommendations as soon as possible.
Regular Meeting
11
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-12-16,8,"the developer plans to rehabilitate a historic landmark, which is a key public benefit; that
she is prepared to adopt the ordinance.
Councilmember Chen concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated the last meeting had
over five hours of discussion; the speakers have not provided any new information to
compel him to change his vote; that he supports the project.
Mayor Gilmore stated sometimes the process looks rushed because the public
becomes engaged at the end of the process; the affordable housing piece is required to
move forward before any permits can be issued.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved final passage of the ordinance approving
Development Agreement by and between the City of Alameda and TL Partners, I, LP
governing the Del Monte Warehouse Project for real property located at the Northeast
corner of the intersection of Sherman Street and Buena Vista Avenue.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved final passage of the ordinance adopting the Del Monte
Warehouse Master Plan and Density Bonus Application for redevelopment and adaptive
reuse of the property located at the Northeast corner of the intersection of Sherman
Street and Buena Vista Avenue.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(*14-512) Recommendation to Accept the Special Tax and Local Bond Measure Annual
Report. Accepted.
(14-513) Recommendation to Accept the Police and Fire Services Fee Report.
Stated the matter should not be heard because the exhibit was not available on line:
Ken Peterson, Alameda.
Councilmember Tam stated the exhibit is attached.
Mayor Gilmore stated the law requires Council to hear the item before the end of the
year.
The Assistant City Manager stated the report is on Development Impact Fees (DIF) paid
to Police and Fire services; the City is required to present the DIF amount collected and
spent.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-12-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,4,"the department should only install the system at Webster Street. He felt that instead of spending
money on electric signs that display traffic information, the City should build a public website or
iPhone application so the public can see the intersections and traffic conditions. He wanted to
thank Joy Bhattacharya for producing the simulation because the simulation is a 2012 solution,
which community members need.
Commissioner Moehring stated that Webster Street has been looking for something like this for a
long time. She thought about the community feedback that she received and one of their
concerns was that the traffic coordination would reduce people visiting the nearby shops. She
wholeheartedly disagreed with that concern and she believes that it will improve the streetscape
and increase shopping activity. She stated that as soon as Constitution Way was built, 80 percent
of the traffic was diverted from Webster Street to Constitution Way. Additionally, she hopes that
the coordination system will bring some of the traffic back at a nice pace. Furthermore, she felt
the signal coordination prevents speeding.
Sergeant Simmons, Alameda Police, agreed and said that the coordinated traffic light system
would prevent drivers from speeding to beat the light changes. If drivers had an understanding of
the flow of lights during the commute hours, they would stop and visit the stores and then
continue through the corridor.
Commissioner Moehring mentioned that the Fire Department station is right off of Webster
Street on Pacific Avenue. The traffic signal would make life easier for the department, and
would allow trucks to more easily travel through the intersection.
Rick Zombeck, Division Chief for Alameda Fire Department, supported the solution and felt the
system is good for the community. His station responds up and down the Webster Street corridor
often and Station # 2 is the second busiest station in the City.
Commissioner Moehring stated that it is a very busy pedestrian corner. She questioned whether
the electric signs going up could be used for other purposes such as when the City conducts the
festival on Webster Street and there are street closures.
Staff Khan replied he would work with the West Alameda Business Association; however, the
City cannot use the signs for advertisements. The signs could be used when the City supports a
fair or festival. He would take up the suggestion to the City Manager for approval.
Commissioner Miley stated that he is happy to see the corridor modernized. He believes that the
system would provide the City with a lot of flexibility in terms of managing the flow of traffic.
He asked staff to explain the project's relationship to the Broadway/Jackson project. As a
commuter through that area, he felt the electric signs would be helpful, especially when the tube
gets backed up. He wanted to know how the City planned to work with Oakland to further
relieve the congestion.
Page 4 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-08-07,7,"the demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of
the property with a twenty-four hour gas station located at 2234
Otis Drive. The property is located within a Central Business and
Planned Development overlay zoning district (C-2-PD) ; and
(07-373A) Resolution No. 14139, ""Denying the Appeal and Upholding
the Planning Board's Approval of Planned Development Amendment
PDA05-0001 Major Design Review DR05-0010, and Use Permits UP06-
0003 and UP06-0014. Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of Appeal) : Debra L. Banks, Alameda (submitted
handout) .
Opponents (Not in favor of Appeal) : Deborah Kartiganer, Cassidy,
Shimko, Dawson, Kawakami; Mike Corbitt, Alameda Towne Centre.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated the public is concerned with the loss of the
Chevron Gas Station at the former South Shore Center the Planning
Board requested that a gas station be located at the Alameda Towne
Centre; previously, four different gas stations were located at the
former South Shore Center.
Councilmember deHaan stated the highest retail leakage has come
from the loss of gas and service stations the proposed gas station
is similar to the Nob Hill high-volume, discount gas station; the
public is concerned with the Otis Street corridor; Alameda Towne
Center is approximately 60% full and would be impacted further as
the Town Centre grows; a mitigation requirement addressed
installation of a signal at a future date; the location is not the
best for the future; the intersection would become very active; the
Otis Street corridor serves the shopping center and traffic through
the island; he understands the community's continued concern; he is
not happy with the location; the number of tankers has not been
confirmed; larger tanks should be considered.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Safeway provided a range for tanker
movement ; inquired whether said range changed.
Todd Paradise, Safeway Real Estate Manager, Fuel Center Northern
California Division, responded strategy is consistent across all
Regular Meeting
7
Alameda City Council
August 7, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-06-21,12,"the decisions.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that is already in the ordinance.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to amend the motion to waive the request
asking for a payment plan.
Vice Mayor Matarrese and Councilmember Oddie accepted the amendment.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Mayor Spencer is making a new motion.
Mayor Spencer stated she is making a friendly amendment.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she did not hear the response as an
amendment.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he followed the staff report and then addressed the
requests.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor inquired whether the requestors will be contacted with the updates, and
whether once the ordinance is in place it will be at the rate that is in the ordinance with
the Finance Director acting as the collection officer, to which the Finance Director
responded on the affirmative.
(16-309) Recommendation to Accept a $457,839 Grant from the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program for the Purchase of Self-Contained Breathing
Apparatus (SCBA) Equipment, Amend the Fire Grants Fund Budget by $503,622,
Including Required Matching Funds, for Fiscal Year 2015-16, and Authorize the City
Manager or Her Designee to Purchase the Equipment.
The Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is in support and is glad that the City
received the grant.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of accepting a $457,839 grant from the
Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program for the purchase of Self-Contained
Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) equipment, amend the Fire Grants Fund budget by
$503,622, including required matching funds, for Fiscal Year 2015-16, and authorizing
the City Manager or her designee to purchase the equipment.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the gear is essential; inquired if staff
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 21, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-11-01,10,"the decision will be made on the types of housing.
Mayor Spencer inquired what happens after the RFQ process.
The Base Reuse Director responded the process is to see who is interested in the RFQ
and select the developer.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the developers would be narrowed down.
The Base Reuse Director responded with Site A, staff narrowed the decision down to
two developers and brought the matter to Council for approval, with the reasons why
staff picked the two developers; if Council approves, staff would negotiate with the
chosen developers.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the maps in the presentation could have different
colors to make the different areas stand out.
The Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Council is being asked to put housing in the solid
cream areas of the map on slide 6.
The Redevelopment Project Manager responded the lots have many different uses;
stated the housing decision is a future step.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Mayor Spencer is referring to the green
space, called Central Gardens.
Mayor Spencer responded the green space will be a park area; inquired whether new
housing will be proposed in the historic area.
The Redevelopment Project Manager responded the plan has infill guidelines for the
historic district.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Council will be commenting whether there should
be housing in the dark green area.
The Redevelopment Project Manager responded the dark green area would be housing;
stated commercial and all types of uses are permitted in said area.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council will not be starting from scratch
because there is a framework set up of the different uses and zoning.
The Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the plan
provides the framework.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-20,8,"the data collection.
The Police Chief stated the existing software is fifteen years old
and does not interface with the Records Management System; the
proposed system would interface with the Records Management System
and the court system throughout the State; driver's license status,
warrants, etc. can be checked by swiping the license; the
electronic interface would help make court processing quicker; the
Police Department has collected data on traffic stops for years;
the proposed software would link said information.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether said data exists or is something
that the Police Officer enters upon a traffic citation stop.
The Police Chief responded Police Officers enter data for every
stop; stated information would be tracked through the electronic
citation software system.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the existing software is fifteen years
old; she is troubled by the fact that there is only one vendor who
makes the software that interfaces with the current system in a way
that is acceptable to the Police Department; inquired whether there
would be trouble with interfacing in the future if the existing
software is replaced.
The Police Chief responded the proposed software would do things
that the old software does not; stated the existing Records
Management System and computerized dispatch system are state-of
the-art and provide interfacing; court system interfacing is new;
other vendors have not been able to interface with the court
system; the citation component would interface where previous
systems did not; the system is cutting edge and is beyond what
other vendors are providing; the system meets all criteria and has
been tried by Alameda County and City of Oakland.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the new system would be an
add-on or replacement, to which the Police Chief responded a
replacement.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be annual costs.
The Police Chief responded upgraded maintenance costs would be
included in the grant.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the length of coverage under the
current fee.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
November 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-01-25,3,"the criteria. Staff member Akil stated that the Commission's deliberations
must be public. C Huston asked staff to inquire as to whether or not a closed
session would be appropriate for project deliberations.
B. One-page summary of Guideline requirements - (Discussion Item)
C Huston and VC Lee presented a draft summary page designed to reduce
confusion about the, public art application process and guidelines.
The PAC discussed document wording and format.
C. Process of writing responses to applicants - (Discussion Item)
Secretary Bailey explained that a response letter is sent to applicants who
submit formal applications. C Huston asked if subcommittees could be
established to craft applicant responses. CM Cervantes inquired as to
whether the PAC could invite the applicant to a pre-review meeting and then
give final feedback during the next regular meeting. C Huston responded
that, according to the Guidelines, the applicant is not required to attend
multiple review meetings. CM Rosenberg added that the PAC needs to
emphasize that applicants come to meetings early in the process, before
formal applications are ever submitted.
M/S/C
Huston/Rosenberg
(approved)
""That the item of creating subcommittees to craft applicant responses
be approved, with possible pre-meeting review sessions.""
Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe
7.
Subcommittee Reports
- NONE
8.
Commissioner Communications
C Huston suggested offering applicants a brief description of existing Public Art
works to assist applicants.
VC Lee reported that she had attended an open house for Alameda Landing.
She spoke with an architect/planner named Karen Alschuler, who was interested
in the Public Art Program. VC Lee asked if Secretary Bailey could send Ms.
Alschuler a Public Art packet.
C Huston asked if one PAC member could call Tad Savinar, Art Consultant for
Alameda Towne Centre, in order to check in on its process. CM Wolfe stated
PAC Meeting
3
Minutes
January 25, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,5,"the correct method was used.
Mayor Johnson stated the project could move forward with a
condition of staff confirmation.
Councilmember deHaan stated it is important to ensure that the
dumped soil is analyzed and moved to the proper location and
that the project should continue.
Councilmember Daysog provided a brief background on the history
of the trees at the site.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with
conditions to require appropriate analysis of the soil deposited
to ensure it meets residential safety, to require the owner to
remove the soil if levels exceed levels necessary for
residential use, and that staff oversee the project.
Councilmember deHaan requested an Off Agenda report on the
matter.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-307) Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No.
13858, ""Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and
Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2."" Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-308) Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No.
13859, ""Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and
Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance
Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-309) - Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-01-12,2,"the construction contract has already been approved. To change the stair again would
incur substantial additional cost. Director Hardie mentioned the concern that additional
fundraising may be needed for the branches.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Library Building Team (M. Hartigan)
The Library Building Team did not meet during December.
B.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
Vice President Belikove stated that the Foundation did not meet in December. The
Foundation will be meeting later this month. The Foundation sent out a year-end
fundraising letter which had some success.
C
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Molly Skeen reported that the Junior Friends will host a themed storytime at the Main
Library on January 22nd. On February 10th the members of the Friends will attend a
benefit screening and reception for Leslie Krongold's documentary My Rabbi. On
February 18th, 19th and 20th the Friends will host a mid-winter book sale at the Al DeWitt
Officers' Club at Alameda Point.
D.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
President Krongold reported that the newsletter will be sent out this week. The logo team
met this week and they decided not to move forward on the logo for awhile.
F.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President Belikove commented on the 20th anniversary of Alameda Reads. She
suggested that everyone in Alameda read the same book as a way to celebrate this
occasion. She also noted articles on Library Closures in Salinas, Reading at Risk and
Time Running Out for Libraries.
Board member Butter distributed an article on Literacy and immigrants.
Board member Schoenrock asked if the City is still having a budget deficit. Library
Director Hardie replied in the affirmative and stated that the new Interim City Manager is
meeting with Council and staff to discuss this issue. The City Council wants to maintain
services and to date no budget cuts have been approved.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Library Director Hardie stated that she has not yet received her appointment for Day in
the District but will keep the Board informed. She reported that there was a theft of 5
computer monitors at the Bay Farm Library. The police department is investigating. The
library received a bequest that will be used to purchase materials for the opening of the
new library.
2",LibraryBoard/2005-01-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-05-18,20,"the conductor of the meeting.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the audit disclosed significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses for two years; it is important to allow the City Auditor to coordinate
with the City Manager and have time on the agenda to speak to the public.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the motion is to have the City Auditor
return to speak for five minutes; noted the material deficiencies were provided in a letter
drafted by staff and the auditors performing the audit; questioned whether Council is
directing staff to work on the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is not requesting staff to work on the
matter; her understanding is that the City Auditor previously reached out to City staff
and was set aside time as a member of the public; noted the City Manager announced
that he would work with the City Auditor to allow for more than a two minute speaking
time; it is important for the elected City Auditor to speak to the public; a presentation is
allowed up to ten minutes.
Councilmember Knox White stated the audit on the Consent Calendar would make the
presentation five minutes in length; questioned whether the proposed motion is to have
the City Auditor provide a five minute presentation including comments on the staff
work.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated discussion at a previous meeting included
allowing for the presentation to be on the public side; the five minute rule is newly
adopted by Council; the City Auditor was not previously limited to five minutes and was
given time to present; expressed support for treating the City Auditor's presentation as
other presentations and up to ten minutes be provided.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the intention is to bypass the current Council Rules
of Order and revert to previous Council Rules of Order which are no longer in effect.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter is looking forward to the upcoming
year's audit process.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City Manager announced that he would set
the audit as a Regular Agenda Item, not in defiance of Council Rules of Order, to allow
the City Auditor time to present.
The City Manager stated that he has indicated to the City Auditor that future audit
presentations will be placed on agenda as a Regular Agenda Item; staff previously
paced the matter on the Consent Calendar; there had been internal confusion about
speaking time.
Councilmember Daysog stated that his interpretation of the motion is to invite the City
Auditor back to complete his report; two minutes of speaking time was not enough to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
May 18, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,16,"the concept of Clement Avenue extension has been around for 45
years; Clement Avenue extension was clearly in place when Mr. Wang
bought the property; she has had it with the resistance to
implement the Clement Avenue extension; the neighborhood and future
West End project need the Clement Avenue extension in order to get
traffic to the bridges on the East End; the process is backwards.
the Planning and Building Department has not reviewed the project,
which is the normal processi the project should be under the
Planning and Building Department, not Development Services the
City can ask developers for concessions the NWSP is not approved
yet.
Jean Sweeney, NWSP Committee Member, outlined the history of street
closures for Alaska Packers; stated history should not be repeated;
a road needs to be in place before the development is considered
traffic would be generated and Buena Vista residents would come
forward if the road is not in place.
Jay Ingram, Alameda, submitted a letter from Rosemary McNally and a
copy of his comments; stated the process is backwards; urged the
Council/Commission not to approve the ENA and to slow down and get
the community involved with plans viewed by the Planning and
Building Department, Planning Board and other commissions.
Valerie Ruma, Alameda, submitted comments;
urged
the
Council/Commission not to approve the ENA because the Concept Plan
should comply with the NWSP, which has not been approved; stated an
ENA is a tentative agreement to a certain schedule to proceed ;
inquired how a schedule could be agreed upon when there is no
concrete idea of what is being planned further stated the
Conceptual Plan is nothing more than a creative meandering urged
keeping the community involved and not approving the ENA; stated
the plan should go through the regular process and be submitted to
the Planning and Building Department.
David Kirwin, Alameda, submitted comments; stated rolling into an
ENA without public and community involvement is of concern; that he
does not understand the necessity of an ENA; questioned who else
the City could negotiate with other than the applicant; stated
requests for public concessions and money are concerning AUSD has
a right to some property; the application to the State Lands
Commission for the [property swap could proceed without an ENA ;
negotiations could go forward; a formal agreement is not needed to
allow communication to continue.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there might appear to be
two approaches : 1) going step-by-step ironing out inconsistencies
with the NWSP, school land issues, and dealing with Clement Avenue
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
4
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-07-19,16,"the community; diversity is paramount; the OGC should really strive for it; she hopes other
members will have a chance to review the Sacramento report; inquired what the cost
would be if the OGC recommends it and Council decides to implement the process; stated
it is an important issue and what is being requested is important to know.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated there is some level of interest and some questions around the
practicality and privacy concerns and potential implementation cost; he is interested in
knowing how it could be done in Alameda; it appears the Sacramento system was done
by the City Manager's office or an auditor.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated this would be a request that would be
appropriately considered by the City Council in that it deals with a body that is in addition
to the OGC and also potentially may involve funds and/or staff time to actually conduct
the program; said decisions should be made by Council.
The City Clerk concurred with the Chief Assistant City Attorney.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the comment came up in the Police Reform and
Racial Equity Subcommittee presentation to the OGC; stated if it was part of said context,
it could be a way to frame the message that it did not come directly from the OGC.
Chair Tilos concurred; stated rather than calling it out as a separate request, it could be
added to the report.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated he would like to frame it a little differently; the way he tried to
frame it while writing it to the Commission was the question of what does equity look like
within Boards and Commissions, considering how to implement it and whether it is
possible to have something really be democratic when a wide spectrum of the community
is not engaged; he questions whether or not there are substantive barriers to participation;
he would like to streamline it and simply suggest the Council review the Boards and
Commissions to increase representation; it is a question the Council should explore and
if they choose not to, it is their prerogative.
Commissioner Chen moved approval of the OGC writing a letter to the City Council
expressing interest in expanding citizen participation in City government, starting with
Boards and Commissions, including a diversity audit so the Commission will know where
outreach should be done.
Vice Chair Shabazz seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Chen: Aye; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: Aye; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye.
Ayes: 5.
In response to Vice Chair Shabazz's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated his suggestion would be
for Vice Chair Shabazz to draft the letter along with Commissioner Chen and bring it to
the next meeting for review by the whole Commission.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
16
July 19, 2021",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2016-11-29,4,"the community. Since then, she has connected with John Knox White and Reverend Rose. She
said ""This is my home and people are now saying this isn't my home"". Zayba said that she is
concerned that being a part of a community where women wear headscarves has made her a
target for discrimination, adding that there is fear in her community, and people don't know how to
get involved. She knows that those here tonight are willing to help, but thinks they also need to
bring resources together in more tangible ways, to reach out, welcome, and help eliminate the fear
felt by her, and other minority communities. She said that, once members of her community feel
safe and welcome, it will be easier for them to engage and work with others. She thanked those in
attendance, adding that they made her feel good about being involved in community and made
Alameda feel like a real community.
Chuck Kapelke, Vice-President of Advocacy for the PTA Council thanked SSHRB and community
members for their involvement. He stated that he supports creating models of police and
community relations, and thought it was great that the Everyone Belongs Here concept was already
in place. He suggested that the PTA could help to engage parents in the community.
Barbara Kahn said that in the past the community was very different and very separate. Stating that
we've come a long way, but could go back if we do not actively encourage interaction between
community members, she said we need action to bridge the gap and bring communities together.
She concluded by asking the Council to think about the implications of the national election, and to
be alert and prepared to participate, and be proactive.
Olivia Higgins, co-chair of the AUSD LGBTQ roundtable, said she agreed with all that had been
said, and asked that the City financially support the effort to have the Everyone Belongs Here
poster in places of worship and businesses. She shared that her kids have two moms and that
when her daughter in middle school had several kids say mean things to her, she was defended by
friends and others. She also cited an incident where a transgender student faced opposition and
other students stood up for him. She asked how young people might have a voice in our efforts,
adding that students had leadership in developing the (EBH) poster and should be engaged.
Page Tomblin, member of the PTA Council Board, shared that the ""welcoming"" event at Franklin
was great, and suggested that there be tools for folks and organizations to help them lead
discussions regarding bias-motivated and other events. He stated that different messages are
coming from Washington DC, including the possibility of deportations, and that the City needs to be
ready to react, adding that Oakland is sanctuary city and its school district is already thinking about
what might happen in the future.
Tamara Centeno, co-chair of ALCANCE, AUSD's Latino roundtable, shared that, after the election,
how proud she was to see the community come together and APD protect our students during their
walk-out and protests. She thought the recycled political posters with hearts was a great idea,
adding that it was good that social media helped bring everyone together.
She asked if Alameda had a cable television channel that could be used effectively in our efforts. [It
was mentioned that Alameda High School is doing a new media program that might be able to work
on this]
Lorrie Murray, director of an after-school music program at Maya Lyn elementary, said she noticed
that tension in school for kids is felt and has been felt for a while. Kids are worried, as they hear
things regarding the political situation that may affect their family's safety. She added that she has
seen this manifest itself in behavior problems, and commended AUSD teachers for working with",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2016-11-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-03-29,13,"the community needs to understand and support impacts; it comes back to: need to
have, want to have and what the community will accept.
The City Treasurer stated some fixes, like changing the system for new employees, will
not help in the short term; as far as what the City do today, stop the defined benefit plan
tomorrow; buy everybody out; the bill would be huge and money would have to be
borrowed, but the bleeding would be stopped; that he is not sure whether the idea is
legal or would be accepted by the unions; public safety has to be discussed because it
is the lion share of the budget; the City has a specific amount of money and cannot
create a lot more; the City can try to bring in business and revenues, but has a finite
amount of money; services require a certain staffing level; all City employees, including
public safety, are in tune with providing high quality services to the citizens; there is a
finite amount of money, which should be divided amount the number of employees
desired to meet a certain staffing level; the calculation is pretty easy; hopefully,
employees and service will not have to be cut.
Mayor Gilmore stated the Auditor's and Treasurer's input is always welcome, valuable
and appreciated.
Councilmember Johnson inquired what the proposal will be on the OPEB issue, to
which the Acting City Manager responded right now the City is doing pay as you go and
is not contributing to buying down its liability; a capital improvement discretionary fund
has about $2.7 million; some portion could be used to start funding the OPEB liability;
that she does not have a plan for really chipping away at the $75 million and growing
liability; she is focusing on the $6 million budget hole, which is to the detriment of long
term needs; the City has both an OPEB and deferred maintenance problem; the matter
should have been addressed when the City was in a better financial situation; an
alternative would be to cut more and put more toward OPEB; the City does not have
unlimited resources to spread around and start buying down long term liabilities.
Councilmember Johnson stated the City needs to discuss the matter; no year is a good
year.
Mayor Gilmore stated more community input is needed when the discussion is held;
encouraged citizens to participate; really difficult decision will need to be made that will
impact everyone; the Council wants to hear from people before making decisions.
Councilmember Johnson stated the City has had budget difficulties for many years and
will continue for many years to come; the City needs to start doing something about
long term obligations; the City has obligations and needs to ensure what it commits to is
sustainable and there is enough money to pay.
Councilmember deHaan stated the start of the fiscal year is only months away; it is too
late to get the public to come up with solutions; it is time for the Council to make hard
decisions; getting feedback from the public will take months.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
March 29, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,5,"the commission at a later date.
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Vice Chair Robbins. All present in favor with 3 ayes via roll call vote.
(Commissioner Limoges not present for the vote).
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA:
Discuss Park Renaming Policy and Procedures
Update on Chochenyo Park playground status
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: April 8, 2021
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn
M/S Commissioner Navarro / Vice Chair Robbins
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 3 ayes via roll call vote.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 9:35 PM
5",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-09-28,7,"the city prioritize hiring an arborist to oversee tree maintenance efforts. She supported
public noticing and favored an approach where projects that included an approved
landscape or streetscape plan are exempt from additional public notification procedures. In
addition, she favored revising the tree species matrix to focus on species that are native to
the area. She encouraged inter-departmental coordination so that City projects not have a
negative impact on tree management efforts in the community.
Board member Cunningham requested that the results of the Draft Plan be incorporated in
the Design Guidelines and applicable ordinances, like the parking ordinance that requires
tree planting based on the number of parking spaces.
Board Member Kohlstrand added that she would like to see a move towards the greening of
infrastructure, such as policies that encourage the use of permeable surfaces, and
suggested that they be considered for inclusion in the Draft Plan.
Board Member Zuppan commended staff's efforts on this draft, and emphasized the need
to maintain thetree coverage that exists today, but would like to see an economic analysis
that shows what the cost implications are for a no maintenance or low maintenance
approach, and incremental costs for the future. She asked what the process would be for
evaluating the suitability and monitoring of the test-tree species.
President Ezzy Ashcraft stressed the need for increased public outreach through existing
channels such as providing newsletters with Alameda Municipal Power and Alameda
County Industries' bill statements. She also encouraged the use of volunteers to assist the
City in its efforts.
Board Member Kohlstrand motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham, to
continue this to the meeting of October 12, 2009 to allow staff an opportunity to consider
and address the Board's comments. Motion passes 5-0-1 (Board member Lynch had to
leave early)
9-C Variance and Major Design Review - PLN08-0211, 1700 Park Street (Former
Cavanaugh Motor Site) Proposed commercial buildings, including a two-story
structure, remodel of existing buildings and a parking lot to be accessed from Buena
Vista Avenue. The project requires a variance for a reduction in the required number
of off-street parking spaces, modification to the ratio of standard to compact parking
spaces, reduction in the depth of landscape areas, and modification to the distance
vehicles may encroach into landscape areas.
Board Member Kohlstrand moved, seconded by Board Member Lynch to continue Item 9-C
to the meeting of October 12, 2009. Motion passes 6-0.
9-D
Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee Consideration of a recommendation
from the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee regarding environmental review of
transportation impacts of redevelopment of Alameda Point on Oakland's Chinatown
neighborhood.
Staff presented a report.
Page 7 of 8",PlanningBoard/2009-09-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-06-19,28,"the business plan include reviewing the location issue and that the
plan be for a two-year cycle.
Councilmember Matarrese clarified that the agreement details should
include all the liabilities and necessary City requirements ; the
business plan details should look at the horizon of the lifespan
details of the current location as well as future location.
Mr. Gunn stated the Museum Board is willing to look at any proposed
location.
Mayor Johnson stated the City will help, but the Museum needs to
plan for the future.
Mr. Gunn stated the Museum is not allowed to have the building
[Carnegie Building].
Mayor Johnson inquired how much money the Museum has for a new
site.
Ms. Dileo responded over $100,000.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is a motion on the floor
regarding going forward with the agreement with the Museum.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of staff reviewing the
Public Arts Fund and its applicability to a fund that would total
$50,000 and would be available through a grant process for Cultural
Art activities in the City.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a caveat to the motion would be to
ensure that the grant process is on a two-year cycle; requested
that staff review the Meyer House issue.
Mayor Johnson stated Council would like to have the money available
soon; she would hope to be in a position of assessing applications
in three months.
Councilmember deHaan seconded motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Gilmore stated staff has been given direction to
review the Meyers House issue; she does not want the issue
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
17
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-02,12,"the business community survive the COVID-19 pandemic; staff is trying to be as flexible
as possible, while keeping everyone as safe as possible.
The City Engineer responded there are varying degrees of safety; stated structures can
be built to be completely bulletproof; however, that is not the expectation; noted there is
risk involved anytime one is in a public space; stated the Public Works Department
takes safety extremely seriously; the reduction of roads, addition of barricades,
reflectors, striping, and signage all naturally slows down cars; the plan is reasonable
due to how slow streets are; there should be constant review of the plans in place.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the stamp speaks to the safety of the
entire area or just the roof; stated there are multiple levels of safety; noted that she is
confident when an engineer places a stamp on a design it is safe.
The City Engineer responded when a roof is involved, the parklet must go through a
building permit review process to look at the structure, supports and roofing material to
ensure safety; the sides are not required to be traffic barriers; however, as part of the
encroachment permit review, staff is looking at barrier positioning and other safety
devices on a case-by-case basis.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about the safety aspect of a car
hitting the parklets; questioned whether the City is making any statement on the safety
of the parklets once a stamp is placed on the design.
The City Engineer responded the question is tricky to answer; stated there is inherent
risk in putting people in the street adjacent to cars; the reasonableness of the parklet is
a judgement call; it is important to implement reflective surfaces and barricades; there is
not a need for building reinforced concrete railings; there is not a guarantee of a
problem never occurring; however, it is not likely; the level of acceptable risk is up to
community decision makers; there is no national standard for parklet design which
ensures traffic safety under all conditions; should a higher level of security be desired, a
discussion from City decision makers needs to take place.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not heard an assurance of any
safety; it is important for the community to know; expressed support for posting signs
that structures have not been approved by an engineer; stated that she has had
concerns about slow streets; some streets are not being used; noted staff has ordered
signs about slow streets being used in a COVID-19 compliant manner; discussion
closing Alameda Avenue to through traffic; stated that she would like to see safe
designs; proposed having staff look into parking at night on Webster Street.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the City has installed water-filled barriers
to protect the parklets as a safety measure.
Councilmember Knox White questioned whether he heard the City Engineer state the
parklets are deemed relatively safe, however, paperwork has not been signed, to which
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2021
11",CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-11-01,30,"the bus stop in front of their house attended; staff came up with a plan to obtain a
handicapped parking space in close vicinity of the house to allow the elderly owner of
the house to have access to a parking space.
(16-582) Councilmember Oddie stated that he attended the community awards; Stop
Waste.org passed the second reading of the revised plastic ban ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:23 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
November 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-01-15,14,"the bus looped around at the first possible moment after 12th Street
and Broadway
Mr. Bruzzone responded said scenarios cannot be done; stated
parking the bus is a problem in downtown Oakland; the current route
is the best for now.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is not suggesting parking
the bus at the end of the line; the end of the line could become
the middle where the bus could be parked [at the ferry terminal] .
Mr. Bruzzone stated that passengers would sit through a ten-minute
break.
Councilmember Matarrese stated passengers have to sit through a
ten-minute break somewhere.
Mr. Bruzzone stated that passengers get off the bus in Oakland; the
passenger experience is different.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the idea be considered
stated that he would like to review the option of taking the bus
down to Shoreline Drive between Willow and Grand Streets; inquired
how much more time would be added, to which Mr. Bruzzone responded
two minutes.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that adding an additional bus would
be another suggestion; inquired whether the request is realistic.
Mr. Bruzzone responded the matter could be considered; stated an
additional bus would cost approximately $350,000 per year; AC
Transit is running out of buses.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Line 63 serves Alameda the most
and serves intra-City traffic better than any other line; enhancing
the line should be reviewed; a bus should be allocated on Shoreline
Drive between Grand and Willow Streets, even if temporarily; the
cost could be offset with increased ridership and would resolve the
Otis Drive issue; reducing speed and managing traffic around Lum
School is important; most of the problems at the crosswalk are
caused by cars; a bus stop would further complicate automobile
issues.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the purpose of turning off
Shoreline Drive onto Grand Street.
Mr. Bruzzone responded December 2003 had extreme cutbacks; stated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
January 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-04-15,11,"the buildings look, i.e., color and material composition; the
chapter is closed on density and building height issues.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether building setbacks are
already determined by the Agreement, to which the City Attorney
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council has the ability to change
the 100-foot building height limit, to which The Planning Services
Manager responded in the negative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the building setbacks could
be moved back, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the project is subject to a past
Development Agreement the City wants to be known as an entity that
keeps its word, just as the City would hold a developer to the
letter of an agreement; bringing jobs and tax revenue to the City
is good; both sides will not be completely happy because of
competing interests such as setbacks, access road, and building
materials; the Ferry Terminal parking is an issue whether or not
the development is built; she is not sure why the Ferry Terminal
parking problem should be off-loaded on the developer.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested having a second directive to
review restriping the Ferry Terminal parking lot; stated Bay Farm
Island was designed as a fully integrated community when developed
into Harbor Bay; the area was designed with bike paths and with the
intention to have the area built all the way as business: the
benefits provide employment of a low intensity around the edge of
the Business Park; the parcel is buffered by a lagoon and trees
the houses to the west are buffered by the Ferry Terminal. the
design is compatible with the other buildings in the Business Park;
the closest building has the same motif; the objective is to
produce an environmentally friendly construction approach that
reduces carbon footprint and benefits the City; the City also
benefits from diversifying the tax base; the benefits outweigh the
concerns ; the area has been enjoyed as open space but has always
been posted as private property, and zoned as commercial property.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of upholding the Planning
Board's decision [adoption of resolutions) with the following
changes 1) addition of the three conditions provided by staff
regarding parking, restaurant use and biology; 2) addition of a
condition to require that the transportation demand plan include
how to maximize use of Harbor Bay and Ron Cowan Parkways ; and 3)
addition of a condition that the restaurant use prohibits a drive
Regular Meeting
11
Alameda City Council
April 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-04-15.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-05-26,7,"the building was created in order to protect residents from any storms, but also to protect
residents from odors. Mr. Duncanson added that there is a path meant to find a safe place
for residents to enter and exit their cars, which is not ADA compliant.
Board Member Zuppan asked for clarification about which doors would be used for
emergency exits and which ones would be used for everyday use.
Mr. Duncanson made the clarifications.
Board Member Zuppan said that she would support converting some of the parking spaces
into accessible spaces, as well as converting some of the parking to community access
points if needed. She said that she appreciated that there are multiple entrances and exits
for the building and the balconies in the buildings, but that she disagreed with Board
Member Burton's comments about the peaks in the buildings. Board Member Zuppan said
she agreed with Board Member Köster about expanding the parking studies to include all
of the people who use the amenities in the neighborhood. She said that, if a senior citizen
loses his or her driver's license, he or she should not lose their parking space, because
they may have caretakers who do drive. She said that she disapproved of the height of
the building design, but would not impede approval of the building on these merits alone.
Vice President Alvarez said that the building was tall for the area, but said that there are
no other places for the building on the site. She expressed support for the tentative map
and the affordable housing plans. She said that she went to a meeting of the Alameda
Home Team, and noted that the resident parking lot was full; as such, there may need to
be more parking spaces. Vice President Alvarez wanted to know what would happen today
with parking, and said she was concerned that the solutions to parking issues that would
benefit the neighbors. The Del Monte project may not be the problem, but more creative
solutions may be needed to solve these issues. She said she understood the frustration
of the neighbors. Vice President Alvarez said that it may be easier to have the elevator on
the outside wall and as close to the stairwell as possible in order to disrupt as few residents
as possible.
President Henneberry said he agreed with Vice President Alvarez on the tentative map
and the need for affordable housing in Alameda. He said that the open hallways diminish
the ""locked in"" ""feeling of the building and liked the gables on the buildings. He understood
that parking is an issue, and that he would support having a weekend parking count, if
such a count were feasible.
Board Member Köster said that the variation of gable heights in the building would seem
more interesting than the current design.
Mr. Duncanson explained the reasoning between the placement of the trash receptacle
and the elevator in the building.
Ms. Johnson reminded the Board that elevators cannot be used in a natural disaster, and
that staff members would assist residents in an emergency.
Approved Regular Meeting
Page 7 of 8
Minutes May 26, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,6,"the building directed downward due to visual pollution issues. Moreover, back in 2000, he
talked to the Caltrans engineers at a public meeting and suggested they place a driveway to have
an emergency egress out of the Posey Tube for any last minute bail outs. During the
presentation, a Caltrans representative said the sidewalk/bike lane could not be widened because
the roadway was already too narrow. Yet, he did not hear any reference of the California
Legislation that requires Complete Streets approaches to every project that Caltrans undertakes
or a reference to the possibility that pedestrians and bicyclists could have equal rights to
automobiles.
Commissioner Vargas called for public outreach by Caltrans on all aspects of any project. He
also wanted to review the comments sought from the City's community meetings by
organizations such as the bicycle coalition.
Michael Nguyen replied during the environmental process that they worked with Alameda staff
to post the project's description on their website and receive feedback about the project. Since
the current project is programmed under SHOPP, Caltrans does not normally host the public
meeting, but have the cities involved to take comments.
Commissioner Miley stated that Caltrans staff could involve the community during the scoping
process and before the project is programmed.
Michael Nguyen replied that is correct.
Commissioner Miley emphasized to Caltrans that the underlining message is to involve the
community early on before the environmental review.
Commissioner Bellows said under the project's schedule, there is ample time to have a public
meeting to gain input. Also, she felt regardless of the funding source, this is a public project and
although the environmental document typically dictates what type of outreach the sponsor does
they can always conduct outreach.
Commissioner Schatmeier agreed with the need for public outreach, but outreach must be done at
a
point when change is possible. He also felt the Transportation Commission should be able to
have input early in the process.
Commissioner Miley stated this happens a lot and has historically been an issue with projects and
he knew the City was working on it. He agreed with the comments by the Commissioners and
felt that with limited transportation dollars, it is critically important to be smart with investments.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked the Transportation Commission if they would like to make a
motion to inform the City Council of the Commission's desire to be informed and have
community involvement by Caltrans early on in the project process.
Commissioner Bertken asked Staff Naclerio how could the Transportation Commission get
involved early enough to insert comments.
Staff Naclerio replied that once a preliminary plan is developed, staff would go to the public to
Page 6 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,4,"the bow window, and believed the signage should be on the front to identify the building.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, commended the architect for taking the economic issues
into account with this project, and for placing the retail space in the area. He liked the inclusion of the
public's comments into this design. He believed the 20-inch overhang on the Central Avenue side
would be softened by the canopies; on the Oak Street side, the plan for the extension of the sidewalk
was unanimously approved by the PSBA Board of Directors. Regarding the number of screens, the
DDA was already in effect between Movietex and the City. He liked the design, and realized it would
be tweaked somewhat.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that they would have preferred a
less modernistic design, but would address the other concerns such as the integration of different
building masses and design elements. He noted that he would submit comments regarding the design
elements. He recommended that the vertical columns be made more consistent from the street level to
the top to reinforce the established rhythm, and to tie in with the vertical elements of the established
theater.
Mr. Dick Rutter, AAPS, 2329 Santa Clara #204, noted that he had been against the 20-inch
projection, but agreed that they should be consistent. He believed that fine-tuning could be done, and
that the 20-inch depth on the two sides of the corner should be reduced.
Ms. Elizabeth Krase, 3520 Chester Street, noted that she was an architectural historian, and
expressed concern about compliance with the Secretary of State standards regarding additions to
historic properties. She believed the historic color scheme and finishes should be identified now in
order to guide the choices of the colors and finishes on the Cineplex, so it will be compatible with the
old theater. She expressed concern that the Planning Board and the HAB may not be able to make an
informed decision about whether the project may meet the Secretary's standards until the City has
requested the architectural resources group to identify the original exterior colors and finishes of the
historic theater. She supported the extension of the pilasters up the front of the Cineplex to suggest
the pilasters on the old theater.
Mr. Chuck Millar, believed there was a missed opportunity in that he had not seen any members of
the general public without any commercial interest in the theater say that they loved the design. He
hoped the actual theater would look better than the design. It bothered him that the design was not
site-specific, with the exception of the massing.
Mr. Robert Wood, 259 Oyster Pond, spoke in support of this project, and noted that he was a citizen
with no vested interest in the project. He believed the seven theaters were necessary to make the
project financially feasible. He believed the 20-inch overhang was a positive aspect by modulating the
façade of the building.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
GolfCommission,2009-12-16,3,"the books, however, and a final decision on this matter won't be made until after
March.
4-C
Update on Golf Complex Finances
Chair Sullwold requested that the City provide the financial report sooner than the
day of the Golf Commission meeting so they have time to analyze it. Ms. Gallant
said she would look into having another accountant prepare the report. Bob
Sullwold stated that more rounds were played this November than the previous
November on the Jack Clark course, and the associated Clark revenue was also
higher. The overall downward trend on rounds and revenues has continued,
however, although the revenue difference compared to last year was only about
$2,000. For the five months ending November 30, the rounds for the three courses
were down 10.48% and revenues are down 3.49%. For the four months ending
October 31, the operating profit was better this year than last year. (Since the City's
financial reports were not available in advance of the meeting, it was not possible to
report on the results through November.) Operating expenses as well as wages and
benefits are lower. The Mif Albright generated $72,079 in revenue over the six
months from June through November. At the time the decision was made to reopen
the course for those six months, staff told Council that the estimate for costs of
reopening and maintaining the course would total $50,000.
4-D
Consideration of Memorial Bench Program for the Golf Complex
John Vest stated that benches range in price from $225 to $671. He looked into the
benches at Sequoyah. The folks at Sequoyah think that the benches cost between
$300 and $400, but could not recall where they were purchased. Mrs. Arnerich
thinks that $400 might be the most that people would be willing to spend on a
memorial bench. Matt Wisely recommends benches made of ""iron wood,"" a material
that looks like wood but is actually composed of plastic, because they are
maintenance-free. The Commission decided to table this discussion until next
month when Mr. Vest can come in with some more specific information.
5
ORAL REPORTS
5-A Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by John Vest
John Vest announced that Ty Puekdang has been hired to work in the shop.
Kemper has been making a big push on Golf Now to book more tee times through
the internet. In December, there will be some specials in the golf shop, along with a
bundle package of three lessons for $100. Mike Winkenbach has been updating the
website to make it more user friendly. Mr. Vest also shared the results from
Mindshare, the survey golfers are asked to complete after finishing their rounds,
which shows an overall rating of 8.2 out of 10.
- 3 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, December 16, 2009",GolfCommission/2009-12-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-06-24,3,"the bond rating because of a past delinquency and resulted in a BBB between S&P and
Fitch, Inc.
Mr. Holmstedt responded S&P was a little more concerned about the initial Marina
Village delinquency than Fitch, Inc.
Councilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether the concern was because of
the three highest taxpayer's delinquencies.
Mr. Holmstedt responded only one of the top three taxpayers was delinquent; stated
S&P was concerned about the delinquency.
Councilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether the delinquency is the reason
for dropping the rating from A- to BBB.
Mr. Holmstedt responded in the negative; stated the A- rating is a result of restructuring;
last week's single bond issue was rated BBB; having two ratings is the result of
separating the homeowner portion from the business portion.
Councilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether an A- rating is the result of
aggregating both bonds.
Mr. Holmstedt responded the higher rating is the result of separating the bonds and a
pledge of all revenues first for the senior bond.
Councilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether or not the CFD would be
carrying the AD because of AD's poorer rating.
Mr. Holmstedt responded in the affirmative; stated neither district would be supporting
the other.
Councilmember/Authority Member Tam stated Council wanted to focus on refinancing
debt that would immediately affect the General Fund; however, the market was not that
great at the time; tonight's recommendation is not in said category; inquired what would
be WCH's fee.
Mr. Holmstedt responded total financial advisory fees are estimated to be approximately
$196,000.
Councilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether WCH would get 70%.
Mr. Holmstedt responded approximately; stated fees would go down if the transaction
goes down; fees would not exceed $196,000.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
Financing Authority, Alameda Ruse
3
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 24, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,2,"the best ever invited everyone to attend; stated WABA is losing
Sheri Stieg as Executive Director; introduced the new Executive
Director, Kathy Moehring; presented Council with jars of Skippy
Peanut Butter.
Kathy Moehring, WABA Executive Director, stated that she would
continue where Ms. Stieg left off; encouraged everyone to attend
the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival and outlined the event.
Mayor Johnson requested Ms. Moehring to explain why the event is
named the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival, to which Ms. Moehring
responded Skippy Peanut Butter was invented on Webster Street.
Mr. Clark noted Skippy contributed over $15,000 worth of free
Peanut Butter.
Mayor Johnson congratulated Ms. Moehring; stated Ms. Stieg did a
great job.
Councilmember deHaan suggested that Council present Ms. Stieg with
a proclamation; stated Webster Street has a new vitality.
(06-431) Library project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief update.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing Open Market
Purchase [paragraph no. 06-437], Resolution Authorizing Sale of
Emergency Generators [paragraph no. 06-438], Resolution Amending
Exhibit A - Compensation Plan [paragraph no. 06-439], and Public
Hearing to consider Ordinance [paragraph no. 06-442 ] 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. . ]
( *06-432) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on August 15, 2006. Approved.
(*06-433) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,047,654.18.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-30,7,"the armored vehicle.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she wants to come back to
the paint and intimidation issue; she agrees with Councilmembers and members of the
public who have concerns; inquired whether images of the vehicle can be displayed; stated
the vehicle is smaller than some Alameda Fire Department (AFD) vehicles; inquired the
reason the vehicle is painted the existing color, whether APD is agreeable to painting the
vehicle and whether there are recommendations to addressing the issue of matching City
vehicles.
The City Clerk displayed photos of the vehicle.
The Interim Police Chief responded the vehicle does not need to be green; stated the color
is not important from a Department standpoint; he understands the concerns.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he will provide another motion related to policy after a
vote is taken on the current motion.
On the call for the question, the motion 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 Herrera Spencer moved approval of retaining the vehicle and temporarily
keeping the current policy until staff can return with a recommendation looking at both the
Alameda and Berkeley policy for Council to decide.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the City Clerk re-read the motion.
The City Clerk stated the motion is to approve retaining the vehicle and keeping the current
policy until staff comes back looking at Alameda and Berkeley's policy to decide at that time
whether the vehicle will be retained.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated when the matter returns, Council can focus on the
policy; noted that she has not had a chance to hone in on the policy as much as she would
like; Council can decide to reverse the decision and not retain the vehicle; stated that she
would like to look at the policies; staff and other Councilmembers can look into other cities
policies and propose alternates.
Councilmember Daysog confirmed his second of the motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he cannot support the motion; there has been
enough unanimous Council direction for policies to come back that have been sitting out for
up to 18 months; this is a recipe for never seeing the policy again; the matter has had nine
months; he is not sure the reason the proposed policies were not presented with the matter;
Continued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
March 30, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-01-05,20,"the approval of the City Council, in its sole and complete discretion, impose some or all
of the following remedies:
""
Councilmember Daysog proposed including: ""on a 4 to 1 vote,"" adding ""some"" to ""...all
unpaid"" in Section 4(i), ""some"" to "" all previously"" in Section 4(ii) and ""some or all of"" to
""
any further"" in Section 4(iii).
The City Attorney stated that he is concerned about increasing the voting threshold
which is not authorized by the City Charter.
Councilmember Daysog withdrew the addition of: ""on a 4 to 1 vote.""
Councilmember Knox White withdrew his motion
Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of ordinance with the amended lease
language.
Councilmember Knox White second the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Abstain; Vella: Aye;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1.
(21-015) Presentation by Assemblymember Rob Bonta: State Legislative Update.
Assemblymember Bonta made brief comments.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the pandemic has highlighted existing inequities, specifically
the lack of transitional housing; more transitional housing is needed in Alameda; there is
an opportunity to work with the State for more transitional housing; expressed support
for streamline legislation related to the Employment Development Department (EDD);
stated State funding for housing goals and schools is needed as well as for daycare
providers; expressed concern about Vons and Albertsons laying off full-time drivers;
expressed support for the continued fight on bail reform, the juvenile justice program
and tenant protection programs.
***
(21-016) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of holding the public hearing
[paragraph no. 21-017 and continuing the referral to another meeting [paragraph no.
21-019].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which required four votes so it failed by the
following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No;
Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Councilmember Spencer moved approval of extending the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m.
to hear both the public hearing [paragraph no. 21-017 and the referral [paragraph no.
21-019]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
January 5, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-06,21,"the approach is disingenuous and is not the finest moment for the community;
expressed concern about additional roadblocks being placed in front of providing much
needed services to the most vulnerable members of the community; outlined her
family's military service background; stated that she does not want to put buildings in
front of people; voters ultimately voted to lead with compassion for the community as a
whole and provide needed services in a way which ensures caring for vulnerable
community members; expressed support for the motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined her family's military background; stated reference was
made to the Marina Village Inn; expressed support for the City purchasing the property;
stated the City will be working towards purchasing the property for the purpose of
providing transitional housing for families and individuals; many resources are needed
and roofs are needed above people's heads.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the HAB members; stated the finding
made has been consistent with what has been presented by historic experts; stated
Measure A was not an approval for a project; Measure A was created in opposition to
Measure B; Measure B is related to a zoning conflict and lost in the election; the people
voted not to rezone the property due to the wellness center; the zoning decision stands
and has been supported by the voters; expressed support for the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. Abstention: 1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:04
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Continued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 6, 2021
21",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-11-17,7,"the application to meet expectations; the business plan needs to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
November 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-11-17.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
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-02-05,2,"the applicant.
Chair Owens asked Mr. Rodgers how long he was in business. Mr. Rodgers
replied that his business has been open since December 2013.
Chair Owens noted that the Alameda Museum offered to archive the current sign,
and that the original Boniere Bakery sign is located there.
Board Member Piziali said that there is no historic sign currently at the property,
and therefore there is no need to come back to the Board. Vice Chair Rauk
agreed.
Chair Owens explained that, because the sign was changed, the property does
not have a historic sign, and therefore would not be required to come to the
Board.
Mr. Tai suggested that the speaker visit the Permit Center and staff can provide
assistance on the permit application to remove and install a new sign.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Owens acknowledged receipt of a
letter sent to the Board from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, and
an email from Mr. Chris Buckley. The letter and email stated that there should be
more open space along the taxiway of Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda Point.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A. Public Workshop on the initial development for Site A.
Mr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, introduced Mr. Joe Ernst, of Alameda Point
Partners. Mr. Ernst introduced Mr. William Duncanson, of BAR Architects. Mr.
Duncanson gave a presentation.
Vice Chair Rauk asked for clarification about the proposed plans for Site A. Mr.
Thomas explained the illustrative design of the plans. Mr. Duncanson further
explained how parking would be incorporated into residential, commercial, retail
and open space areas.
Board Member Piziali asked about the difference between the precise plan and
the Alameda Point Partners plan. Mr. Thomas explained that the precise plan is
the City-approved guidelines for the property. The Alameda Point Partners plan
is the developers' plan to implement the City's precise plan.
Vice Chair Rauk asked Mr. Thomas for an update on the directional signage
proposed for Alameda Point. Mr. Thomas explained that staff was procuring
building permits for free-standing signs, and said staff was looking at paint
pallettes for signs to be painted on existing buildings.
Approved Meeting Minutes 02/05/2015
Page 2
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-02-05.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-09-24,10,"the applicant shall submit a design review application
"" He suggested the addition of a
second condition, reading, ""Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the Phase 3
development plan for the office buildings or the waterfront promenade design review for the
Phase 3 buildings, the applicant will provide an assessment of the feasibility of retaining all
or a portion of the existing waterfront warehouse for an adaptive reuse.'
The Planning Board generally concurred with that additional condition.
Mr. Thomas added that the later language read, ""Now therefore be it further resolved that
the Planning Board recommends the City Council approve the development agreement
with the following revision: 4.9.2(b)
Member Ezzy Ashcraft would like that sentence to begin, ""In the event that Clif Bar elects
not to occupy the wharf building, and the building is demolished after creation of a reuse
parcel
""
Board member Mariani thanked the applicants for being creative with this project, and
encouraged them to retain the historical character of this site.
Board member Mariani moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07- to approve
a Waterfront Development Plan amendment, a Master Landscape Plan amendment, and a
Development Agreement amendment to revise the design of the proposed waterfront
promenade and open space proposed as part of the Alameda Landing Project. The
following condition will be added: ""Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the Phase 3
development plan for the office buildings or the waterfront promenade design review for the
Phase 3 buildings, the applicant will provide an assessment of the feasibility of retaining all
or a portion of the existing waterfront warehouse for an adaptive reuse.""
Mr. Berry wished to emphasize that the buildings were not historic. They were fully
analyzed under the EIR, and the DDA allowed for the demolition. He believed the
additional language would be acceptable, if language similar to that used in the retail
center having to do with substantially similar requirements, or inconsistencies contained
in the conditions of the approval on one hand, and for mitigation monitoring on the other
hand, the development agreement and the DDA shall rule. He did not want to be put in a
position of doing a feasibility analysis, where a DDA amendment would be required. He
wished to clarify that the DDA was the controlling document, and requested assurances
that the condition was not meant to conflict with the DDA.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft was concerned by the preface to Mr. Berry's remarks with respect
to the historical nature of the buildings. She understood that there was a specific
definition of historical, and added that from the beginning of this project, the Planning
Board had heard of adaptive reuse of the site. She noted that the Planning Board would
like the developer to take their concerns into consideration moving forward.
Member Lynch inquired whether the DDA was the controlling document when there
were conflicting conditions throughout the resolutions. Ms. Mooney replied that would
Page 10 of 18",PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf
PensionBoard,2017-04-24,1,"the any or
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., JANUARY 30, 2017
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 160
1.
The meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:30 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Nancy Bronstein, Bruce Edwards, Nancy Elzig, William Soderlund,
Absent: Chair Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer
Staff: Elena Adair, Finance Director; Edwin Gato, Financial Services Manager;
Chad Barr, Administrative Technician - Human Resources
Nancy Bronstein introduced Edwin Gato, new Financial Services Manager.
3.
MINUTES:
Nancy Bronstein asked if there were any questions regarding the minutes. No
questions from members.
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 31, 2016 were moved for
approval by Member Soderlund and seconded by Member Elzig. Passed 3-0.
4.
AGENDA ITEMS:
4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending December 31,
2016 and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the
Period Ending December 31, 2016.
Finance Director, Elena Adair summarized the quarterly and fiscal year totals.",PensionBoard/2017-04-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-06-06,31,"the amortization schedule and how much the City would save in the CalPers
contribution each year; more is saved in the long term than the short term; all options
will be brought to Council.
Mayor/Chair Spencer stated that she would like money allocated for the Jean Sweeney
Open Park space parcels; she believes the public safety contracts are not fiscally
sustainable; she would like more money to go towards parks and other items important
to the community.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella requested an update on the costs of the parcels and a
progress report whether grants are available; stated if Council is asking employees to
pay a portion of benefits or pensions, she would like to review the benefits that Council
receives.
Mayor/Chair Spencer stated Council's pay rate should be reviewed.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the City Council/SACIC
Budget resolutions.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by
the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Vella, Matarrese and
Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor/Chair Spencer - 1.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of workforce change
resolution.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie moved approval of amending the Pension Rate
Stabilization Program and Other Post-Employment Benefits Funding Policy.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Vella, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes:
Chair Spencer - 1.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella moved approval of directing the City Manager, or
designee, to deposit $6,043,000 of Committed General Fund.
Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice votes: Ayes: Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Vella, Matarrese and Oddie
- 4. Noes: Chair Spencer - 1.
ADJOURNMENT
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
5
to the Community Improvement Commission
June 6, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-03-23,9,"the amendment for live/work units with the exception of the reduction of the 25%
requirement for affordable housing in the redevelopment areas. The motion
carried 5-0.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/Board member Lynch seconded the staff
recommendation that the inclusionary housing requirement be made 15%
throughout the City of Alameda and brought forward to City Council after being
considered by the Economic Development Commission and the Housing
Commission for comment. The motion carried 4-1 (Autorino no).
Board member Cook recommended/Board member Lynch seconded the adoption
of the Negative Declaration. The motion carried 5-0.
9-B. Stargell Avenue Extension Landscape Master Plan - Applicant - City of
Alameda. The City of Alameda requests approval of a landscape master plan for
site improvements within public rights-of-way along the proposed Wilver ""Willie""
Stargell Avenue extension to Webster Street. (DV)
Staff gave a report describing the project.
Staff introduced Todd Young of Gates and Associates, the landscape architect on the
project. Mr. Young gave a power point presentation describing the project.
President Kohlstrand asked what sort of work is currently being done at the street site.
Mr. Young introduced Dina Tasini the project manager. Ms. Tasini stated that they are
currently trenching for utilities at the site.
President Kohlstrand questioned the row of trees on the east side of Webster Street,
stating they are not on the plans the Planning Board received.
Alex Channing of Gates and Associates responded that the only plantings in that area
will be shrubs.
Board member Cook questioned if Webster Street is going over or under the ramp for
Constitution Way.
Mr. Young responded that Webster Street will continue to go under the ramp.
The public hearing was opened.
Christopher Buckley of the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) referred to a
letter written by WABA to the Planning Board. Mr. Buckley stated that WABA is very
excited for the project to go through and commended Gates & Associates for the
thoughtfulness and creativity displayed in their design submittals. WABA has three
specific recommendations. The first recommendation is to have the Crepe Myrtle trees
Page 9 of 12",PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-05-07,6,"the agreements; the City went from a 20% to 28% fund balance to address these potential
types of uncertainties; uncertainty has narrowed since the last discussion in April; 16
firefighters applied, 14 are eligible and three are of retirement age; the exposure is
documented and clearly encompassed in the budget process; that she supports moving
forward.
Mayor Gilmore stated the action is part of an MOU that was negotiated and agreed to in
2010 under the prior administration; the City would face serious legal liability if Council
does not honor the contract and greater financial exposure if Council does not pass the
Ordinance; it is important that the City of Alameda live up to its agreements and not be
known for not honoring bargained-for contracts; moving forward is important.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Gilmore, stated unwinding an MOU
means everything is back on the table, including concessions; if the hard dollars and cents
are scrutinized, then the same should be done for the financial implications of breaching a
contract.
Mayor Gilmore stated going back to negotiate that one little piece cannot be done
unilaterally and would require the unions to agree to reopen negotiations, if negotiations
are reopened, everything would be on the table, including the 15% contribution received
from public safety.
Councilmember Chen moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(*13-219) Ordinance No. 3066, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with
Margaret Su Doing Business As Wonky and Wonky Kitchen LLC Extending Current Lease
for up to Fifteen Months and 28 Days in Building 119 Located at 151 West Seaplane
Lagoon at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
(*13-220) Ordinance No. 3067, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Auctions by the
Bay, Inc. for Three Years in Building 18 Located at 2700 Saratoga Street at Alameda
Point."" Finally passed.
(*13-221) Ordinance No. 3068, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Auctions by the
Bay, Inc. for Five Years in Building 525 Located at 2751 Todd Street at Alameda Point.
Finally passed.
(*13-222) Ordinance No. 3069, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 7, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-05-07.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-04-05,3,"the agendas; inquired that the Chief Assistant City Attorney or City Clerk give some
specificity with respect to what the Commission has reviewed.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded basically both sides in each complaint have
the option to present written arguments, which can take any form; the written argument
submitted on behalf of the City appears more legal in nature because the City has retained
outside counsel; another document would perhaps be titled proposed decision or
suggested decision; the form of the document looks like a final Commission decision; the
document is prepared by outside counsel; it is the conclusion that the outside counsel is
urging, but it is not a requirement that the Commission needs to agree with it.
The City Clerk stated the City has always prepared a draft decision and presented it to
the Commission for every single case; the draft decision gives the Commission a starting
point; there have been times where the Commission has taken the opposite position than
what was in the draft decision; going forward, it could be made clear that the decision is
just a recommendation from the City and not final.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the staff report is actually by special counsel
and not the staff recommendation or Chief Assistant City Attorney's framing of the issue;
and whether it is an advocacy piece it is a position statement by the attorney's
representing the City in the adversarial adjudication.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the staff report is
an adversarial piece and the waters are a bit muddied because it is also the City's
position; in this particular instance, the staff report is the position of the City and the
particular department within the City.
The City Clerk stated the City has always presented the staff report from its viewpoint.
Commissioner Reid inquired why staff and special counsel prepare a decision before the
Commission hears a case; stated that she understands is has been common practice,
but wonders if the Commission wants to continue the practice; further inquired whether
the prepared decisions ever held the position of sustaining a complaint; stated it
is
important to know if the practice will continue; requested that the Chief Assistant City
Attorney read the specific Public Records Act (PRA) Section 6250 3C Mr. Morris included
in his complaint.
Chair Tilos stated the Commission could address Commissioner Reid's question whether
to continue the draft decision process during Commissioner Communications.
Commissioner Chen concurred with Commissioner Reid; stated it seems like the deck is
already stacked to reject the complaint from the get go; her understanding is that
Commissioners should have an open mind when cases are presented; the staff report
states that someone filed a complaint and it was already resolved; the complaint is not
seen until the third or fourth document; it is not a fair process for residents who go through
the trouble of filing a complaint to have all of these opposing documents in the beginning;
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
April 5, 2021
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,8,"the agenda.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has no problem with Council
communicating with staff that she was on the Council when Council
voted to get rid of the Council-staff communication rules
established by a prior City Manager the Council has to be careful
with individual Councilmembers directing staff; that she does not
see how a matter can be placed on the agenda without numerous staff
hours being spent.
The City Attorney stated Council cannot legally take a consensus
action regarding items raised under Council Communications because
there has not been a description on the agenda and the public does
not know what may be brought up; the purpose of the formalized rule
is to provide an opportunity to get the public involved in the
discussion; if the matter is submitted ahead of time, it can be
placed on the agenda under the new section with a sufficient
description; there will not be a staff report yet so staff
resources will not have been expended; however, the title can be a
sufficient description so that the public understands what will be
considered, Council can take an action that night, there could be
no action taken, or Council could request a formal staff report and
more information at a future meeting; the purpose is to permit a
legal action to be taken and allow public participation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated said explanation clarifies the
matter and removes the chance of it becoming a gag rule; the matter
can be discussed and a vote can be taken, which cannot occur under
Council Communications the proposal enhances the ability to get
something from a single Councilmember heard in a fashion noticed to
the public without running into the legal problem of providing
direction, even by consensus, on a matter that was not on the
agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated what the Council is doing today is
bringing the matter as an agenda item; questioned why a separate
agenda section is needed to do it.
The City Attorney stated the Council has never violated the Brown
Act during Council Communications because a vote has never been
called for; the City Manager has voluntarily placed a matter on the
agenda or provided information upon seeing an interest from one or
more Councilmembers; the process is being formalized to provide
greater public participation; the matter is a follow up of the
issue addressed at the workshop.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he pulled the February 6, 2006
minutes regarding the war resolution and there was an official
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,11,"the agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated eleven states allow triple tractor-
trailers, the Federal government does not.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether double tractor-trailers - are
permitted in California and not Oregon, to which Councilmember
deHaan responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the matter could be placed on
the agenda sooner rather than later, to which the City Manager
responded the matter would be placed on the June 6 City Council
agenda.
(06-270) Councilmember deHaan stated that the City has easement
rights for streetscaping along Appezzato Way even though
negotiations are being conducted with the Alameda Beltline;
requested an Off Agenda Report on the matter; stated the City is
missing an opportunity to bring the community together; landscaping
should be done sooner rather than later; the Summer House,
previously Harbor Island Apartments and Buena Vista Apartments, is
one of the highest density areas in Alameda, with 41 homes per
acre, and lends itself to a transportation node; the matter should
be brought to the Transportation Commission.
(06-271) Mayor Johnson requested that the City Council or Planning
Board review office/business conversions in residential areas;
stated the Council set a precedent on the issue several years ago
[June 6, 2000] when a request was made to convert a residential
structure into a law office beyond a business area [2058 Central
Avenue] ; she would like to formalize the precedent previously the
Council stated that no residential conversions would be allowed in
the area.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Planning Board denied the
request because parking requirements could not be met and a
variance was requested.
Mayor Johnson stated the City should be clear on the matter so that
people do not purchase residential property with the intent to
convert the property to commercial.
The City Manager stated that the matter would be brought back to
Council, including past Council action.
(06-272) Councilmember deHaan stated the Miracle League provides
an opportunity to establish a baseball field for individuals with
limitations; the School Board reviewed possible fields; endorsement
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,10,"the agenda for discussion; with said history for background, she
would suggest that [staff report item] b state: ""The City Council
after discussing the item may do any of the following;"" she would
take out number 1) [take no action] because, by and large, the
Council does take an action, the issue is discussed, the matter
might be deferred, which is even taking an action; she wants to
make sure whatever the item, that the matter gets discussed;
putting the matter on the agenda ensures that the matter is
discussed; numbers 2 and 3 can be left as is; she would suggest
that the practice be implemented and, six months after adoption,
the issue be placed on an agenda to discuss whether Council likes
the practice and hear what the public thinks.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether said suggestion was a
motion, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the City Attorney
indicated that the City Manager has the authority [over the
agenda]; inquired how an item is placed on the agenda under the
jurisdiction of the City Attorney or City Clerk.
The City Attorney inquired whether Councilmember deHaan meant
Closed Session items, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in
the negative.
The City Attorney stated the only things that she has the power to
put on the closed session agendas are certain attorney-client
privileged communications within the Brown Act she can put said
matters on the agenda because she needs to be able to talk to the
Council since she works directly for the Council; however, she does
not have any authority to go to the City Manager and request that a
matter be placed on the agenda she has no such power under the
Charter; she is not a policy maker and is not involved in
operations.
Councilmember deHaan stated there would be an upcoming discussion
on Charter amendments, which do not come under the City Manager.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter comes under the voters.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a majority of the Council gave
direction to place Charter review on the agenda; this [the
proposal] puts the items into public view; when an individual
Counci wants something on the agenda, which the City Manager
does not have time for, the item can get on the agenda for
Regular Meeting
10
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-01,19,"the affirmative; stated change were made for consistency and clarity.
Councilmember Tam noted the changes will be included for the second reading.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the second reading of
the Ordinance would be July 15th and the initiative would become effective in 30 days,
which is August 14, 2014.
Councilmember Chen stated that he would not support the motion; stated the additional
language has not been vetted by the community; he prefers to delay the initiative, but
understands delaying is not an option.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore
-
4.
Noes:
Councilmember Chen - 1.
(14-296) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14951, ""Establishing Integrated
Waste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc.
(ACI) for Rate Period 13 (July 2014 to June 2015).' Adopted.
The Administrative Services Manager and Marva Sheehan, Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
(HF&H), gave a Power Point presentation.
Stated PSBA is in support of the rate increase; thanked ACI for working with PSBA:
Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(14-297) Councilmember Daysog stated that he attended the League of California Cities
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
July 1, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-07-23,5,"the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*13-351) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee, to Enter
Into Purchase Agreements Not to Exceed $305,000 for the Replacement of Eight Police
Department Vehicles and One Police Motorcycle. Approved.
(*13-352) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Report on Litigation and Liability
Claims Settlements Paid During the Period April to June 2013. Approved.
(*13-353) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specification and Authorize Call for
Bids for the Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and
Minor Street Patching, FY13-14, Phase 14, No. P.W. 05-13-15. Approved.
(*13-354) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,612,556 to Fort
Bragg Electric, Inc. for the Group 1 - Sewer Pump Station Renovations for Reliability
and Safety Improvements Project. No. P.W. 04-13-11 and Allocate $241,884 in
Contingencies. Approved.
(*13-355) Recommendation to Approve a Third Amendment to the Agreement in the
Amount of $150,000 to Ampco System Parking for Operation and Maintenance of the
Civic Center Parking Garage. Approved.
(*13-356) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Fieldstone Construction Company for
Woodstock Field Improvements, Phase 2, No. P.W. 11-06-23. Approved.
(*13-357) Resolution No. 14841, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit CalRecycle
Grant Applications and to Execute All Necessary Documents.' Adopted.
(*13-358) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract with
Municipal Auditing Services for Business License Audit and Enforcement Services; and
(*13-358 A) Resolution No. 14842, ""Designating Municipal Auditing Services as an
Authorized Representative to Examine Sales and Uses Tax Records."" Adopted.
(*13-359) Resolution No. 14843, ""Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to
Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter
Approved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election
Held November 7, 2000. Adopted.
(*13-360) Ordinance No. 3076, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a License Agreement with
Antiques By the Bay, Inc., for Five Years in the Northwest Territories Located at 2900
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 23, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-08-19,5,"the affirmative.
(08-357) Resolution No. 14262, ""Amending Master Fee Resolution No.
12191 by Changing Various Chuck Corica Golf Complex Rates. ""
Adopted.
The Interim Golf Manager gave a brief presentation.
Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission Chair, stated the Golf Commission
has difficulty with imposing resident fee increases; residents have
been getting an incredible break in the past.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why the junior fee would remain at
$1.00.
Ms. Sullwold responded the Junior fee was not changed because of
the basic formula used for the rate increases and the political
sensitivity of the matter; stated the Northern California Golf
Association (NCGA) reimburses the Golf Complex up to $8.00 for both
resident and non-resident Junior golfers.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether having annual passes makes sense.
Ms. Sullwold responded annual passes generated approximately
$42,820 last fiscal year.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether annual pass rounds are tracked.
Ms. Sullwold responded tracking is done on the number of people who
play on passes; stated the average pass holder plays approximately
ten rounds per month.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the annual pass fee would be raised.
Ms. Sullwold responded in the affirmative; stated the Golf
Commission feels that the annual pass ranking should be senior
residents, residents, senior non-residents, and non-residents.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the nine-hole rate is new.
Ms. Sullwold responded in the negative; stated the rate is for
early morning and late evening play.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is okay with trying out the fee
increases; play impact should be watched carefully Golf Course
revenue needs to pay for operating costs and funds should be put
aside for long-term maintenance and infrastructure; inquired
whether the proposed fees would cover the operating expenses if
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
August 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-02-13,6,"the ability to come to the board for waivers will also provide some flexibility if there are
problems.
Board Member Mitchell asked how this ordinance would apply to projects currently in the
application phase.
Staff Attorney Brown said that until a vested map and development agreement are in
place, any new ordinance can apply.
Staff Member Thomas said they can specify who and when the ordinance applies when
they pass it.
Board Member Sullivan asked if the visitability requirements would apply to demolishing
an old garage and building a new one with an apartment above.
Staff Member Thomas said it would.
President Köster asked how the historic corridors like Park St. would be treated.
Staff Member Thomas said changes within an existing building are exempt, but new
construction would have to meet the requirements.
Board Member Curtis asked if only applying the ordinance to properties with three or more
units would simplify a lot of these questions.
Staff Member Thomas said that it would.
President Köster opened the public hearing.
Nan Rideout said she was in favor of the ordinance. She said her perspective has changed
on the subject as she has aged. She said having housing appropriate for aging seniors
allows for many important cultural resources to function.
William Fairchild from Starlight Marine Services said he hopes the board makes maritime
businesses part of Alameda's plans for the future.
Audrey Lord-Hausman, introduced members of the Commission on Disability Issues and
thanked the board and staff for their work. She said she looks forward to completing this
ordinance.
Al Wright talked about his parents' experience getting changes built into a new home to
make it more accessible. He said you would never know the house was designed for
universal access in mind.
Approved Minutes
Page 6 of 10
February 13, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.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,2015-03-10,7,"the Tube is an indication that the City has a constraint; as long as the City works within
the envelop of what was promised to the State, there is latitude to put reasonable limits
on the growth to respect the constraints the City is under as an Island; that he would like
to see 25% affordable housing, as long as the units could be integrated into project.
Councilmember Oddie expressed his support for the matter being discussed; stated that
he is concerned about traffic which would be generated from the Northern waterfront;
discussed Alameda Point and Alameda traffic being compared to other cities; noted that
he drove his daughters to school; stated an article in the Chronicle indicated that the
29th Avenue ramp onto the freeway is one of the most dangerous; the issue is regional
and cannot be addressed in a vacuum; discussed adding another express bus to San
Francisco to alleviate parking at the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal; stated the City
skeptically looks at development projects and will continue to do so; projects are not
rubber stamped; the Council has the City's best interest at heart; housing is a Statewide
concern and the City cannot say no to housing; the required number of units should be
the cap; everything should not be built so quickly that the City runs out of space; traffic
cannot be used as a reason to stop housing; the City has two choices: mitigate or
litigate; Council will listen to the staff proposal to mitigate, which is what needs to be
done; litigating has too many risks; the City could lose funding and control to the State,
which he does not want to happen; expressed concern over litigation being costly and
causing the City to lose Measure A.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has to abide by applicable law; the
Council needs to provide direction to staff regarding revisions to the density bonus
ordinance; expressed appreciation for the information provided by Vice Mayor
Matarrese and requested said documentation be provided when the matter returns to
Council; discussed evidence and census data; stated that she is intrigued by the free
shuttle suggestion; funding sources need to be identified; discussed the difficulty of
funding affordable housing; stated more affordable housing is needed, but the answer is
not simple.
Councilmember Daysog stated a moratorium should not be implemented on the density
bonus ordinance; staff recognizes Alameda is an Island and that the City has to be
nimble moving forward in limited capacity; more units could be built under density bonus
and the multi-family overlay; the projects that have come forward have not used the full
potential; staff is being pushed by the State, is being sensitive to the City's constraints,
and recognizes the needs for a mix of more market rate and affordable rental housing;
Site A at Alameda Point should be viewed as an opportunity; that he looks forward to
discussing traffic solutions and implementation.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is concerned about the safety of the community, which
should be reviewed separately; the City needs to look at its water supply, the Tube and
transportation in the event of a natural disaster; that she agrees a moratorium is not an
appropriate solution; concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese's comments about not over
building and holding to the number of units, which should be reviewed; stated the City
should review reducing the number of units from 30 to 21 as suggested by a speaker;
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
March 10, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,14,"the Trust for Public Land did not believe applying for funds would be worthwhile.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City would be getting two acres [for a park]; the
project would allow for land cleanup and waterfront stabilization; the solution is good;
coming to a compromise has taken nineteen years; the City needs to move forward.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with the
provision that the City be very clear in holding standards very high to ensure that future
residents would not be impacted by whatever the predecessor activity was on the land;
stated the matter should be part of the entitlement process.
Mayor Johnson stated having labels on the diagrams would have been helpful; inquired
what is the indentation along the landside of the waterfront, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded a concept for a set of stairs, which would be subject to
Design Review.
Mayor Johnson reiterated that the public area needs to be accessible to everyone.
The Planning Services Manager stated the final map would come back to the Planning
Board and ultimately Council for final approval.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the houses on the northern lots are bigger, to which
the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff has had discussions regarding smaller houses in
order to have a bigger park area, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to make the green area as big as possible.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Marina Village has a green area; the only activity is people
walking the trail.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the lack of activity is because of the small hills.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what would be the build out schedule, to which the Deputy
City Manager - Development Services responded forty-eight months.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether funding would ever become available, to which
the Planning Services Manager responded the City has tried to buy the land for twenty
years.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Thompson Field is catty corner from the project; the
School District and City are working on a joint use agreement for football fields; making
the area residential makes sense; maximizing Thompson Field and McKinley Park
would cover the ""active park"" portion; the Dutra property remains open for the future.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-02-17,3,"the Todd Shipyard Crane Located at Pier 5, near 2900 Main Street, on the Alameda
Gateway Property. Accepted.
(*15-124) Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $256,292 to Urban
Planning Partners, Inc. to Prepare the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan for
Alameda Point. Not heard.
(*15-125) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Dixon Marine Services, Inc., for
Alameda South Shore Lagoon Dredging, No. P.W. 11-13-26. Accepted.
(*15-126) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Joint Use
Agreement with Alameda Unified School District for the Operation and Maintenance of
the District Swimming Pools until December 31, 2016. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(15-127) Resolution No. 15004, ""Supporting a Conveyance of the Surplus Federal
Property on McKay Avenue for Park and Open-Space Purposes and Approve the Work
Plan pursuant to City Council's Direction on January 21, 2015."" Adopted.
Stated that he is concerned that the federal General Services Administration (GSA) is
continuing to pursue imminent domain to assume easements rights; suggested the
Council liaison committee liaise with congressional representatives to look into the
matter: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the resolution and opposes imminent domain; the City should
work to secure the highest and best use for property: Irene Dieter, Sierra Club,
Provided a slide show with two maps: Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Parks District
(EBRPD).
Expressed support for the resolution and urged the City to fight Crab Cove: Gretchen
Lipow, Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not sure how much the City can do to
help mend fences.
Councilmember Daysog stated joining EBRPD on Crab Cove is important for the City.
Councilmember Oddie concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated that he supports
the resolution.
The City Manager acknowledged the Mayor's role in working with both parties.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 17, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-19,9,"the Table is broken down by occupancy group and by construction
type and provides a cost per square foot to determine what the
construction costs would be for the building; the factor is
multiplied by the building square footage which gives the current
building value; the retrofit trigger point would be 25% of the
current building value.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether current value would be market value,
to which the Fire Marshal responded the value of the building would
be based on replacement construction costs.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the calculation was typical for the
type of ordinance.
The Fire Marshal responded not all jurisdictions use the method.
Mayor Johnson stated construction costs are not reflective of
current value; inquired whether calculations would be based on the
entire square footage of an apartment building if work was done on
a portion of the building, to which the Fire Marshal responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponent (In favor of ordinance) : Kathy Moehring, WABA.
Opponents (Not in favor of ordinance) : Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Steve
Edringon, Rental Housing Owners of Northern Alameda County; David
Kirwin, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Following Mr. Edrington's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether
the intent is to bring more properties into the requirement by
changing the calculation from assessed value to square footage.
The Fire Marshal responded the intent is to create an even playing
field for the community by having a standard threshold for
retrofitting.
Mayor Johnson stated a kitchen remodel could qualify.
Councilmember deHaan stated the assessed value could be in the
millions for recently bought properties; inquired how long the
current ordinance has been in place, to which the Fire Marshal
responded seven or eight years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-03,30,"the State does not agree with the City's approach to protect old housing stock; many
people have been pushed out of other cities with new housing stock; she disagrees with
the language in the draft HE stating: ""systemic reduction of the supply of affordable
housing in Alameda;"" rent control will not apply to new rental units and condominiums;
inquired where the condominium development in Alameda is located or whether any
condominiums have been built in the past 10 years.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded all of the townhomes
being built and sold are condominiums; stated many developers are not building
condominium flats or apartment type buildings due to concerns over lawsuits;
developers are building multi-family buildings which are held as rentals for at least 10
years until a statute runs; the units can potentially change into condominiums after 10
years; the City is not getting a lot of condominium multi-family housing that are not
townhomes.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the starting price for the market rate
townhomes in Alameda, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director
responded over $900,000.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the price is not affordable; it is unfortunate that
the State is pretending the housing units are affordable housing; many people do not
qualify for the units; the housing units lead to gentrification; she will only agree to
minimal upzoning; expressed support for the draft HE being rejected multiple times;
inquired whether the City is advocating for permit waivers.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff does not want
people to waive universal design requirements.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated waivers continued to be provided in Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports upzoning where needed in order to be
responsible; local voters spoke on a measure that causes the City to jump through
additional hoops in order to meet its RHNA obligation; the obligation is to the region and
the people of Alameda; the obligation is to provide enough housing so that the region
does not continue to lack housing such that the cost of housing continues to rise; the
median house price in Alameda is over $1 million; there is not a lot of housing stock due
to the lack of building over time; many people are getting priced out of the area and are
unable to buy starter homes; the City needs to move forward with the draft HE and send
it to HCD; expressed concern about moving backwards; stated the City can either build
up or build out and lose the valued open space and parks; staff has tried to address a
number of different concerns and find ways to build fairly throughout the City in a way
that is going to ensure housing units being added are well integrated into the existing
fabric.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports complying with State law; there are
penalties for noncompliance; many funding opportunities for important projects and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022
26",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-05,6,"the School District would be able to get matching funds; enrollment will be going up with the
development and the School District should be able to get State matching funds; the
business plan SunCal submitted did not show a lot of revenue or any revenue at all for the
school sites; SunCal does not believe there is a shortfall; SunCal is very committed to
having schools on site.
Mayor Johnson stated everyone is nervous about relying on receiving money from the
State to build the schools after all the State takings from cities and schools.
Mr. Keliher questioned whether the assumption is that there will be no redevelopment
funds; stated no one knows what the State will do.
Board Member Mooney inquired whether the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents include schools.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated pursuant to case law,
payment of school mitigation fees is the mitigation if the jurisdiction has mitigation
requirements.
Board Member Mooney inquired whether the District has school mitigation fees, the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Board Member Mooney inquired how much are the fees, to which Mr. Keliher responded
about $25 million.
Board Member Mooney requested an explanation of the School Mitigation Agreement.
Amy Freilich, SunCal Senior Vice President, stated the Development Agreement (DA) only
relates to the City and does not relate to or bind the redevelopment agency or School
District; the redevelopment agency and School District are independent agencies under
State law and have full authority to enter into any agreement; the redevelopment agency
will not sell the land to SunCal unless the deal makes sense; the initiative is only part of the
deal; everything has been done assuming that SunCal would negotiate with the
redevelopment agency and the School District; SunCal is assuming it will enter into a
School Mitigation Agreement and wants to figure out how to build the school in advance of
when it would be required; the 2% cap goes away when the homeowner buys the land; the
cap does not bind future homeowners, retail owners or commercial owners; the cap is in
place for the term of the development; in order for SunCal to sell the development in the
first round, the infrastructure development costs cannot exceed the 2%, which is the
reasonable amount above which people will not expend dollars; the typical School
Mitigation Agreement would address: 1) land being dedicated and provided to the School
District; 2) infrastructure, which SunCal fully budgeted to provide to the School District; and
3) the $25 million [in mitigation fees] that SunCal has estimated, which is less than the most
recent school construction costs; SunCal's goal is to resolve the issues.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
6
Board of Education
January 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-12-05,2,"the Regular City Council Meeting Held on November 7, 2017. Approved.
(*17-717) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,083,246.82.
(17-718) Recommendation to Receive Status Report on Implementation of the
Approved Plan for Access to the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a shuttle from the Harbor Bay ferry to a
satellite parking lot can be included in the plan.
The Base Reuse Director responded staff has not reviewed the shuttle service yet;
stated the shuttle would compete with AC Transit's Line 21.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the City to keep options open.
The Base Reuse Director stated the City will explore other options; staff has discussed
ways to shorten the route with AC Transit.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the item is in response to a referral, to which
the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he thought there was going to be a workshop.
The Base Reuse Director responded the data is a status report and is a culmination of
many meetings regarding the issue.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the bus leaves early from certain locations.
Austin Lee, AC Transit, responded the bus will be at the ferry on time, before the ferry
departs.
Councilmember Oddie expressed concern with the bus being on time for ferry riders;
stated the bus being late affects people getting to work on time.
Mr. Lee stated AC Transit strives to have all trips arrive on time.
Councilmember Oddie stated it is critical for the bus to be on time to encourage people
to use public transit.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether staff can submit the ridership data for Line
21, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the plan can include a connector to the overflow
parking and ridership from the East End, to which the Base Reuse Director responded
in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
December 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-09-15,9,"the Recreation and Park programs, are age restricted; the facility
would not be like a park that someone could walk through.
Councilmember Tam stated there could be some duplication between
the Boys & Girls Club and Recreation and Park Department; inquired
whether the facility would be an expansion of capacity for the City
and would fill a gap.
Mr. Sherrat responded the Boys & Girls Club is the only program
available for children in the evening; stated very few programs are
offered to teenagers or middle school aged children; many programs
are outsourced, such as tumbling and karate; a Tiny Tot program
could be done at the facility.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Recreation and Park Department has
wonderful programs that require fees; inquired whether the Boys &
Girls Club programs are fee based.
Mr. Sherrat responded 99% of the programs are part covered under
operational expenses; stated scholarship opportunities are
available for those who cannot afford to pay a fee; the membership
fee is $20 per year.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Chipman Middle School has a gym,
to which Mr. Sherrat responded the school has a multi-purpose room.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Boys & Girls Club has
satellite facilities.
Mr. Sherrat responded in the affirmative; stated field trips are
also provided.
Mayor Johnson called the public speakers.
Proponents (In support of using funds for Boys & Girls Club) :
George Phillips, Boys & Girls Club; Duke Campbell, Alameda; and
Judge Robert McGuiness, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in support of using funds for Boys & Girls Club) : Jo
Kahuanui, Recreation and Park Commission; Dorothy Freeman, Alameda ;
Joseph Woodard, Alameda; Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Rebecca Redfield,
Estuary Park Action Committee; former Councilmember Barbara Kerr,
Alameda; Helena Lenkel, Alameda; Roberta Rockwell, Alameda; Debra
Arbuckle, Alameda.
Neutral Michael John Torrey, Alameda.
Following Mr. Phillips comments, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired about
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 15, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-09-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-12-20,4,"the Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Atlantic Gap Segments of the Cross
Alameda Trail (Between Main Street and Constitution Way).
(16-652) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to
an Agreement with Willdan Financial Services, Inc. to Extend Term Until December
2018, and to Add the Amount of $50,000 for a Total Contract Amount of $170,000 for
Economic Consulting Services Related to Alameda Point and Citywide Projects.
Accepted.
(16-653) (See Paragraph No. 16-662) Recommendation to Amend the Contract with
Clean Lakes, Inc. to Increase the Contract Amount by $99,123.90, Including
Contingencies, for Vegetation Management, Debris Management, and Water Quality
Monitoring for the Southshore Lagoons, for a Total Contract Amount of $499,719.20.
(16-654) (See Paragraph No. 16-663) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Ranger
Pipeline Inc. for Cyclic Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 12, No. P.W. 01-15-01.
(16-655) (See Paragraph No. 16-664) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Ranger
Pipelines, Inc. for the Construction of the Park/Otis Force Main Replacement Project,
No. P.W. 10-15-19.
(16-656) Resolution No. 15215, ""Amending the General Fund and the Capital
Improvement Program Fund by $140,000 for the Reconfiguration of the City Attorney's
Office.' Adopted; and
(16-656A) Resolution No. 15216, ""Amending the General Fund and the Capital
Improvement Program Fund by $75,000 for Legal, Professional and Consultant
Services Related to the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal Project.' Adopted.
(16-657) Ordinance No. 3170, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Three Year Lease with No
Extension Option and a Right to Early Termination with Pacific Pinball Museum, a
California Corporation, for Building 169, Suite 101 Located at 1650 Viking Street at
Alameda Point."" Final passage.
(16-658) (See Paragraph No. 16-665) Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the
Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 12-17 (Preferential Parking Zones) of
Article III (Permit Parking) of Chapter XII (Designated Parking) to Modify the Procedures
relating to the Designation of Preferential Parking Zones.
(16-659) (See Paragraph No. 16-666) Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the
Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Division IV (Annexation of Territory) of Section
3-70 (Special Tax Financing Improvement Code), of Division I (General Provisions), of
Article IV (Special Tax Financing), of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation).
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 20, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,24,"the ROI reduction is the reason that the franchise and in-lieu
fees are down 11%, to which the Finance Director responded
partially.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated finding
money under different shells is hard work; choices need to be
made; thought should be given to applying future redevelopment
revenues to positions and programs a plan is needed for dealing
with the public safety shortfall.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the
City is taking a step in undoing some of the tangle with State
takeaways; he is concerned with the direction of sales tax
revenues and living on the bubble of the property and transfer
tax; the City needs to be vigilant and careful; staffing,
benefits, and deferred maintenance need to be reviewed in the
ten-year forecast; evaluation should be done at mid-term; focus
should be on the need first applying incoming revenues to the
reserve should be discretionary; damaged infrastructure that
provides the highest risk to individuals should be reviewed;
sidewalk maintenance should be reviewed closely because of trips
and falls.
Mayor/Chair Johnson thanked the City Manager/Executive Director
and staff for an informative and clear budget stated she
appreciates that the budget was put together strategically;
goals and long-term issues were addressed; she hopes that the
residents learn that the budget is a matter of balancing
employees' work is appreciated; employee's issues will be
considered.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the budget
shows a positive movement the City is not completely out of the
woods; the City Manager/Executive Director made some monumental
steps to fill required positions and to address needs that have
not been met in the last four years.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the last
two-year budget addressed cutting programs and positions which
would minimally impact services to the residents; the City is
now looking at adding services and positions and has come a long
way; thanked everyone for working very hard on the budget.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated funding
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
10
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-12-06,3,"the Purpose of Acquiring and Maintaining a 9-1-1 Telephone System with Customer
Premise Equipment. Accepted.
(*16-622) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to
the Consulting Agreement with BKF Engineer for Construction Administration Services
for an Amount Not to Exceed $50,000, for a Total Amount of $255,503, for the Cross
Alameda Trail through Jean Sweeney Open Space Park. Accepted.
(16-623) Recommendation to Approve a First Amendment to the Services Agreement
between the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda to
Extend the Term of the Agreement to March 31, 2017, with No Additional Cost, and
Make Minor Revisions to the Agreement.
Councilmember Oddie stated the agreement does not include customer service metrics;
if the Housing Authority cannot properly serve customers, there should be another
alternative; landlords and tenants are not receiving the service level they deserve.
The Community Development Director stated the service metrics can be a part of the
Request for Proposal (RFP); the Housing Authority is open to providing more off hour
clinics for customers; the program is new; the Housing Authority and the City are
working on improving issues.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like to bring the Housing Authority back under
Council; issues would be easier to address if the Council has the authority to set policy
for the Housing Authority.
Mayor Spencer stated the opportunity for landlords and tenants to meet with someone
face to face is critical; she is concerned with the Housing Authority's inability to meet
with people face to face instead of over the phone; she supports a service metrics being
a part of the RFP.
The Community Development Director stated the Housing Authority provides in person
meetings.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Housing Authority only meets with people over the
phone.
The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the policy has
changed and people can make an appointment to meet with the Housing Authority staff
in person.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she supports the amendment; she hopes
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
December 6, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-16,10,"the Public Works Director responded staff would have public meetings as the plan is
developed.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the bicycle path is close to the water and
becomes very muddy.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the area has tidal
influence and mud flats; BCDC wants the area brought back to its native habitat.
Mayor Johnson stated the area is included in the City's Bay Trail also.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the area has no bike path; certain areas are sandy
and water gathers when the tide comes in; improvements would be very expensive and
would require outside money; elevation would need to be part of the plan.
Mayor Johnson stated sometimes money is available for bay trails.
The Transportation Coordinator stated a letter of support was submitted when the issue
was brought to the Planning Board.
Mayor Johnson stated the City probably has received less than its fair share of bay trail
money.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the $6 million in Alameda Point Measure WW
funding has been taken into account.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff will meet with East
Bay Regional Park on Thursday; stated she will have a better understanding at that
time; an update could be provided.
Councilmember Matarrese stated priorities are in fairly decent shape; that he would like
to adjust the points schedule for assigning priorities; reducing conflicts should have a
higher score because the City is compact; that he would like to see a higher number of
points assigned to reducing conflicts; the City has a fairly mature bike plan; reducing
conflicts would put more people on bicycles; in the past, bicycle racks have not been
installed or were the last things to be put in place; that he would like a formalized
checklist so that projects are not signed off until promised mitigations are put in place.
Councilmember Tam stated that she would like to see reduction in conflicts elevated for
different reasons; Safe Routes to School is funded through the Pedestrian Plan; for the
last ten years, a significant investment has been made on Rock ""n Roll to School; that
she sat through a lengthy session with the School Board on Saturday; the School Board
talked about school consolidation and closures if the parcel tax does not pass; some
major changes would affect pedestrian and bicycle safety along with cross-town traffic if
Encinal High School and Alameda High School boundaries are changed along with
consolidating Otis Elementary, Lincoln Middle, and Edison Elementary schools; inquired
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
November 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-20,7,"the Public Works Director responded approximately 90% are pruned.
Councilmember Johnson stated a few years ago a ten-year pruning cycle was
suggested for Gibbons Drive; inquired whether anything would be noted in the proposed
policy that would ensure that a Gibbons Drive crises would not happen again.
The Public Works Director responded that removal is only being addressed tonight;
stated the Master Street Tree Plan makes recommendations for pruning; in the last five
years, Council has ensured that there is on-going funding to maintain the five-year
pruning cycle.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the three-week noticing [for an informational
community meeting prior to tree removal] would provide enough time to meet the new
City Council noticing requirement.
The Public Works Director responded the intent would be to allow someone to address
an issue under Oral Communications.
Councilmember Johnson stated Council would not have the ability to act on anything
under Oral Communications.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Planning Board felt that people should have been updated
before the work started on the Park Street Streetscape Project; having the work start
within two years of approval should be fine.
Councilmember Johnson stated updates could be presented at a Council meeting;
issues could be addressed at that point.
The Public Works Director stated the informational community meeting could be
changed to a Council meeting, and the three-week requirement could be deleted.
The City Manager stated the three-week noticing was added as an abundance of
caution based upon the outcry over what happened on Park Street.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City Council would have a second bite to
reform or change a prior vote.
The Public Works Director responded it would depend upon how the matter was
agendized; stated the vote would not be changed if the meeting was informational;
Council could agendize the issue at a future meeting.
Councilmember Johnson stated Council would have discretion to send the matter back
to the Planning Board for further review.
Mayor Gilmore stated it is important not to go so far off in one direction that it becomes
impossible to initiate and implement the plan; the public should be given the opportunity
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
December 20, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,5,"the Posey Tube onto 6th Street. The study report would be available for agency review in
mid- to late summer, and finalized by the end of the calendar year, at which time the
environmental process would commence.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier, Mr. Dickinson replied that 6th
Street would not require additional right of way, and that it was an underutilized three-
lane road at this point. Signal coordination and prioritization would be utilized on the
roadway, which would be relatively cost-effective. There would be intersection
improvements at the base of the Market Street and a 6th Street on-ramp.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether 5th and 6th would remain one-way streets. Mr.
Dickinson replied that they would. Commissioner Krueger further inquired whether it
would be possible to square off the corner at Broadway near Jack London Square and still
maintain the traffic flow. Mr. Dickinson replied that would be possible, with a slight
curve to allow cars to turn.
Chair Knox White inquired how the project study report chose its alternatives, and
inquired whether modeling had been done with respect to the alternatives. Art Dao,
ACTIA, replied that they had done traffic forecasting and origin/destination studies, as
well as traffic counts. He noted that a complex traffic forecasting model had been
developed, and that they were in the process of performing the operations analysis.
A discussion about the necessity of the ""pork chop"" island and the double turn in the
intersection at Harrison and 7th Street ensued. Mr. Dickinson stated that it possibly could
be eliminated; his staff would examine the number of trips being diverted.
No action was taken.
Chair Knox White suggested that Item 7A be heard before Item 6C.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Resident Appeal of Public Works Director's Approval of the Installation of
""NO PARKING"" Street Sweeping Signs on the 1300 block of Regent Street.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and summarized the background and scope of
this item. He displayed the affected area on the overhead screen, and summarized the
responses received in the survey. He noted that the first basis for the appeal was that the
parking restrictions would increase the hardship on parking, which would be twice a
month for each side of the street, for a total of four times each month per block. City
policy states that street sweeping signs were installed with the intention of balancing the
environmental needs of the street's cleanliness with the needs for parking in the
neighborhood. The second basis for the appeal was that the neighbors took pride in the
street, and picked up debris as it collected. The City's concern was that the street
sweeping machines can remove debris that could not be removed by hand, such as
metals, hydrocarbons and small particles from brake pads on cars, etc. This also had to do
Page 5 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-17,13,"the Police facility; stated Library and Golf issues in the amount
of $4.9 million have rates of 3.9% to 5.75%.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that a maximum should be set for each
issuance.
The City Manager stated 5.5% is a blended rate; refinancing would
not go forward if expected savings are not realized.
louncilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated the 2022 date
should not be exceeded the previous proposal did not go forward
because there was no savings, the term was extended, and debt would
be pushed back; now, debt would not be pushed back and the term
would not be extended.
Mr. Reynolds stated the interest rate and savings are two different
numbers; a $317,600 savings is the underwriter's best guess based
on current market conditions; 5.5% would produce less than $317,600
in savings.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the savings goal should be approximately
$317,000.
Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated that anything over
$300,000 in savings works.
ouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated that he would like the
first two-year savings to be at least $400,000.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that deferring debt payments is not the
best way to do budgeting.
Mr. Reynolds stated that bond counsel drafted the resolution with
the idea that a limit would be placed on the average interest rate.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the most important issue is savings ;
management's goal is to defer payments to limit budget cuts; that
she does not want to pay more and save less due to deferring.
Mr. Reynolds stated an interest only payment would be made; savings
would be limited in the first two years; the present value savings
would change slightly with annual savings versus up front savings.
Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese moved adoption of
resolutions as long as the duration of the bond would be the same
and the savings threshold would not be less than $300,000.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
3
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-07-21,12,"the Planning Board.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 21, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-20,7,"the Planning Board would take action on the final EIR; inquired
what would happen if the Planning Board approved the final EIR.
The Supervising Planner responded the Planning Board would have the
option of certifying the EIR and approving or denying the project
stated a workshop could be scheduled to discuss responses.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Board decision
could be appealed to Council, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there would be opportunities
for the public and Planning Board to comment on the final EIR, to
which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: louncilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam,
and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes : Councilmember deHaan - 1.
Councilmember deHaan stated the scope should have gone to the
Planning Board; that he cannot support the staff recommendation.
(*07-081) Recommendation to allocate $347,000 in Measure B Funds
and award a Contract for Design and Construction Administration
Services in the amount of $102,695, including contingencies, to
Baseline Engineering for Grand Street Bridge and Ballena Boulevard
Bridge Repair and Resurfacing, No P. W. 11-06-24. Accepted.
(
*07-082) Recommendation to authorize installation of Stops Signs
to replace Yield Signs at the intersections of Adams Street and
Peach Street; Post Street and Washington Street; Calhoun Street and
Peach Street, Fairview Avenue and Cornell Drive; Bayo Vista Avenue
and Cornell Drive; Harvard Drive and Windsor Drive; Cambridge Drive
and Windsor Drive. Accepted.
(
*07-083) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for installation of Countdown Pedestrian
Signal Heads and Audible Pedestrian Signals, No. P.W. 01-07-01.
Accepted.
(*07-084) Resolution No. 14068, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for Repair of
the Main Street Ferry Terminal Pier, and Authorizing the City
Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement."" Adopted.
( *07-085) Resolution No. 14069, ""Approving the Application for
California Cultural and Historical Endowment (CCHE) Grant Funds
Under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,4,"the Plan was not broader.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded the
census tract has the highest concentration of minorities and low
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-11-15,12,"the Pinot's Palette, Make-A-Wish event at South Shore Center.
(16-604) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Recreation and
Park Commission.
Mayor Spencer nominated Marianne Carter for appointment to the Recreation and Park
Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer 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
November 15, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-15.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,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,2019-02-19,11,"the OGC versus what is being said at Council; outlined the OGC's decision and staff
report exhibit provided; inquired where in the 450 page exhibit the conversation of title
requirement comes up.
The Interim City Attorney responded the decision of the OGC related to title is shown on
pages 452-455.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the OGC's upholding of the complaint was not because
the title was not specific enough, it was due to the title being so specific that a
reasonable reader would not expect that the decision would consist of additional items;
the idea of having more specific agenda items is the opposite of what is being
requested.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the issue is being too specific or not specific
enough; discussed the February 4th and December 17th OGC meeting agenda titles.
The Interim City Attorney responded that his understanding is that the agenda title was
not specific enough; concerning the first complaint, it did not adequately describe the
action Council eventually took; the lack of specificity also related to the second
complaint, because the agenda did not indicate that if Council took no action, the
ordinances in question would remain in full force and effect.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he recalls asking the City Attorney for an opinion on
whether or not the discussion points being reviewed were compliant with the Brown Act.
The Interim City Attorney stated the City Attorney responded and Council proceeded.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how disputes are resolved.
The Interim City Attorney responded if the violation falls under the Brown Act, a
complaint may be filed asking Council to reconsider its action; if Council does not
reconsider, there is a judicial proceeding that follows, and if the court finds there was
not substantial compliance with the Brown Act, the court can set aside the action.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Interim City Attorney stated it is a
judicial court proceeding.
Councilmember Oddie inquired the basis of the opinion for the repeal of the null and
void being not authorized.
The Interim City Attorney responded the State constitution and the City Charter vest in
the City Council the authority to both adopt and repeal ordinances.
Councilmember Oddie stated nothing could stop Council from putting something in an
ordinance that violates either the City Charter or the Constitution and would not be
repealed until brought to attention.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-02-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-05-02,18,"the OGC cannot review the matter.
Mayor Spencer questioned where is the matter in regards to priority; stated the matter
will take staff time.
The City Manager responded the motion is not staff intensive because the
subcommittee and the OGC would be working on the matter; the City Clerk and City
Attorney's office will be resources for the OGC.
The City Attorney noted the City Clerk's and City Attorney's Office staff the OGC.
Councilmember Oddie stated in Oakland, there is a time limit for questions and
deliberations for Councilmembers, which is something to think about for Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval to have a City Council subcommittee and
the OGC to review the rules of order, with the OGC meeting timing scheduled within the
workload of the City Clerk's and City Attorney's office.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
Councilmember Oddie inquired about the members of the City Council Subcommittee.
Councilmember Matarrese responded that he has no preference and does not need to
serve.
Councilmember Oddie volunteered to be part of the subcommittee.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft also stated she wants to be a part of the subcommittee.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not support formation of a subcommittee; however,
she would prefer that she and Vice Mayor Vella be on the subcommittee.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese is fine with him and
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft serving on the subcommittee, to which Councilmember
Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Mayor Spencer objects to the formation of a
subcommittee.
Mayor Spencer stated her preference is to always include the Mayor and Vice Mayor in
this type of subcommittee; her preference is to include all Councilmembers; if the limit is
only two members on the subcommittee, she would prefer the Mayor and Vice Mayor.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there cannot be more than two people serving on
the subcommittee due to the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
May 2, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-05-02.pdf
GolfCommission,2016-03-01,3,"the North Course, and she wants it clear that there will be total agreement between
Greenway and Jim's that improvements will not look funny. Ms. Wooldridge stated
that the City does not want it to look funny, and that Greenway gets to take the lead as
to what the improvements look like, and she recommends that they are presented to
the golf commission, and Jim's would follow the tile choice and color schemes chosen.
Commissioner Downing asked what would happen if Jim's chose not to agree to the
color choices made by Greenway, and Ms. Wooldridge stated that per the agreement,
he has to match design colors and style.
Discussion ensued regarding several specific design items, and Ms. Wooldridge asked
that they table this as the purpose of this meeting is to move forward with the
recommendation for the Concessionaire agreement, and specifics can come back to
the Golf Commission at a later date. The Concessionaire agreement is going before
the City Council tonight for approval, and if approved, it moves forward, and if not
approved, a couple of scenarios are they can make particular amendments to it and
would still move forward or they could simply say no. If they say no, Greenway has
first right of refusal in the existing agreement with the City, and she would then begin
negotiations with Greenway, and if that failed at City Council level, then a formal
Request for Proposal would be initiated, as well as if Greenway chose to waive their
right of refusal.
Commission Downing asked if all the major renovations would require approval of the
Golf Commission, and Ms. Wooldridge stated that currently the agreement states that
it requires Golf Commission approval for the enclosed patio, but if the Golf
Commission wants approval of all interior renovations, that would have to be a
recommendation to the City Council, and they could approve the agreement with that
amendment.
Chair Blatt asked Mr. Geanekos if there was somebody to fulfill the obligations of the
agreement in the case of his retirement, and Mr. Geanekos responded that their goal
is to remain a family business, but if this were to change, he could sign over to a City
approved concessionaire.
Ken Campbell of Greenway Golf stated that the relationship between Greenway and
Jim's has been positive, but they are looking for clarity within the agreement, for
instance, having a breakdown of the cost estimates that Greenway had to provide,
would be advisable. Mr. Campbell stated that, originally, Greenway endorsed the idea
of the patio wrapping around the front, but after they saw the conceptual drawing, they
would like to discuss further how it is going to look. Mr. Campbell stated that there
was nothing about golf course services, including the North Course snack bar and the
beverage cart, and also inquired about snack services at the practice facility. Mr.
Campbell asked about maintenance of the common area, as the agreement states that
Jim's is not responsible for any exterior landscaping. Greenway would also like clarity
on the interior design of the restaurant. Mr. Campbell also would like the opportunity
for Greenway's attorneys look at the possibility of a cross indemnity clause regarding
any injuries that might occur on the property.
3
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016",GolfCommission/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,3,"the Mayor's request and would return with an oversight proposal.
Chair Johnson stated that the direction to operate consistently
with what the Charter provides has already been given to the City
Attorney.
The City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson; stated that the
attorney retained by the Council in 1989 provided an analysis of
the direction regarding retention of outside counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council also gave direction regarding
the Charter stating that the Council consent is required to hire
outside attorneys.
The City Attorney stated that the consent has been given through
the budget in the past 16 years; the policy can be changed and
would be discussed on July 5th.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that the budget enables the
City Manager and department heads to hire individuals; the Council
does not need to be involved in the actual hiring but might want to
be involved in instances above or below certain thresholds; stated
that the Council is moving in the right direction.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the initial clarification
would be with the Charter; noted there is dispute between the City
Attorney and the Council; the Council feels that they have the
authority to consent to the hiring of outside legal counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that there is no need to hire an attorney to
provide an opinion on the language of the Charter; the language of
the Charter is very plain and clear.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the Council could move
forward if the language of the Charter has been determined.
Chair Johnson stated that there is a $470,000 litigation
contingency in Risk Management and an additional $350,000 for
Alameda Power & Telecom; noted that the City Attorney is stating
that the Council has consented to the hiring of outside counsel by
approving the line items in the budget over the past 16 years; the
Council has given a blanket authorization to the City Attorney to
hire outside counsel and that is not the level of oversight that
the Charter intends ; the Charter was drafted to provide needed
checks and balances; the City Attorney's office has five attorneys
and also spends a significant amount of money on outside counsel ;
stated that the Council should have more of a role in the hiring of
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
3
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-09-25,18,"the Main Street neighborhood should be land banked until the City exceeds the 1,400
limit; that he has been thinking about the same priority zones as Board Member Knox
White; the enterprise zone is blank land which is relatively attractive; the historic district
buildings are beautiful, but will be really tough; Council should weigh in on such matters.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought she heard consensus among her colleagues
about the priority zone being the Town Center and enterprise zone, which are probably
going to go together organically; housing is a little bit tougher; she understands the
theoretical desire to put all of the housing in the Town Center phase and have 1,200
multifamily units because it would help transit; however, she does not know whether
building 900 instead of 1,200 housing units would be significant for retail or transit; the
number of Bayport housing units did not do anything for transit; that she would like to
have the flexibility before facing a unit penalty because a decision might be made to
build single family houses if somebody is going to pay a lot for the land; reaching a deal
with the Navy took 17 years; she is hesitant to put all the housing leggs in one basket;
going to the Navy in five years to say the deal struck no longer works for the City could
be a momentum killer.
President Burton stated one reason transit might not have worked at Bayport is because
single family, rather than multifamily, housing was built; multifamily housing is more
supportive of transit; the 1,425 limit could be reached quickly whether housing units are
built at the Town Center or some are reserved for the Main Street neighborhood; the
City could end up holding a conversation with the Navy quickly.
Councilmember Chen stated building Bayport, which is only 500 homes, took at least
five or six years; realistically, building 1,425 units could take decades; that he really
likes the approach that staff will not just concentrate on the business aspect and will
develop some housing, especially using the multifamily housing overlay; the City's
housing needs should be met; the waiting list for affordable housing is very long.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like staff to come back with more
information; she is intrigued by the concept of the priority zones; requested information
about what Alameda Point land banking would look like; stated that she does not have
enough information to decide whether or not to support allocating 1,425 units at the
Town Center.
Board Member Henneberry stated the meeting tonight is to comment on the EIR and
disposition; the level of specificity being discussed is way too detailed.
Board Member Knox White stated one outstanding zoning question is whether or not to
have housing on the waterfront facing the seaplane lagoon; the amount mentioned has
been a quarter of the waterfront or less; getting Council direction on the issues would be
good; noted zoning is specifically embedded in the disposition strategy.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council has not given a lot of thought to said matter at this point;
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
18
Planning Board
September 25, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,25,"the MOU could be attached to the DDA.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the MOU should be attached as an
exhibit. i the DDA notes WABA's desire to limit smaller retailers.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the
retail and residential entitlements have different transportation
patterns he can see residential commuters trying to head out of
the Webster Street Tube at commute time he is happy with the water
shuttle; he would like the land shuttle and ride share described
explicitly in the TDM; goals should be described; the goal is not
to have a TDM program but is to reduce the number of vehicle trips,
provide improved non-auto transit options, and implement metrics to
measure successi land shuttle and ride share lots need to be called
out but should not be limited.
The Supervising Planner stated the Conditions of Approval include
the land and water shuttle as required elements of the first phase
of the TDM; the Master Plan also calls for an on-sight ride share
lot.
The Assistant City Manager stated the cross references are
generally universal between the DA and the Conditions of Approval
exhibits.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated some of the
documents, such as the DA and Master Plan, are City documents; the
DDA is a CIC document.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated goals
should be mentioned.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated she would
like to see something that addresses the potential lag in Tinker
Avenue and the alternatives as related to the TDM and capi she
understands how Catellus would like to cap responsibilityi she
would like some mechanism in place if the City gets into a
situation where the project is roaring and then there is a lag
between building Tinker Avenue or building an alternative; she
would like to see an increase in the amount of money to shuttle
people until the Tinker Avenue extension or alternatives are built.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager suggested amending
the language to have Council evaluate what should be done with
augmenting the TDM with reference to the Tinker Avenue extension
when infeasibility is declared.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
14
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,18,"the Library inquired whether the $2 million was redevelopment
money that was held in case Library costs escalated, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated there is still Measure O money that
is supposed to go for branch upgrades a report is needed on the
matter at some point; he would rather open the mezzanine balcony
now; people saw the potential for the theater  he thinks the loan
should be given to complete the job; twelve public days might
demand 800 seats.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Gilmore requested a run down on
restoration that has been accomplished.
The Development Services Director stated the project has gone very
well: major, significant repairs and alterations were made to the
ceiling; all the trim molding was painted; original light fixtures
were installed; fabric workers restored the original curtain;
artisans did all of the leaf work; the original art work was put
back in place; the detail is phenomenal; some of the original
furniture might be recovered.
Chair Johnson stated the marquee sign is beautiful.
Commissioner deHaan stated that the Historic Alameda Theater is one
of the better restorations; separating the upper balconies into
theaters would be a shame. inquired how many seats will be gained,
to which the Development Services Director responded 150.
Commissioner deHaan requested a breakdown of efforts made for the
transition into the Cineplex.
The Development Services Director stated some of the original
carpeting will be put back into the Historic Theater; the Cineplex
will have similar carpeting and upholstery; similar icons and
images have been carried through the Cineplex.
Commissioner Gilmore requested staff to update the website photos.
Commissioner Tam stated that the schedule shows a March opening
;
all contingencies are being used; inquired whether the CIC would be
requesting another loan in the next four months.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
4
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2022-01-11,4,"the Legistar archives; she is fine with the language that the PRA report could be modeled
after this report; the bigger question is whether to make an ask about the development of
a 10-year plan or report related to the history of the Sunshine Ordinance; she does not
know if the City Council is aware that an annual report on PRAs is prepared.
In response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the PRA report evolved
from the Commission; basically the OGC asked questions about the PRAs, wanted data,
and the information was added to the annual report; now that the City has NextRequest
which tracks the data, it will evolve again.
Commissioner Chen stated that she recalls it was former Commissioner Shabazz who
requested the PRA report; the rest of the Commission joined in the second year of the
report and it became more detailed as a result; she will include the history.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated that she is in favor of bringing a version back in February to
incorporate the Complaint Form amendments; she offered suggestions for consideration,
not so as much as line-by-line recommendations; inquired what the subcommittee sees
as the best path to ensure an efficient vote on a final report in February.
Commissioner Chen stated the report was started six months ago and keeps changing;
she would like to present a final version next month for the Commission's approval; she
appreciates all the input provided; it is aspirational to see if the City in interested in helping
to produce a more robust document.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner Chen stated that she would like to put
the report to bed to start on the next one.
The City Clerk stated any Commission suggestions should be emailed to her to forward
to Commissioner Chen.
Vice Chair LoPilato stated the Commission is doing great and is slowly learning how to
produce work product as a group on the fly; she would like to receive feedback from the
Commission on the complaint hearing in December; a lot of different issues came up;
there was discussion regarding the possibility of making a recommendation to encourage
the City consider the 15-day statute of limitations as it applies to PRA requests; inquired
whether the Commission would consider it a worthy recommendation before
Commissioner Chen puts time into it.
Commissioner Cambra stated that he supports Vice Chair LoPilato's comments regarding
the recommendation; as long as there are fruitful and productive conversations between
City staff and the requestor, it would be fine; the statute could be refined so there is a
clear point where the parties are done; requiring a meet and confer would be helpful in
the event a complainant did not want to engage with the City.
Commissioner Chen stated that she would appreciate language for the report.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
January 11, 2022
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2022-01-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-05-05,16,"the June 2, 2009 Council meeting; competitive money has no
guidelines; applications are due June 25, 2009.
Mayor Johnson inquired when funding would be available, to which
the Deputy City Manager responded as quickly as possible.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:32 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
May 5, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-05-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-01-17,7,"the Housing Development and Programs Manager responded the School District
housing fund is in 204.1.
Commissioner Bonta inquired how much is in fund, to which the Housing Development
and Programs Manager responded approximately $4 million.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated the funds would go into the
Auditor-Controller's new Redevelopment Trust Fund if the Oversight Board found that
the obligation would not be enforceable; funds would be distributed in the following
order: 1) pass through agreements; 2) bond obligations; 3) enforceable obligations; and
4) successor agency administrative costs; anything left would be distributed to tax
entities.
Commissioner Tam moved adoption of the resolution with authorization for the
Executive Director to add additional enforceable obligation payments to the schedule
prior to January 31st.
The City Attorney stated the following would be added to Section 1: ""The Community
Improvement Commission further delegates authority to the Executive Director to
amend Exhibit A as necessary to add any additional enforceable obligations discovered
subsequent to the effective date of this resolution and to correct any clerical error that
may be necessary"".
In response to Commissioner Bonta's inquiry, the Executive Director stated January 31st
would not be included in the resolution in case the date changes.
Commissioner Tam moved adoption of the resolution with additional language as
outlined by the City Attorney.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Executive Director stated the Chief Operating Officer was on a
call with cities that have similar base reuse issues; the cities are working together to get
a seat at the table when changes come down to ensure that the former Naval Air
Station has a separate financing mechanism.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:
Chair Gilmore - 1.]
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(12-029 CC) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Planning
Board.
Acting Mayor Bonta announced Mayor Gilmore's nominations to the Planning Board are
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
4
Improvement Commission
January 17, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-01-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-10-15,16,"the Housing Authority is not under the City's governance; information and forms for the
appeal process should be on the City's website; there is an overall Code Enforcement
issue related to habitability; the City needs a better way to report Code Enforcement
problems; identifying hearing officers for appeals is important; questioned whether rent
funds can be used towards retiree hearing officer staff; stated leaving direction open-
ended can allow for improvement to all root issues.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated many tenant comments have not been relayed to Board
members; there is a lack of clarity and a third party is needed; expressed support for an
external task force; expressed concern over bringing the Housing Authority back under
City governance; noted there is frustration about not being able to hear both sides of
issues; stated there needs to be a way for the Housing Authority to listen to the public
complaints and address them; elected officials do not need to be the end result of every
decision; expressed support for engagement around the issues being brought forth.
Councilmember Oddie stated the referral is meant to increase accountability,
transparency and reduce conflicts of interest; the answer is not to have the Housing
Authority move back under the City; discussed the legal implications of private
information; stated that he will never stop fighting for the most vulnerable people in the
community; society is judged by how the most vulnerable are treated; expressed
support for the hard work done by the Housing Authority; stated there needs to be time
to address the issues.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Housing Authority was separated from the City in
2012; expressed support for continuing the separation and independence; stated the
Housing Authority has proven to be successful since 2012; the attempt to incorporate
Council into the appeals process is difficult; discussed outside agencies which
implement housing policies; stated there are specific obligations to taxpayer funded
programs; involving outside officers in the appeals and hearing process can be difficult
due to differences in policies; the funding allows families to live in affordable housing
and equally applies rules and transparency.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the idea of a mediated conversation is good; Code
Enforcement will come up for discussion at a priority setting meeting; the Housing
Authority Board is a great resource that is not frequently used instead of making
requests to elected officials; there are independent agencies that can be used as well;
there is desire to provide more housing; the housing crisis is not going away any time
soon.
The City Manager stated everyone has the same goals; noted his experience began
with housing; stated the root of the issue should be the focus; three City departments
will need to staff the issue: City Manager's office, Community Development Department
and City Attorney's office; he recommends starting with an informal stakeholder group,
which could decide whether or not a more formalized group is needed; stated the group
will focus on transparency, accountability, conflict of interest, hearing officers and
informal mediation methodology, with a deadline of returning to Council February 18,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
October 15, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-10-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-03-07,7,"the HAHCD Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City has confirmed with
HUD that if a project falls out, the vouchers could be awarded to another project.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the HAHCD Director stated
Rosefield Village is between Buena Vista Avenue and Eagle Avenue, one half block
east of Webster Street.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Site A is not a HA property; inquired whether it is
unusual to award Section 8 vouchers to properties that are not solely under control of
the HA, to which the HAHCD Director responded in the negative.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry whether the HA Executive
Director made a direct request of HUD for the Site A project, the HAHCD Director stated
the process of awarding vouchers is standardized across the United States.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the HAHCD Director stated if a housing
choice voucher is available, the dollar value allows a loan of another $100,000; the loan
needs to be repaid by the rent subsidy; in the Eagle project, the investor is requiring a
$50,000 per unit reserve fund because of uncertainty on the Federal level; the $100,000
is offset by the $50,000; the voucher can supplement and spread funds further, but it
varies per project.
The Base Reuse Director continued the presentation.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Base Reuse Director stated the City
could not apply for the 4% Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) because the cap
and trade could not be obtained.
The Community Development Director stated base allocation monies are never seen;
project applicants apply for funding directly to the County which underwrites the deal;
the County makes the determination whether a project should be awarded.
Mayor Spencer stated the Eagle Avenue project is $1 million or 7%, and Site A is $5
million or 16%; inquired whether there is a best practice in regards to taking such a
large percentage for one project.
The Community Development Director responded spending $5 million over 130 units is
less than 16%.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Andy Madeira, Eden Housing, stated local
funds are represented by the market rate land developer's contribution, HA vouchers,
and other local contributions, including the County A1 bond funds; the amount being
requested tonight is a typical amount.
The Base Reuse Director stated the City was strategic in determining the scenarios;
staff concentrated the $5 million on one project in order to make the City better fit the
9% tax credit; concentrating on one project made Alameda score higher and stay
competitive.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-03-07.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-07-20,3,"the Giants games, Japan Telephone Guide Web Site, Golf 707 Internet
Specials and the Senior Golf Club upstart. The question was raised
whether a newspaper ad would be a good idea. The General Manager
stated that the newspaper ads are very expensive. The question was raised
regarding updating the web site. The General Manager replied that the
site designer, Infolane, is currently managing the web site. The staff needs
to get training from the company to manage the site in-house. The
suggestion was made to continue to update the website and use it for
advertising because it will save money and people will use it look for
specials and information.
5-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Gaul
Commissioner Gaul prepared a report outlining the complimentary pass
play at the Complex for fiscal year 2004/2005. Commissioner Gaul
questioned why the PGA/LPGA rounds averaged approximately 249 per
month. The Head Golf Professional stated that the starters use that sku
code for all of the promotions. The Head Golf Professional will set up
new sku numbers for the promotions to better track the pass play. The
Head Golf Professional will also do a report on how many rounds were
booked through Golf 707 for the last fiscal year.
5-C
Men's and Senior Club Liaison, Vice Chair Santare.
Vice Chair Santare reported that he was unable to attend the Senior Golf
Club meeting this month but will be sure to attend both the Alameda Golf
Club and the Senior Club meetings next month and report on both.
5-D
New Clubhouse Project, Commissioner Schmitz.
Commissioner Schmitz reported that the clubhouse project is moving
forward. Commissioner Schmitz will be representing the Golf
Commission at the meeting with the Mayor, City Manager and Assistant
City Manager on August 16, 2005. The hope is to have the financial report
by John Ritchie completed for the meeting as well as a preliminary soil
report for the Chuck Corica Golf Complex site. It was stated that there are
areas on the golf courses where the soil is very poor. Commissioner
Wood stated that the soil is generally bored and tested when the footprint
of building is laid out and the weight bearing areas are designated.
5-E
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,
Commissioner Sullwold.
Secretary Gammell gave Commissioner Sullwold's report in her absence.
She reported that there are no security issues to report although there was
an incident at the Driving Range when a customer's ball struck the canopy",GolfCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-21,23,"the General Fund; as claims come in during the year, money is
backfilled into the workers' compensation budget.
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested that the reporting be made clearer.
The Interim Finance Director stated the amount is on the balance
sheet, not the profit and loss statement. the amount does not have
to be liquid and can be in an asset.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City
is federally required to have $5 million [for workers'
compensation] ; inquired whether the $5 million is part of the $10
million that is cash in the [General Fund] fund balance.
The Interim Finance Director responded in the negative; stated the
number is recorded as a liability; however, the money is not
earmarked exclusively for workers' compensation.
The City Attorney concurred that the amount does not need to be
earmarked; stated there must be at least that much money in the
General Fund.
The Interim Finance Director stated if Council wanted to fund it,
the cash would be moved someplace.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the fund balance is $16 million, $10
million of which is cash; $5 million of the $10 million [in cash)
has to remain liquid [for workers' compensation].
The Interim Finance Director stated the federal requirement is that
the City has to have the capacity to pay.
The City Attorney concurred that the City has to demonstrate the
capacity to pay; stated the way the City does so is by keeping the
money in the General Fund.
The Interim Finance Director concluded the presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested that the amount budgeted for the next
fiscal year be included in another column in future reports; stated
some funds have significant balances and might need to be reviewed;
further requested that the police overtime Contract overtime be
reviewed to ensure that the amount charged fully funds all costs.
The Interim Finance Director stated contract overtime would be
handled differently; there would be an object code to show expenses
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
6
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
October 21, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,34,"the Executive Director to Enter Into a New Disposition and
Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for the
Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC.'
Adopted.
Commissioner Daysog moved adoption of the resolution incorporating
amendments made prior to the meeting.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-076B CIC) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Agreement
regarding sources of repayment by and among the CIC, Palmtree
Acquisition Development Corporation and FOCIL-BP, LLC documenting
the sources of repayment to FOCIL pursuant to the Bayport DD.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the Memorandum of
Understanding.
Commissioner Matarrese 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 1:07 a.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, Alameda Reuse and
23
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-18,3,"the Cross Alameda Trail gap [paragraph no. 17-469 and the ordinance amending the
Site A Disposition and Development Agreement [paragraph no. 17-477 were removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft 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.]
(*17-453) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on June 20, 2017.
Approved.
(*17-454) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,042,224.06.
(*17-455) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending
December 31, 2016. Accepted.
(*17-456) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending
September 30, 2016. Accepted.
(*17-457) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year
Agreement with MuniServices, LLC in an Amount Not to Exceed a Total Five-Year
Expenditure of $375,000 for Utility Users Tax Ordinance Implementation and Audit of
Utility Users Tax Revenue. Accepted.
(*17-458) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Amend an Agreement with
Carlson Barbee & Gibson to Add the Amount of $174,000 for a Total Contract Amount
of $652,500 for Civil Engineering and Surveying Consulting Services for Alameda Point.
Accepted.
(*17-459) Recommendation to Approve Allocation of Fee Credits for East Bay Municipal
Utility District System Capacity Charges (SCC) and Wastewater Capacity Fees (WCF)
at Alameda Point for City Facilities, Existing Tenants and Upcoming Transactions and
Provide Direction on Criteria for Allocation of Fee Credits for Future Projects. Accepted.
(17-460) Recommendation to Accept Status Report from Operation Dignity on Case
Management Services for Homeless Individuals.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has received a number of emails
regarding the increase in the homeless population; requested an update on the status of
Operation Dignity's cases.
The Recreation and Parks Director provided a handout and gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-21,10,"the County's obligation under State law to provide ambulance services, which
specifically includes ALS and BLS services; she is not clear whether County counsel
has seen her attorney-client privileged opinion provided to Council; the County is
obligated under State law to provide ALS service one way or another; the breakdown
has been in negotiating a reasonable cost; the breakdown has extended for five years;
granting counties sole authority to set parameters and standards as well as provide
EMS services, specifically ALS service, would be anomalous under State law; nothing in
State law allows a county to collect service fees from a city.
Mayor Johnson requested that Mr. Briscoe obtain an opinion on the issue from County
counsel.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to meet with County staff,
the Mayor, and County Supervisor to flesh out legal opinions on both sides, provide cost
and service level breakdowns, report back to Council in Closed Session regarding legal
opinions before the next Council meeting, and discuss the issue in open session to
provide direction on options with additional points of added clarity regarding finances
and detailed service levels.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council sees the issue as a very high priority; that she
understands the matter is a legal issue, but Council needs to get past the matter; health,
life, and safety are at stake; the community needs to have the comfort that someone will
be there when a 911 call is placed; a Contract needs to be executed.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese's motion is one of
process to get more information, negotiate, and come back to Council.
The City Attorney responded no action could be taken on the item.
Councilmember Matarrese restated that his motion is to give direction to have the
County Supervisor, Mayor, and staff flush out financial and legal obligations, bring the
matter back to Council in Closed Session to discuss legal obligations and strategies,
and come back to discuss and take action on the matter in open session at the next
Council meeting.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she wants the matter to come back sooner rather
than later; various funding mechanisms would need to be determined if the Contract
goes forward.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether direction is clear, to which the Interim City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the $857,000 cannot be taken lightly.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the $857,000 is not the only issue.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 21, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-01-06,7,"the Council has to decide the order of funding priorities as
reserves are established; clear operating expense policies need to
be established, such as using one time revenues for one time
expenses and not for ongoing expenses however, there may be times
when cash flow is needed that it [using one time revenues for
operations) is appropriate.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the policies capture the discussion from
the past four years; the policies are good fiscal management and
will force information back so that Council can make the right
decisions; many elements will have dollars and supporting data.
Councilmember Tam stated the City has benefited from extremely
conservative fiscal policies and has low debt with high reserves;
in terms of prioritizing, she would like to understand soft versus
hard earmarks in the fund balance and have a risk assessment done
for example, the amount needed for workers compensation reserve
should be determined; the City will have to use reserves to make up
for CalPERS's 30% value drop; a risk assessment is needed for
deferred maintenance to determine the amount that should be
earmarked in a disciplined savings plan.
Councilmember Gilmore stated capital projects and OPEB alone could
completely wipe out the fund balance; the City has chosen not to
spend or encumber funds, however, the entire amount [ fund balance)
could be spent tomorrow on existing liabilities.
The Interim Finance Director stated funds with a balance might have
come from something like the gas tax, which cannot be spent on
operating expenses the majority of the money is restricted; the
General Fund is the only fund with flexibility.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a policy could be drafted on mid-
year budget reductions stated how the current fiscal year budget
was balanced is not understood; a list of bullet points were
provided; specific numbers were requested.
The Interim Finance Director responded $700,000 less in revenues is
anticipated; the amount would be offset by a hiring freeze that
creates a salary savings and holding off on contracts.
Mayor Johnson stated numbers need to be put on the items so that
Council knows where the savings come from.
The Interim Finance Director stated the matter would be addressed
February 3.
Mayor Johnson stated a higher level of financial data is needed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 6, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,6,"the Council asked the Commission to do; that he does not think he will be able to
support doing it the way proposed.
Chair Dieter inquired whether there is any special rule that she forgot to include, to
which Commissioner Foreman responded that he cannot answer that because he did
not have an opportunity to compare; stated that he is worried something will be missed;
history has to be respected; starting with the original document makes more sense; it
should be repealed and codified in one document.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired what was the genesis for the matter coming forward
and what the City Council wanted out of it.
The City Clerk responded the matter was raised via a referral; Councilmember
Matarrese brought it forward to have changes made.
Commissioner Henneberry questioned whether Councilmember Matarrese thought
meetings were going too long; stated the rules are not the problem.
Chair Dieter stated the impetus was there was a question about public comments non-
agenda.
The Assistant City Attorney outlined the public comment issue that lead to the referral.
Commissioner Henneberry stated the entire issue came out of a specific arcane item;
he has been dealing with Robert's Rules of Order for 30 years; the rules are not the
issue if there is concern about the length of meetings, which is due to the Chair and
meeting participants; he thinks Rosenberg's Rules look pretty good, clean and like a
nice breath of fresh air compared to Robert's Rules; he does not want to go through
every resolution because there was a non-agenda comment issue.
Chair Dieter stated when looking at the issue, Councilmember Matarrese noticed there
were other rules which are not being followed because they are not clear, such as
Councilmembers are only allotted three minutes to speak; there was a whole host of
things; it is great that the Council subcommittee looked to Rosenberg's Rules of Order;
the League of California Cities (LCC) recommends Rosenberg's Rules; the City is pretty
much following Rosenberg's Rules already and just needs to apply special rules; she
spent hours and hours going through all the resolutions trying to find things that were
not covered by Rosenberg's Rules, which are the ones she added to the end; she felt
everything else was covered.
Vice Chair Little stated going through her list, she is finding similarities between the
notes she took on the various resolution items and Chair Dieter's list; she just wants to
be cautious that the Commission is not missing something; she finds the City's rules
terribly confusing; the language is circular and not understandable; she appreciates
Rosenberg's Rules; she would consider moving forward and not going through
everything line by line as long as there is agreement that there is a comparison between
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 5, 2018
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,2,"the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember deHaan 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 . ]
(05-049) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings
held on January 18, 2005.
Mayor Johnson requested that the minutes of the Regular City
Council Meeting should be revised to reflect that she was not
absent.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Special City Council
Meeting and revised Regular City Council Meeting.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-050) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,627,942.61.
(*05-051) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report
for period ending December 31, 2004. Accepted.
(*05-052) Recommendation to approve Agreement with Ameresco Half
Moon Bay, LLC for the purchase of power from Landfill Gas
Generation. Accepted.
(*05-053) Resolution No. 13812, ""Authorizing the Application to
CalTrans for a Bicycle Transportation Account Grant for
Improvements to the Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge Approach.
Adopted.
(05-054) Resolution No. 13813, ""Authorizing the Application to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for a Regional Bicycle and
Pedestrian Program Grant for the Cross Alameda Trail Phase I.""
Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the purchase of the right-of-
way for the linear park was part of the Alameda Belt Line property,
to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney stated that the Alameda Belt Line litigation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-05-06,4,"the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*14-167) Minutes of the Special and Regular Council Meeting of April 1, 2014.
Approved.
(*14-168) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,219,345.36.
(*14-169) Recommendation to Authorize Call for Bids for Legal Advertising for the
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2015. Approved.
(*14-170) Resolution No. 14914, ""Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring
the City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments, and Providing for
Notice of Public Hearing on June 17, 2014 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting
District 84-2."" Adopted.
The City Clerk announced a random drawing was done since three Councilmembers
have a conflict and Councilmember Chen was chosen to participate.
Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Chen inquired how long the City has been levying the assessment, to
which the Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded 30 years.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the levy will be passed on to tenants, to which
the Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Public Works Administrative Services
Manager stated the three maintenance areas are sidewalk cleaning, litter cans, and
landscape.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the City gives the business association the
assessment funds.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded the assessment revenue
is in a segregated account separated by seven zones which funds a maintenance
services contract.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 6, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-05-06.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,2005-01-04,2,"the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-004) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on December 21, 2004. Approved.
(*05-005) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,037,089.03
(*05-006) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$127,102.65 to Stewart & Stevenson for Ferry Vessel Reduction
Gears, No. P.W. 10-04-15. Accepted.
(*05-007) Recommendation to terminate the Contract with J.W. Riley
& Son, Inc. for Alameda Point Multi Use Field, No. P.W. 12-02-18
and authorize project completion. Accepted.
(*05-008 - ) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $45,000
to Maze and Associates for Financial Modeling Services. Accepted.
( *05-009) Recommendation to accept Annual Review of the Affordable
Housing Ordinance. Accepted.
(05-010) Recommendation to approve Agreement between the Alameda
Unified School District and the City of Alameda for Use and
Development of Real Property at the K-8 School and Park site in the
Bayport Residential Development Project.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Agreement facilitates the goal for
having the school and the park built near the Bayport residential
area.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is funding for the
Preschool and Tiny Tots at the Community Building, to which the
Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(*05-011) - Recommendation to accept the Bayport Residential Interim
115Kv overhead power line improvements and authorize recording a
Notice of Completion. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-03,2,"the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Gilmore 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. ]
( (*09-044) - Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on
January 20, 2009. Approved.
[Note: Mayor Johnson abstained from voting on the Minutes. . ]
( *09-045 ) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,595,610.60.
(09-046) Recommendation to accept the Annual Progress Report on
implementing the Local Action Plan for climate protection.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.
Speakers Susan Welch, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda
(CASA) i David Burton, CASA; Stefani Leto, CASA; David Teeters,
CASA; Herb Behrstock, CASA.
Following Mr. Burton's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the
process for setting new emission standards would be through Alameda
Municipal Power (AMP).
The AMP General Manager responded the green house reduction plan
will happen later, not in February stated CASA would be more
involved in AMP's energy efficiency program; everyone shares the
common goal of being successful.
Following Ms. Leto's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired how much
space would be needed for the requested garden area.
Ms. Leto responded a four foot by four foot square; stated the
garden area could be on lawn or cement.
Mayor Johnson stated a possible area could be the vacant lot across
the street from City Hall; the front lawn of City Hall is used as a
gathering place.
Councilmember Tam stated that she has concerns regarding
contamination on the vacant lot.
Councilmember Matarrese stated staff should proceed with the garden
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 3, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-10-15,2,"the Consent Calendar for discussion and the Resolution Acquiring Temporary
Construction Easements [paragraph no. 13-467 would be considered on November
5th.
Councilmember Tam 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.]
(*13-464) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings and the Special
Joint City Council, City of Alameda Financing Authority and Alameda Public
Improvement Corporation Meeting Held on September 17, 2013. Approved.
(*13-465) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,111,236.65.
(13-466) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Lease-Purchase
Agreement and Purchase the Remounting of One Ford E-450 Horton Ambulance in An
Amount Not to Exceed $152,000, and Authorize the Purchase of Five Fire Department
Staff Vehicles in An Amount Not to Exceed $189,400.
Councilmember Tam inquired if Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant
funds from the Department of Justice are available to the Fire Department for the
equipment purchase.
The Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated there is no grant funding available for
Fire Department vehicles.
Councilmember Tam inquired how much of the equipment replacement fund is allocated
to the Fire Department.
The Fire Chief responded that he could not answer and deferred to the Finance
Director.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if grant funding is available through FEMA.
The Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated there is no grant funding for staff
vehicles; the Fire Department received grant funding for one emergency apparatus
several years ago, but funds have been reduced by the sequestration.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if there is a distinction between staff vehicles and
emergency equipment, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
The Finance Director stated there is currently $3 million in the equipment replacement
fund.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 15, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2007-01-11,3,"the Commission's comments under consideration and to return at the February meeting for
a further report and request for action.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A. Park Division
There is no report at this time.
B. Recreation Division
There is no report at this time.
C. Mastick Senior Center
There is no report at this time.
D. Other Reports and Announcments
-
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
There is no report at this time.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
None.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
February 8, 2007
12.
ADJOURNMENT
- -3- -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2007",RecreationandParkCommission/2007-01-11.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-11-16,9,"the Commission and some staff to tour the site. He also learned from the city of San Leandro,
during a Bus Rapid Transit tour that during their general plan review, city staff brought the
community together to understand their mode priorities and where they should be placed.
Subsequently, the city designed a road mode priority plan that cannot be debated going forward.
He suggested that a round table discussion should be planned with the Planning Board and the
community about mode priorities.
8.
Adjournment
8:34 pm
Page 9 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-11-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,10,"the City.
(*16-161) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending, Adding and Deleting Sections of Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of
Chapter Il (Administration) Concerning Local Standards to Ensure Public Access to
Public Meetings and Public Records. Introduced.
The Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Stated there is one mistake in the red line version of the ordinance; the minutes of
February 2nd and March 30th explain the conversation of the Commissioners; Section 2-
91.17 on Public Comments by Members of Public Bodies should have been deleted;
City staff recommended language be added to that provision; the Commissioners did
not feel it is conducive to the Sunshine Ordinance; urged Council approval of staff's
recommendation with the minor correction: Irene Dieter.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with the Ms. Dieter and the section should
be deleted; he would like a training to be required whenever the ordinance is revised.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that staff agrees with the training being planned
once the ordinance is passed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Section 2-91.17 means a
Councilmember can attend any board meeting and express opinions, which could
create problems for the City; questioned if the issue is separate from the Sunshine
Ordinance.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a Councilmember
appears before an advisory body and expresses a viewpoint, the Councilmembers
participation could be construed as undue bias if the matter goes to Council; Section 2-
91.17 is a different issue.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the sentence: ""nothing shall be construed to
provide rights to appointed policy members beyond those recognized by law or to create
any new private cause of action"" should be omitted; inquired why the sentence is
included.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the sentence is included to express the idea that
advisory body members and policy members have a right to express an opinion; stated
that he agrees with Councilmember Oddie's suggestion to take out the introductory
clause and leave the rest in to protect the City against possible litigation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it refers to Section 10-9 of the City Charter.
The City Attorney stated the language needs to be clear to have the first reading;
inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is suggesting the deleting; ""Section 10-9 "" to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-04-21,5,"the City would need some major technological investments in order
to facilitate posting scanned documents.
The Information Technology Manager responded a study has been done
for revamping the City's website; stated the study shows that the
cost would be very high; the City has some scanning capability; the
backend hardware does not have a lot of capability.
The City Clerk stated the City Clerk's office has been using
Laserfiche; IT is working on a web solution in order to have
scanned documents online.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether using an outside service would be
more feasible, to which the Information Technology Manager
responded the City's web solution is outsourced.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the website is not as good as it
could be because of the hardware.
The Information Technology Manager responded the website needs
revamping and reprogramming.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether limited server capacity is a
problem.
The Information Technology Manager responded in the affirmative.
stated a hosted solution could be used for the website, but
reprogramming and redesign is needed.
Mayor Johnson stated all solutions should be reviewed; all Court
documents are available online; the goal should be to make all
documents available online.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired when staff would come back with a
proposal.
The Interim City Manager responded the cost of the proposed plan
was put into the budget.
The Information Technology Manager stated implementation would take
four to six months.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired where the hub would be for the new
system, to which the Information Technology Manager responded the
new system would be hosted by AT&T.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 21, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-04-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,12,"the City would have a say with requiring a 50% vote of the hotel owners; parcel tax
polling should be done for June versus November cognizant of the fact that the School
District will have a measure; he would like to see a park parcel tax combined in same
measure as the School parcel tax; parks are popular.
Councilmember Daysog urged staff to modernize the UUT; requested staff be clear on
what would be funded; stated TBID has to involve lodging providers on whom the extra
assessment is placed, working in conjunction with business associations, businesses
providing services, and recreational destination venues; he spoke with four hoteliers
intrigued by an increase; TOT rate is lower than neighbors; a 2% would put Alameda at
a competitive disadvantage; he appreciates staff coming up with different options; he
does not support increasing the sales tax; he supports a $25 parcel tax, as long as it is
targeted.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff about doing polling on the UUT;
requested a chart that has what other cities in the County are doing; she is comfortable
with polling.
Mayor Spencer stated if staff is not interested in polling on certain issues, she is fine
with that; inquired is there a possibility that any funds would go to funding healthcare
and pension costs.
The Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated the UUT goes into the
General Fund, which pays that type of thing.
Mayor Spencer stated that her preference on any of the taxes would be to have funds
go to other things, such as the parks; the community would be more on board if the tax
were for something specific; regarding TOT she agrees with Karen Bey and would like
other types of businesses to weigh in on how to spend the money; she would support a
parcel tax for something specific.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff: 1) to eliminate the sales tax as
a possible option, 2) to do a poll by a reputable firm to test the questions brought up in
meeting, and 3) to research, including polling and other options, the TBID.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned how Walnut Creek funds park maintenance
on their parks; stated Ms. Bey's suggestions to tax local business because tourists
frequent them gives her pause; she favors a TBID approach that starts small and ramps
up; the polling could include sales tax.
Mayor Spencer stated the majority is not interested in sales tax.
Vice Mayor Matarrese clarified the motion, as approval of directing staff to eliminate the
sales tax as a possible option, to research and conduct polling on other option listed in
staff report, including taking a polling approach to the TBID that does consider a
broader scope than just the hotels and to bring the results of the plan back to Council in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-03-10,8,"the City should put reasonable limits on housing until safety issues are addressed; that
she would like to increase the number of below market rate units; the City has to do
better; the ratio should be closer to 50/50; inquired whether encouraging the creation of
senior housing is a zoning issue; stated that she does not want to leave the matter up to
the developers; there is a serious need for senior housing; Alameda does not want
traffic congestion similar to other large cities; regarding the shuttles, Oakland is
concerned about traffic from Alameda to BART stations; the issue needs to be
addressed; suggested the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) conduct
a ridership survey; stated parking is an issue at both ferry terminals.
The City Attorney stated staff has heard Council direction; suggested a motion be made
to go forward with the process to make amendments to the density bonus ordinance;
staff can come back with a procedure and timeline regarding the rebalancing of the
housing units.
The City Planner stated a motion should be made on both matters; that he sees the
efforts as two simultaneous efforts: 1) the direction on the density bonus ordinance,
which will go through a Planning Board public hearing process and return to Council,
and 2) developing the reshuffling of the units and reducing the overall capacity, which
will have a conceptual game plan return directly to Council for direction.
Mayor Spencer stated apartments at Alameda Point have been discussed; inquired
whether rent control cannot apply to apartments built after 1995.
The City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated it does not apply to new units even
in cities with rent control.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like a higher percentage of below market rate
units, which should be protected; market rate apartments will not serve the needs of
many people in town; staff should bring back information to educate the public.
The City Planner stated staff would be coming to Council on Alameda Point in the near
future; Alameda Point already requires 25% affordable housing.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff, through the City Manager, to
propose revisions to the density bonus ordinance to address the issue of phasing, which
is not connected at this moment, with the protections to ensure that there is sufficient
evidence to justify why it is necessary to provide the concessions to deliver the
affordable housing and to ensure that the application includes a financial report which
shows the concessions sought will result in the affordable units proposed; the revisions
will provide the same protections that were intended with the original ordinance.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be restated.
The City Clerk stated the motion is that staff, through the City Manager, propose
revisions to the density bonus ordinance to address the issue of phasing with
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
March 10, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-12-06,5,"the City received any confirmation that the individual custodian of records conducted such
a search when the City forwarded the request.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that he did not personally forward the request and
is not aware of a response.
Vice Chair LoPilato inquired whether any specific guidance was given to the individual
whose personal account communications were sought in terms of what would constitute
a public record in this context or was the request just forwarded.
The Assistant City Attorney responded when requests are forwarded to a custodian of
records, training is not provided on the spot; the City provides general Public Records Act
(PRA) and open government training and relies on the fact that the custodian of records
have been trained in some manner or another.
Commissioner Chen stated five years ago people would tweet without issue; then, policy
started coming through Twitter, a social media tool; she is still taken aback and questions
when tweets became policy statements; Nextdoor allows every owner of an account to
make a request of every posting they have made; she followed the instructions to do so
and was able to get all the postings she has ever made within three minutes; Nextdoor
makes it very easy for an individual to recover all their documents by a simple request.
In response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the City's
position was that it did not have actual custody of responsive documents until recently;
the City turned over the documents once they were received; the membership agreement
states the City does not have constructive possession; the cases the City cited look to the
contract and have to do with the subcontractor as a determining factor of whether or not
the City had constructive possession; the analogy here is that since the membership
agreement states the City does not have that ability, the City cannot make the request
from Nextdoor; the City followed the California Supreme Court rulings.
Vice Chair LoPilato inquired the City's position on whether some of the comments by the
individual Councilmember, specifically a comment made on January 6, 2021 on the City's
Nextdoor account, would have constituted a public record.
The Assistant City Attorney responded as was stated one of the factors determining
whether the comment was a public record boils down to whether or not it relates to the
conduct of the people's business; the records were produced because the City felt they
were relevant; he falls back on the position already made that there is no clear guidance
until decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction that has a binding effect on the City.
Vice Chair LoPilato inquired whether there is written policy related to the use of social
media for Councilmembers and Commissioners, to which the Assistant City Attorney
responded in the negative; stated he is not aware of a social media policy.
In response to Vice Chair LoPilato's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 6, 2021
5",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-12-20,7,"the City might have to physically move or alter traffic poles; the goal is to make the area
safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(16-662) Recommendation to Amend the Contract with Clean Lakes, Inc. to Increase
the Contract Amount by $99,123.90, Including Contingencies, for Vegetation
Management, Debris Management, and Water Quality Monitoring for the Southshore
Lagoons, for a Total Contract Amount of $499,719.20.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding odor, the Public Works
Coordinator stated the aroma is from decomposing matter being dug up to keep the
structures in place; staff is working on dredging the material out of the lagoon.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the problem will be better, worse or the same
by next summer.
The Public Works Coordinator responded there will always be aroma; stated Alameda is
in a salt marsh bay environment; staff is putting forth its best efforts to try to reduce the
smell.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there will be a process for notifying the nearby
residents about the aroma next summer; the issue is a major concern for residents.
The Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she and staff members met with
concerned residents and progress was made working with the community.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(16-663) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Ranger Pipeline Inc. for Cyclic Sewer
Rehabilitation Project, Phase 12, No. P.W. 01-15-01.
Councilmember Oddie requested an update on the sewer replacement and the
anticipated date of relief from the large pools of standing water.
The Public Works Coordinator stated the sanitary system and storm system are two
separate issues; the pressurized sewer pipe from the South Shore Shopping Center to
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 20, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,16,"the City is offering less than inflation and asking for
takeaways the cost for the average Alameda house has increased
by 31%; gas has increased 152%; MCEA is looking to stay even
with inflation.
Beckie McWilliams, MCEA Vice President stated a coalition of all
miscellaneous bargaining groups was formed to explore the
possibility of enhancing the current PERS retirement; the PERS
Coalition requested a meeting with the City in May 2005; the
Interim City Manager/Executive Director met with the group to
ascertain what the Coalition was interested in achieving
subsequently, the PERS Coalition made several requests to meet
with the City; the City has ignored the requests only five out
of thirty-one northern California cities do not offer an
enhanced PERS package. employer rates have decreased with the
recent implementation of new smoothing methodology by PERS; the
Coalition feels the time is appropriate for the City to consider
moving forward with an enhanced PERS package as a tool for
retention and recruitment an enhanced PERS package would serve
to entice qualified, high caliber City employees.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda, stated the Customer Service
Improvement Team's main objective is to work with the Planning
and Building Department to help promote good customer service in
the permit processi the team is concerned that the Planning and
Building Department is adequately staffed to ensure proper
customer service; the team senses that staff has been
increasingly challenged permit activity has increased 40% and
staff has decreased; increased fees should pay for additional
staff; the Planning and Building Department has two unfunded
vacant positions; the team urges funding the two positions.
The City Manager/Executive Director provided a brief
presentation on the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 budget.
Mayor/Chai Johnson inquired whether there would be a crossing
guard at Chipman School.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded all School
District requests would be reviewed the key area is the new
Ruby Bridges School.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated there
are two deficit situations; one deficit is the streets,
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
2
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-02-21,7,"the City has access to the hardball field through a joint agreement; staff is working with
the College of Alameda regarding having access to the all weather field.
Councilmember Tam stated staff has been working on the issue for quite a while;
inquired how Council could help.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded hopefully, some progress will be made in
the next few months; stated staff will advise Council as soon as more details are known.
Acting Mayor Bonta inquired why the City does not have access to the all weather field.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the Peralta College District has a
complicated set of use policies; stated cost is the main issue; custodial and gardening
staff would need to be paid overtime; the City has been able to get around the issue on
a case-by-case basis.
Acting Mayor Bonta inquired whether any thought has been given to potential all
weather field locations.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded potential sites include Alameda Point,
Beltline property, and the North Loop Road property.
Urged the report not be adopted: Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.
Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Johnson, Tam and Acting Mayor Bonta - 3.
Noes:
Councilmember deHaan - 1. [Absent: Mayor Gilmore - 1.]
(12-080) Recommendation to Approve ""Opting-Out"" of the Alameda County Waste
Management Authority (ACWMA) Ordinance Prohibiting the Use of Free Singe-Use
Carry Out Bags to Allow Additional Time for Public Outreach; and Consider Related
Resolution; and
(12-080A) Recommendation to Reject ""Opting-Out"" of the ACWMA Ordinance Relating
to Mandatory Recycling for Certain Commercial Businesses, Multi-Family Properties
With at Least Five Units, and Self Haulers; and Consider Related Resolution. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 21, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-03-01,16,"the City did not contest the timeliness of Mr. Foreman's complaint for that reason.
In response to Commissioner LoPilato's inquiry regarding when the creation of the
Committee occurred, Mr. Harrison stated what the RPC did, which was consistent with
the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance, was to designate a less than a quorum of
its members to act as a temporary advisory body; if the RPC stopped there, Mr. Foreman
would not be here tonight; the RPC went further by directing the two-member ad hoc
committee to work with the Recreation and Parks Director to facilitate public input; that
involved the appointment of individuals to serve on the Renaming Committee, which is
what led to the concern about that body having come into existence through some action
of the Commission itself even though the Recreation and Parks Director appointed the
members because the Commission had appointed two of its members to serve as an
advisory body to work with the Recreation and Parks Director; the merging of the two is
where the issue arose.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the Chair and Vice Chair of the RPC participated
substantively in the actual preparation of the process, including application for
membership, outreach, interviews and appointments.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded that she met with the Chair and Vice Chair
initially to discuss where outreach could be done, but she was the one who led the
process, received the applications, did the outreach, conducted the interviews and made
the appointments.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether the Recreation and Parks Director notified a
group of Jackson Park neighbors via email about a July 9, 2020 RPC meeting including
discussion of the park renaming.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative, stated there is an email
group of neighbors of the park; whenever there is anything related to the park, she lets
the group know.
Commissioner LoPilato stated it was a very proactive method for ensuring accessibility
and transparency at an important stage in the process.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated she also reached out to the Jackson Park
neighbors group to see if they wanted to have representation on the committee as well.
Public Comment:
Acknowledged the work of all the Commissions; stated the Chief Assistant City Attorney's
predecessors took every opportunity to stifle any attempt to open City activities to the
public; thanked Mr. Foreman for raising the issue; stated that he does not agree with
Commissioner Reid being excluded from the discussion; expressed concerned about the
Commission deferring to the City Clerk for past practices: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
March 1, 2021
16",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,5,"the City because the bondholders would demand insurance to cover
any State default; Covenants and Conditions of the bond will state
the bondholders recourse is not to any cities involved, but to the
State.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a default on the bonds would have no
impact on the cities, to which the City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore congratulated staff for the creative solution to
deal with the budget deficit for the current year and next year.
Mayor Johnson noted that Assemblywoman Chan thought the idea was
very interesting and a good strategy.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( (05-083) Recommendation to accept budget adjustments to revenue
and appropriations.
The Interim City Manager gave an overview of the budget
adjustments.
Mayor Johnson inquired why there is a cost to be part of the
Alameda County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system.
The Interim City Manager responded the cost is for providing
emergency medical coordination.
The Deputy Fire Chief stated the County provides quality assurance
overview; every city in the County pays a fee to the County EMS,
which is the medical authority responsible for administering
licenses, classes, and protocol the fee is for overhead and
quality assurance.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City reviews the County EMS
budget, to which the Deputy Fire Chief responded the City receives
a copy of the budget.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether every city pays $500,000, to which
the Interim City Manager responded the fee charged is per parcel.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has to pay for training, to
which the Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-03-20,4,"the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Accept the Funding, Should the
City be Awarded the Grant."" Adopted.
(*18-156) Resolution No. 15359, ""Supporting Proposition 68, the California Drought,
Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018
(June 5, 2018 $4 Billion General Obligation Bond). Adopted.
(*18-157) Ordinance No. 3209, ""Approving a 15-Year Lease Amendment with an Option
for a 10-Year Extension Between the City of Alameda and Greenway Golf Associates,
Inc., for Premises Located at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. [Requires four affirmative
votes]."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(18-158) Resolution No. 15360, ""Appointing Elizabeth Rush as Member of the Public Art
Commission."" Adopted.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will support the
nomination; she would like community members on Commissions to understand they
are representing all issues and not lobbying for a particular organization.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms. Rush with a
certificate of appointment.
(*18-159) Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plans for Fiscal Years 2010-2011 through 2017-2018,
Allocating $550,000 in CDBG Funds to Demolish Buildings at North Housing Site on
Property to be Conveyed to the City and Habitat for Humanity, and Authorize the City
Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and
Modifications.
The Housing Authority Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
March 20, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-03-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-12-20,18,"the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion also includes Council adoption of the
policy that the Police Department has put together as a part of its policy.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what would constitute a questionable request and whether
request for private or personal information would be included.
The City Manager responded private information is not given out.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion with a request to amend the motion to have
the first three items to be done prior to January 20, 2017.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated Council would receive a report
about requests from the government to allow Council to act immediately.
The City Manager stated in order to have the issue heard on January 17th, it has to be
written in the next two days; staff will do whatever possible; the analysis will not be very
deep; legal review would also be needed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like the process done right; if something
happens while the details are being figured out, it can be addressed immediately and
the process can continue.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the issue should come back the first meeting in
February to allow staff to conduct a quality analysis.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft; noted she
has to leave the January 17th meeting early because she will be attending the US
Conference of Mayors; it is important to include the SSHRB as stated in the Charter.
(16-679) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue past 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
***
Councilmember Oddie stated the grants the City receives are not at risk; only Police
grants, which the City does not receive, are at risk; he does not want to be in a position
where there is an order from the federal government to register Muslims with no policy
in place to protect them.
Councilmember Matarrese stated if there was an order to register Muslims, a special
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 20, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-03-02,13,"the City Engineer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for slow streets continuing; stated
getting Alameda Point up and running is important; the City has a small staff with very
little time and where time is spent is where values are shown; he would like to ensure
the City is challenging itself to ensure equity needs are being met; if slow streets are
implemented in April at Alameda Point, removal of said streets may be slated for
October; he would like to avoid discussions about extending the slow streets program in
October and would like to decide which matters will remain permanent earlier; many
people are grateful to have these spaces available; the City should be designing streets
for safety and for people to use; expressed support for speed humps and roundabouts
being explored using pilot money.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he shares concerns about slow street strategies
deployment at Alameda Point; expressed support for temporary measures which will
encourage people to slow down as they drive around Alameda Point, such as temporary
speed lumps; many people living near Alameda Point are sending e-mails with concerns
about loudness and the volume of cars speeding; stated the slow streets strategies for
the long-term should involve resident input; outlined resident concerns about slow
streets on San Jose Avenue; stated slow streets are positive and provide a level of
comfort; outlined people using slow streets; stated the pandemic does require the City
to deploy some kind of slow street strategies; long term plans should receive input from
residents; concerns raised by San Jose Avenue residents are due to the streets being
dense; some areas and streets are less dense and work better than others; the
concerns for safety of the parklets are spot-on; the City is trying to balance many things
during this time in providing vital businesses aid, while maintaining safety; expressed
support for an ongoing effort to improve safety; stated the safety solutions are not
perfect; judgement calls must be made; expressed support for parklets; stated that he
would encourage staff to continue looking at ways to improve the defense of the
parklets.
Vice Mayor Vella stated people have gotten used to accessing slow streets in many
ways; the City should codify the program in a way which shows intent; there has been
enough time to think about improvements and safety for the long-term; noted that she
has heard safety concerns; stated the City wants to ensure safety; there are trade-offs;
discussions for short, medium and long term goals have occurred, in addition to staff
capabilities; Council direction helps staff achieve safety implementations; it is not
possible to create a 100% safe parklet without erecting permanent structures or semi-
permanent barricades; the City has implemented a number of different safety
mechanisms; road diets automatically help calm traffic; expressed concern about
reckless driving by residents at slow street intersections; stated that she would like to
see options which curtail unsafe behavior; expressed support for informational
campaigns to promote expected safety behavior; stated streets need to be made for
everyone; expressed support for urgently implementing the slow streets on Orion Street;
noted original concerns about Alameda Point slow streets related to bus route access.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
March 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-02-02,27,"the City Council Meeting Rules of Order.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Knox White would serve on
the subcommittee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:00
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
22
February 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-04-15,17,"the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the
developer's fair share is actually $1 million per acre, excluding site grading and
demolition costs; the developer would actually be paying above their fair share with the
infrastructure package.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point stated about 55 acres of the full 68 acres can be developed; the total is $71 million
for infrastructure plus site grading cost, which is $16 million more than the developer's
fair share.
The City Manager stated the value of the view has always been considered; an acre on
the seaplane lagoon is more valuable than an acre in the middle of the adaptive reuse
area.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he wants to make sure Council and staff understand
the economics of the fee, which might make more units unfeasible.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point concurred with Councilmember Daysog;
stated if the fee structure is not be feasible, the developer may not propose more units;
expressed concern about discussing feasibility questions which become property
negotiations; $91 million for Site A is a lot of money; the higher burdens are placed on
residential uses instead of commercial uses.
Councilmember Chen stated the Council has one chance to add the fees; the developer
can offset the cost with the total number of residential units they will build.
Councilmember Tam stated the community's main concern is traffic; jobs and housing
create traffic; there has to be viable transit to deal with traffic issues; further stated if the
penalty for going over 1,425 units is financially viable, it does not preclude the developer
from going over.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff has been coordinating with AC
Transit as part of the Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM); with the project
description in the EIR, AC Transit may be able to add a new transit line for Alameda
Point; the TDM also proposes having shuttles running to BART during peak hours; free
Easy Passes paid by special taxes will also be provided to all employees and residents
of Alameda Point.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated in addition to adding new lines, frequency of service
should also be considered; inquired whether a developer building 1,000 units on Site A
would still be viable.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that she does not know; there
are different factors that affect the viability which is part of the infrastructure burden;
there are negotiations to be had on land value.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-10,34,"the Charter amendment came shortly after: Eric Strimling, Alameda Renters Coalition.
Councilmember Oddie stated the authors did a great job.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Aschraft's inquiry regarding changing the word,
Councilmember Matarrese stated the word ""fixes"" is easily understood and was chosen
because it is universally understood; the ordinance needs administrative changes,
which is a fix; he thinks the word should stand.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she was trying to limit the number of syllables per word and
keep sentences short and concise.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval [of the argument language].
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she should not vote on the argument
since she is not going to be one of the signatories.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember
Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Abstain. Ayes: 4. Abstention:
1.
The City Clerk stated the next decision is who is going to sign the argument.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired why Mayor Spencer is not going to sign the argument.
Mayor Spencer responded at this point, she does not plan to oppose it; she does not
support this part, so she is abstaining.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Mayor Spencer wants the ordinance in the Charter,
to which Mayor Spencer responded that she has not decided; stated at this point, she
does not plan to take a position; she may end up supporting putting the ordinance in the
Charter; she continues to support the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC); she
believes the Council did very good work on the ordinance; her concern is three
Councilmembers could seriously change the work that was done.
Vice Mayor Vella stated putting the ordinance in the Charter makes it harder to make
minor changes; the Council has spent a tremendous amount of time trying to address
the needs of the community.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would be happy to consider minor changes;
unfortunately, she thinks changes that are not minor will occur; there was a very long
process with concessions on both sides; she thinks the City ended up with something
really good; her concern is major changes could be made by three members of the
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-25,14,"the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber was in favor of the EIR and smart business development
She believed that while Alameda was a residential community, without retail activity, there would be
no residents. She noted that there would be more on- and off-island traffic to go to stores in other
cities. She noted that many people were concerned about the opening of Trader Joe's, but that it had
become a good neighbor.
Mr. Gail Wetzork, Chair, Economic Development Commission, 3452 Calecca Lane, spoke in support
to this item and echoed the previous two speakers' comments. He noted that when this item came
before the EDC, the Commissioners endorsed it unanimously. He believed the impacts could be
mitigated, and he agreed with the EIR.
Mr. William McAleer, 420 Kitty Hawk Rd., spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern
about traffic. He noted that the majority of people don't walk, bicycle or carpool to Target, and
estimated 900,000 trips to and 900,000 away from Target per year. He noted that the area was full of
residential neighborhoods, and he did not believe it was an appropriate use for the neighborhood.
Mr. Chris Kovach, 2101 Shoreline Drive, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe the EIR
addressed the impact of expansion on the Island by Target. He was concerned about the impact of
traffics on the community, and believed the congestion would be a safety hazard.
Mr. Mark Linde, 2830 Central Avenue #B, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed the traffic
study should be redone and noted that the delivery trucks driving down the residential streets would
be a safety hazard.
Mr. Bob Feinbaum, Oakland, spoke in support to this item. He believed the Target store would
provide more variety of goods and services in Alameda. He believed that by improving the public
transit access to the center, the traffic impacts would be mitigated. He encouraged Target to use the
best design possible for this store.
Ms. Susan Sperry, 2101 Shoreline #355, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that she had been
hit by a car earlier in the year. She was very concerned about the pedestrian safety in the shopping
center, where she had been hit. She noted there were missing stop signs, speed limit signs and
sidewalks. She would like the Planning Board to address pedestrian safety in that.
Mr. Walt Jacobs, 28 Balleybay, spoke in support to this item and noted that he was immediate past
president of the Chamber of Commerce. He understood people's fear of change and growth, but
believed the benefits outweighed the challenges of the EIR.
Mr. Eric Scheuermann spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that Target had projected an annual
gross revenue of $50 million; of that, $38 million will come from Alameda residents, which is $500
per year for every person in Alameda. He was unsure whether that was a realistic figure. He
acknowledged the City staff's estimate of retail leakage to off-Island Targets. He was very concerned
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
September 25, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-03-17,6,"the COVID-19 Pandemic and Landlords' Shutting off Utilities in Rental Units Except for
Emergency Situations."" Adopted.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether there is public comment for the item, to which
the City Clerk responded in the negative.
Councilmember Vella stated the City has residential and commercial tenants; inquired
whether the City could take action to not just put the moratorium on evictions, but to
also postpone the payment of rent and make any rent due April 1st be delayed to
payment over time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about whether Councilmember Vella's
inquiry includes instances when the City is the landlord, to which Councilmember Vella
responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager responded that he believes a provision exists within the language of
the previous urgency ordinance [paragraph no. 20-
.
The City Attorney stated Council approved giving the City Manager the flexibility in the
prior item.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether the language needs to be built-in to the
ordinance or if the City Manager authorization on a case by case basis is enough.
The City Attorney responded the prior ordinance gives the City Manager discretion;
stated due to the City acting as landlord, not a regulator, an ordinance does not need to
be adopted; the City Manager may take further direction from Council; however, an
ordinance is not needed to regulate City Manager actions.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council
may direct staff to look into commercial payments.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for including commercial tenants in the
language; questioned whether property owners who are not receiving rental income
could receive aid; stated that he believes the Governor has provided information related
to foreclosures; the City needs to look into the foreclosure information; inquired whether
a process is being put in place for Section 8 voucher holders to put a pause on
vouchers being taken away.
Councilmember Vella outlined Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-28-20 related to
commercial provisions; stated that she would like staff to look into the City's ability to
place a moratorium on commercial evictions.
Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for addressing the commercial property
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 17, 2020
2",CityCouncil/2020-03-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-20,2,"the Business Plan is a two-year, forward looking document i the
Museum has a lot of money in the bank; hopefully, dipping into
reserves will not be necessary; funds were down to approximately
$2,000 in 1991 and 1992.
Mayor Johnson stated people need to understand that money is needed
to run a Museum; inquired whether the Museum has any plans to
become accredited, to which Ms. Dileo responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she appreciates receiving the Business
Plan; Page 20 outlines a series of activities to help generate
additional funds; inquired which area would have the largest
growth.
Ms. Dileo responded estate sales; stated estate sales are being
promoted; a big money maker is the Legacy Home Tour, which also
showcases Alameda.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Page 22 notes that funds have been set aside
to obtain a permanent home; she has trouble understanding the line
item referring to funds reserved for finding a permanent home.
Ms. Dileo stated the $194,480 Edward Jones Endowment account cannot
be touched and is strictly set aside for building.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether said Endowment is stipulated for a
specific use.
Ms. Dileo responded the Endowment was stipulated for a specific
use; stated most of the money was from the Regina Stafford Estate.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the Meyers House is open for three hours one
Saturday per month; inquired whether the Meyers House is reflected
in the expense report.
Ms. Dileo responded the Meyers House is reflected in the net
figures on Page 41; stated the Meyers House has a separate income
statement and balance sheet; income and expenses are equal to date;
the Meyers House had significant damage due to a leaky roof; the
interior ceiling was damaged window sills needed to be repaired
she does not have repair costs yet.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether statements reflect the City's
operation and maintenance costs.
Ms. Dileo responded in the negative; stated there was supposed to
be a five percent tithing to the City every year, which was
expected to be approximately $60,000 to $70,000; the assets were
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
November 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-12-12,4,"the Board's work.
President Cunningham noted that Mr. Piziali had three years more experience than he did, and added
that he would be missed.
Mr. Lynch wished to comment about the waterfront development, particularly the 3,000 homes that
would be going in. He believed the Board should be mindful that development in urban areas would
intensify, and that they should be cognizant that is strongly supported at the legislative level and by
environmental groups because of the urban infill component. He noted that building higher did
protect the surrounding hillsides, and added that the need for housing necessitated more infill
housing.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara whether the City Manager had acknowledged the
communication from the Board regarding staffing concerns, Ms. Eliason replied that she had met
with some of the individual Planning Board members, and is setting up a schedule for next year for
Boards and Commissions to meet with the City Council. She did not know when the Planning Board
would be scheduled for a joint meeting, and added that several other Boards had requested meetings
as well.
President Cunningham advised that he had met with the City Manager and addressed some of the
Board's comments regarding staffing of the Planning and Building Department. He noted that there
was activity to fill the position of Planning and Building Director, and some interviews had been
held. They also discussed guidelines and booklets, as well as waterside development guidelines, as
well as green sustainable ordinances. He noted that the City Manager had to balance the
requirements of other Boards within the budget. He encouraged the Board members to write to the
City Manager to support the Planning Board's concerns.
Vice President Cook advised that she had a meeting scheduled for that morning with the City
Manager, but was unable to attend for family reasons. She echoed President Cunningham's
comments, and noted that she was particularly interested in the coordination between the
redevelopment and planning branches of the City.
Mr. Lynch noted that he met with the Assistant City Manager as well.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
7:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory McFann, Interim Secretary
City Planning Board",PlanningBoard/2005-12-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-02,6,"the Bay Area and Rhode Island have submitted proposals; the City will do everything
possible to help San Francisco be successful; the City will end up winning as well.
Acting Mayor Matarrese stated Council is extremely supportive; thanked everyone who
participated in the effort.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked everyone; stated people know the type of things the
City can accomplish.
Councilmember Tam expressed her appreciation; stated that she is impressed with the
community enthusiasm; Alameda has five Councilmembers, less bureaucracy, more
streamlining, and great community support.
(10-101) Google Request for Information
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.
Speakers: Jim Meyer, wirealameda.org; Howard Ashcraft; John Michael Kyono,
wirealameda.org; Kathy Moehring, WABA; and Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Acting Mayor Matarrese inquired what is the timeline.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the City application and
community applications need to be submitted by March 26th; stated a press release will
be submitted; a resolution will be presented to Council on March 16.
Acting Mayor Matarrese inquired whether information will be posted on the website with
a link to wirealameda.org.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded posting on the website
would be a great idea; stated Google will make a selection before the end of the year;
the impression is that Google would want to get started right away and implement the
entire deployment within six or twelve months.
Councilmember Gilmore stated video game players would benefit; having 3-D models of
building plans would be great; accessing the internet at peak times without a decrease
in speed would be nice; encouraged everyone to think outside the box.
Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the committee meeting organized by Mr.
Ashcraft and Mr. Mayer; the City is shovel ready, maritime ready, and now wireless
ready; people at Google have no patience for bureaucracy; that she served on the
Alameda Hospital Board with Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft and was always looking for ways to
save money; health care imaging creates huge opportunities for hospitals; that she
looks forward to having a robust, successful application.
Acting Mayor Matarrese thanked everyone for moving fast and decisively on the matter;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
March 2, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,8,"the ARRA and CIC by-laws then, Council could discuss whether it
wants to delegate its authority to the PUB.
Councilmember deHaan questioned whether items other than an
estimate over $35,000, policy questions, significant ramifications
or Council questions should trigger that the matter comes to
Council; inquired if there were significant ramifications the
matter would come to Council regardless of whether the cost would
be $35,000.
Vie Mayor Gilmore responded in the affirmative; stated that she
does not care how much a matter costs, the matter should come to
Council if there would be significant ramifications.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the four points [over $35,000,
policy questions, significant ramifications or Council questions)
are the conditions under which the Council's authority is retained.
Mayor Johnson concurred; stated the language should be clear that
[under the four conditions, ] the Council retains its authority to
empower the City Attorney to hire outside counsel.
The City Attorney requested that the revised proposal be brought
back to the Council in September since she will not be at the
August 16, 2005 City Council Meeting.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
( 05-387) - Ordinance No. 2943, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations). "" Finally passed.
Ken Carvalho, Alameda, urged the Council to pass the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog
- 1.
(05-388) Ordinance No. 2944, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Declaring Boutique Theaters to be Uses Permitted by Use Permit
within the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District of Chapter
XXX (Development Regulations) . "" Finally passed.
 ouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-04-05,11,"the 4th line down, and adding "" nothing in the section, or in the Charter stating ""Nothing
shall be construed to provide rights to appointed policy members
""
Vice Mayor Matarrese suggested deleting the entire redline section from 10.9 through
""new private cause of action.""
Councilmember Oddie stated he is concerned a private cause of action will be created.
Mayor Spencer stated that she also suggests deleting the entire redline section; she
supports the Open Government Commission's decision on the issue.
Councilmember Oddie agrees with taking out the part that refers to the City Charter and
the mention of the Council being able to remove someone; there should be a protection
against cause of action.
Mayor Spencer inquired why including something would be necessary.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the section is not critical, it gives the City the
most protection.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested a new sentence: ""Nothing in the section shall
be construed to provide rights to appointed policy body members beyond those
recognized by law or to create any new private cause of action.""
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the ordinance with the exception of: removing
the redline in Section 2-91.17; adding the words ""to require training sessions when there
are substantial revisions to the ordinance;"" and to include clean up changes described
by the Assistant City Attorney.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is staff's recommendation; stated he supports
staff's recommendation.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's suggestion
is a good one for providing support against potential litigation being filed.
Mayor Spencer stated her concern is that it would be unsettling to members of the
public to serve or speak.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he agrees with Mayor Spencer that the risk is low enough
to excise the entire section that is redlined.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Vice Mayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy
Ashcraft and Oddie - 3.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of an identical motion to Vice Mayor
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-19,11,"the 25% threshold and take a deeper look at the data for replacing
the whole building as the valuation to see where the range of other
comparables sit and what people are doing within the range; using
the assessed value is not fair.
Mayor Johnson stated an owner could spend less than 25% and still
fall within the requirement because of the assessed value or square
footage of the entire structure.
The Fire Marshal stated the value of the work being done is
calculated using the same table to determine the building value.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she is in favor of ordinances that save
lives; however, the proposed ordinance would pass on a serious cost
to property owners; most of the Fire Department's calls are medical
and not fire related.
Councilmember Matarrese stated two buildings in town were damaged
by fire; inquired whether the damage would have occurred if
sprinkler systems were installed; stated that he is looking for a
cost benefit; questioned whether fire sprinklers provide an
insurance break.
The Fire Marshal responded damage would not have occurred.
Councilmember deHaan stated fire carries up Victorian walls without
a problem; older homes are prone to extensive fires; sprinklers
would not have suppressed the referenced fires.
The Fire Marshall stated fire sprinklers are designed to help
occupants get out of the building; fires are extinguished with one
sprinkler head activation 95% of the time; smoke alarms are
important, but sprinklers allow time for the occupants to exit the
building.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many structure fires occur in
Alameda.
The Fire Marshall responded fifty-five structure fires, two
fatalities, eight injuries and over $11 million in damage occurred
in 2003; twenty-two of the fifty-five were in single and two family
dwellings; twenty-three structure fires were in multi-family
dwellings and ten were in commercial buildings; forty-two fires,
one fatality, two injuries and $1.5 million in damage occurred in
2004; eighteen of the structure fires were in single or two family
dwellings, nineteen were in multi-family dwellings, and five were
in commercial buildings; nationally 3,900 people die in structure
fires; 75% of structure fires are in one and two family dwellings.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf
GolfCommission,2008-03-19,4,"the 2008 season and work is beginning on the Jack Clark Pro Am, which will be
renamed the Jack Clark Invitational and will be held in October.
5-D
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course.
The Interim General Manager reported that the restaurant has replaced the sign
on the outside of the building and they are currently doing golf/meal promotions in
conjunction with the Pro Shop. Mrs. Arnerich stated that a relative went to a
function at the Metropolitan Golf Course and said the tent structure was a very
nice venue and possibly Jim's on the Course would be interested in putting one up
at the Complex.
6.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
6-A
Marketing and Promotions, Commissioner Gammell.
No report given.
6-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Secretary Delaney.
Previously discussed.
6-C
New Clubhouse Project, Vice Chair Gaul and Commissioner Schmitz.
It was reported that the additional information from Saylor and Associates has not
yet been received.
6-D
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Commissioner
Wood.
Commissioner Wood reported that the Driving Range looks good. Vice Chair Gaul
mentioned that the center area of the Driving Range where balls collect and get
stuck in the mud needs to have a screen placed over the area to keep the balls out
of the hole. It was also stated that the golf courses are in excellent shape.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
8.
OLD BUSINESS
Vice Chair Gaul inquired about the previously requested legal opinion from the City
Attorney's office concerning the regulations for leasing out City owned land.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing a surcharge payment for March 2008 of $12,861. The year-
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 4
4/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2008-03-19.pdf
GolfCommission,2008-04-16,4,"the 2008 season and work is beginning on the Jack Clark Pro Am, which will be
renamed the Jack Clark Invitational and will be held in October.
5-D
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course.
The Interim General Manager reported that the restaurant has replaced the sign
on the outside of the building and they are currently doing golf/meal promotions in
conjunction with the Pro Shop. Mrs. Arnerich stated that a relative went to a
function at the Metropolitan Golf Course and said the tent structure was a very
nice venue and possibly Jim's on the Course would be interested in putting one up
at the Complex.
6.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
6-A
Marketing and Promotions, Commissioner Gammell.
No report given.
6-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Secretary Delaney.
Previously discussed.
6-C
New Clubhouse Project, Vice Chair Gaul and Commissioner Schmitz.
It was reported that the additional information from Saylor and Associates has not
yet been received.
6-D
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Commissioner
Wood.
Commissioner Wood reported that the Driving Range looks good. Vice Chair Gaul
mentioned that the center area of the Driving Range where balls collect and get
stuck in the mud needs to have a screen placed over the area to keep the balls out
of the hole. It was also stated that the golf courses are in excellent shape.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
8.
OLD BUSINESS
Vice Chair Gaul inquired about the previously requested legal opinion from the City
Attorney's office concerning the regulations for leasing out City owned land.
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing a surcharge payment for March 2008 of $12,861. The year-
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 4
4/16/08
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2008-04-16.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-07-14,7,"the 2003 entitlement that contain different numbers. In some cases, there are two or three
conditions that address expansion and they have different numbers also.
President Cook inquired what the different numbers are and asked if a development
agreement (DA) takes it outside the typical regulations.
Staff responded that there is not a DA for this project. The PDA has three different conditions
and each condition has three different numbers. The largest is 25%, which matches the
AMC.
President Cook asked what number staff had been using. Staff replied there has not been an
increase that triggered a PDA under any of the interpretations.
President Cook clarified that the Board had not approved any expansion up to this point and
asked about the existing size. Staff stated it is approximately 35-36,000 sf.
President Cook asked staff to confirm that all conditions have been met. Staff stated that all
mitigation measures had been met.
The public hearing was opened.
Eugenie Thomson spoke in opposition to the project. She requested that an economic
impact study be conducted and stated she believed there were also traffic ramifications.
Philip Jaber, part owner of Encinal Hardware, spoke in opposition to the project. He asked
that a community impact study be conducted.
Holly Sellers spoke in favor of the project with some concerns. She asked that the Board not
approve the zoning until the parking, cart corrals, and traffic analysis are sorted out.
Claire Risley spoke in opposition to the project. If the Board approved the application, she
asked that the square footage of the proposed outdoor garden space be included in the
Gross Leasable Area (GLA).
The public hearing was closed.
President Cook stated the applicant would install a signal to improve the traffic operations
and assume financial responsibility. She inquired whether the Board was being asked to
approve more than design review and whether the Board was being asked to approve a
significant amount of square footage in the project.
Staff stated the issue of square footage is in regards to the garden center. The applicant's
proposal does not treat the outdoor sales area as an expansion of floor area. Outdoor use of
space has not been treated as gross leasable area for example outdoor seating for
restaurants and outdoor displays of goods. The Board could sever the garden area from the
application, approve the design review for the building, make the approval of the expansion of
the garden center a condition, and require that the applicant get a PDA, which is the next
item on the agenda.
Page 7 of 13",PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-11-26,6,"the 20-foot-wide sidewalk in front of the large format. Mr. Sullivan confirmed that would
occur, and that access ramps would be included where the crosswalks were located. He
added that the sidewalks would be at the asphalt level, and the planters would be raised
adjacent to them.
Member McNamara inquired why that plan would be more challenging from a car
perspective than all the current cutouts included in the plan. Mr. Sullivan replied that any
vehicle circulating in this parking lot must decide whether to keep circulating in the parking
lot looking for a space, or to leave the parking field. He displayed the circulation plan and a
discussion of driving and pedestrian circulation options ensued. He noted that from the
retailers' point of view, a compromise must be reached between the cars and the pedestrians.
He added that the retailers like 4.5 spaces per 1000, and that they were already pushing the
limits. He noted that the goal of the plan was to make finding parking space easier for the
shopper. They hoped that people parked once and circulated on foot, and he emphasized that
they needed to create the safest possible environment for pedestrians.
Member Lynch believed the Planning Board and the applicants had a difference of opinion
about the retail environment. He noted that they were trying to mix different types of
shopping styles, and wished to commend the Planning Department and the applicant for
returning with a compromise plan. He believed that while the compromise plan was not
perfect, it was better than the previous plan.
Member Mariani noted that she shared the concerns previously expressed, and that she
concurred with Member Lynch's comments.
Member Cunningham inquired about the primary points of access to the site. Mr. Sullivan
replied that the major points of access were off of Fifth, and displayed the three
intersections. He added that secondary points of access were off of Mitchell, as well as
Stargell.
Member Cunningham expressed concerns about the traffic movement off the west road
along Blocks B, C and D, and that the width of road going into the parking stalls were the
same width as featured in the compromise plan. He believed that was a safety issue, and
believed that the 90-degree parking along the faces of D, E and F could be a potential
problem. He did not believe the users of the handicapped stalls would be able to get out
easily with the traffic flows. He would wholeheartedly support the compromise plan, and
that having open islands at the end would work well. He suggested using the solution for
that quadrant in the approved plan of September 24th, which would have a net loss of 52
spaces and featured an enhanced pedestrian configuration. Mr. Sullivan believed that could
be achieved with a loss of only 26 spaces.
Member Cunningham inquired about the stated flexibility within the agreement for the
Department to allow a variation of 20% of floor area. He inquired what would trigger a
return to the Planning Board. Mr. Thomas replied that the discussion of parking in the
original Master Plan called for a minimum of 5:1000, followed by months of extensive
discussion and negotiation. The discussion of parking then became a discussion of
Page 6 of 10",PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-06-07,6,"the 2% going to the General Fund, the money would go to Mastick Senior Center.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City has to take into account the net increase, not
just the gross increase; the net increase would alter the UUT's contribution to the City's
labor agreements; the $1.5 million estimate will be less than the net basis.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there can be a slide next time referencing what
Councilmember Daysog's point.
The Assistant City Manager stated the UUT comes to the City segregated already;
inquired if Councilmember Daysog would like the UUT segregated.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the negative; stated residents should be informed
that the UUT will factor into employee raises, but he does not want to overstate or
understate that there will be an on-slot of raises.
The City Manager stated the revenue is a replacement of lost funds.
Mayor Spencer stated the $1.5 million does not all go to the General Fund, part of the
money would go to public safety.
The Assistant City Manager responded that the money is a factor in determining
employee raises; there are five categories of revenues in the General Fund that help
determine the public safety contract raises; the UUT is one of the five revenue sources.
Councilmember Daysog stated the $1.5 million will not be used to purchase a new set
of staff; some portion of the $1.5 million will be used to give raises to the current staff.
Mayor Spencer stated the information should be shared with the public.
The City Manager continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like a slide that addresses the issue of some cell
phone carries being taxed and some not, and anticipated impacts on the payers.
The City Manager continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the ballot measure fails, would the City be unsuccessful in the
lawsuit.
The City Attorney responded that the Council should be careful in discussing pending
litigation; the Attorneys feel confident moving forward with the ballot measure.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to prepare the ordinance,
including the background information as requested during the discussion regarding the
Balance Revenue Index (BRI) contribution and the clarity of the reasons and methods of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 7, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-21,11,"the 13% savings went that the City incurred as a result of the
conversion from the 1079 and 1082 Plans; stated that she wants to
avoid repeating past mistakes.
Mayor Johnson stated actuarial numbers need to be reviewed in order
to ensure that payments are adequate.
Councilmember Matarrese stated dramatically increased healthcare
costs and participant fluctuation need to be considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated today has to be the worst of all times
to pay but might be the best in terms of securing a bond.
Mr. Kennedy stated markets have been frozen; IBM borrowed money at
250 basis points over Treasury, which is ridiculous.
The Interim Finance Director stated that the last quarter
statistics indicated that the Municipal Bond market was 25% less
than demand timing is the issue; updated actuarial assumptions are
needed; real numbers are needed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated accurate information is needed, but
he does not want the matter pushed aside.
(08-452) Report on the impact of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex Fee
Increases.
The Interim Golf Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan stated rounds have increased, but cart rentals
have decreased.
The Interim Golf Manager stated golfers are making careful spending
decisions.
Mayor Johnson stated one month's data is not enough to track
impacts.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda, stated fewer people will play golf because
of the current economic conditions; Council should not rely on
short-term impacts.
Jane Sullwold, Alameda Golf Commission, stated September 2008 only
had four weekends and did not include Labor Day weekend, which was
included in September 2007 statistics; revenue increased by
approximately $24,000; the first month was a very positive
experience under the new rate structure; the Interim Finance
Director has been extremely helpful in providing information to the
Regular Meeting
11
Alameda City Council
October 21, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2011-05-12,1,"the
NOTICE OF MEETING
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, May 12, 2011
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
Room 360, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street,
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Chair Joe Restagno, Vice Chair Lola Brown, Commissioners BiN Delaney, Gina Mariani, and
Bill Sonneman
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes April 14, 2011 Recreation & Park ommission Regular Meeting
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the Commission
has jurisdiction or of which it hay take ognizance that is not on the agenda.)
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
5.
NEW BUSINESS
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Discussion of Draft Policy on the Hanging of Banners - (Discussion/Action Item)
7.
REPORTS FROME ECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A.
Park! (sion
B.
Recreation Division
C.
Mastid Senior Center
D.
Other Reports and Announcements
8.
REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
9.
ORA COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
11.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE:
Thursday, June 9, 2011",RecreationandParkCommission/2011-05-12.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-08-28,4,"the
Mr. Gossman stated that Mr. Lillard had called Ms. Kassebaum and asked her to review
written responses to the supplemental questions. Mr. Lillard also told Ms. Kassebaum that
the City would likely keep 3-5 employees. Ms. Kassebaum assumed Ms. Bailey was one of
the candidates since she was previously informed by Mr. Russi that Ms. Bailey's position
would likely be eliminated. Mr. Gossman stated that there was indeed communication
between Mr. Lillard and Ms. Kassebaum as indicated in page 12 of the investigative report.
Mr. Gossman stated that the third issue was that there was no notice to applicants on how
the grading process would be conducted. The candidates did not know that the
supplemental examination was to be weighed and how much the oral examination would be
weighed or that it was unknown. Mr. Gossman continued to compare the bulletins
published by the Human Resources Department pointing out the weighing of the
examination for the Senior Civil Engineer is clear and that the interview weighed as 100%
versus the bulletin for the Recreation Services Specialist. Typically, jurisdictions utilize
supplemental questions to reduce the size of the applicants. Supplemental questions,
typically, are not used to score the application.
Mr. Gossman stated that another issue was why there were two panels interviewing for a
promotional position. Also, the supplement questionnaire clearly and in bold black print
dictated the examiner was to score the answer in the following scoring method: 0 - to
indicate no experience, 1-4 to indicate minimal experience, 5-7 to indicate moderate
experience, or 8-10 for extensive/quality experience. Ms. Blumkin clearly answered the
questions and received no credit, pointing to Addendum #3 in the report he had provided.
This is clear evidence that shows one of the raters failed to follow the scoring matrix
resulting in an inaccurate score for Ms. Blumkin.
Mr. Gossman stated that in Addendum #6, identifying discrepancies in the Oral Interview
matrix, there were seven questions to be answered during the oral interview and only six
categories to score the applicants. The specific scoring matrix did not have categories that
matched the questions. The matrix does not match and was not accurate; it is quite obvious
that the scoring matrix was used from another examination. In addition, the raters did not
even comment on any of the questions; the questions were very complicated, and only 25
minutes was given for candidates to answer the questions.
The real issue of this reclassification is a budget issue; the City is going to change the
budget by removing positions; and the individuals (applicants) are already being paid from
the Athletic Trust Fund. The City is trying to get rid of certain employees, even senior
employees. Mr. Gossman stated that the Appellants are just looking for fairness and
equality. The recruitment process was flawed, inaccurate, and he wants to have this
rectified.
President Peeler invited Mr. Andy Wong to speak before the Board.
Mr. Wong, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator, called attention to the report he
provided to the Board. He stated that an actual number should be used to determine the
outcome of an average score and not a check mark. The checkmark was used to indicate
Page -4-
G:Personnel\CSBV Minutes/2012 Minutes/2012-08-28 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-08-28.pdf
PensionBoard,2017-01-30,1,"the
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., OCTOBER 31, 2016
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:35 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Nancy Bronstein, Bruce Edwards, Nancy Elzig, William Soderlund,
Absent: Chair Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer
Staff: Elena Adair, Finance Director; Nafisah Ali, Administrative Technician
-
Human Resources, Chad Barr, Administrative Technician - Human Resources
3.
MINUTES:
Member Edwards asked how Item 6 of the July 25th 2016 minutes, regarding
Industrial Disability Retirements, are approved. Human Resources Director
Nancy Bronstein answered that the Human Resources Director has the authority
for approval, but she will clarify what happens when there is a dispute and
provide the details of the answer for the next meeting. Member Soderlund
explained the Civil Service Board and Pension Board remained separate due to
PERS requiring the City to handle disputes, requiring decisions by the Pension
Board.
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 25, 2016 were moved for approval by
Member Elzig and seconded by Member Soderlund. Passed 3-0.
4.
AGENDA ITEMS:
4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending September 30,
2016 and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the
Period Ending September 30, 2016.",PensionBoard/2017-01-30.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2016-06-08,4,"that's not really true. Because of the base closing, we've actually been very stable with population,
and we're had a slight increase in housing units recently, but actually, it was a downturn after the
base closure. And we've actually had a significant number of jobs increase in the past decade.
Gail Payne: And when you compare it to other East Bay communities, we're on the low side when
permitting housing units, and we're on the medium size when we look at density. And the reason
why we really care about density is that if you're trying to get a really robust bus system, say in
town, it actually runs better if you have more people around a bus station, because you can get more
people on the bus within that quarter mile radius of what people really want to walk. And so we're a
medium sized density community, and so we can probably support a medium sized bus system,
which is really what we have, we're actually quite fortunate with what we have. The regional
agencies, they have policies out there that say where they want to focus their development in the
region, and these are called priority development areas. And we have two of these areas in the City
of Alameda, one is the Northern waterfront area, which is along Clement Avenue by the Estuary,
and the other area is Alameda Landing and Alameda Point in West Alameda. And that's indeed
where the development is occurring, and expected to occur over the next 10 years. So, we're
expected to have an increase of over 2,000 housing units and over, or almost 8,000 more jobs here
in Alameda.
Gail Payne: Most of the jobs will be going to Alameda Point, and the job growth is actually much
higher at 30% than the Bay Area, over the next 10 years it's expected at only 11%. So, the third key
concept out of the six is regional commute patterns are changing. We're having fewer auto
commuters, and more people are commuting by transit in the region. And one of the factors is that
millennials, folks who are younger, tend to be less apt to own cars, less apt to even get a driver's
license. Young people, there's one study that said that 22% of young people never even plan on
getting their driver's license. So this was, when I was a teenager, unheard of, we all got our driver's
licenses the day after we turned, what was it? 16. So it's really different, it's a different generation.
And we're seeing that they are expecting better bus systems, they are taking Ubers, and Lyfts, and
doing bicycling, walking more so than any generation.
Gail Payne: In Alameda, as I said, our population hasn't really grown that much, our housing units
really haven't grown that much, but we are having the people who are here who have moved here
are more apt to commute off island, 5,000 more off island commuters since 2005, there's a 20%
increase. So that's one reason why we're seeing congestion. Also, there's more people, more
commuters from Alameda going to San Francisco. In 2005, there were less than 5,000, now there's
more than 7,000 going to San Francisco to work. And they're more apt to be working in San Mateo
County, and Santa Clara County. So those are harder, more difficult commutes more people are
taking from Alameda. And most people The two top destinations for where people work is
Oakland, 8,000 people, and then 7,000 people going to San Francisco. The majority of people who
work in Oakland drive alone, they get there by driving alone. The majority of people who work in
San Francisco, they are less apt to drive alone, and only one out of five people commute to San
Francisco by driving alone.
Gail Payne: The fourth key concept out of the six, Alameda is a multimodal city. We actually
outperform a lot of cities in the Bay Area, and around the country, when it comes to being
multimodal. And we even outperform the Bay Area. And Berkeley and Oakland do actually much
better than we do, especially with transit and bicycling for Berkeley. Some of the factors,
opportunities, is that we have great geography, weather, we're flat, we have strong policies in place,
08/17/16
Page 4 of 19",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-05-15,9,"that would benefit from CENIC are the ones that would help close the gap of income
disparity; CENIC is an extraordinary opportunity for the type of businesses that the pilot
program would attract, such as university related businesses which do not have access
to research in biotech resource libraries; the pilot program is worth the gamble and
makes Alameda unique; offering access to CENIC will attract R&D; he fully supports the
recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated professional, well-paid tech jobs depend on their
funding stream; a lot of companies are funded by venture capital; CENIC is an exciting
opportunity to make Alameda Point what it is intended to be; she loves the opportunities
that would be available for Alameda Unified School District and College of Alameda
students; the City spends money on a lot of different projects and this one is worth
pursuing; she hopes the Council will support the program.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding free WiFi, the IT Director stated the
project is not impacted by free WiFi, which staff will be researching.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there are definitely positives to the pilot program; it is not her
intent for General Fund money to be used; she is concerned the door was closed to
other groups and organizations because an RFP process was not done; in general, it is
a policy decision; she is prepared to support the program, but with a caveat that people
who benefit should cover costs in coming years.
Stated that she is retired from IT; urged Council to give very serious consideration to the
project in light of the opportunities at Alameda Point: Karen Boutilier, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie concurred with his colleagues on the ends, but his issue is with
the means; expressed concern over an RFP process not being done; stated the
program is limited to for-profit R&D companies; he understands the importance of the
program, but finds it problematic there is another no-bid contract, similar to the Gig Car
Share pilot program, which had no Council input; there should have been a transparent
and fair bidding process.
Mayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated it is important that such
projects come to Council; she cannot help but think if CENIC is so important to the
companies, they should have been able to come up with the funding instead of the City
paying $200,000; it is critical to think about whether the program is where money should
be spent; it is not a priority and may result in having to cut services; she is not able to
support the program.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the recommendation to approve a two
year pilot program.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese Oddie and Vella -
4.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 15, 2018
9",CityCouncil/2018-05-15.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2016-10-12,12,"that would be relevant or not, maybe she's going to be covering that and it wouldn't be necessary.
But that was also a person who was at one of the workshops, at our meeting.
Elizabeth Kenny: Great. I would love to see the State stuff, what is required.
Tony Lewis: Okay, I'll get you his information I stole off his card.
Elizabeth Kenny: So if that concludes the highlights of the ADA conference, I'd like to move on to
old business, and Item 5A, discuss Universal Design Ordinance update.
5-A
Discuss Universal Design Ordinance update (Chair Kenny)
Kerry Parker: Chair Kenny, I would like to say for the record that we have a new attachment that
has been since this agenda was posted, although it's now on the city website, if should you look at
the agenda for tonight, and it a 5A public comment, which is a letter from a developer regarding the
Universal Design Ordinance as it is written right now. Just want to add that.
Elizabeth Kenny: Thank you. I believe we also have public comment in person on this agenda
item. Okay, so to give you all an update, you received along with your agenda the current proposed
Alameda Universal Design Ordinance, and some accessibility charts that Commissioner Brillinger
found for us, which really helped me understanding the difference between Universal Design and
visitability. And that's important for our Universal Design Ordinance, because we are asking for
there to be visitability requirements within Universal Design Ordinance, and we're asking for those
to be a 100% across the board.
Elizabeth Kenny: So in this chart, the things in blue, the first three items, that is all that's required
to make the visitability standard. And the visitability movement came out of Atlanta, and it's the
idea that people should be able to visit their friends, they should be able to Even if they're
not
living in a house, they should at least be able to come over and visit with their friends. So that they
have no step entrance. The doorway is wide enough for them to get in, and there's an accessible
bathroom for them to go there. So that's the three requirements of visitability. Now if you continue
down, there was a part of Universal Design, but Universal Design encompasses all the other aspects
on the chart as well. So the other aspects, we have been asking that 30% of all new developments,
residential developments with five or more units meet the Universal Design requirements. The
Planning Department has suggested 20% and carving out a special exemption for townhouses,
because they are working on limited amount of floor space, but we are not in agreement on that
issue.
Elizabeth Kenny: I think that we would like to see that for all residential developments, and with
the idea that we've also asked for some sort of reporting mechanism in the ordinance, so that the
city can see whether this is something that we should be doing for all projects, all residential
projects, and not just new construction. But that is something that we want to have assessed and
look at down further down the road once we have the Universal Design Ordinance in place. The
Planning Board met on Monday night to look at the Universal Design Ordinance, and they also had
the letter that Kerry was speaking about from a developer who raises concerns about the ordinance
being overreaching, and going beyond what the State model has asked for. And that's nothing that
we weren't aware of, we knew that we wanted to ask for more than what the State minimum was.
Page 12",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-10-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2012-02-13,10,"that were for the Northern Waterfront EIR in order to handle capacity seems to become
mitigations for this plan as well. He would like to know that this plan is triggering those
needs in and of itself, or the proportion of the project costs seem to be geared towards the
very large development numbers generated by the Northern Waterfront and what is being
proposed on Park Street. In addition, the mitigation acknowledges that the project costs
sharing whether it's TDM or whichever is not just coming out of just the North Park Street
Project. Lastly, the Green House Gas Mitigations section, the transportation Mitigation 3
doesn't seem to reduce vehicle miles traveled. He continued to note under IVK-7 it's
important for the City to apply a minimum number of bicycle parking spots per building for
the mitigation rather than propose 1 bicycle space for every new business that has 10 car
spaces.
Board member Zuppan stated that she appreciated that the cumulative impact was being
taken into account, especially Caltrans work on I-880.
Board member Burton stated that he wanted to comment on the North Park Street Draft
Code's transportation and the bicycle sections. He felt there were issues of bicycle assess
and accommodating bicycles in the zone and staff has not addressed this aspect in the
code. When referring to the Waterfront District pages 35-36, the street section is illustrated,
but bicycle lanes are not shown. Also, the code does not mention the Alameda Bicycle Plan
and Guidelines. He goes on to state that the pedestrian and bicycle facilities only have two
lines in the parking section and parking requirements. He felt the pedestrian and bicycle
facilities should be in the very beginning and should be much more expansive. Referring to
the Architectural design standards and guidelines, he was encouraged by the form-based
code and he felt the code should only regulate the building and circulation patterns that
encourage pedestrian scale development. Regarding the Green Buildings Guidelines
section of the North Park Street Code Environmental Impact Report, he was surprised that
there was no reference in the section of the code to other city requirements such as
CalGreen, Bay Landscaping Guidelines, Build It Green Guidelines, and the Zero Waste
ordinance.
Mr. Thomas stated that staff would look at the code and come back to the Board in April
with the revisions. He pointed out that Board member Knox White made important
comments to the environmental impact report's traffic section and he would like the Board to
look at the Green House Gas section of the report because the traffic and green house gas
analyses are closely linked. He explained that staff has tried to put a finer analysis on the
alternatives chapter and there are two areas in the environmental impact report where staff
found significant unavoidable impacts: (1) an increase in automobile traffic and (2) an
increase in green house gases due to automobile traffic. He went on to say that in the
alternatives chapter, staff found ways to make the North Park Street Code more sustainable
and create less of an environmental impact. Staff also looked at the pros and cons of trying
to push the code further on with some of the green initiatives and they analyzed what that
would mean relative to other districts in Alameda. In response to Board member Burton's
comments, Mr. Thomas explained that the design review has guidelines meaning they are
not code so the developer should try to match their project to the scale of the neighboring
house and staff is looking at the last 40 pages of the North Park Street Code as architectural
guidelines. Also, staff is determining whether the guidelines should be adopted as code or
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 15
February 13, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-04-14,3,"that we will be moving in the weekend of May 20, 2005.
D.
Update on Leydecker Park Playground Project - (Oral Report/Discussion Item)
AD Lillard reviewed the selection of the playground equipment with the Recreation and
Park Commission. Playgrounds by Design, Inc. was selected to provide the equipment
with installation to be completed by Community Playgrounds, Inc.
The playground will be moved from its existing location (next to Library) to where the
volleyball court is now located. The volleyball court will be removed. The playground is
being relocated due to softballs being hit/played into the play area during softball games.
Moving to the new area will be safer for children.
A Neighborhood Meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 27, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Leydecker Recreation Center.
Commissioner Reeves stated that if it is safer and in a place where it is more visible and of
the same quality as the other newer playgrounds then it will be great.
Chair Ingram asked if earth tones will be used for the colors. AD Lillard stated that the
sample is in earth tones, but that may change at the Neighborhood meeting.
Vice Chair Kahuanui asked what will happen to the old play area. AD Lillard stated that the
area will probably be resodded and left open. Playing in the old area is discouraged
because we do not want the kids to get hurt.
AD Lillard stated that the playground should be completed in time to use it during most of
the summer.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Revised Site Plan for Wireless Telecommunication Facility at Washington Park
(American Tower Corporation) - (Discussion/Action Item)
Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager, and Jason Peery, American Tower representative,
presented the revised site plan for the wireless telecommunication facility at Washington
Park. At the last meeting there were three major issues of concern. They were:
-
Reducing size of area to be occupied.
-
Reducing the obtrusiveness of the equipment enclosure.
-
Making the antennae's blend in and change size of the pole.
American Tower has revised the plans from the ground up to address the issues.
-
Equipment area was moved down the third base line. Fence will be moved in to
3
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-04-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,8,"that using Fortmann would be a more natural movement.
With respect to the design of the buildings, particularly the three-story buildings, Mr.
Buckley inquired whether they could be redesigned so the third floor could be better
integrated to the rest of the building. He noted that the Guide to Residential Design
specifically discouraged popups as additions to existing historic buildings; he believed these
buildings were attempting to reflect the historic architectural character of Alameda, and that
this design principle might apply to these buildings. He wished to call attention to the
detailing of these buildings, and while looking on the City website, could not find the
Planning Board resolution for a permanent Planned Development in the design review. He
would like more information on window selection, trim, porch elements, which he believed
were very important. He knew that Warmington Homes generally handled these elements
very well.
Mr. Thomas noted that the packet in the staff report contained the resolution approving the
Planned Development and design review. The Master Plan also contained some details, and
there were conditions of approval requiring that prior to the issuance of a building permit,
there would be a final landscape plan and final architectural detail to be submitted to the
Planning Director for final approval. He noted that the Planning Board may add specifics to
those conditions.
Member Kohlstrand wished to compliment the project sponsor for their enhancements to the
project, and believed it had improved greatly. She shared Mr. Buckley's concerns, and
suggested that signage be included showing marina access was via Fortmann. She noted that
12 spaces along Hibbard were assigned to BCDC.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were 12 guest spaces on one side of the triangular parks.
However, within the large public parking area for the marina, BCDC wanted the City to
assign 10 spaces for public users of the waterfront so boat users don't park there.
Mr. Jason Neary, CBG Engineers, addressed the parking issue, and noted that under the
permit, BCDC identified 10 parking spaces to be available for BCDC's use. He noted that
those 10 spots would be allocated somewhere along the marina parking area for BCDC use.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand regarding concerns about the borrowed
easement and shadowing, Mr. Day replied that they had not had any negative feedback
about the borrowed easement. He noted that there was a lot of light in the third story during
the day, and noted that the third story can only be 500 square feet by code. He added that
would result in shadowing of a very small percentage of the house next door, and added that
the homeowners like the private sideyard for barbeques and other social activities.
Member Kohlstrand noted the condition recommending that all the sidewalks be a minimum
of five feet wide, and inquired whether the sidewalk along Grand could be wider. Mr.
Thomas believed that would be an acceptable condition for Grand, and described several
landscaping possibilities near the sidewalks and alleys.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2018-08-15,4,"that this example may be directing clerical staff to provide copies or other documents.
Member Brandt noted the driver's license requirement has not been updated as well as
for Accountant II, which was noted and will be updated. Member Barde noted
a
grammatical correction of ""preforms"" on page one of Accountant I.
Member Barde noted a grammatical correction of ""principals"" on page two of Accountant
II. Member Barde asked if there are government accounting courses available for
students locally. Finance Director Adair answered that not all colleges offer governmental
accounting since it is specialized. She added that staff may attend technical training",CivilServiceBoard/2018-08-15.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2016-10-12,8,"that they're very busy with other things, too.
Kerry Parker: I strongly suggest the Events Committee coordinate with Rochelle Wheeler about
coordinating a shuttle, I think she discussed with me that if she had more lead time, she could figure
it out in the budget, and to reserve that shuttle. So it's something for the Events Committee to talk to
Rochelle about.
Arnold Brillinger: Okay. Because with the shuttle being there, it would bring it to mind and people
would say, ""Why is that bus in the middle of the street?"" Or whatever, and we could talk about,
""Hey, this is a service here in the City of Alameda, use it.""
Elizabeth Kenny: I just want to thank you all, I think that it was a great event, and that you guys
are really doing amazing work. There was so much information about different resources there. And
yes, the people I talked with, some just had no idea about basic resources that are available. So I
think this is very important, and Ilove your idea, Tony, to keep going, and going to these other
events. What I would like to propose is that we take a vote to authorize the Event Committee to sign
up for future events. You can ask us to volunteer with them, but if you hear events like the one at the
middle school, or if Mastick is having an event, that you guys should sign us up and we'll still help,
but I want you guys to have that autonomy. So that's what I propose, is that we give the Events
Committee the autonomy to sign us up for different events. Do I have a second?
Tony Lewis: Well, I would just like amend, just a little bit, because I really do want people from the
committee not to feel that it's just this committee that will initiate these things. I think that we all
hear about things, and are aware of different things are going on in the committee. And it doesn't
have to be just the committee of three, because we're all on this Disability Commission. And I just
really don't want it to turn into just three people. I'd like to see more people. Because I don't know
everything that's happening in the city, and La Donna and Arnold don't know. But as a Committee,
we really need to work together, and bring it up to the meetings, send out an email, whatever we can
to really get things going. And if we need to setup an ad hoc committee to support it, that's my
thought on it.
Elizabeth Kenny: So, are you suggesting I'm just trying to understand what you're suggesting,
that you don't want the Events Committee to be moving forward? Or you want Because we can't
Tony Lewis: Well, that's just my thought. I don't know, Arnold and La Donna may have a different
thought.
La Donna Franco: No, I think we're on the same page about that, thank you for mentioning that.
No, I would be more than happy to move forward. I think we spoke about adding possibly one more
person to an Events Committee. So, just in case of emergency, or other needs that we might have, a
person may be able to deliver materials and just be there as a fourth.
Tony Lewis: Because it's a lot of work.
Elizabeth Kenny: I think that's a great idea, yes.
La Donna Franco: And that part did become, physically, a bit of work.
Page | 8",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-10-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,8,"that they vend, technically, these types of businesses are not allowed.
In response to a point of clarification by Board Member Piziali about a vending booth or mobile
building that used to operate in Washington Park that sold different types of consumable items, Ms.
Eliason responded that such a facility would be considered a concession stand which requires a use
permit and is allowed. She explained that rolling stores are allowed on private property with the
property owner's permission and are not allowed to sell goods on city streets. These trucks are
common at Alameda Point, off of the street. The other way these rolling stores are allowed are with
use permits at the parks. She explained that staff is researching how other communities handle these
types of businesses. The City wants to be careful on how these types of uses are permitted, where
these businesses may be permitted to sell their goods. This is a delicate issue, so the City wants to be
clear on what kinds of merchandise can be sold and how this will be approached.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding whether or not there is a time limit on
how long one of these businesses could stay in one location, Ms. Eliason responded not at this time.
Mr. Benoit added that at this point, at least for rolling stores, they would have to respect the
regulations that are posted on the right of way. Beyond that, there aren't any special rules.
Ms. Susan Potter, 1717 5th Street, distributed copies of the proposal that was submitted to the City
for her ""rolling store"" business and pictures of the competition. She explained these types of business
are not all on private property, they are all over Alameda Point and the entire City. She explained
that she was the mother of the gentlemen who wished to open a rolling store. She would like an
answer as to why they could not find a way of changing the ordinance to allow people to legally do
business in the city. She explained that there were numerous trucks coming to the Island to do
business and not contribute any monies to the City. She explained that she was told the mistake her
son made was asking permission to run his business, where other vendors have not been granted
permission, but still does business in the City. She feels the other vendors don't care about the city
and they don't contribute any finances except for purchasing gasoline. She hopes that the ordinance
can change so the people who already have these types of businesses can blatantly stop ignoring the
ordinances and the people who want to run legal businesses in the City won't be told no.
In response to Board Member McNamara's inquiry regarding whether the photo's submitted to the
Board are current examples of these types of businesses, Ms. Potter responded in the affirmative. Ms.
Potter also explained that these businesses are not solely operating at the base, but also on different
streets throughout the City.
Board Member Piziali acknowledged that he has seen these types of businesses on the base.
In response to President Cunningham's inquiry about whether these types of businesses are at
construction sites as well, Ms. Potter responded in the affirmative.
The public hearing was closed.
Board Member Lynch expressed his concerns on this type of use. He explained that while he
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,9,"that they should come into the ferry terminal, which has happened a number of times.
Jim McDonald spoke on behalf of his elderly mother, who lives on the corner of Willow and
Shoreline. She was very concerned about bus and passenger noise, as well as pollution,
generated by the current route. She believed that rerouting the 63 line would aggravate that
condition, as would the litter from the passengers.
Claudia Davison distributed her letter to the Commissioners, and spoke in opposition to the
proposed bus stop on the northwest side of Otis and Willow. She noted that the location was
adjacent to high-density condominium residential units, and added that there was already
insufficient parking at that location. She added that youths already passed through the complex
en route to school, and she was concerned that this would add to their security, vandalism and
parking problems. She had previously requested removal of the red curb zone on the north side
of Otis, across from Willow Street. She did not believe that was a suitable location for a bus stop,
which would add to the underutilization of that curb space. She believed that bus drivers should
idle their buses and take their breaks in commercial, rather than residential, areas. She proposed
that this stop be relocated to the east side of Willow between Otis and the fire hydrant to the
south, which was adjacent to commercial medical facilities with off-street parking. She believed
that fewer people would be adversely affected on a daily basis seven days a week, and for fewer
hours, since it no one would be there after business hours. She believed it was important that
Alameda be connected to the two BART stations.
Tamara Rouse noted that she and her children had problems crossing the street on the way to
Lum School, and believed that adding a bus stop at that location would be a safety hazard. She
noted that she was a property manager at 1901 Shoreline, and that while the residents liked
having the morning and evening bus stop at that location, the off-peak buses created a lot of
noise, traffic and unpleasant smells. She was also concerned about vandalism and strangers
loitering around their property during that time.
Susan White, 1901 Shoreline Drive, echoed Ms. Rouse's comments, and objected to the diesel
fumes in the middle of the day. She added that she suffered from asthma, which was aggravated
by the fumes. She noted that she moved to this area to live in fresh air.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, noted that less than half of the residents on Alameda
Point have cars. He believed that Line 63 was broken. He noted that their growing youth project
discovered that the lack of convenient access to affordable, healthful food stores was a major
issue leading to food insecurity in the West End. He noted that the bus line at Alameda Point was
heavily used and relied upon by the community, including many students who attend Island High
School and Bay School. He noted that the bus was a lifeline for those traveling to the food bank,
and that the schedule should not erode at Alameda Point. He has heard stories of buses skipping
the Alameda Point loop altogether to regain the on-time schedule. He did not believe that moving
the line from Towne Centre should not be considered, even as the Towne Centre is being
redesigned as a more upscale shopping center. They would welcome any further efficiency on
Line 63, but did not want to see any reduction in service.
Transportation Commission
Page 9 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,11,"that there was more benefit being part of a larger system. In lieu of a shuttle, he suggested
providing an Ecopass, or a combination of an Ecopass and contracting with AC Transit for
additional service to get people onto regular AC Transit buses.
John Atkinson, consultant to Catellus, noted that the shuttle was the cornerstone of the program,
and added that they intended to apply a systemic approach to reduce SOV traffic. He noted that
they were exploring ride-matching systems with carpools and possibly van pools. He stated that
AC Transit has indicated that not all of their buses are equipped for handling an Ecopass
program. Also, in trying to price services, AC Transit was $130-140 an hour to run shuttles,
approximately double the cost of a private operator; an economically feasible situation should be
found. Catellus' goal is to coordinate not just with AC Transit, but also with BART and the ferry,
and that they want to work with AC Transit as much as possible.
Staff Bergman noted that the Interagency Liaison Committee had addressed the possibility of
using an Ecopass. AC Transit had not been ready to implement that concept yet, and that they
had three programs that had been individually negotiated. They are currently trying to
standardize that process, and would will an update at the next ILC meeting within the next
month.
A discussion of integrating the service into the Island grid followed.
Commissioner Krueger was surprised to see that the monitoring would be done only through
surveys.
Mr. Knopf noted that Catellus has proposed taking the ITE trip generation rates that such a
development was expected to generate in the outlying and surrounding area, and to take those
numbers and examine the level of reduction in SOV trips expected to accomplish. Through direct
surveys, the level of usage would be compared against the survey results.
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested measuring at the key access points of the actual car trips,
and running the numbers from that.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Department, noted that Mr. Knopf and staff had done a good job in
introducing the major issues. He noted that the Planning Department saw this as the beginning of
a much larger West End TDM program. He believed that although he was very happy that
Catellus had stepped forward in committing the $425,000 per year at buildout, it would take a lot
more money to run an effective transportation program. The Planning Department believed that
Catellus should create an organization so that future projects may be built in the West End. He
noted that Alameda Point could have 1400-1500 market-rate units, which could potentially
provide a major financial contribution to this program. The Planning Department believed that a
major source of annual operating funding should be generated which should be turned over to
AC Transit when it became big enough so they could provide the levels of services needed in the
West End. If an Ecopass program is initiated, everyone who pays the annual fee may participate.
He believed it was important to get this organization started now. He noted that they needed to
be able to adjust to changing system requirements.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
PlanningBoard,2016-05-09,7,"that the street parking near the terminal would be a community asset and not be owned
by the adjacent property owners.
7-D 2016-2869
Planning Board Study Session: Boatworks Project, PLN15-0582 - 2235
Clement Avenue - Applicant: Phillip Banta. Study Session to review and
comment on Development Plan and Density Bonus applications for
construction of approximately 182 residential units and approximately two
acres of open space on a 9.48-acre parcel located at 2235 Clement
Avenue. An environmental impact report has been completed for the
project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2705112&GUID=108ADAC4-
A6-43F6-A798-910AD5A57A24&FullText=1
Phillip Banta gave a presentation on the history of the project and application.
Nicoley Collins, part owner of the project, introduced herself. She said she hopes they can
answer any questions and move the project forward. She said she fears that they have hit
a wall with city staff.
Robert McGillis, project architect, spoke about options for the tentative map.
Shona Armstrong, Boatworks attorney, spoke about the unusual order of the approvals
for this project. She said there was an approved density bonus application in 2011 that
specified the number of affordable units. She said the inclusionary housing and density
bonus issues only reappeared in the March 8th, 2016 letter and that is why they feel it
would be appropriate to have more time to work those issues out.
Board Member Sullivan asked where visitor parking would be. She confirmed that there
were no backyards for any of the units.
Mr. Banta explained that Blanding Ave. would have street parking along one side and Elm
would have perpindicular parking along one side.
Board Member Mitchell asked what the distance between the water and the adjacent
property lines would be.
Mr. Banta said the smallest distance would be 50 feet.
Page 7 of 11
Approved Minutes
May 9, 2016
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2016-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,9,"that the small theaters often showed family-friendly movies that may not be supported by the
megaplex theaters.
Ms. Nancy Sewell, 11709th Street, #23, spoke in support of this application, and noted that she lived
three blocks away from the theater.
Ms. Allison Martin, 1519 St. Charles, spoke in support of this application. She noted that there had
been a lot more traffic when the site housed a mortuary. She noted that she had been able to bring her
elderly father to the theater easily. She agreed that a crosswalk would be a good addition for safety.
Ms. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she represented
clients in opposition to the application, and that she would reserve her specific comments until after
the Planning Board has been able to review her letter. She believed that the theater was a wonderful
idea, but that it was in the wrong place. She recalled several permitted Alameda theaters that had
closed, and that they all had sufficient parking. She asked the Board to look at this application from a
macro view, rather than from a micro view. She noted that the General Plan and the Alameda
Municipal Code encourage businesses that draw traffic to go to the major C-C zones, such as
Webster Street. She noted that the transportation plans also support those goals, and believed lack of
parking had contributed to failure on Webster Street and Park Street. She noted that good businesses
were spread out in that zone and that they bought parking lots for their clientele, which she believed
should be dissuaded under the General Plan.
Mr. Allen Rawl, 48 Invincible Court, spoke in support of this application, and had moved here
because of the small-town character of Alameda. He agreed with the other speakers who supported
this application. He hoped the residents did not take the ability to walk to the theater for granted.
Mr. Don Coughlan, 2008B Clinton, spoke in support of this application and noted that he grew up in
the West End; he appreciated the small-town neighborhood feel and businesses. He noted that when
he worked at the mortuary as a young man, there were many cars parked in the neighborhood without
complaint.
Ms. Holly Ackley, 3015 San Jose Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and appreciated being
able to stay on the Island for dinner and a movie. She noted that she often walked there, but never
had trouble finding a parking space even when the movie was sold out. She liked the non-rowdy
nature of the patrons.
Ms. Louise Elsea, 470 Lincoln Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that
Alameda's small-town atmosphere was very different than the rest of the Bay Area. She believed this
theater helped neighbors get to know each other.
Mr. Robert Lundy Paine, 2056 Pacific, spoke in support of this application and introduced his
daughters Bridget and Jessica. He believed that Central Cinema was a small and comfortable addition
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-05-15,6,"that the largest percent achievable would be 20% [using public
transit] ; the matter is how traffic will flow and move in an
orderly fashion throughout Alameda, not Measure A; the Council
needs further discussion of how to look at Alameda as a whole
rather than individual parts; discussion is important and healthy.
Following the last public speaker, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
* *
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:25 p.m. and reconvened the
meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciated everyone's civility.
Councilmember Matarrese requested the City Attorney to answer the
question about whether the Planning Board action was within the
Board's legal authority.
The City Attorney responded the Planning Board has no jurisdiction
over amending or changing Measure A, which would be a Charter
amendment and requires a vote of the people; stated the Planning
Board also has no jurisdiction over advocating the changing of
Measure A; the Planning Board can look at and talk about Measure A
as long as it does not take an advocacy position; establishing a
subcommittee for the sole purpose of looking at various ways a
public forum could be structured is not outside the authority of
the Planning Board; under the Brown Act, the subcommittee must
report back to the Planning Board at an open meeting with public
participation; the action the Planning Board took was within the
Board's jurisdiction.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning Board's
action that was appealed was legal whether the Board cannot take
an advocacy position; whether the subcommittee would not make any
decisions and would only make recommendations to the Planning
Board; and whether the Planning Board would not make any decision
about whether Measure A stays or goes because it is outside the
Board's purview.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative to all of
Councilmember Matarrese's inquiries.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether there are any constraints on the
direction the Council can give regarding the composition of the
subcommittee.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 15, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-07-13,4,"that the hotel leases from the neighboring business.
Board Member Tang asked whether the conference room square footage was
considered in the calculation for parking. Mr. Thomas said that parking calculations were
based on room count only and that this is a typically way of calculating hotel parking and
mentioned it has never been a problem in other places. Board Member Tang said he
was concerned that the conference room square footage was not counted in the parking
calculations.
President Henneberry said that parking concerns had been an issue from early on and
that the agreement is not set in perpetuity. He asked what would happen to the adjacent
parking agreement if in the future the area reached full build out. Mr. Thomas answered
that the hotel would still need to provide parking.
President Henneberry asked if shared parking across the street from a site had ever
been done in Alameda. Mr. Thomas answered that it has been done twice in Alameda
and it has worked for both projects.
Board Member Tang asked if the height of the hotel has any special foundation
requirements. Mr. Thomas said yes and that those issues are handled by the building
division and emphasized that the project must meet all geo-technical requirements.
Board Member Knox White appreciated the applicant addressing the previous parking
issues but that the architectural design did not look very special. He was prepared to
move forward with approval. He asked whether 18"" above existing grade was the
standard height to accommodate the potential for sea level rise. Mr. Thomas said he was
not sure.
Board Member Zuppan said she appreciated the applicant's revisions. She was hoping
for a design that was more impressive. She asked if item 10 in the resolution regarding
off-site shared parking was a condition of approval. Mr. Thomas responded that it was
and that the hotel must maintain additional parking and that the applicant must provide
a copy of the signed reciprocal parking agreement in order to obtain their Certificate of
Occupancy.
President Henneberry questioned how the hotel qualifies for the CEQA Infill
Development Project exemption. Mr. Thomas explained that in order to qualify for that
exemption the project must be consistent with the City's general plan, occur on a site
less than five acres, surrounded by urban uses, and have no major environmental
impacts. Since the project is in the business park and meets all of the requirements,
it
clearly qualifies for the urban infill exemption. He added that the entire business park
has a full EIR conducted previously.
The Board opened public comment.
Mr. Michael McDonough, of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, commended the
Page 4 of 11",PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,8,"that the hearings would be in Sacramento; he would like to have a local public forum so
residents could address these issues. He noted that it was a great imposition for the
average working person to have to go to Sacramento to participate in the process. He
suggested that the terms be staggered so there would not be a total turnover, and would
like there to be some institutional memory in that process. Ms. Weinstein noted that she
would investigate that possibility.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the items that required follow-
up, Ms. Weinstein replied that she would forward the answers to the Commission's
questions as an off-agenda item.
Commissioner Krueger agreed with the previous comments, and believed that staff's
recommendations for the clean-up language were very good. When the clean-up language
is created, he would like to see a road map for the consolidation to include the Golden
Gate Ferry. He believed it would be disingenuous to have the push for a single,
consolidated agency, and to cut Golden Gate Ferry out of it. If an exception for Alameda
could not be made, he would like an explanation for why the Golden Gate Ferry could be
excluded. He thanked the Senator's staff for attending.
Staff Khan noted that he had a communication related to a special program launched by
AC Transit and Chevron. The first meeting would be held Tuesday, October 23, at 10:00
A.M. He noted that he would be attending the meeting and recommended that one person
from the Transportation Commission attend as well.
3.
Adjournment:
8:55 P.M.
Special Meeting of the
Page 8 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-05-15,10,"that the forum is developer driven; the development at Bay Farm
gave rise to Measure A; the discussion on Alameda Point development
might give rise to a tightening of Measure A, which will not be
known until the discussion is held.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is concerned that the leadership
which the Planning Board would bring to the debate would be lost if
the committee is made up of members of the public; the Planning
Board is the Council's land use advisory body and has a significant
amount of expertise that should not be lost combining the Planning
Board members with people on the other side of the debate brings a
richer framework for how the public forum would be shaped, as well
as inviting Woody Minor to be a panelist at one of the workshops
Councilmember deHaan stated similar thoughts were raised at the
Planning Board meeting; adding other parties to the committee was
discussed and was not pursued; starting with Woody Minor was
brought up a couple of meetings prior; understanding pros and cons
that have occurred during the last 34 years has to be done to make
the forum meaningful  the forum is not needed to address design and
land usage issue, which are already being addressed at the MTC ;
there has to be much more to the dialogue.
Mayor Johnson recognized Planning Board Member Marilyn Ezzy
Ashcraft.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft stated the three subcommittee members met after
the Planning Board appointed the subcommittee and prior to the
Appeal/Call for Review; at said meeting, one of the first names
that came up as a good starting point was Woody Minor; that she
takes copious notes and no one expressed a desire to overturn
Measure A; the discussion was about what the Council would want as
a deliverable, probably at least three alternatives the
subcommittee also discussed wanting to hear from people in as many
different areas as possible and how to do as much as possible on a
very limited budget; urged Council to give the subcommittee 30 days
to come up with something and return to the Planning Board or
Council; the subcommittee is looking for a way to have a full, fair
discussion.
Mayor Johnson recognized former Councilmember ""Lil"" Arnerich.
Mr. Arnerich inquired whether the Council has the right to select
the committee members; stated the rooster is guarding the hen
house; people think the three Planning Board members selected for
the subcommittee are anti-Measure A; the subcommittee should be
made up of unbiased people who would look at the matter
objectively.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
May 15, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,14,"that the Transportation Commission would hear this item for action in May. The final
draft of the Pedestrian Plan will be created in May and June, and then taken to City
Council for acceptance. Staff would like this plan to be adopted as part of the
Transportation Element of the General Plan.
Open public comment.
Adrienne Langley-Cook noticed that the draft plan identified a walkway through her back
yard, and requested that it be corrected to reflect that there was no such pathway.
Chair Knox White noted that this comment was passed to staff, and that it would be
removed from the plan.
Tony Daysog complimented the Transportation Commission on its work, and wished to
see Alameda become even more pedestrian friendly. He recalled past major pedestrian
accidents. He noted that this was not only a quality of life issue, but also a safety issue.
Bill Smith echoed Mr. Daysog's comments, described a recent serious pedestrian accident
and re-emphasized the need for pedestrian safety.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox White commended Gail Payne on the quality of this plan.
No action was taken.
8.
Staff Communications.
Staff Khan noted that a meeting was held earlier in the day on the Broadway-Jackson
Study update. The project is moving forward as scheduled, and staff hoped to meet with
the Chinatown community in May. He anticipated bringing it to the Transportation
Commission for its June 25 meeting. The goal is that the project study report will be
completed and submitted to Caltrans by the end of July. He noted that good feedback had
been received from the Oakland and Alameda communities, and believed that consensus
has been building towards the alternative in terms of providing access through Sixth
Street, as well as providing new ramps as discussed.
Chair Knox White believed that it would be good to have a public hearing in Alameda to
make it more convenient to Alamedans, particularly since the City was paying for part of
the project.
Staff Khan noted that the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study was moving forward, and
distributed a handout to the Commissioners. The study would look into alternatives that
will address several user requirements, as identified by Gail Payne. Several meetings will
be held, and the study schedule was listed on page 4. Two meetings have been held on
Transportation Commission
Page 14 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.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
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,9,"that staff did not have an occasion to remove a sign, but if they receive a request, it may
be because of a substantial land use change, such as a new school. It was staff's goal that
ultimately all streets would be signed.
Commissioner Ratto moved to accept staff's recommendation to deny the appeal.
Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1 (No: Schatmeier).
6C.
Review of Draft Schedule for Completing Analysis of Thresholds of
Significance.
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that the major issue was how to resolve
conflicts. The City Attorney has stated that a Supplemental EIR would be necessary. He
noted that the Transportation Commission has asked staff to determine how to resolve
conflicts prior to bringing the EIR to the City Council. He noted that they would present a
schedule to bring the resolution forward. The five items listed in the discussion to be
implemented before reaching the goal of having the threshold of significance were:
1.
The final selection of methods of evaluation or level of service criteria;
2.
Development of draft implementation policies to address conflicts among
different transportation modes;
3.
Running the transportation model to see where the impacts were, and how
to mitigate them;
4.
Modify the draft policies as appropriate; and
5.
Process the necessary environmental document so City Council could say
they understood the conflicts and the impacts, and that they would approve
the new thresholds of significance.
He noted that the City Council must also disclose the impacts to the public, which was a
very important item, in accordance with proposed EIR Policy 7. As an example, he noted
that the City of San Jose had selected a few intersections that were protected, and that
they would not be mitigated by adding more lanes; they would create a system of other
modes in the City, and that the impacts at the other intersection would pay for the
improvements. He noted that in order to collect the money from a developer or from
projects, it would be critical to have a nexus between the fees collected and the impacts.
A statement of overriding consideration would be needed for those intersections that
would trigger the requirement of a supplemental EIR. He described the contents of the
schedule in Table 1. He noted that in order to meet the schedule, a joint public hearing for
the Draft EIR with the Transportation Commission and the Planning Board was being
considered for August. The Final EIR would be brought to the Transportation
Commission before it went to City Council. He noted that resolutions to the conflicts
must be determined, and that staff hoped to return to the Transportation Commission in
August or September with those recommendations.
Chair Knox White noted that the Transportation Commission requested that the
procedures for resolving conflicts come to this meeting, rather than a schedule. Staff
Khan indicated that staff would continue to bring information forward as it became
Page 9 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-06-15,16,"that she has never worked with Mr. Reynolds or Mr. Thimmig before; both firms are
highly reputable; that she worked for Westhoff and Martin Financial Services Group in
1993 and 1994; the innuendo that Mr. Holmstedt or Mr. Westhoff would get the deal
because of some type of payback is professionally insulting and is not the case; Mr.
Holmstedt and Mr. Westhoff would not get any compensation other than for work done;
Stone and Youngberg and WCH are the two strongest firms in the market for California
dirt bonds; a good structure for a very difficult transaction has been proposed; in the
future, staff could start an RFP process for financial advisors; an RFP could be done for
investment bankers also; an RFP process would be difficult at this time because of the
stringent timeframe.
Mayor Johnson stated the City wants to help property owners save money; the savings
would be significant for many; that she likes the idea of an RFP process for financial
advisors and creating a short list moving forward; the City could move forward with the
transaction with parameters.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council needs to have discussions going forward so
that everyone is clear; one member of the team got the position without having to
compete; everyone is scrambling around looking for jobs and opportunities in today's
economy; the appearance of how the City does things is just as important, if not more,
than how the City actually does things; the City should be very clear to ensure that
everyone gets an opportunity to complete; in the past, opportunities for women and
minorities have been based on who the person knew, not how good the person was at
what they did; the appearance of the City being accused of not following procedures or
not going out for competitive bid is bothersome.
The Interim City Manager stated the issue needs to apply to everything across the
board and not just isolated cases regarding investment bankers or financial advisors;
the issue should be revisited and a menu of different categories should be created.
Mayor Johnson stated the City uses a similar process with attorneys.
The City Attorney stated Mr. Thimmig is on her list.
Mayor Johnson stated brining the matter back for further discussion is a good idea.
The Interim City Manager stated local preference was discussed at the last Council
meeting; the matter would affect the purchasing ordinance, signatory limits, and how
fast things get done.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is very uneasy regarding the partnership; one of
the partners mentioned that the Interim City Manager worked for Mr. Holmstedt.
The Interim City Manager stated that she worked for Westhoff Martin Financial Services
Group which is not Westhoff Martin Banking Group.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-03-05,13,"that she concurs with Councilmember Chen; stated the letter of support and non-binding
term sheet are essentially a comment on the EA being considered at the March 14th
meetings; from a timing standpoint, including the matter as part of the City's comments
on the EA would be more organized and consolidated.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, and Mayor Gilmore - 3.
Noes:
Councilmembers Chen and Tam - 2.
(13-091) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease
Amendment with the Artemis Racing, USA Extending Their Current Lease for Up to One
Year in Building 12 Located at 1050 West Tower, a Portion of Taxiway H and Access to
the Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation; mentioned the
Luna Rossa team would also be locating at Alameda Point.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the Luna Rossa team give a presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(13-092) Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution to Certify a Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR), Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend the Alameda Municipal
Code for the North Park Street Planning Area, and a Resolution to Approve
Amendments to the Design Review Manual Regulating Development Within the Area
Bounded by the Oakland-Alameda Estuary, Tilden Way, Lincoln Avenue, and Oak
Street. Continued to March 19, 2013.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(13-093) The City Manager announced that staff reached tentative agreements with the
Fire Managers and Police Managers Associations on the outstanding issue; the contact
would be brought to Council and job description changes would be presented to the
Civil Service Board prior to the contracts commencing on July 1st.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
March 5, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-03-05.pdf
PlanningBoard,2014-07-28,3,"that need them be a requirement. He stated there is one building on the waterfront that
needs more work on design, also the sidewalk is 10' back from the street, but there are not
crosswalks at each intersection. He asked if all the garages will be big enough for bikes
and cars and he is nervous the funding for the TDM plan will not being enough to get the
program underway. He stated the proposed shuttles need to be more efficient and he
suggested adding a car share.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni is pleased about the modifications made by the developer.
She is pleased with the public comments and hopes the developer will make the changes.
She agrees there needs to be an island shuttle service. She asked about the homes
being fitted with an electric car plug in.
Mr. Gordon Jones, Lennar Homes, commented they don't usually add specific car plug-ins
because there are many different car types. They do however, add a 30amp box that is
available to homeowners.
Board member Tang asked about a power station in the guest parking.
Mr. Jones stated there are no plans for plug in stations at guest parking. He wanted to
comment that backing in the walls for grab bars will be blocked for the accessible units,
and the bathtub issue can be addressed per code.
Board member Tang asked about the Clement Avenue AC Transit route and where will the
bus stop be located. He asked about the speed limit and will bumps in road be added. He
asked about mailboxes.
Mr. Thomas stated the AC Transit routes and bus stop locations have not been determined
yet, and this development will eventually connect with the Del Monte project. He stated
the speed limit is 25, and there are no plans for bumps in the road.
Mr. Jones stated mailboxes are determined by the post office and will probably be
clustered.
President Burton thanked staff and the developers. He stated the majority of the design is
very good. He is pleased to see the emergency vehicle lane and street trees reworked.
He commented on Universal Design bathrooms (AF.4) and has specific design comments
on the width of the doors, and roll in showers, also the tubs and toilets don't appear to
have grab bar access. He is pleased with the housing styles, but the condo design needs
a bit more work. He stated that Building B is the most problematic and needs more work
on style. He further commented on the look of all other buildings. He agrees the TDM
plan needs to come back. He would like the Universal Design issue to be a condition of
approval to meet Chapter 11A of the California Building Code (CBC).
Board member Alvarez-Morroni asked about Building B, and how the color would change
the look.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 6
July 28, 2014",PlanningBoard/2014-07-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,28,"that money is the bottom line for Alameda owners, rather than diversity. I am concerned that I will end
up on the street. There have got to be some housing alternatives in this day and age. I saw the low cost
studios on Park Ave and Central, but seriously, studios? Maybe for the young, but not the majority. This
seems like a sad attempt to pad affordable housing numbers.
It's been ridiculous now for many years at the XXX apartments! A 6% increase one year, 5% the next,
back up to 6% last year, and 6% again this year. We've gone to the Alameda Housing/Rental Board 3
different times up against the property manager and XXX, all to no avail. EVEN THOUGH the Board
has ""strongly recommended"" against these increases, especially since we've lived here since 1997,
AND since certain concessions made by the manager made weren't fulfilled. The property isn't the
oldest in town, but still could use some major improvements and upgrades without the tenants paying
through the nose for them! We are S00000000 sick of hearing, ""Well, you SHOULD be paying us much
more for your apartment/floor plan/view!"" after all these years, this is very frustrating, rude, and even
disrespectful. We've seen this place go so far downhill that it was only approximately 25% occupied at
one time in this 450-unit property! Pet rules/acceptance has come and gone, and is back on at this
time. Our barbecue grills have been removed and tenants are only allowed to have the equivalent of a
camp sized propane stove on patios/balconys. Plants were asked to be removed, but the new (only
part-time, by the way) manager is a bit more lenient. Oh boy, the list goes on, but we feel it is all
reflective in the amount of rent we ALL pay here, even with constant parking garage and car breakins,
thefts and internal burglaries does all this justify the rental increases and poor treatment we get
in
return? We think not.
""My friend looked to get a place here last week. She was quoted $1,969/mo + pet rent for a year in a
JUNIOR one bedroom---not even a one bedroom! She looked into a place here six months ago--I
believe she was quoted - $1,800. She ended up renting at XXX for ~ low $1,750. Rent here has gone
up nearly $200 in six months! Not to mention the theft in the buildings and additional $50/mo for an
extra parking space.
I cannot afford the increase, but I cannot move. Rent has gotten so expensive in alameda, I am
completely stuck. Next year I anticipate moving out of alameda because l'll be priced out of my
apartment.
I am a ferry rider -> SF, an artist that participates in the local art community, and I'm worried I will no
longer get to be a part of this community I love so much. Options are severely restricted because of dog
ownership. Looking online (craigslist), there is nothing available for less than ~$2,000.
6. When I call on maintenance or repair issues, it takes
to receive a response and have it fixed.
24 hours
36%
Never
One week
25%
Other
One month
One month
4%
Never
5%
One week
Other
30%
24 hours
Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015
10
www.RenewedHopeHousing.org
RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com
|
Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,3,"that live on Otis Drive. She noted that Councilmember DeHaan's suggestion for putting the 63
back on Shoreline was correct, where the residents of apartments and condominiums could use it.
She added that the Hall of Justice was also on the route, which would serve those who have lost
their drivers licenses.
6A.
SHUTTLE SERVICES AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS - FINAL
PRESENTATION.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and detailed the background of this item, including
comments made at the last meeting. The consultant has tried to address those concerns in the
report, and requested feedback. One point was that the incremental costs of increasing AC
Transit service was in the context of Alameda Landing, and the cost of serving the new site may
not be comparable to the introduction of a new route. Staff conducted discussions with AC
Transit to analyze potential modifications of their existing routes to serve that site. AC Transit
indicated that in terms of Alameda Landing, that there is enough time available in the existing
Line 19 schedule to reroute it through the site at no additional cost. The 63 could be routed
through the Alameda Landing site, although that would require an additional bus. He described
and demonstrated the proposed changes.
John Atkinson noted that he was in continual discussion with AC Transit, and received an email
from one of their planners regarding the 63 and the 19 lines. He noted that the end goal was to
have the public transit provider of Alameda County be the primary transit provider at Alameda
Landing. He noted that it may be a two-pronged approach, where shuttles come in the initial
phases, since such as service could be implemented quickly, and they may not meet the
minimium ridership thresholds AC Transit would need. He noted that they could get ridership
built up, and then look at AC Transit as a solution for the long-term.
Public Comment.
There were no speakers.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox White complimented staff on its report, and noted that it answered most of their
concerns. He noted that they could add the 19 line at no additional cost, and while it was not a
short-term cost, it would not answer the short-term run.
Staff Bergman described the cost factors.
Chair Knox White noted that he would feel comfortable forwarding this to City Council, but
wanted to clarify any issues with respect to costs that were not reflective of what was proposed
according to the staff report.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he was studying the costs on page 14, and requested further
clarification on the map. He noted that the costs did not work out, and that there seemed to be a
Page 3 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-01-25,4,"that it is essential for the PAC to reach out to applicants, and agreed to contact
Mr. Savinar.
9.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
PAC Meeting
4
Minutes
January 25, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.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
PlanningBoard,2015-03-09,2,"that he potentially loses.
Mr. Jaspal Sekhon, owner of the 7-11 across the street, opposed the project. He said that
Walgreens is a big store that threatens the nine other liquor stores in the area. He said that
there are vagrancy issues in the area, as well as at South Shore Center. He reminded the
Board that the Zoning Administrator denied a similar use permit for the 76 gas station. He
said that other cities have prohibited the sale of alcohol at downtown Walgreens locations.
Ms. Preethi Swetha, resident, said she supported the appeal. She said that big-name
chains are convenient for the public, but they can have a negative impact on the small
businesses in the area.
Mr. Dominic Carrion, Alameda resident, said he was a victim of a felony drunk driver about
eight years ago. He said that the City should be restricting, not increasing, alcohol sales.
He said he has nothing against Walgreens, but questioned the need for more places that
sell alcohol in Alameda.
Mr. Dave Salazar, resident, said that many of the vagrants on Alameda come from
Oakland. Many of them come to Alameda in search of alcohol. He urged the board to
reconsider the use permit, because vagrants negatively affect the quality of life in
Alameda.
Mr. Joel Gutierrez said that big chains have a history of forcing smaller businesses to
close. He feared that a Walgreens that can sell alcohol on Park Street would lead to
negative effects on the businesses in the area.
Mr. Jerry Coulon stated his opposition to granting Walgreens a liquor license. He said that
part of Alameda's charm is the small businesses on Park Street. He said he shops at
Walgreens for many convenience items, but he said that he does not support alcohol sales
from a big corporation.
Mr. Yagumeet Sindhu said that the Walgreens on Park Street made no economic sense.
He said that the Walgreens in San Leandro does not have a liquor license, and their sales
are quite fine.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Member Knox White asked Mr. Tai about the description of this particular liquor
license. Mr. Tai explained that this particular license allows for the sale of beer, wine, and
spirits. Mr. Tai explained that other business on Park Street also have this type of liquor
license.
Board Member Knox White asked if the Board had to make findings to make a decision.
Mr. Thomas explained that the Board should, for the record, make findings in order to
approve or deny the liquor license. If the Planning Board cannot make findings, they
should state so for the record.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 8
March 9, 2015",PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-10-17,21,"that have speed limits of 35 miles per hour.
The Transportation Commission Chair stated a survey was mailed out
to a random sample of 1,200 Alameda Power and Telecom customers ;
speed limit was one of the specific questions ; there was
overwhelming support for not raising the speed limit.
The City Engineer stated classification systems are used for
funding purposes the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) looks at
speeds an impact exists if speed is lower than the speed
designated for an arterial. impacts have to be mitigated.
Mayor Johnson stated Alameda's arterials are different than other
cities and should not be compared with other cities; Alameda does
not have true arterials.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the roadway
alterations policies being fairly tight restrictions provide a
direction that moves away from reliance on single occupancy
vehicles; goals need to be met at some point; planning can be
driven from policies rather than a dictate for a 35 mile per hour
four-lane road; policies need to be reviewed carefully; he likes
all of the policies, except Policy No. 7; Policy No. 7 does not
meet the explanation and intent that has been given; Policy No. 7
could use some polishing, but the intent is good.
Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated he supports the draft policies and
the work of the Transportation Commission; the entire point of the
seven policies is to make the actual costs of driving automobiles
more explicit; society has been slow in recognizing and accounting
for the costs; waiting in traffic for five to ten minutes when a
draw bridge is up is more than Level F but is not classified as a
significant impact because it is part of the price of being in
Alameda; he rejects any suggestion to make Webster Street and
Appezzato Parkway an eight-lane intersection in order to
accommodate the few hours per day that there might be high traffic;
Policy No. 7's intent is to find other ways to solve the problem
instead of encouraging more cars on the road and adding to the
problem; urged Council to support the staff findings and
recommendations so that the seven policies and traffic study can
move forward.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what language [in Policy No. 1] would
be more satisfactory to staff.
The City Engineer responded Policy No. 1's language is not the
issue; stated streets would need to be labeled in a way not to call
the streets arterials and would need to be designed in a way to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
October 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-12-06,6,"that has been done; getting back on track has been positive.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(11-587) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended the League of California
Cities Leadership Workshop.
(11-588) Councilmember deHaan stated the new sound system is working very well.
The City Clerk stated the audio portion of the broadcast has been upgraded; the next
phase will be implement high definition cameras.
ADJOURNMENT
(11-589) There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:07
p.m. with a moment of silence in memory of Jean Sweeney and Dr. Alice Challen.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
December 6, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,5,"that goes directly to the property manager for operations; other line items shown in the budget,
such as the security, life safety, cleaning and janitorial are not included in the $1,209,374.19
amount; the same occurs with the repairs, maintenance, and Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) costs; the total operating expenses cost $3,700,000 and include
management, landscaping, utilities, and other items; Council is currently considering costs that
go directly to the property manager for operations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is trying to find the breakdown for the
$1,209,374.19 amount.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the $1,209,374.19 includes $840,000 for
administration in 2020-21; the administration cost for 2021-22 is $850,000.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what the $850,000 is spent on; stated that she would
like a breakdown.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the costs includes salaries and benefits,
general office supplies, equipment costs, telephone, internet, janitorial supplies and services,
supplies, services, shared buildings electricity, marketing, tenant support, memberships,
professional associations, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, business licenses, postage,
computers, and wayfinding sign maintenance; the management fee is now $216,000; for the
past five years, the management fee remained at $165,000 with no increase; the new
agreement includes 3% annual increases; the final charge to the $1,209,374.19 is for general
building services which includes the property management's estimate of cleanup costs for trash
and dumping.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like a specific breakdown provided for
the $1,209,374.19; expressed support for receiving a breakdown of salaries and benefits per
property management employee; stated that she is trying to figure out whether the program
should be housed within the City under the Community Development Department as opposed to
hiring property management, especially due to the increase in liability.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated that she does not have the information
currently available; prior to 2000, leasing and property management was performed internally;
Council decided a property manager would be faster, easier and more efficient privatizing
significantly reduced costs; at the time, port management services were $750,000 per year;
privatizing reduced costs by more than half.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolution] with direction to staff to provide information to Councilmember Herrera Spencer
on detailed budget items.
Vice Mayor seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the contract with RiverRock is
separate from the PacWest Security contract, to which the Assistant Community Development
Director responded PacWest Security is a subcontractor of RiverRock; a Request for Proposals
(RFP) process will likely occur soon.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how soon the RFP for security will occur.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
5",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,12,"that flow from Phase I tax increments are obligated to Phase II
unless negotiated differently.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Phase II has been negotiated,
to which the Development Services Director responded Phase II has a
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) .
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the DDA provisions could be
renegotiated, to which the Development Services Director responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the bottom
line of the next phase is more favorable.
The Development Services Director responded that a developer
advance is not required; available funds would be required to be
put into the infrastructure in a different pattern.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Research
and Development Park and Business Park look more favorable, to
which the Development Services Director responded that she could
not respond; there are other issues related to the economics.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the profits
rolling into the next project allow for a more favorable situation,
to which the Development Services Director responded possibly.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the price of
homes is the principal factor for the current situation, to which
the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the break-even point was
$650,000.
The Redevelopment Manager noted the average sale price of the homes
was $725,000.
louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that news is good overall;
profit participation was initially questionable.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff
recommendation
Counci lmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC), stated that the APC
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,4,"that employees had already been preselected who were going to get the positions. In
essence, we had employees who did not have any fairness or equity in going through the
testing processing. After the oral interviews a manager who sat on the board, came up to
the employee and stated, ""You know what, I was just a pawn. I had no input into the
selection process. It was out of my hands.""
Mr. Gossman concluded that this has been documented in the information provided to the
Board.
Mr. Riddle asked if Mr. Gossman was referring to the letter and there was also something
called an appeal. Mr. Gossman stated that first of all this is an appeal. They have an
appeal. Mr. Riddle asked if this was the initial letter. Mr. Gossman stated yes.
Mr. Gossman stated that right after the examination the employees were told that one of
the examining people had no part of it. Within two days, they were called into the office and
told they were laid off. The employees asked for their test scores. They were told they did
not have test scores and that they just did not pass. So they walked out the door after a
combined 30 years of experience. The employees are very upset and angry because of
the testing process. They all realize that everyone has to take the test and they were
looking for fairness. In this testing process and whole examination, it did not happen in this
case.
The appellants are requesting that the test be vacated, that a new testing process be
completed and that it be completed from outside Human Resources personnel, from
another agency so that the test can be done fairly and correctly.
They were expecting that one person would be laid off and there were three people laid off.
One of the new persons hired was an individual who was a custodian in the Library. In
being objective, how could a custodian who works in the Library have more experience or
training? In fact, he had no training in the parks recreation programs to be selected.
The second issue is that this individual owns a lawn business in the City of Alameda. The
red flag is; how can an employee who works full-time for the City of Alameda and at the
same time have a full-time lawn business while he's supposed to be working for the City of
Alameda. Mr. Gossman feels that is a conflict of interest which is another red herring in
this case. They are requesting than an outside investigation be conducted regarding what
has happened.
Mr. Gossman stated that the bottom line is they are looking for a new test, employees to be
put back whole from where they were, and that the facts and truth come out of what
happened in this testing process.
Trini Blumkin, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator, stated that they all have 30
years combined experience. They understood that there was going to be a reorganization
and understood that someone was going to be laid off. They were asking for a fair process.
Page -4-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.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,2020-11-17,10,"that conditioned support on getting funding; however, funding was never conditioned on
the OAAP funding being used for the estuary crossing; building a bridge is a $200 million
effort; the bridge was conditioned on the next $5 million study; the bridge is a huge project
and will require a large effort from the region for many years; the bridge will need regional
support and will serve a purpose; the bridge has brought regional attention to the project
for the first time; many regional members have expressed support for the project; the
OAAP is a good project and will take care of long standing problems in the Oakland
Chinatown area caused by the current design; the solution is safer for the area; the OAAP
does not solve the bike pedestrian access issues; the City Transportation Commission
expressed support for not allowing the estuary crossing money be used on the next phase
of OAAP; the OAAP and estuary crossing are good projects; however, neither are at the
finish line and both are short on funding resources; the region will have to work together
in order for both projects to be fulfilled; holding another project back contingent on funding
from another project did not seem the proper stance for Alameda; outlined the change in
the updated letter.
***
(20-716) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of resetting Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's
speaking time.
Vice Mayor Knox White 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.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about using OAAP money to fund the estuary
crossing bridge.
Ms. Lengyel stated the determination is made with the ACTC full Commission and is not
done at a the staff level.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the OAAP money could be used to fund the estuary
crossing bridge.
Ms. Lengyel responded in the affirmative; stated the City has two options; one option is
to bring forth the 2014 letter for ACTC consideration of funding for the estuary crossing
bridge; the letter commits bringing the matter to the ACTC board in January if the City
submits a request letter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the funding amount requested in the letter is $75
million.
Ms. Lengyel responded in the affirmative; stated the letter also notes that should the
project become infeasible, the Commission would consider reallocation; the amounts will
be part of the discussion at the ACTC meeting; there is a strong commitment to
multimodal access and improvements; the Commission is expected to be open to
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2012-05-07,5,"that complaints the Commission determines have no merit would be determined to be
unfounded and also what happens if a complaint is unfounded.
The City Attorney stated a determination is needed when a complaint comes before the
Commission; the Commission determination is either the complaint is legitimate or the
complaint is unfounded.
Vice Chair Jensen stated the determination should have some provision stating that the
complaint, while not a violation, has been either unfounded or was a legitimate
complaint.
The City Attorney stated that she would be happy to add said provision.
Chair Oddie stated if the Commission finds there is not violation, there has to be a way
to indicate the Commission's finding.
The City Clerk noted there would be a learning curve.
The City Attorney stated the Sunshine Ordinance complaint form requires picking an
alleged violation of public records or a public meeting and the section of the Sunshine
Ordinance violated.
Vice Chair Jensen moved approval of the form and process with the caveat to review
issues at the next meeting.
Commissioner Wong second the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
3-D. Set Next Meeting.
Since the first Monday is Labor Day, Commissioner Jensen moved approval of setting
October 1, 2012 as the next meeting date and amending the By-laws to October.
Commissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Spanier reiterated the proactive role of the Commission.
Commissioner Peterson discussed the need for open transparency and having key
issues addressed at regular meetings.
Commissioner Spanier stated any process has a certain structure to ensure that things
happen.
Commissioner Peterson stated getting better feedback on what people want would
result in improvements.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
5
May 7, 2012",OpenGovernmentCommission/2012-05-07.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,7,"that big box stores typically had negative economic and design impacts on the community. The EDC
tried to generalize from those two points when significantly large new retail proposals came forth.
The two questions surrounding this concern were: Whether it primarily serves the community, and
does it meet an unmet need in Alameda. The EDC believed that the shoppers would maintain its
existence; it was not desirable for one store to cannibalize the rest of the retail stores. In terms of
design, some retailers require large floor plates for their designs, such as new, larger supermarkets.
The City wished to craft a policy that is able to respond to changes in the marketplace, and that the
retail uses should be pedestrian-friendly.
M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to hear Items 9 and 10 before the remainder of Item 8-B.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Linda Congleton, Linda Congleton & Associates, had prepared a focused economic analysis of
the Target proposal for South Shore Center. She summarized her background, and presented an
extensive PowerPoint presentation of the economic analysis. She noted that a Target would not need
to rely on off-Island customers, and that it was an attractive magnet for other retailers. She found
that Target's merchandising was compatible with the upscale economic demographic of Alameda.
She estimated that Target would generate annual sales of $44-50 million, bringing in sales tax
revenues of nearly $500,000 per year; over a ten-year period, approximately $5 million in sales tax
revenues would be generated for City services. She noted that Target was not dependent on freeway
access, and that the South Shore location was so well-known that the company was confident it
would thrive there. She added that Target was very community-oriented, and was a highly
philanthropic company. She displayed slides of various Target store designs.
President Cunningham noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S McNamara/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speaker times to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Jack Easterday, owner, Alameda Care Center, 1150 Ballene Blvd. #210, spoke in support of this
application. He believed that Target would be a vitalizing element in South Shore Center. He noted
that he had lived next door to a Target in Southern California, and now lives in Alameda. He had
reviewed the plans given to him by Target and South Shore, and believed they were positive for
Alameda Care. He noted that the Safeway store had become tired-looking, and added that their
delivery trucks parked behind his back door.
Ms. Joan Ruiz, 2101 Shoreside #145, spoke in opposition to this item, and distributed photos to the
Board. She was very concerned about traffic impacts on and off the Island, which was already
congested without a Target. She believed that South Shore Center was intended to be a convenience
shopping center, and did not believe this was an appropriate use for the area.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-28,7,"that better behavior with more consideration was not provided to the residents of Barnhill
Marina.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether language needs to be added to the current
ordinance in order to clarify the instructions for the tenants who have already paid their rent with
the increase due to the date being April 14th.
The City Attorney responded the argument could be made with the existing language; stated the
existing language allows a potential resident to argue that the rent in effect is not what was
announced; if there be desire to make the language clearer, another sentence can be added on
page 4, Section 2 of the urgency ordinance stating: ""rent being paid as of April 14th is defined as
rent being paid, not rent that was announced to be paid in the future.""
Councilmember Knox White amended the motion to include the proposed language.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the amended 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 moved approval of introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the language of the ordinance needs to
include the language proposed for the urgency ordinance.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated that he recommends Council insert the
exact same language from the urgency ordinance into Section 2-E.
Councilmember Knox White amended his motion to include the language from the urgency
ordinance.
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.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-283) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments thanking the City Manager.
(22-284) The City Manager thanked current and former City Councilmembers; stated that he
has appreciated the opportunity to work with everyone; Council has always stepped up and
worked for the community; expressed support for City staff.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:49 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 28, 2022
7",CityCouncil/2022-04-28.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-10-04,14,"that are now disclosable; having the conversation publicly could help the OGC continue
to effectively do its work.
Commissioner Reid stated that she would support a motion that specifies the OGC would
have a formal agenda item to further discuss these issues, asking the City Attorney's
Office to submit a copy of the same report to the OGC and to also include monthly reports
of PRAs submitted and exemptions that have utilized.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he would make a motion not including everything
Commissioner Reid included; he is a fan of the PRA, but doing a monthly report might be
burdensome; he is attempting to start with one request for an informational report, which
includes a recommendation to permanently implement a PRA supplement in the annual
report.
Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of the Commission requesting that City staff provide
an informational report on disclosure of documents.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether providing the same document as the one on the
City Council's Consent Calendar under the Commission's Staff Update section meets the
needs of the motion.
Vice Chair Shabazz responded essentially, the issue came before the Commission five
years ago and a Commissioner asked what it was about; he is asking the same thing; the
core of the question is that he is requesting the information come back to the Commission
to be shared in a way that is contextualized; he does not think it should take more than
half an hour to provide the information and allow the public to be aware of the report that
goes before the City Council twice a year.
Commissioner Reid stated that she is familiar with the report and has been following it;
she appreciates Vice Chair Shabazz's motion but would like to make a friendly
amendment to make it even more open and include the list of the PRAs on a monthly
basis; stated that she does not think it would take much of City staff's time; it would be
highly beneficial to the OGC and the public to see all the requests coming through, how
the City Attorney's Office is handling them and what exemptions are being used
repeatedly.
In response to Chair Tilos's inquiry, Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with Vice
Chair Shabazz's motion, but would like to add to his motion that a PRAs report is added
on a monthly basis.
Chair Tilos stated Vice Chair Shabazz already declined adding the monthly PRA piece
because it gets a little more tedious and adds more content to already-long meetings.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she is concerned Commissioner Reid's
request is not agendized; there is discussion and action being contemplated about a
request that is not on the agenda; cautioned the Commission to be careful.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 4, 2021
14",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-10-04.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-12-12,8,"that are large enough to accommodate at least 16 units are zoned at a certain density so
the land can facilitate a range of housing types.
President Ezzy Ashcraft raised an issue regarding residential development and its
proximity to transportation, parking, and density.
Mr. Thomas stated the initial list of sites is to get everyone thinking about the
functionality. As staff goes through the process internally and reviews the sites with the
public, then staff will be able to look at the whole list of sites in order to ask for
recommendations. He reaffirmed the notion that access to public transit is part of the
criteria for selecting sites, especially for higher density multi-family and senior housing
types.
Board member Kohlstrand stated that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is
implementing the One Bay Area Grant Program where funding is contingent on certain
strategies related to smart growth, adopting a housing element, including affordable
housing, constructing complete streets and a few more. The grant program is being
reviewed at the regional level under designated priority development areas. Therefore,
cities and counties are not sure if transit money is going where development is going.
Vice President Autorino asked staff what level of difficulty does Measure A introduce to
this process.
Mr. Thomas responded by saying that Measure A raises some level of difficulty, but it is
an insurmountable hurdle. Measure A is the citywide requirement, which says that multi-
family housing should not be built and that runs into the face of state law. However, the
City of Alameda does build multi-family housing, through density bonuses and other
ways. As a community, we are building good projects and will continue this effort. He
explained that the current zoning ordinance says maximum density of 21 units per acre
and density bonuses of 29 units per acre are allowed and the City will waive the multi-
family prohibition. Although, technically the City doesn't permit multi-family housing, the
City will waiver the rule on specific sites and density bonuses create considerable
density.
Vice President Autorino reaffirmed the statement that the City recognized the obstacles
created by Measure A, but understood the process of going around the measure to
create residential density. He also commented about the project timeline and whether it
could be expedited without jeopardizing other priority projects.
Mr. Thomas stated the faster we move along the better. The way staff laid the timeline
out staff can't get all the responses drafted before the first meeting in March. He
explained that he wants a good comprehensive set of opinions and once staff receives
the first draft, the Planning Board and residents control the pace entirely.
Vice President Autorino stated it is very important to do things right and not over commit
staff's time.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 13
December 12, 2011",PlanningBoard/2011-12-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,27,"that all pay increases be projected also.
The Development Services Director requested a timeframe for the
applicant to submit the information.
Chair Johnson stated three weeks is a generous amount of time.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.
The Executive Director requested clarification about the request
for verification of the dependent; stated staff accepted the
dependent as a family member.
Chair Johnson stated whatever is acceptable to the Internal Revenue
Service.
The Development Services Director stated that the fifth member does
not have to be a dependent and only has to be part of the family
unit.
Commissioner Matarrese restated the motion is that the Rutledge's
are required to provide a letter from the appropriate authority at
the Social Security Office stating that there would be no overtime
from October 1, 2006 through the end of March 2007; that all
reportable income from Peralta College and any other source be
factored in; and all documentation needs to be submitted by
September 30, 2006.
Commissioner Gilmore stated Commissioner deHaan requested that
motion include salary increases be projected forward if trainee
status changes and there is an increase.
Commissioner deHaan requested that the motion be modified to
require the Social Security Administration to provide its overtime
policy and [overtime] percentage projection.
Chair Johnson stated there needs to be a statement that there is or
is not [overtime] income.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the motion includes receiving a
letter indicating that there would be no overtime.
The Executive Director clarified that the process was to resolve
the appeal, not to set a precedent for future evaluations.
Commissioner Matarrese stated a process is not being established;
information is being gathered to adjudicate the appeal.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
8
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,3,"that Shoreline had poor sidewalks on the beach side. She hoped the reroute would not negatively
impact elderly people. She noted that wherever the route goes, she hoped that good stop spacing
would be retained in accordance with the transit plan's guidelines.
Liz Cleves noted that she was grateful that AC Transit and Public Works was looking at this route
so thoroughly. She concurred that the stops at Whitehall and Willow near a convalescent home
inadequate. She noted that between Park and Grand, there was a greater density of people on
Shoreline compared with the same cross streets on Otis. She distributed an aerial photo of those
streets, and believed the stops should be near riders, and not based on run time.
Diane Voss believed that Line 63 should be removed from the Town Centre, which is already
becoming congested. She noted that passengers carrying packages take longer to board a bus.
She stated that the congestion would also bring unsafe conditions due to impatient drivers, and
added that run time would be saved by not going through the center itself. She stated that
Shoreline is a better location for the route, as it would serve the Hall of Justice and the post
office. She said that Lum Elementary students would not use the bus.
Geoff Kline noted that he was disappointed that the report did not discuss ridership, nor was
safety addressed. He noted that run times and driver breaks were certainly important, but not at
the expense of those two items.
Adrienne Langley-Cook, Commission on Disabilities, noted that the Post Office had no sidewalk
near the bus stop, and that the crosswalks were not totally defined on Shoreline. She believed a
crosswalk near the Albertson's would be very valuable and would increase access to Town
Centre. She would like to see a wider sidewalk near Shoreline to accommodate seniors and the
disabled.
Kathi Young noted that she lived at Shoreline and Willow, which meant a long walk to get to the
bus. She noted that the stop at Whitehall and Willow was inadequate for disabled access, and that
it was dangerous and ill-lit. She believed there should be public transportation along that street,
and added that there were some turns at Alameda Point that did not seem to go anywhere.
Closed public comment.
Commissioner Krueger requested that AC Transit speak to the ridership issue, and added that no
AC Transit service actually made money.
Sean Diest Lorgion, AC Transit, said that they wish to provide service to higher density areas.
Commissioner Krueger inquired how much the ridership might increase, and whether there was
any ridership from the lagoon homes that would be lost. Mr. Diest Lorgion noted that the current
bus stop was at Willow and Whitehall, which would still be used if the route went on Shoreline;
no bus stops would be lost. He was concerned about possibly removing service from South
Shore.
3",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2012-06-06,9,"that Mr. Lillard could call these people and say he wants them to rate certain people down
so they are not given a promotional opportunity, when the evaluators do not even know
who the authors are, it is hard to say.
Mr. Low responded the interviews were also conducted by subject matter experts who with
the exception of one, Mr. Patrick Russi, did not have any intimate knowledge of the
applicants. The interview panelists again were Assistant City Manager Lisa Goldman,
Recreation Supervisor Patrick Russi, and Amy Wooldridge. At this point, the City does not
believe that there is a basis for an appeal of the Recreation Services Specialist recruitment
results or subsequent appointments. All three appellants before the Board applied for the
promotion, participated in the selection process, and all three achieved a rank on the
eligible list.
The City Manager, who is the appointing authority, approved the appointments of the top
three ranking candidates who are considered to be the best qualified based on their relative
performance through the selection process which was how people responded to the
supplemental questions and how they responded to the questions in the structured oral
interview process. All of the applicants answered the same supplemental questions and all
of the applicants answered the same structured oral interview questions. The City
recommends that the Civil Service Board uphold the recruitment and selection process as
well as the subsequent appointments.
Mr. Peterson asked what percentage was based on written and what percentage on the
oral exam. Mr. Low stated that scores were based on 40% supplemental questionnaire and
60% on oral.
Mr. Riddle stated that it is up to the Board to determine if they want questions from the
public to be answered. Mr. Peterson stated that the Board said the public could ask
questions.
President Peeler stated the Board did say they would allow questions.
Don Peterson, Alameda resident and former president of Local 595 IBEW, stated that in the
old days, 20-30 years ago, we used the same process and the reason they used 40% on
the written and 60% on the oral, was to eliminate minorities and applicants they did not
want. They kept the oral as a way of eliminating people that they did not want. The City
can say that their testing is fair but he knows from previous experience as the president of
a local that this was used in the past and it sounds like we do not do that anymore because
it was not fair. The City is using an antiquated system that is not fair so their (the City's)
results to him are moot.
Ms. Blumkin stated that even though the two outside people went through the supplemental
questions, if they were informed by Mr. Lillard who applied for the job even though their
names were not on those applications or supplemental questions, if you were not qualified
you would not be able to answer half of the questions because it asked for specific duties
that you did in a job that we (appellants) were doing. Because it was a promotional job, it
was promotional so it was things that we were doing as a program coordinator already. So
Page -9-
G:Personnel\CSB\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft",CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,8,"that ""signs cannot exceed or cover more than 25% of the glazing area. He added that the glazing
area was defined in the ordinance, and that any window sign cannot exceed ten square feet each.
Ms. McNamara believed that the purpose of a sign ordinance was to control the size of retail signs,
and was very concerned that the size had been doubled and tripled for retail advertising purposes. She
believed the sign ordinance should be adhered to more closely. She believed the current signage was
disproportionate to signage in the rest of the city.
Mr. Piziali noted that the Walgreen's sign did exceed the normal signage in the City, after go to City
Council. He would not support the Nob Hill gasoline sign being the same size as the monument sign.
President Cunningham agreed with Mr. Piziali's sentiments regarding the monument sign.
Mr. Piziali did not see any need for both signs to match physically in height, and added that the
service station sign was huge.
Ms. Mariani agreed that the signs, especially the gas station sign, should be scaled down, and
suggested continuing the item.
President Cunningham concurred with the Board members regarding the gas station sign, and
suggested that the mass be reduced by removing some of the arched elements on top. He would like
further discussions regarding the window signs, and believe that 25% window coverage contradicted
the intentions of the Design direction ordinance.
Mr. Qualls noted that this center faced Tilden, which was a fairly major thoroughfare, and that there
were not many homes adjacent to it. He did not feel there was quite as much friction as the Board
members perceived. With regard to the window signage, he noted that he respected the Board's
perspective and preferred to focus the in-window signage to the parking lot side, as opposed to the
water side. He would like to see a more open perspective to the water.
Ms. McNamara noted that it would be helpful to have a conceptual drawing of how the signs were
proportional to the buildings that surrounded them; she believed that would put the project more
in
context.
Mr. Piziali would like to see an option with slightly smaller signs, and did not believe that people
would miss the shopping center without them.
President Cunningham would support concentrating the estuary-side signage more to the parking lot
side.
Ms. McNamara emphasized her belief that the bright illumination and very large signs were not
necessary.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.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,2020-10-20,12,"than later; while these issues do happen, the City should be careful with the public's
money.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation and adoption of
related resolution.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the thoroughfare on Harbor Bay Business Park is very busy
and can be scary; construction brings unknown details when digging begins.
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.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(20-671) Recommendation to Establish an Alameda Youth Council/Commission.
The Public Information Officer and Venecio Camarillo gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated many Councilmembers have attended youth
demonstrations; youth skills are apparent and demonstrations are well-run; outlined a
silent demonstration; some demonstrations are multi-generational; noted the Youth
Activists of Alameda members come from across the Island and communicate well; it is
time for young people to be involved in the future of their community.
Councilmember Oddie stated the Alameda Youth Commission is a great idea; Council
has engaged youth members outside of Council meetings; however, there is no
mechanism for young people to provide an unfiltered opinion on issues in the City and
the Youth Commission will provide the opportunity; outlined his experience as a
member of youth in government; stated the Youth Commission will have an influence
and a voice in policies; expressed support for the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Vella stated the matter gives staff direction to explore options; a
balance is needed in order to have the right amount of members; meetings must be
accessible to individuals and have a method of getting to and from City Hall; noted bus
passes could be made available; expressed support for staff looking into barriers to
accessibility, such as iPad's or other electronic devices and for staff creating meetings
which as accessible as possible; outlined her experience watching youth staying late to
speak on City issues, such as rent and tenant protections; stated there are many issues
which impact the youth community; the Youth Commission will invite the youth
perspective; noted youth voices provided help in banning flavored tobacco; stated youth
voices are effective; expressed support for the staff recommendation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated youth voices have also provided short videos on wearing a
mask.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
October 20, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-01-05,23,"than 5%.
Mayor Spencer suggested the number be discussed.
Councilmember Daysog stated the correct number is 6%; provided his justification.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the trigger point to be anything
above 5%.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is not sure a trigger point is needed; he is more
interested in addressing the fear of eviction when there is no cause eviction; that he is
fine with the current process for rent review with professional mediation and binding
arbitration over a certain threshold.
Mayor Spencer stated the Vice Mayor's proposal is different.
Vice Mayor Matarrese concurred.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese would not use a threshold
number and just wants to use the current RRAC process of allowing the tenant to file a
complaint with RRAC, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated 5%, 6% and 8% have all been mentioned.
Mayor Spencer stated 8% was included in the proposed ordinance, Councilmember
Ezzy Ashcraft suggested anything more than 5%, and Councilmember Daysog stated
6%.
Councilmember Oddie stated tenants are concerned about getting 8% increases every
year; that he believes a lower threshold will result in more increases at the threshold;
there would probably be more 5% increases if the threshold is set at 5%, than 8%
increases if the threshold is set at 8%; he could go with any of the numbers.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would agree to anything above 5%.
Councilmember Oddie stated the matter would be reviewed in a year, so he would
agree to above 5%.
Mayor Spencer stated the majority agrees that the landlord would have to go to the
RRAC for any increase above 5%.
Councilmember Daysog expressed that he could agree with setting the threshold as
anything above 5%.
Councilmember Oddie stated data should be collected on all rent increases; the matter
would need to be reviewed if every increase comes in at 5%.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-01-26,7,"testing. The City of Alameda will not approve a project without all of those issues
resolved.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she shares the concerns that have been
previously voiced. She mentioned that even though the site is not included in the Park
Street North of Lincoln Strategic Plan she would like the developer to work with that
project to ensure cohesiveness with that plan. She stated that the pedestrian walkway
could be better. She would like the design of the homes to fit in with the current
residences in the area and not ""neo moderne"" as referred to in the architect's letter.
She is concerned that there are not many amenities in the immediate area, which would
possibly require residents to drive more frequently. She wants the low-income
exclusionary housing dispersed throughout the development and not segregated in one
specific area.
Board member Cunningham agreed with the public's concern over increased traffic in
the area. He also sees the contamination and clean up as a very important issue with
the site. He agrees that the property needs to be improved and would like to see
alternative uses for the site with less density.
Staff responded that talks have been taking place with the developer to look at
alternative ways to plan the site such as reconfiguring the open space to make it larger
and orient it so there is access from Clement Avenue.
Board member Cunningham voiced concern that the City of Alameda may get restricted
by their own policies concerning the density bonus and would like to see the City work
with the developer to design the site so it works for everyone. He is wondering if there
is a way to stay with the General Plan and put in a park and restrict the number of units
thus saving the City money through a decrease in residents and a decrease in the cost
of city services then that money saved could be redirected to build a park. The
community wants to see items in the General Plan come to reality and the City needs to
work towards that.
Staff commented that it would be very difficult to determine the cost savings.
Board member Cook asked if there could be an economic analysis included in the EIR.
President Kohlstrand responded that it doesn't necessarily need to be done in the EIR
but could be done independently and then inform the environmental process.
Staff is looking at alternatives and at least one is a no project alternative with two
scenarios. The first being a no build alternative. The other is a no project meaning it
develops under the current General Plan and zoning and to look at the financial
feasibility of the alternative.
Board member Cunningham is also concerned with the impact on the character of the
neighborhood.
Page 7 of 9",PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-05-04,15,"terms such as ""over the counter sales"" or ""medical marijuana dispensaries""; stated the
intent is give people in possession of marijuana defense by having a medical marijuana
card; having money change hands for profit is not the intent; over the counter sales has
very little connection between the person growing marijuana and the person accepting
the marijuana; the situation does not include a primary care giver and most likely would
be profitable; the dispensary across the bridge is set up to be a holistic approach to
avoid prosecution.
Mayor Johnson inquired how much revenue was generated in Alameda.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the Finance Department has records required for
business license purposes; stated information is confidential and cannot be released
without an owner's authorization.
Mayor Johnson inquired what type of reporting is required, to which the Assistant City
Attorney stated the State Board of Equalization receives revenue figures.
The Planning Services Manager stated the Oakland dispensary brings in millions of
dollars.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Oakland dispensary has one customer every
five minutes.
Mayor Johnson stated dispensaries are not co-ops but are big business.
Councilmember Matarrese stated changes will be seen at some point; the ordinance
should be adopted for three reasons: 1) the City should not establish businesses that
are illegal under federal law or cannot comply with State law; the appropriate place to
dispense the drug is in a hospital or pharmacy; 2) locations is an issue; nobody wants a
dispensary next door; and 3) the cost of crafting something at this juncture is not
appropriate; the City has more important things to address.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Webster Street business falsely
represented itself to the City.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(10-209) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Community Development Block
Grant Fiscal Year 2010-2014 Five-Year Strategic Plan and the Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Action Plan, and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related
Documents, Agreements, and Modifications.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
May 4, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf
GolfCommission,2010-04-21,2,"terms and conditions for the Mif Albright operation through the Junior Golf
Association. There are three major items that are still up in the air, one being the
term of any such lease. The City is insisting that the term be relatively short, no
more than ten years, and possibly only five years. As was reported to City Council,
the Wadsworth Foundation has expressed interest in making a substantial donation
toward capital improvements on the Mif. Wadsworth apparently will consider such
a
donation only if it has assurance that the course will remain in operation through a
non-profit for a long period of time. It is not willing to contribute $250,000 if at the
end of five years the short course can be closed and the land given to a developer.
If the City remains adamant about a short-term lease, it might lose what Chair
Sullwold thinks is an incredible opportunity for improvements to the course. Chair
Sullwold, Joe Van Winkle and Tony Corica are meeting with Dale Lillard, Dave Sams
and the Interim City Manager on Friday. Chair Sullwold and Mr. Van Winkle
considering whether to approach City Council members directly, as they don't
believe the Council members are aware of this situation. Commissioner Gaul asked
if the non-profit group had identified a minimum length of time for the lease. Chair
Sullwold stated they the foundation is coming out on May 10, and will presumably
address the matter at that time. Mr. Van Winkle thinks Wadsworth wants 30 years,
but might live with something less than that with extension options, possibly 20 years
with an option to extend another ten years.
The second issue still up in the air is whether the lease will provide that the Mif
Albright Course is the exclusive Par 3 course at the Golf Complex. Although Mr.
Lillard and Mr. Sams stated otherwise, Ms. Gallant told Chair Sullwold that she
thought this could be worked out.
The final major outstanding issue is what money the City would pay to the Junior
Golf Association out of the remaining balance of the Enterprise Fund. If contracts
with both Kemper and the Alameda Junior Golf Association are reached, the
Enterprise Fund would be required to be wound down under City law and the
remaining amounts distributed. It is not know how the total would be allocated
among the various parts of the Golf Complex -- the Clark course, the Fry course, the
driving range, and the Mif course, e.g. The Wadsworth Foundation would insist that
all or some of any capital donation from it be matched by other funds, and a great
source of those matching funds would be money from the Enterprise Fund.
Norma Arnerich stated that she appointed Tony Corica to be involved in the
negotiations on behalf of the Alameda Junior Golf Association. Mr. Van Winkle
discussed with her the question of whether the Alameda Junior Golf Association
would be entitled to the lease payments from the cell phone tower on the Mif course.
According to the current financial reports from the City, the City received $2,706 in
lease payments in March, which Chair Sullwold believes are a combination of the
cell tower lease on the Mif course and the lease of property to the left of the 16th
green on the Fry course. John Vest stated that the property on the Fry course is
leased to AT&T, and the cell tower on the Mif to Verizon. The Mif cell tower brings in
$1,500 per month, with about $1,200 coming from the Fry course tower lease. Mr.
Van Winkle believes that the rental income should come to the entity running the Mif.
- 2 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, April 21, 2010",GolfCommission/2010-04-21.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,47,"tennis courts. Harbor Bay Club also has 4 Pickleball courts. Can ARPD work with HBC and make an
arrangement with them for the public to use their Pickleball courts in exchange for St. Joe's using public
tennis courts?
At Lincoln Park on March 12th at 11:30 a.m., there were 21 Pickleball players. As I was sitting there
waiting for a court, I noticed that the basketball court and thought that maybe that could be an option
for the rec and park to look at to build more Pickleball courts. The ground structure is already in place
and may be easy to convert over to courts as 8 new basketball courts were built at Washington Park. On
my way home, I drove by Krusi Park and all 3 tennis courts were empty.
What about Estuary Park, where the new turf field was built. Can ARPD work with the East Bay Regional
Parks and see if there is land that they can add Pickleball courts?
I do not support a reservation system to use courts for the tennis and/or Pickleball for local
residents. The courts are public land and should be used by the public for free as we pay property tax to
the City of Alameda. This is a disadvantage to residence in Alameda who cannot ""pay to play"" the
games. We need to encourage people to exercise and enjoy the outdoors. Who will be monitoring the
courts to make sure people are using the reservation system correctly?
I do not believe a GoFundMe or fundraisers to build Pickleball courts is ideal. Why should the citizens of
Alameda, whom already pay property tax, contribute money to build Pickleball courts? We live in a
community, but not everyone in the community supports Pickleball and it appears that the only people
whom would contribute are the Pickleball players, which comes back to ""pay to play"" situation.
You all have a tough decision to make sure everyone in the community is happy and I praise you for the
long hours you put in for the community. It is not fair to put Pickleball courts in places without lights,
bathrooms and drinking faucets, so the tennis community is happy. I hope you review some, or all of my
suggestions, when deciding what to do with the fast growing sport of Pickleball.
Helen Simpson",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,10,"tenants.
Speakers John Sullivan, San Leandro, Mark Harney, Fifteen Asset
Management Group; Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners' Association;
Lorraine Lilley, Harbor Island Tenant Association; Eve Bach, Arc
Ecology Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope; Steve Edrington, Renal Housing
Association; Delores Wells, Harbor Island Tenant Association
(submitted letter) ; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant
Association; Mary Green-Parks, Alameda; Gen Fujioka, Asian Law
Caucus; Reginald James, Alameda; Michael Yoshii, Alamedal; and Bill
Smith, Alameda.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are a total of 17 units
currently occupied, to which Mr. Harney responded there are 17
units that are occupied by tenants with leases; there are 9 units
occupied by tenants who have stopped paying rent.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether relocation assistance would still be
available to the remaining tenants with leases, to which Mr. Harney
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many Harbor Island Apartment
tenants remained in Alameda, to which Mr. Harney responded that he
was not certain; not all tenants provided forwarding information.
Councilmember deHaan requested information on the number of Section
8
tenants that remained in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Council wants to know what the
immediate issues are in dealing with individuals who are still
occupying units at the Harbor Island Apartments and what assistance
can be provided; inquired whether there are housing assistance
opportunities for the remaining tenants through Community
Development programs or Sentinel Fair Housing.
The Community Development Manager responded that the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program contracts with Sentinel Fair
Housing and the Red Cross; Sentinel Fair Housing has been involved
with a number of the tenants; CDBG funds are also being used to
produce new affordable housing units through the Substantial
Rehabilitation Program; several of the units would be available to
applicants who previously resided at the Harbor Island Apartments
security deposit assistance programs have been funded in the past
which allowed Housing Authority tenants to borrow money from the
revolving loan fund and repay over time; the fund was depleted as a
result of earlier Section 8 problems; another funding cycle would
become available in July.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-01-05,5,"tenants would be counted towards base rent.
The Community Development Director responded the pass through is not a part of the
maximum allowable rent increase.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how the alternative rent review process with binding
arbitration fits into the three options listed in the staff report.
The Community Development Director responded the option is not reflected in any of
the ordinances; if Council supports the option, staff would draft an ordinance and return
to Council.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the public had been informed of the option prior
to January 5th, to which the Community Development Director responded the staff report
and attachments were available online 12 days prior to the meeting.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether anything would stop a landlord from imposing a
25% increase under Option 1, to which the Community Development Director
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the limitations regarding terminating tenancy
remains at 50%, therefore, a landlord could evict everyone in their building at the end of
two years.
The Community Development Director responded that a landlord could do so.
Councilmember Oddie stated at lease renewal, the landlord should give a one year
renewal option to act as eviction control.
The Community Development Director stated staff concurs.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess 8:29 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:44 p.m.
On behalf of the landlords, Don Lindsey and Greg McConnell, Alamedan's for Fair Rent,
gave a presentation; stated the issues are: curbing excessive or double digit rent
increases, displacement of tenants for financial gain, and reimbursement fees in some
instances; stated the City will suffer if owners are penalized by excessive rent
stabilization; Alamedan's for Fair Rents oppose just cause evictions because an owner
would be prevented from being able to evict tenants who are destroying the quality of
life for other tenants.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Mr. McConnell's made a comment that
evicted tenants should be paid relocation benefits, to which Mr. McConnell responded
in
the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-05-16,15,"tenants do not feel like less simply because they do not own property: Jeanne Nader,
Alameda.
Stated her voice as a landlord also need to be heard, not only the voices of the tenants:
Dometer Lamb, Alameda.
Stated that he lives in fear of no cause evictions; he feels like a second class citizen as
a renter; Measures M1 and L1 were confusing to voters: Matt Langwerowski, Alameda.
***
(17-326) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the referral [paragraph
no. 17-328].
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of hearing the remaining item.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not support the motion.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion, which requires four affirmative votes, which
FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Vella and Mayor
Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 2.
Stated Ordinance 3148 is working; the amendments are too strict; tenants with issues
should be allowed to meet with the RRAC immediately; the Council needs to come up
with a solution for everyone, not only one side: Lester Cabral, Alameda.
Stated the RRAC process works well; just cause evictions are not fair for housing
providers: Eunice Edwards, Alameda.
Stated just cause evictions make it difficult to evict problem tenants; the majority of
voters voted for Measure M1; Ordinance 3148 is working: Malcolm Lee, Alameda.
Stated just cause evictions will cause problems for small mom and pop landlords; he is
also a minority and has worked hard to become a landlord: Daniel Lee, Alameda.
Stated the voters of Alameda voted for Measure L1 by an overwhelming margin;
Ordinance 3148 has not been given a chance to work: Tony Charret, Alameda.
Urged the landlords and tenants to listen to the other side; stated Council should vote
bearing in mind the children that are involved: Nghi Lam, Alameda.
Stated that she voted for Measure L1; good landlords are being punished because of a
few bad landlords: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Stated there are already plenty of tenant protections in place; the eviction process is
difficult: Chunchi Ma.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
May 16, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-20,11,"tenant ratio and interested to hear more and sees reuse as positive.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the community wants connectivity and continuity;
the plan and design is well thought out with an eclectic mix of job creation; that she
loves the three types of park space; the project is a great opportunity and infrastructure
issues will be addressed; the project has an ambitious schedule; encouraged public to
get involved; stated the right development partners were chosen; Council still has to
give the developer guidance but should not micromanage.
Mayor Spencer thanked the community, City staff and the developer; stated she
supports historical protection and would like to keep the ellipse, the jet and the road
names; having accurate drawings in presentations is important; that she prefers green
developments and reuse of materials as much as possible to meet goals in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions; she is concerned about cumulative impacts on
transportation; she would like to see more information on how to address a natural
disaster and more fiscal analysis; she is interested in knowing the budget for the entire
project and the impact on City services long term; she would also like to see a
breakdown of the housing ratio and price range of the rents.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the property is a City transfer of public property
to a private development entity to develop using the standards laid out by the Specific
Plan, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative;
stated the developer will transfer the public right-of-ways back to the City.
In response to Vice Mayor Matarrese's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point stated the developer would be required to develop the property subject to the
terms of the DDA.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether Council will receive a briefing on the finances
included in the Development Agreement, to which the Chief Operating Officer -
Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated staff did a fiscal impact analysis as
part of previous entitlement efforts and is in the process of updating the fiscal model for
the project; some financial issues may come before the Council in Closed Session to
protect the City's interests.
Mayor Spencer requested a cumulative fiscal impact report which addresses Alameda
in its entirety.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point stated staff will talk to the developer about the sensitivity and impacts of the
housing tenure mix and will report back to the Council.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to see the type of housing Alameda currently
has and the new types being proposed for the project; the ownership ratio should be
higher; she would like more information on how the City will address rising rents; she is
interested in a higher percentage of affordable housing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-20.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-07-26,11,"temporary use of the site, consistent with the General Plan and the appropriate zoning of
a mixed-use commercial district. She saw that the charged ticketed events were a direct
consequence of paying musicians and they had only continued with contracts that were
already executed. She pointed out the suggestions about lowering occupancy and no
more amplified events after October, these might be contractually very difficult for the
business associate who had signed contracts and wanted to take that under consideration.
She agreed with the comments about conformance by the staff on the exact dates so that
dates in the Use Permit match. She also agreed on the strict compliance with the Noise
Ordinance and should be added to the terms of the Resolution. She was pleased to
support this and added that people who lived around urban areas (she herself had lived
around Golden Gate Park for many years) did organize their lives around public venues.
She thanked the neighbors for accommodating an important venue like this during these
times and said she would work to make sure they had more events like this in appropriate
places in the future.
Board Member Hom thanked WABA and the West End Arts District for organizing this
event, the origin and the purpose behind it was all very positive but at the same time, he
recognized the concerns expressed, fairly loudly, by residents. He also believed the key
was the enforcement of the noise ordinance, he was not opposed to adding that as a
condition. He was supportive of limiting the number of tickets for the events. He wanted to
know if there were contractual events made after the Use Permit was changed to allow
350. Unless there was a contractual obligation he was in support of keeping the occupancy
to 220. He thought this would not only help with potential exposure to Covid but would
also help with the limited parking concerns that had been brought up.
President Teague asked Ms. Asbury if their contracts specify ticket sales over 220 as a
requirement.
Ms. Asbsury said they do not.
Board Member Hom asked if there was no contractual obligation that they had with the
musicians they had booked with an offer of tickets sales up to 350.
Ms. Asbury said that was correct, the contract was based on their fees for the performance
not how many people came.
Board Member Cisneros thanked everyone and said she appreciated the public for sharing
their sentiments, she recognized that this was very contentious and emotional for people
on both sides. She was still in support and was consistent with her comments from the
last meeting. She wanted to see this move forward and agreed with some of the
suggestions laid out. She agreed with limiting the occupancy to 220 both for public health
reasons and to help with noise issues. She also wanted to make sure that the Resolution
was consistent with what had been committed to by the applicant in their mitigation efforts,
such as limiting the number of concerts to two events per weekend.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 11 of 21
July 26, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,14,"tell if the Cinema will be a one hit wonder or a movie for the
ages; the issues that the Mayor is bringing up can be tackled;
there is enough information to proceed with the action tonight;
issues raised can be addressed; that he doubts many people will
submit applications for theaters; there is a window of opportunity
to move forward with the theater.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to review making the
boutique theater regulations apply to all theaters, eliminating the
possibility of having a 200 seat live theater.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion;
stated that staff could review both issues.
The City Attorney stated the Council could direct that the zoning
text amendment be brought to the Planning Board for an additional
amendment in terms of applying restrictions on live theater.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a flood of people will not try to
get into the theater business; there is cap on the number of seats;
the risk is fairly low; the regulations provide definition for what
is already an unrestricted business; the two seem no different,
except for the fact that there would be a movie projector instead
of actors in front of the audience.
Mayor Johnson stated that she supports the suggestion to go forward
and bring back modifications; concurred with Councilmember
Matarrese's suggestion to restrict live theaters.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
[adoption of the resolution and introduction of the ordinance] with
the direction to come back with modifications to provide better
control and planning, including exploring limiting the number of
districts where the activity will be allowed.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she could not support the change
based on the merit of the operator instead of policy the
modifications that will return might address her concerns.
(05-363) Recommendation to approve a revised Donor Recognition and
Named Gifts Policy for the Library.
The Acting City Manager noted that staff provided a new set of
photographs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-06-19,17,"telecom employees there are, to which the AP&T General Manager
responded twenty-three.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the telecom
side has somewhat of a balanced budget inquired whether re-bonding
is anticipated in 2009 to take care of long-term financial
requirements.
The AP&T General Manager responded the matter is yet to be
determined and would be brought to the Public Utilities Board (PUB)
in the coming months; stated the PUB discussed issues not included
in the current budget, such as voice services, as an additional
revenue stream.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
customer base is increasing.
The AP&T General Manager responded in the negative; stated that
AP&T has lost an average of 30 customers per month for the last
seven months.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a $2 to $2.5
million revenue stream would be needed for re-bonding; inquired
whether adjustments or increased revenue would be needed next year.
The AP&T General Manager responded refinancing and additional
revenue issues would be brought to the PUB.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
said issues would need to start in 2008, to which the AP&T General
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated draw downs
were
made on [General Fund] reserves in support of the
infrastructure inquired whether the new budget General Fund
reserve level would be back up to 22%.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded estimates are 22% of
expenditures and would be subject to mid-year review and potential
appropriations by Council.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
infrastructure catch up work is anticipated in the proposed budget.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded $2.2 million per year
is estimated; funds are currently at $1.73 million; the balance
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
6
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf
SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard,2016-06-27,6,"technology transfer from the Universities and National Labs in the East Bay is leading to
business development. d) The East Bay region is becoming a national leader for
Broadband enabled home-based businesses, virtual companies, and flexible production
networks
4. E-Education: a) K-12 schools are becoming increasingly effective with Broadband-
enabled curriculum and parent involvement and schools are connecting electronically
with the households of students. b) Educational institutions are improving at using
technology to gather data to inform themselves in relation to policies and strategies,
and to connect with school families. c) Universities/community colleges/workforce
agencies are offering widely available Broadband access to a growing range of
curriculum/distant learning and providing Broadband-related entrepreneurship,
management, and workforce education.
5. Telehealth: a) The California Telehealth Network is becoming fully built out so that
providers/patients have access to records and services. b) Established health care
providers have improving Broadband technology systems for delivery of services. c) A
growing number of clients have the access/understanding to receive digitally- enabled
health care including facilitating communication between practitioners and patients and
home access. d) Educational institutions/workforce training providers are offering
education and training that is producing a well-trained health information technology
workforce.
6. Social Services: a) Social Services throughout the region are becoming fully Broadband-
enabled. b) Social Services providers in the region are connected to digital literacy
programs, enabling their clientele to become digitally literate and to acquire Broadband
access. c) Social Service providers are beginning to use Broadband to work together in
teams with government and educational institutions to address coordinated
neighborhood improvement in challenged neighborhoods
7. E-Government: a) Jurisdictions throughout the East Bay utilize Broadband to help
facilitate more widespread, user-friendly citizen participation and engagement. b)
Residents can access public services and resources electronically. c) Most public
libraries/recreation centers provide free Broadband. d) Public safety agencies and local
and regional emergency services are becoming optimally Broadband-enabled.
To produce a Strategic Plan guided by this vision, EBBC has used a Broadband Technology
Committee meeting, three East Bay Broadband Roundtables, and a Funders' Forum in 2012, all
leading up to the 1st East Bay Broadband Summit in 2013.
The Broadband Technology Committee, made up of IT Directors and CTOs from throughout the
East Bay, considered the current state of East Bay Broadband infrastructure and the
infrastructure needed.
2",SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,18,"technicians are not enough to cover the entirety of the program; staff will likely be coming back
to Council once the program is established with a request for additional staff to ensure the
department can cover the on street paid parking, parking garage, soon to be ferry terminal lots
and street sweeping routes.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he will continue to be supportive of having APD enforce
parking; there is a new program underway; however, he prefers the older way.
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.
(22-275) Public Hearing to Consider Formation of City of Alameda Community Facilities District
No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina) Therein;
(22-275 A) Resolution No. 15891, ""Formation of the City of Alameda Community Facilities
District No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina), 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;
(22-275 L B) Resolution No. 15892, ""Determining the Necessity to Incur Bonded Indebtedness
within the City of Alameda Community Facilities District No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina) and
Submitting Proposition to the Qualified Electors of the District."" Adopted;
(22-275 C) Resolution No. 15893, ""Calling Special Election within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina);' and Conduct Special Election.""
Adopted;
(22-275 D) Resolution No. 15894, ""Declaring Results of Special Election and Directing
Recording of Notice of Special Tax Lien - Alameda Marina."" Adopted; and
(22-275 E) Introduction of Ordinance Levying Special Taxes within the City of Alameda
Community Facilities District No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina). Introduced.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are any protests and opened the public hearing for
comment.
With no comments, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft closed the hearing.
Councilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolutions of formation, necessity and
calling the election.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated one of the matters indicates the
bond as indefinite with an ongoing tax and the other is for 35 years; requested clarification about
the duration of the current bond.
The Public Works Director stated the current the service CFD has the ability to go on in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
16",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-10-20,19,"technical assistance is included in the staff report; waste needs are more complicated
for commercial and multi-family environments.
Councilmember Oddie stated commercial and multi-family environments are new to
sorting aspects; inquired whether StopWaste has been consulted for a camera system
within bins as an enforcement aid.
Mr. Hilton responded a sister company to Alameda County Industries (ACI) conducted
the camera system pilot program; good data has been produced from the program and
can be introduced to the discussion; challenges with the program are related to costs;
noted each camera within bins has its own cellular service with a monthly fee which will
impact rates; there may be a targeted approach for using the program.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted customer education could be a less costly option; stated the
camera in the bin is intriguing.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff is requesting a sole source contract as
opposed to issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP).
The Assistant City Manager responded the current matter provides an update; stated
staff has explored a sole source option with ACI; an RFP could be issued, if needed;
however, sole source negotiations are going well with ACI; there have been delays in
reporting figures due to nearby fires affecting ACI staff members and more time is
needed; the term for the contract will be shorter than 20 years; the rate structure is
helped by a longer amortization time frame; staff does not anticipate an RFP process
will be needed.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated bin placement does not always align with expectations;
questioned whether there will be a way to address bin placement; stated ACI is
receiving high approvals; noted the one section for improvement would be bin
placement.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted that her personal experience with ACI's customer service
has been top notch; stated many cities' providers are no longer accepting glass and are
limiting acceptable items.
Councilmember Daysog stated that it is difficult for him to see a sole source contract
provided even at a 10 year term; ACI does a good job, but the market should be tested.
(20-675) Recommendation to (1) Waive the Encroachment Permit Fees Through
October 31, 2021 for the Commercial Streets Program; (2) Delay Short Term,
Temporary, ""Special Event"" Street Closures Along Major Commercial and Side Streets;
and (3) Accept the September 2020 Status Report on Transportation; and
(20-675A) Resolution No. 15720, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for and
Receive Up To Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) in Alameda County
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 20, 2020
18",CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2008-10-09,4,"teams, Lacrosse teams, Ultimate Frisbee use, etc. So the requests for fields have
increased greatly.
Chair Ogden asked who currently uses the Multipurpose Field. Director Lillard stated
Alameda Soccer and some Babe Ruth Teams.
Commissioner Brown stated that it is very difficult to put restrictions in place. If the
Commission opens the door for one team/group it puts the Recreation & Park Department
in a difficult position in having to be selective.
Director Lillard stated that it was difficult coming up with the 75% guidelines to ensure that
the traditional long-time users (e.g., Alameda Little League, Alameda Soccer, high school
teams, etc.) had a place to play during the water restriction. Staff hopes that the situation
does not deteriorate. In some areas, jurisdictions have stopped letting soccer
teams/leagues use fields and have also eliminated cleat use on their fields to help with the
wear and tear on the fields.
Chair Ogden asked if Bay Oaks teams were not on the fields. Director Lillard stated no.
M/S/C
SONNEMAN/MARIANI
(approved)
""That the Drought Field Use Policy be extended until November Recreation & Park
Commission Meeting when it will be reviewed again by the Commission.""
Approved (5):
Ogden, Brown, Mariani, Kahuanui, Bill Sonneman
Absent (2):
Cooper, Restagno
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A. Park Division
Refer to Drought Field Use Policy Review dated October 1, 2008 which was included in
October Commission Meeting packet.
B. Recreation Division
See October 6, 2008 Activity Report.
C. Mastick Senior Center
See October 6, 2008 Activity Report.
D. Other Reports and Announcements
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
None.
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
- -4 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - Thursday, October 9, 2008",RecreationandParkCommission/2008-10-09.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-11-28,13,"teachers, like the teachers didn't really understand all of the different pressures that they were
dealing with and they needed to be more understood and have more compassion.
Jodi McCarthy: The curriculum needs to be more culturally responsive. And then another thing
03/13/19
Page 13 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,22,"tax revenue.
The City Manager stated the League of California Cities could be
asked to explore the matter; opposition would come from cities
benefiting from the revenue.
Mayor Johnson stated fewer cities have larger dealerships ; efforts
should be made to advocate for reallocation [of tax revenue]
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
3
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-12-13,2,"tape]] service deployment policies. He understood that those meetings would commence in
January 2007.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
6A. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE MULTIMODAL CIRCULATION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RECONCILING TMP POLICIES WITH THE 7 NEW
POLICIES.
Staff Khan presented the staff report. He noted that on October 17, 2006, City Council approved
the initiation of the process for a General Plan Amendment to incorporate the Transportation
Master Plan policies and the seven additional policies recommended by the Transportation
Commission. Following the meeting, the Transportation Commission met in October, and the
Commissioners asked the Multimodal Circulation Subcommittee to examine the TMP policies to
determine whether any conflicts existed. If conflicts did exist, they were requested to address and
reconcile the policies. The Subcommittee met after that meeting and developed
recommendations, including minor changes to the TMP policies, as well as a substantial change
to Policy 7 of the EIR policies. He detailed the changes in the policies as described in the staff
report. The staff recommendations were intended to ensure that if Policy 7 were to be
implemented, and if a certain level of congestion were to be accepted in certain locations in the
City, some thresholds would be established that would take into account the impacts that may be
generated from the increase in congestion.
Staff Khan described the current CEQA process in detail. Staff recommended that Policy 7 be
strengthened so that if the TSM or TDM measures were implemented, they would be verifiable
on an annual basis. If they were not being met, additional measures would be implemented. Staff
requested that the Commission examine the changes recommended by the Subcommittee and by
staff, and to approve the changes with the changed policies as recommended by staff.
Public Comment
There were no speakers.
Closed Public Comment
Commissioner Krueger noted that he was trying to reconcile how staff's wording related to the
goal of strengthening the TDM language. He noted that the second set of language seemed to put
conditions on when unmitigated congestion could be accepted with TDM. He believed that
weakened the intent of Policy 7 as he understood it.
Staff Khan noted that Policy 5 addressed the issue of pedestrian and bicyclist impacts, which they
tried to tie to Policy 7, and which strengthened Policy 7 in establishing thresholds.
A discussion of the impacts and thresholds ensued.
2",TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-04-21,19,"taken onto public streets; staff can look into the issue outside of State law should
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 21, 2020
9",CityCouncil/2020-04-21.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,6,"taken into account for pedestrian spikes before and after school hours. When she went out to
receive signatures, many residents were supportive of the stop sign. She would like to have an
alternative such as speed bumps brought up if they cannot erect a stop sign.
Staff Naclerio replied that speed bumps are not an approved traffic control measure. However,
there are speed lumps found on Bayview Drive, which allows wide axle vehicles to pass. The
installation would require Police and Fire Department approval. In the past, the Fire Department
staff has said if there is a major route they use for emergency access, they cannot have speed
lumps installed. Robert Davey Jr. Drive would be considered an emergency access route.
Commissioner Vargas asked Ms. Lum if she needed additional briefing from the City to
understand the bike lane lines that are being proposed instead of the stop signs.
Cindy Lum replied she would like more information from the City.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if that is something that could be scheduled offline.
Staff Naclerio replied he would schedule a meeting in the next week or SO.
Commissioner Wong stated that speed lumps could not be installed unless approved by the Fire
Department. She wanted to know what could be done to reduce vehicle speeds.
Staff Naclerio replied that from an engineering standpoint there are not many alternatives
available. Otherwise, staff has been working with the Police Department because it becomes an
enforcement issue. They are working with Police staff to monitor speed during commute hours
based on Police staffing levels. Alternatively, Public Works staff could look at the entire
intersection to see if they could conduct narrowing at all of the lanes. There are studies that show
narrower lanes make drivers feel constricted and reduce their traveling speeds.
Commissioner Bellows asked about curb bulb outs and if that would help narrow the road since it
is a pedestrian-oriented concern.
Staff Naclerio replied the option would be possible, but there is a bike lane in the way.
Commissioner Bellows explained that staff could put a slice of a bulb out and since there is no
parking and include a slice for the bikes to get through and then carry the paint through.
Staff Naclerio said he would look into the option, but it could become costly. He felt that by
narrowing the lanes, you are moving the vehicles away from the people who are trying to make
the turns and that would create a bit of increased visibility and comfort. Ultimately, staff's goals
are to allow vehicles traveling along Robert Davey Jr. Drive to stop or slow in enough time to
allow approaching cars to make the turn.
Commissioner Vargas asked a public speaker - Red Wetherhill - to come to the podium to have
his comments recorded.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-07-10,7,"take further steps before the results were present, and she believed that some of the information may
be very useful for new businesses. She inquired whether there were certain businesses that staff was
imminently concerned with.
Ms. Eliason confirmed that there were specific businesses that were very interested.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft was concerned about losing the revenue from the lost parking in-lieu fees. She
also supported use of alternate transportation, but was dismayed at the paucity of bicycle parking in
Alameda.
Member Kohlstrand noted that because of the mix of uses, it was not reasonable to expect each
business to provide independent parking spaces, which would provide too much parking. She
supported looking at shared parking opportunities, which she believed was a more rational approach
to downtown parking.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-23 to
approve a Zoning Text Amendment to amend Subsection 30-4.9Ag.8 Off-street Parking and Loading
Space of the C-C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to add
a process for parking exceptions.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
July 10, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-07-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-10,30,"take away public open space, but she will not vote against the project because of the
change; she agrees with the Mayor regarding the 50/50 rental/for sale split.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she does not like the idea of eliminating 1,900 square feet
of open space.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would prefer to keep the open space, but he would
like the project to pass unanimously.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of calling the question.
The City Attorney stated the Council needs to certify the EIR.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of certifying the EIR [adoption of the resolution].
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye;
Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of calling the question.
Mayor Spencer stated that she could just call the question.
Councilmember Oddie withdrew his motion to call the question.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council could do a substitution motion.
The City Attorney responded the Mayor called the question.
Mayor Spencer stated Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft needs to vote yes or no.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested to be passed over.
The City Clerk stated a roll call vote is alphabetical; stated that the order can be done
differently if Council desires to do so.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there could be discussion, to which
Mayor Spencer responded in the negative; stated the question has already been called;
stated that she is happy to vote yes.
Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer their names be called before
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft.
On the call for the question on the original motion, the motion carried by the following
roll call vote: Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-07-19,19,"take as much property, either through FOST, and discussing a FOSET (Finding Of Suitability
for Early Transfer), potentially finding more property beyond what is FOSTable. That
property would all be at no cost to the extent that it stayed within the development
envelope plan for the reuse plan. That may not be enough development. At some
future date there may be the need to do something different to develop the property.",CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,14,"systems need to be analyzed; space planning is needed.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the $1 million plus is not
just for the feasibility study but is for all other things that
could lead up to the Planning and Building Department and other
permit entities moving into the building, to which the Planning and
Building Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why Council needs to appropriate
over $1 million now.
The Planning and Building Director responded the money would go
into an account for the study and future improvements.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether said improvements would
not be approved by Council.
The Planning and Building Director responded in the negative
stated expenditure approval would need to come back to Council.
louncilmember Matarrese inquired why Council needs to appropriate
over $1 million to do approximately $200,000 worth of work.
The City Manager responded staff is requesting that the money be
placed in the Capital Improvement Fund project stated any
expenditures would come back to Council for approval the first
expenditure would be the study; staff is recommending to set aside
money for the One-Stop Permit Center into an account, recognizing
the Carnegie Building would be considered.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the intent is to earmark the money
for the project until some other decision is made.
The City Manager responded the intent is to take the money
identified for the One-Stop Permit Center and put the money in a
Capital project.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the money would be released if
Council does not want the money going to the One-Stop Permit
Center.
The City Manager responded the money would be restricted for
expenditures related to the One-Stop Permit Center; the money would
be maintained as a Capital account for a One-Stop Permit Center and
analyze other alternative opportunities if the Carnegie Building is
not feasible.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the money is identified in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-06-19,6,"systems in place.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 911 calls can be made on cell
phones [and are directed to Police Dispatch].
The Police Chief responded there is good news on the E-911 system;
Nextel lines are not up and running the City is at the mercy of
Nextel to make some technological changes; the City has done
everything to be able to receive 911 calls.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other cell carriers would be
able to interface, to which the Police Chief responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson expressed condolences to the Police Chief on the loss
of Lieutenant Cranford; requested that the Police Chief extend the
City's condolences to the family.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(07-294) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated the Relay for Life
event would take place on Saturday and Sunday; this week is Amateur
Radio Week; today is the 73rd birthday of the Federal Communication
Commission.
(07-295) Cate Kuhne, Alameda, submitted handout stated that she
received an eviction notice for living in an illegal unit;
documentation shows that the building has been a ten-unit apartment
house since 1945; staff is choosing to ignore said fact; she has
appealed the eviction and has been advised by City staff that she
has no rights; requested Council to review and investigate the
matter and to schedule and hold an administrative hearing by August
19, 2007.
Mayor Johnson requested an Off-Agenda report on the matter.
Councilmember deHaan requested staff to find out where the landlord
is in the process.
(07-296) Patrick Lynch, Alameda, stated the owner next to his
property was required to file a deed restriction; the deed
restriction was recorded eighteen months agoi construction began
approximately six weeks ago; the owner was required to protect the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-06-05,14,"system; other cities will be forced to recycle because recycling
will be mandated due to landfill limitations; forward thinking was
important in making a substantial portion of the fleet alternative
fuel; inquired what other mandates might arise that would affect
Contract renegotiations, such as electronic waste.
The Public Works Director responded batteries are now considered
Universal Waste; stated a pilot program is being initiated which
will allow residents to drop off Universal Waste items such as
batteries, cell phones and florescent tubes; an educational program
will be provided.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a sorting facility might
be necessary to ensure that florescent light bulbs do not end up in
a landfill; stated cost considerations would need to be addressed
at the next Contract negotiation, if a sorting facility is needed.
The Public Works Director responded the hope is to avoid the
situation through education and resident cooperation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda has a drop off location for
computers and other electronic equipment.
The Public Works Director responded the City provided a drop off
location last year; stated staff is looking into providing a drop
off location twice a year.
Mr. Grzanka stated E-Waste is a drop off disposal facility for
Alameda County.
Mayor Johnson stated information should be put on the City's
website.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that nothing is free the City needs
to be forward thinking regarding mandates or new programs which
would affect the Contract cost evaluations would need to be made
in addition to determining how to educate people.
Councilmember deHaan stated that not all residents are recycling to
the highest level; an awareness program should be reinforced; ACI's
operation is separated and thorough; ACI does a very good job.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07-268) Public Hearing to consider a Call for Review of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 5, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,11,"system will be used to follow up on investigative leads; he will not tolerate staff using the
technology to make people feel uncomfortable.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted staff changes; inquired whether a policy can guarantee how
the system would and would not be used.
The Police Chief responded policies should be created and exist no matter who is in
place; stated clear policies will be created to reference how the technology can and will
be used; the policy creation process includes getting all stakeholders involved.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City is looking at Vigilant Solutions as a
vendor.
The Police Chief responded in the negative; stated the current mobile ALPRs are
provided by Vigilant Solutions; however, the contract has not been renewed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who will be able to access deleted data and whether the
data will be accessible.
The Police Chief responded the data will not be accessible and is purged; stated
various vendors have a digital print of the data; if the matter moves forward, staff will
ensure information is gone and inaccessible once purged.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for speed cameras; stated the State of
California needs to pass legislation which will allow use.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Police Chief has expressed concern about Vigilant
Solutions; requested clarification of the vendor selection process; inquired the process
to be used for vendor selection.
The Police Chief responded the selection process should be clear; stated the process
relates to how the information works with existing technology; the retention period
should allow for information to be purged; vendor track records related to efficacy
should be considered; expressed support for a vendor that is compatible with
evidence.com; stated cost is an important factor; he would like a system which allows
control over who has access to the information; expressed support for the information
not being open for anyone to access; expressed support for a vendor that does not tie
into a third party database; stated privacy is a concern and should be a priority.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Police Chief envisions working with the
City Manager to involve the City Council and the public in the Request for Proposal
(RFP) processes to select a vendor.
The Police Chief responded that he is open; stated that he take direction from the City
Manager.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
11",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-10-05,18,"sworn; inquired whether other cities use non-sworn Fire Fighters.
The Interim Fire Chief responded the Fire Department attempted to hire civilian
Inspectors; stated the City was unable to get qualified civilians after four different
outreach efforts; other departments use civilian Inspectors; other cities were also having
trouble hiring civilians.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about businesses' ability to
pay the increase, the City Manager stated businesses ability to pay was considered; the
fee increase was delayed in the summer 2020; he is open to discussing another delay.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is support from the business
associations, to which the City Manager responded that he does not believe the Fire
Department has done specific outreach to business community; businesses are facing
stresses; deferring another year is an option.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about how the City handles
victim's ambulance fees, the Fire Chief outlined costs for fire versus ambulance
services; stated the ambulance service is atypical for Fire Departments; discussed the
ambulance transport fee; stated the Department is mindful of a person's ability to pay;
people can request a hardship; the hardship policy is being updated and will come to
Council.
The City Manager noted Alameda County sets the ambulance fee caps; the City keeps
its fees consistent with the amount set by Alameda County.
The Interim Fire Chief stated Fire Departments charge what the County allows, which
does not capture the cost of providing the service.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she looks forward to having the hardship
policy come back to Council.
The Interim Fire Chief stated a large number of transport patients have Medicare;
patients under Medicare are not charged the maximum amount allowed by the County.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Medicare patients have to pay
anything out of pocket, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded they typically do not
pay.
***
(21-623) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is be needed to consider new items after
11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the remaining items up until
midnight.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 5, 2021
17",CityCouncil/2021-10-05.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,2021-05-04,20,"suspend time limits by a vote; there is no harm in the proposed motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the proposal was meant to be a compromise in time limits.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is amenable to changing the motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he did not remember discussing Council
Communications being three minutes; proposed leaving the limit for Council
Communications at nine minutes; expressed support for Councilmembers sharing regular
meetings attended.
Councilmember Knox White offered a friendly amendment to the motion to remove the
proposed limit for Council Communications.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the current time limits on Council
Communications.
The City Clerk stated a time limit had not ever been placed on Council Communications; a
time limit is being proposed for the section for the first time.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White would like to add a nine
minute limit to the Council Communications agenda section.
Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated he is happy to change the
limit from three minutes to nine minutes of Council speaking time and remove the stipulation
of only speaking once.
Vice Mayor Vella accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.
The City Clerk stated Section 8 of the Rules of Order will now say: ""Councilmembers can
speak under Council Communications for up to nine minutes.""
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her understanding is that Councilmember
Knox White stated Councilmembers may speak more than once under Council
Communications.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated as long as Councilmembers stay within the allocated time, they
may speak more than once; if a Councilmember needs more than the nine minutes, Council
may vote to suspend the rules.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the change.
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.
(21-309) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement
Between the City of Alameda and Alameda County Industries for Collection, Transportation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
May 4, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-04.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,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
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-02-05,4,"surface material between the areas, but she suggested looking into proposed
surface types sooner than later. Board Member Vella asked for an overlay of the
proposed buildings available for the public.
Vice Chair Rauk said that many residents see the grassy knoll with the airplane
as the main symbol of Alameda Point. She liked that the residential and
commercial spaces in the plan are distinct from each other. She wanted to know
about the status of designated bike and pedestrian trails, and how the developer
planned to define the main entry to the area.
Mr. Thomas clarified that Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway would be the most
direct route for pedestrians and bicyclists to access the water. There would be a
dedicated bus lane for the first half of the route, and then the street would
narrow. AC Transit would route their buses to the ferry terminal. There would be
many different ways for drivers to enter and exit Alameda Point. Mr. Thomas
emphasized that staff's main goal is to integrate the new development at
Alameda Point with the rest of the Island.
Vice Chair Rauk said that there is only one courtesy dock for boaters in Alameda,
and she would like to see more docks. Mr. Thomas agreed, and that the
developers and the Planning Board also agreed with her comments. He said
there are plans to make the development accessible to all watercraft, including
smaller boats and kayaks.
Board Member Vella noted that response times for emergency services in
Alameda Point are higher than those for the rest of the City. Mr. Thomas
explained that there will be a fire station built Alameda Point as development
proceeds.
Board Member Piziali asked about the possibility of relocating Alameda Municipal
Power's substations in the area. Mr. Thomas said that the substations would stay
in their current locations as it is prohibitively expensive to move them.
Chair Owens said that the integration of new and old buildings will lead to a nice
mix in the area. He also liked how the height of the new buildings will be limited
and that many historical aspects of the Base will be retained. He reminded the
staff and the developers that projects brought before the Board need to comply
with the Secretary of the Interior's standards, and alerted the development team
they might might need to make changes to their plans in order to comply with
those standards.
7-B. Introduction to the Design Review Process and Certificates of
Approval.
Mr. Tai gave the presentation. He explained the Design Review amd Certificate
of Approval process in the City of Alameda, what actions trigger design review,
Approved Meeting Minutes 02/05/2015
Page 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-02-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-02-02,22,"supremacists should not be patrolling Alameda or responding to 911 calls; urged an
investigation to occur; outlined misinformation on social media: Is Sullivan, Alameda.
Stated there is lack of response to community concerns about possible support of the
Capitol insurrection; many have asked for investigation of Officers social media
presence; outlined troubling social media posts by a former Officer; stated the matter is
a public safety issue; APD follows a troubling account that is supportive of
insurrectionists; expressed concern about the handling of communication after an
armed individual threatened a car caravan and for the homeless liaison being an armed
Officer: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.
Stated more cops do not solve issues; 29% of individuals arrested identify as transients;
she is unsure how the statistic follows the statement: ""homelessness is not a crime"" in
Alameda; statistics being ignored have to do with race; outlined arrest and population
statistics; stated since inception, Police have had racist roots; expressed concern about
the armed individual being present with APD Officers in plain-clothes nearby; stated
many cops would not be needed if funding were shifted: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.
Stated that she has experienced a decline in the quality of life; there are valid reasons
to look at Police practices; however, the narrative is often summarized as the desire for
Police to have less power; there is a grey area between social pressures and real life;
solutions posed by the Steering Committee are correct; however, the grey areas leave
small business owners stuck; taking powers away from Police can be dangerous:
Megan Livernoche, Alameda.
Expressed concern about a racist and anti-Black Lives Matter (BLM) culture at APD;
outlined concerning tweets by a former APD Captain, which show a lack of respect for
BLM protestors; stated the former APD Captain commanded an entire Police
Department bureau; urged Council to order an independent investigation of APD to see
how wide-spread the racist and anti-BLM attitudes are within the department: Carly
Stadium-Liang, Alameda.
Expressed concern about distorted feedback; stated that he is an advocate of LPRs;
many jurisdictions have a high success rate with LPRs; the reduction in traffic cops has
led to a reduction in citations being issued; stated that he is a subscriber to the ""broken
window theory;"" urged APD to give more tickets; stated Police living in the community
will inherently build more trust with the community: Matt Reid, Alameda.
Expressed concern about APD not releasing information on Officers or staff involved in
the Capitol insurrection and the peaceful protest on Martin Luther King (MLK) Jr. Day;
stated it is imperative to ask questions around double standards; expressed support for
keeping guns from those who should not have them: Laura Cutrona, Alameda.
Stated that he is an advocate for LPRs; Alameda is heading in the wrong direction; his
wife was almost shot on Park Street; stated LPRs help and are important; outlined his
experience witnessing crimes; questioned how many locals are committing crime versus
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
February 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2017-12-14,20,"supra, 454 U.S. at 269, the court recognized religious worship and discussion as ""forms of
speech and association protected by the First Amendment. [Citations.] Clearly, the operation of
a private nonprofit religious school implicates constitutional rights of the free exercise of
religion, speech, and association.
With these constitutional freedoms and rights in mind, we examine whether there is a ""valid
and neutral law of general applicability"" that would prevent a private religious school from
denying admission to a student with contrary religious beliefs. Only one statute appears to
require analysis, the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51; ""Act""). Footnote No. 5 Section 51
states in part:
""All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their
sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or disability are entitled to the full and equal
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of
every kind whatsoever.""
In interpreting the language of section 51, we apply well established rules of statutory
construction. ""Statutes must be construed so as to give a reasonable and common-sense
construction consistent with the apparent purpose and intention of the law makers - a
construction that is practical rather than technical, and will lead to wise policy rather than
mischief or absurdity. [Citation.]' (People v. Turner (1993) 15 l.App. 4th 1690, 1696; see
also Harris v. Capitol Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1165-1166.) ""'Judicial
doctrine governing construction of a law to avoid unconstitutionality is well settled. If ""the terms
of a statute are by fair and reasonable interpretation capable of a meaning consistent with the
requirements of the Constitution, the statute will be given that meaning, rather than one in
conflict with the Constitution."" (Rowe v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.App.4th at 1722.)
Recently the California Supreme Court examined the requirements of the Act with respect
to membership in the Boy Scouts of America. (Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy
Scouts (1998) 17 Cal.4th 670.) After reviewing the legislative history of the statute and prior
judicial decisions, the court observed:
[A]lthough past California decisions demonstrate that the Act clearly applies to any
type of for-profit commercial enterprise, and to nonprofit entities whose purpose is to serve
the business or economic interests of its owners or members, no prior decision has interpreted the
'business establishments' language of the Act so expansively as to include the membership
decisions of a charitable, expressive, and social organization, like the Boy Scouts, whose
formation and activities are unrelated to the promotion or advancement of the economic or
business interests of its members. (See, e.g., Hart v. Cult Awareness Network (1993) 13
Cal.App.4th 777 [organization established to educate the public about the harmful effect of cults
is not a business establishment for purposes of the Unruh Civil Rights Act].) In our view, given
the organization's overall purpose and function, the Boy Scouts cannot reasonably be found to
constitute a business establishment whose membership decisions are subject to the Act."" (Id., at
p. 697; fn. omitted.)",RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-02-27,7,"supports the project. She said she would not support a business park along such an
important waterfront.
Michael Cally said he moved to Alameda when he bought a home at Alameda Landing.
He said he is excited to see the project move forward.
Mark Vis said he understands the concerns about traffic and maritime commercial. He
said a business park would create a dead zone. He said a mixed use project would activate
the space.
Philip James said he was thrilled to see so much participation from the community. He
said the project provides a chance to provide benefits to two cities at the same time. He
said he loves the idea of watching the lighted yacht parade from the waterfront site.
Denyse Trepanier said she supports the proposal because we need the housing. She said
she wants the project to provide room for a bicycle and pedestrian bridge. She said City
Council supports studying a bridge and that we need to incorporate the bridge into the
long term plans for the site.
Victoria Fierce said she supports the project and would love to see more housing here.
She said it will open up homeownership opportunities. She said housing delayed is
housing denied.
Brian McGuire said the number of jobs added if nothing happens is zero. He said adding
more and more amenities and different tiers of affordable housing could lead to the project
not penciling out and being back at square one. He said requiring less parking would lower
the housing costs and reduce traffic generated by the project. He said Bike Walk Alameda
supports preserving space for a bike and pedestrian bridge or third tube.
President Köster closed the public hearing.
Staff Member Thomas said there is 360,000 square feet of occupied space and those jobs
would stay if no project moved forward.
Board Member Knox White said he hoped we would get a better understanding of what
the liabilities would be fore the city if no project moves forward and the wharf is not
repaired. He said we are not having the broader conversation about the amount of
commercial space that is available for development in Alameda. He said he would be
surprised if the City Council said they want to have mostly truck traffic on the site. He said
he would like to see a more mixed use project. He said he would support higher building
heights in order to achieve the goal of including more commercial. He said he would
support a new plan, but is not sure this is it. He said this is one of the few places that could
Approved Minutes
Page 7 of 10
February 27, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2017-02-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2017-03-13,4,"supports removing the restriction to maritime related art. He suggested trying to find a way
to make it easy for people to donate money to the fund.
Board Member Mitchell said he supports removing the cap and eliminating the maritime
requirement.
President Köster said he wants to see the proposal move forward. He said he agreed that
the purposes need to be reworded.
Board Member Mitchell made a motion to approve the item with adjustments to the
purpose statement, and to section 65.5 (B) and how the 25% programming
requirement would be monitored. Board Member Sullivan seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0.
7-B 2017-4047
Development Plan Application PLN17-0075 - 2001 Versailles Avenue
(Mapes Ranch Project) Applicant: Clifford Mapes. A proposed
Development Plan application to develop 11 lots on a 1.29-acre property
located at 2001 Versailles Avenue at the corner of Fernside Boulevard and
Versailles Avenue.
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2977024&GUID=453065B2-
OD1-4D68-8023-DACABD88F2DA&FullText=1
Board Member Knox White asked if the private drive would have access to Tilden Way.
Staff Member Thomas said it would not.
Board Member Mitchell asked if the 4' setbacks on lots one and two would require a
variance.
Staff Member Thomas said the P-D zoning allows for different setbacks than the usual five
feet. He said the eight feet between buildings should work out fine.
Board Member Burton asked why the private drive was so wide.
Staff Member Thomas said he thought Public Works wanted to use some of that space
for guest parking.
Board Member Burton asked if there were minimum dimensions for the private outdoor
space to meet the requirements.
Staff Member Thomas said there was a requirement for more than 600 square feet.
Page 4 of 8
March 13, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2017-03-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-10-23,5,"supported only by the business park.
In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the proposed parking was 268
spaces, where the minimum required was 189 spaces, Mr. Ernst noted that they did not
want to oversize the parking. He added that while the parking ratios on the footprints
alone may look high when adding the mezzanine component to the office, they will come
back in line; he noted that every buyer wanted mezzanine space because of the cost of
real estate.
Member Kohlstrand believed that if the applicant kept everything the way it was, but
removed the parking spaces in the front, she would be very comfortable with the project.
She would like to see less parking in front of all the buildings, and appreciated the
applicant's responsiveness. Mr. Ernst noted that these buildings have a very well defined
front for the office component, and a back for the manufacturing/warehouse components.
The applicants believed that it was very important to separate those functions, which
added to the long-term value of the project. They tried to break up the parking by added
street trees and breaking up the parking with a hedgerow, which blocked the rows of cars.
He noted that the presence of cars was a positive factor, which indicated there was
activity on this formerly sleepy parcel.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was very pleased and impressed impressive with
the environmentally friendly design elements incorporated into this project, and she
believed this was a responsible design. She believed the buildings were attractive, and
understood the challenges of leasing buildings in such a site. She believed that SRM had
made a good-faith effort to attract businesses. Mr. Ernst noted that they had a 30%
vacancy rate, which was still relatively high. Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the City
should encourage the applicant's efforts to encourage occupancy.
Member Mariani noted that she was also pleased with the project, and would like to see
all of the architectural enhancements in Phase I.
Member McNamara noted that she had been concerned about the architectural design, and
was very pleased with the changes that were proposed, especially with the change of
textures and three-foot recesses to add interest. She supported the addition of those
features to Phase I where possible.
M/S Ezzy Ashcraft/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-39 to
approve a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five new buildings
totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of 268 parking
spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site, with the modification of adding trees and sun
louvers in Phase I.
AYES - 5 (Lynch absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0
8-C. GPA05-02, R05-04, MP05-02, DP05-02, TM05-02, IS05-03 -Grand Marina
Village Residential Development (AT). The applicant requests approval of a
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
October 23, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-06,9,"supported by the community; urged moving forward: Nik DeHejia, Alameda.
Expressed support for the process and the developer: Harry Hartman, Alameda.
Stated the project will provide affordable housing; that he has waited 47 years for the
Del Monte building to be renovated: Art Lenhardt, Alameda.
Discussed integrity and fear of change; questioned why the decision is being revisited:
Kari Thompson, Alameda resident and Chamber of Commerce Government Relations
and Economic Development Committee.
Expressed concern over blight and truck traffic: Robert Byrne, Alameda.
Stated the City Council has every right to review the matter; urged the Council to do
what is right; expressed concern over the low income housing requirements not being
met; stated traffic impacts of all development projects need to be reviewed; urged
repeal: Kurt Peterson, Alameda.
Outlined the public process and project benefits; noted a letter was submitted outlining
objections to repeal; discussed compliance with Master Plan and Density Bonus
requirements: Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities.
Outlined the key wins of the project; stated there are no documents explaining what is
so egregious about the project to warrant appeal; urged the ordinances not be repealed:
Alison Greene, PLAN! Alameda.
Outlined the community involvement that formed the project: Heather Little, PLAN!
Alameda.
Expressed concern over the project being incomplete; urged the project be deferred
until infrastructure matters have been addressed: Red Wetherill, Alameda.
Expressed support for the developer; outlined his history with the Del Monte property;
urged the ordinances not be rescinded; outlined project benefits: Peter Wang, Del
Monte Warehouse Owner.
Stated that she is opposed to repealing the Del Monte decision; outlined neighborhood
involvement; stated it is time to move forward: Anne Bracci, Alameda.
Stated the League of Women Voters is not taking a position on the project; the League
stands for open government and transparency; the item is not in compliance with the
Sunshine Ordinance; questioned the factual basis for the rescission; urged voting
against repeal: Felice Zensius, League of Women Voters.
Stated repeal would not stop the project; development was addressed during the
election; stated additional work is needed: Ariane Paul, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,10,"support the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he put together an alternate
resolution that references his opening statement regarding offering
prayers for a speedy and safe return of the troops; read the
operative sections of the alternate resolution; stated the two
resolutions differ in that his resolution does not reference
Congressman Murtha's or Assembly Member Hancock's highly partisan
tones. concerns can be conveyed in words that are more carefully
and wisely chosen.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the alternate resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the alternate resolution does
not ask or demand anything a request needs to be made to have the
National Guard return home and a timetable provided for withdrawal
of the rest of the troops the burden increases as the situation
continues; he understands looking at history for an appreciation
and lessons learned; the Base has not been conveyed because of
haggling over the remediation costs; he is willing to strike
references to Congressman Murtha and Assembly Member Hancock from
the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding
asking for something in the resolution; stated Council has the
purview to call the California National Guard home the California
National Guard has been abused and needs to come home for
California's safety and security; she is not willing to support a
resolution calling for the withdrawal of all troops.
Councilmember Matarrese proposed striking out partisan references
[in the original resolution]; stated language regarding a timetable
meets the intent of what the City needs reaching a consensus on
the issue is impractical he thinks the majority of the citizens
are in favor of bringing troops home and understand the need;
consensus is a strong word; leading with the majority is sometimes
necessary instead of driving for consensus.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the majority of the people in attendance
are in favor of the resolution; the majority of e-mails and phone
calls she received were against the resolution; she is not bothered
by not having a majority agree to bring the California National
Guard home because the Council's role is to prepare for a natural
disaster or terrorist attack.
Councilmember Daysog restated his motion to adopt the alternate
resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-01-18,20,"support the residential areas; the developer also supports a situation if the commercial space is
not being supported and environmental findings can properly be made, additional housing units
could be accommodated if the market conditions allow for the option; the developer can return
to the Planning Board and request a modification of the 50,000 commercial square foot space
for additional residential units.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter can be brought before the Planning Board
without having the change included as part of the motion.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
developer can always return to amend the Master Plan; the change must go to the Planning
Board, then, City Council must ultimately approve the amendment; the proposed language
would authorize the Planning Board to perform the commercial and residential swap at a later
date pending certain findings and would not require a Master Plan amendment.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he does not support adding the language to the motion;
the commercial space has been a key component during community discussions; changes to
the Plan can be made in the future; a broader community discussion would be desired for the
change.
Councilmember Daysog stated the discussion has been an improvement over the current
proposal due to the for sale unit breakdown; discussed the 200 townhome units and 50% of the
non-townhome units being for sale; stated those interested in for sale units are seeing a
substantial improvement; the issue for him relates to the workforce housing units; the workforce
housing units are not low or moderate income and are slightly above moderate income; stated
the City can do better than 10 units out of 589 for workforce housing; noted 80 units are deed
restricted for very low to low income; Council is trying to get more first time homebuyers in the
workforce housing units; the project is worth a delay to flesh out the details regarding workforce
housing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated some of the products for sale are now going to be stacked flats; the
units will be affordable by design and are smaller units than a townhome; some income earners
might not qualify for moderate affordability and will be able to get into the smaller products; the
units will only be available if the project is approved and built; the opportunities are ample and
changes have been made to provide opportunities; the vote will be momentous and will either
move the project forward or allow the land to sit blighted.
Vice Mayor Vella stated if housing is not built, there will be no workforce housing; workforce
housing is every for sale housing unit included in the project; affordable by design exists; data
shows that building housing allows for other units to become affordable and allows people to
save up and become first time homeowners; expressed support for the City desiring to have a
discussion about investing in first time homeowner opportunities or finding other ways to
subsidize the purchase of units; stated the discussion can occur in addition to seeing the
project through; Councilmembers will have explaining to do for other parts of the City if the need
for up-zoning occurs while the project parcel is left vacant due to non-approval; Council has a
responsibility to ensure the RHNA obligation is met and that opportunities are being reviewed;
the project is an opportunity to provide density and build in a way that creates more ownership
opportunities and will not require up-zoning of areas, which will impact existing residents;
expressed support for the project and building housing in a responsible way.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2022
20",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-06,48,"support for the restaurant and long-term tenants are good for the City; she feels as
though she does not have a choice in the matter; expressed support for an operator that
is focused on golfing; stated Greenway Golf is not set up to be a restauranteur; she
hopes for a golf course operator that is willing to honor working together with Jim's on
the Course; expressed support for the motion; expressed concern for Greenway Golf as
an operator; stated that she will be looking at Greenway Golf closely moving forward;
she has heard complaints about the golf course; it is important that both parties be held
to honor the original agreement as much as possible; she expects the operator to be
good within the community.
On the call for the questions, 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.
CONSENT CALENDAR (CONTINUED)
(21-462) Recommendation to Approve Amended Employment Agreement for the City
Attorney.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2014-01-13,3,"support for the Master Infrastructure Plan. She said that AC Transit is pleased with the
plan making Alameda Point a transit-oriented community. She recommended a pass for
Alameda Point residents. She said the agency is in favor of transit only lanes on Atlantic
Avenue.
Mr. Dennis Carroll, neighbor, said he appreciated the bluntness of staff regarding an
additional tube or bridges into Oakland. The tubes connecting Oakland and Alameda are a
patchwork that need updating. The interest of West End residents need to be considered
in any development of Alameda Point. He urged rejection of the EIR.
Mr. Dick Rutter, representing Alameda Architectural Protection Society, which submitted
written comment to the Board, stated that the turning basin in Oakland are not deep
enough for heavy ships, and in turn, would impact a new tube. The housing in the 1800s
and 1900s have needed to add new garages. Now, each adult resident has to have a car.
Until transportation and job transit habits change, the lack of parking will be an issue. He
said his group would like to see boundary lines set on zoning maps and other design
guidelines in the plans.
Mr. John Thompson said he was disappointed regarding the transportation issues and
suggested a delay of the approval of the EIR. He said that the housing development at
Alameda Point arrives before stable jobs do, and worries about the reliability of the current
tubes in an emergency.
Ms. Eugenie Thompson said that she has many questions about traffic and quality of life
that have not been addressed. She again stated her public records request for records
have not been addressed. There is something wrong with the peak analysis in the
document about the traffic situation in Oakland. There are major issues about traffic
congestion in East Alameda as well. There is a mitigation in Oakland that has not been
considered, the reconstruction of the High Street off ramp.
Mr. Larry Tong, with the East Bay Regional Parks District, said he is excited about the
redevelopment of the Point and encouraged Alameda to consider an investment in the
East Bay Regional Parks District in order to develop a regional park at the Point.
Ms. Helen Sause agreed with the speakers who talked on transportation needs. She
praised staff's work on the issue. She said she felt rushed to review the complex
documents and having to comment. There isn't a clear answer on why there is a rush to
complete these documents. She commented on alternatives to the plan and how the
issues of employment at the Point are being handled. She asked the Board to take more
time to review these documents.
Mr. Doug Biggs, Executive Director of the Alameda Point Collaborative, stated that his
organization has been involved in the redevelopment process for over 13 years. He
thanked staff for incorporating the public's concerns into the EIR. He urged approval of the
documents in order to increase economic vitality in the area.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 7
January 13, 2014",PlanningBoard/2014-01-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-02-02,8,"support for sending the matter back to staff with direction to set a maximum 5% cap on
all approved CIP proposals; stated the 5% cap is cumulative; landlords will continue to
have the same rights in relation to fair rate of return appeals; expressed support for a
clear appeals process for tenants in the off-chance a plan is approved; a minimum of
50% of tenants could appeal and have a plan reviewed by a Hearing Officer to ensure
the work being completed is not cosmetic, is needed maintenance and meets the intent
of the pass through.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like clarification of where the City stands and
what the process would be if Council does not approve the matter at this meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the delay; stated the intent is to ensure
rental properties are habitable and in good condition; noted the rental housing stock in
Alameda is older.
Special Counsel stated the ordinance provides a limitation preventing a landlord from
requesting a CIP more often than once every 24 months and has a 5% cap if a CIP is
approved, which is only applied to the maximum allowable rent; staff can redraft the
ordinance to allow an overall maximum 5% cap for CIP projects; there might be
complications in drafting; there may be situations where the pass through will go away
due to some tenants moving out and remaining tenants are under the existing pass
through with the 5% cap; stated a draft regulation has an appeal process to accompany
the ordinance; a tenant will have the right to appeal the CIP process on multiple fronts.
Councilmember Knox White stated that his understanding is staff can have the matter
return to Council within 45 days; expressed support for processing the matter once
properly, rather than having to amend it.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the CIP would not be an allowable pass through until
12 months after the State of Emergency; inquired whether a provision needs to be
passed separately or whether the delay is part of the action Council is taking.
Special Counsel responded the provision has been incorporated into the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the provision will remain if Council does not approve
the ordinance at this meeting.
Special Counsel responded the pass through process is more of a rent increase; stated
due to Council's rent freeze being in place during the declaration of local emergency, a
landlord would not be able to increase the rent through a CIP.
Vice Mayor Vella stated if the matter returns, she would like to provide options on the
overall goal of finding a way to reasonably address things and not create a loophole to
rent control; expressed support for looking at varying options for limiting the CIP
amount, including a total cap on the CIP or a period of years; questioned whether the
intent is to have a 5% total cap.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-04-20,18,"support for a flashing, talking sign; questioned safety precautions in place for the project: Katie
Phan, Alameda.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:47 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:09 p.m.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how people with disabilities will safely cross and navigate the
roundabout and whether any consultation was conducted.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded staff and consultants have met with several
members of the blind community who requested a tactile map of the roundabouts be created; a
map was created for the roundabout at Third Street; staff created seven hard copies, three sets
are at each Alameda Library and can be checked out.
Stefan Schuster, CDM Smith, stated that his team reached out to and met with the blind
community and developed tactile maps; noted as designs are finalized, more specific and
accurate models of the roundabouts will be created; stated the safety benefits are similar;
displayed a Power Point presentation slide; stated the slide illustrates design component
considerations for the blind and visually impaired; the roundabouts have shorter crossings and
provide a center refuge; there is a traffic calming element to the roundabouts with significantly
lower vehicle speeds; the landscape and buffer areas keep pedestrians and cyclists separated
from traffic lanes; other physical elements, such as fencing, may be used; tactile domes and
guide strips would be used to help signal the transition to a travel lane; the use of flashing and
auditory signals will help guide people across certain legs of intersections and will also warn
motorists about pedestrians; considerations will be made on a case by case basis; all features
will not be on every leg of the roundabout; motorists may become de-sensitized to too many
flashing beacons; there is no guarantee of a safe crossing at any intersection; overall
roundabouts benefit all users and are a safer option than a signalized intersection.
Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, stated her firm has been involved with National research
for visually impaired and disabled users; the research has found consistency with the comments
provided by Mr. Schuster related to design; it is important to provide the protected refuge island;
the crosswalks are setback about one car length from the circulatory roadway; giving more
space allows visually impaired users the ability to hear better to the left; flashing beacons
activated by push buttons can also be implemented.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he appreciates the additional outreach performed due to
concerns being raised; inquired whether the roundabout as-deigned would be safer than the
current situation.
Mr. Schuster responded in the affirmative; stated that he has looked at several variations for
Sherman Street; the design closing Sherman Street provides much greater flexibility in the
roundabout design, which will truly calm traffic.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he anticipates the need to have an option to keep
Sherman Street open; expressed support for a motion supporting approval of all four
roundabouts, with a condition that an option to keep Sherman Street open return for
consideration; stated keeping Sherman Street open is a less safe option; it is important to
realize that up until Marina Village was built, Atlantic Avenue was similar to other streets; streets
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
April 20, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-09-21,10,"support for APD; stated crime is increasing; noted people want to move out of Alameda
due to crime and lack of support for APD; discussed recent armed thefts: Wayel Fare,
Alameda.
Expressed support for the data-driven approach to the presentation; stated that she
would like the public to be able to access the information provided; questioned how
catalytic converter thefts are being addressed; stated that she would like additional
Officers patrolling between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.; expressed concern
about a recent death on Fernside Boulevard; urged Police presence in potentially
problematic areas to serve as a deterrent: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Discussed social media; stated there has been no indication of an investigation around
Officer social media related to the January 6th insurrection; questioned what APD is
willing to give up in order to budget more for neighbor survival needs: Jenice Anderson,
Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the Police Chief and the presentation;
stated the presentation demonstrates a new focus and key ways to address challenges;
the Police Chief is changing the culture of the organization to address wider types of
issues being faced by the community and nation; he is eagerly looking forward to the
implementation of the Police Chief's vision in keeping Alameda a safe place; expressed
support for the change in focus and boundaries; stated the Police Chief is responding to
the data presented; expressed support for directed patrols; discussed previous Officers
patrolling for speeding on Otis Drive; expressed support for the strategy used to develop
staff and fill vacancies within APD.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she previously submitted a Council
Referral for a presentation; the community has provided many comments and concerns;
she is hopeful an update will be provided every six months or once a year; inquired
whether the Police Chief would respond to any of the public comments received.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated public comments included themes of topics, including
inappropriate social media use, possible hiring of Officers terminated from other
organizations and approaches for catalytic converter thefts.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her inquiry is to have the Police Chief
respond to any of the public comments received or provide a method in which people
can receive responses; noted the APD website includes updates.
The Police Chief stated regarding the question related to domestic violence incidents,
the presentation numbers are from 2020; the number of domestic violence cases for
2021 is 31 so far; he will follow up on the question related to page 84 of the Policy
Manual; Officers terminated for misconduct from other jurisdictions are not being hired.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the presentation data; stated
that she agrees with the sentiment of increased crime; outlined incidents of people
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2021
6",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,3,"support a walk and roll event every year to show and emphasize the need to be healthy and safe.
He also said the City of Alameda has worked hard to partner with them on numerous fronts and
he along with his colleagues support the plan.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he thought staff did a good job on outreach and the
presentation was conducted well. He said Jennifer Ott talked about safety improvements and the
disproportionate number of collisions the corridor is responsible for and he felt that was an
interesting case. He wanted to know if there will be a report on the before and after statistics as a
result of the project.
Staff Payne replied she would like to report back about the impacts after construction.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the presentation commented on the delays in traffic in the
year 2035 and he wondered how much of the delays and growth attribute to traffic growth that
would take place if the City did nothing. He wondered if that would be a similar level of delay
and growth. He also wanted to know if staff attributes the delay growth to the project or the fact
that the City will get bigger and there will be more traffic in the year 2035.
Staff Payne replied the numbers for the year 2035 do assume that all the planned development is
within the estimate including no mode shift and the project is built.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied the data reflects the assumption that the project is built, but
does the data also assume growth delays in the corridor if the project was not built so there
would be no net impact on delays.
Laurence Lewis, Associate Planner Kittelson and Associates, said the comparison that Staff
Payne mentioned was in addition to the growth that would happen from upcoming development.
He explained there was a comparison with the same level of traffic in the year 2035 meaning
existing conditions and with what was proposed without mode shifts.
Commissioner Schatmeier said the benefits listed included the improvements to bus access and
he wanted more detail regarding this.
Staff Payne replied the west end of the island where there is the two-way bikeway on the west
side of the street would have bus islands on the west end of the street to accommodate the
existing bus stop and staff would move the island a little bit north to the far side of that
intersection. She also mentioned that on 8th Street there would be a bus bulb-out for the
westbound bus stop with benches and shelters and that type of improvement along the corridor.
Commissioner Miley stated that looking at the Encinal High School side, he was happy to see
staff partnering with the school. He confirmed with staff that the reconfiguration of the school's
parking lot, which is the staff parking lot, will have no loss to parking spaces.
Staff Payne replied there is no parking loss.
Commissioner Miley replied since the parking lot is the staff's parking lot, where would the rest
of the encroachment of the existing school's facilities take place.
Page 3 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.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,2017-12-05,20,"sunset provision will be going before the PUB, as well as a low income provision; the
emissions associated with the meters meet all standards.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a moratorium was adopted in other cities regarding
Smart Meters.
The AMP General Manager stated that he is not familiar with other cities adopting
moratoriums.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the low income discount will be, to which the AMP
General Manager responded the low income discount is 25%; noted the eligibility
requirements were updated to be in line with the Bay Area.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the discount is already available.
The AMP General Manager responded the matter is going before the PUB on Monday.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the City WiFi omits the same frequency as the
Smart Meters.
The AMP General Manager responded that he cannot speak to the WiFi omission.
The Assistant City Attorney addressed the jurisdictional authority of Council; stated the
PUB supersedes the Council.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council could give feedback without giving direction.
The Assistant City Attorney responded Council could weigh in as individual members,
but not direct PUB to take action.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is a way for Council to receive the agenda in
advance and provide feedback without going to the PUB meetings.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the PUB agendas are
public.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council could make a request regarding
the scientific information regarding Smart Meters as part of the referral.
The Assistant City Attorney responded Council could request information informally as
individuals, not as a body.
The City Manager stated the Council and every citizen can request the information;
once received, the information should be made public.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the risks need to be evaluated based on science.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
December 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-02-01,2,"suggests the need for more trash services; expressed concern about quality of life and
effects to the neighborhood; urged Council to consider addressing how dumping
matters are handled.
(22-075) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority, announced that applications are still
being accepted for Rosefield Village; discussed available units at Rosefield Village;
stated the State of California awarded the Housing Authority $2.5 million to build more
affordable housing; discussed upcoming events and landlord-tenant guides for rent
programs.
(22-076) Carmen Reid, Alameda, discussed an initiative related to city and county land-
use, zoning and local housing laws; stated the initiative would return decision making
ability to local communities.
(22-077) Zac Bowling, Alameda Democratic Club, stated the Club is hosting State
Superintendent Tony Thurmond to discuss California's response to the COVID-19
pandemic.
(22-078) Brian Kennedy, Alameda, expressed concern about the SEED Collaborative
contract approved at the last Council meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Expressed concern about abandoned boats and the Police grant [paragraph no. 22-082]
not being utilized last year when there is great demand: Brock de Lappe, Oakland
Marina.
Encouraged the City to apply for the Police grant: Sandra Coong, Marina Village Yacht
Harbor.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote on the teleconference findings
[paragraph no. 22-081 and requested final passage of the Encinal Terminals
ordinances [paragraph nos. 22-083, 22-083A, and 22-083B] be removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff provide comments on the Police grant.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff has applied for the grant in previous years; the
cost per boat is $7,500 and the grant will provide enough funding for the removal of 10
vessels; Bay Area Conservation District Commission has authorized its staff to move
forward with a regional effort related to abandoned boats and the City will participate in
the effort as well.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the reminder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2022
2",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-07-22,9,"suggested that we stipulate that there be an environmentally appropriate landscape
screen, subject to mockup and field approval. She said concrete walls and cheap fences
can be ugly.
Board Member Hom said he prefers the blue color, but does not have a strong preference.
He said he favors a masonry wall instead of a mesh fence given the concern over lighting.
He suggested potentially matching the façade of the hotel and the masonry wall.
Board Member Cavanaugh said the landscape wall is an opportunity to do something a
little different and artistic. He said he is otherwise okay with the project moving forward.
Board Member Ruiz said she generally agrees with the other board members. She said
condition #5 should have stronger language about ongoing maintenance. She said there
are other options for the barrier wall, such as living wall trays. She said the color is a
tossup and recommends a field mockup for staff to review. She said providing operable
windows would be desirable if possible. She said she is otherwise in favor of the project.
President Curtis said he is in favor of the project. He said as long as it complies with the
ordinance requirements and statutory agencies, it should move forward.
Staff Member Tai summarized the Board's comments: condition that evergreen
plants be used where barriers are desired, cite the sheets of the landscape plans,
add language that the applicant is responsible for timely maintenance and prompt
replacement of plants that do not survive, have the applicant work with the Planning
Director and the community to come up with a design for the barrier wall as part of
the building permit review process.
President Curtis asked to ensure that the bank along the lagoon be fully landscaped.
Board Member Teague asked if they need to specify blue versus grey in the approval.
Staff Member Thomas said the plans show grey and if the Board would like to change it
to blue it should say so specifically.
Board Member Hom asked if swatches could be painted in the field and a decision could
be made at that point.
President Curtis asked the applicant if he had a preference.
The applicant said his partners preferred the grey, which reflected the majority of the
comments from the neighbors.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 9 of 11
July 22, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-07-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,14,"suggested that the tenants hold an open house and the City does not necessarily need
to be involved; steps to move forward with the park is a separate issue; moving forward
with the lease does not mean that the City is not committed to De-Pave Park; it is very
important to look for new space for the tenants; stated she supports the 5 year lease
and having the tenants stay in the building until it is demolished.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired how staff should pass on the sentiment that the building
is not going to be there forever; he would like a report back and progress towards the
goal of relocating the tenants within the 5 year window.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether would be the issue in the form of a Council referral;
stated that she feels there are not three Councilmembers who want to prioritize
demolishing a building ahead of building De-Pave Park.
The Interim City Manager clarified Vice Mayor Matarrese wants to make sure the
tenants know their lease is going to end.
Vice Mayor Mataresse reiterated that the building is not in the plan.
The City Attorney noted a provision in the lease allows either party to terminate the
lease on 12 months' notice; stated the tenants clearly heard the Council and
understand; the Assistant Community Development Director is working on relocating the
tenants; staff will come back to report on the progress; a Council referral is not needed.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he supports the 5 year lease; he would like to
know how staff would make the matter a priority.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese is questioning how to prioritize
demolishing the building, to which the Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not believe there are three votes to prioritize
demolishing a building ahead of when the building would need to be demolished; she
does not want to demolish a building just to demolish it and have it be ahead of the
plans for De-Pave park; she stated if that is the question, a Council referral would need
to be done.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that if there is a 5 year lease and there is no plan for
what happens after the lease is up, the lease will be pushed out again and the park gets
pushed out with it; the building is next to the wetland, removal of the building is key in
getting outside funding to expand the wetland.
The Interim City Manager stated the discussion is veering too far off of the agenda.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that there will be a Council referral.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
GolfCommission,2019-04-29,2,"suggested that Tom move forward in applying for a permit that they were not
expecting. Due to the time involved in this permit process, that the amendment for the
lease deadline which is currently December 31, 2019, this time would be extended
from that deadline as it was stated in the amendment that any unforeseen
circumstances would be added and the City feels this is unforeseen.
Tom Geanekos stated that the property has been surveyed and staked and they are
waiting for the grading from their engineer.
5-A Facility and Renovation Report by Greenway Golf
Ken Campbell have the following updates:
South Course Pond Work - The waterway near hold 8 was drained down for irrigation
purposes and to allow for maintenance work.
Wind/Storm Damage - The irrigation pump circuit was damaged from the recent
storm/winds along with several trees and branches falling on range as well as north
course construction fencing. Repairs on these items is underway.
South cart paths - Final patch work is underway with the next step being adding the
top chip sealer. It has been determined best to close each 9-holes for two (1) day
periods, which means players will play same 9 holes twice for 18-hole play on those
days.
Practice Range - New practice balls will be in service in May and new mats are being
order and expected to be in place soon.
5-B Recreation and Park Directors' Report
Amy Wooldridge stated that the Mayor is in the process of interviewing applicants for
the open commission spots.
5-C Rerouting Modification Plan for North Course Current Open Holes
Marc Logan stated that due to the long winter with 33"" inches of rain, the north course
renovation is behind and his proposal would be to close three more holes resulting in a
six hole course, which would allow the public to play six, twelve or eighteen holes. He
is asking the commission to assist him in this proposal, showing them a printout of the
proposed changes. Safety fencing will be put in place. Greenway has spoken with the
Junior Golf Club and the president of the Niners regarding this and are understanding
of the change. North semi annual pass holders will also be allowed to play the Mif due
to this change.
Connie Wendling stated that 14-18 year olds might not feel that would be beneficial to
them, but she stated that they would convey the importance of this change to move
2
Golf Commission Minutes-Monday - April 29, 2019",GolfCommission/2019-04-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,4,"suggested restoring the theater to only three screens.
Ms. Kristi Koenen, 1360 Pearl Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed the proposed
Cineplex would overwhelm the parking garage capacity, and cited the parking study that projects the
garage capacity being up to 200 spaces short of satisfying peak demand. She noted that the study
recommended parking capacity of 450-550 spaces, and expressed concern about a parking nightmare
during blockbuster openings. She believed the planned parking capacity would violate the Alameda
Municipal Code, and urged the matter to be sent back to the City Council.
Mr. Dick Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he submitted
a letter to the Board, and that he had no objections to Item A, proposing a Cineplex on the site.
Regarding Item C, extended hours of operation, he understood the applicant's reasoning for the
extension. He understood the game room had been pulled from the Use Permit. Regarding Item B
(height and bulk considerations), he believed the building height should be dropped as it gets farther
away from Park Street. He noted there was a legal loophole for height limits for the parking
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-05-24,3,"suggested moving the stop bar approaching the crosswalk to the west side of the Waterview Isle,
which would direct drivers to stop further back from the crosswalk. It would also need adequate
signage for the vehicles to remain behind the line when the crosswalks are occupied. He also
requested that a parking stall on the west side of Sandcreek Way be reserved for the crossing
guards at Lum School during school hours.
Chair Knox White responded that the TC could not make any decisions on specific parking but
that this could be presented to the Transportation Technical Team (TTT).
Liz Cleves reiterated what was said at the TTT meeting concerning the bus stop. She suggested
locating it at Pond Isle or Glenwood Isle, instead of near Sandcreek, as this would be closer to
the mid-point of the existing bus stops. She noted that the crosswalk near the school is very busy
with pedestrians crossing and cars going past without stopping for the pedestrians.
CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT
Staff Hawkins asked AC Transit staff to elaborate on their guidelines in placing bus stops.
Sean Diest Lorgion from AC Transit said that currently the bus stops are 2900 feet apart. Policy
508 states that mid block stops are rare and considered only when there are no alternatives
available and upon approval of the transportation project coordinator along with the
municipality. The design guidelines recommend 1000 feet but the policy actually provides for a
range of 800-1300 feet. There are also considerations for ADA access and where shelters are
placed.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if there are any policies regarding locating bus stops near
schools.
Mr. Diest Lorgion responded that he was not aware of any such guideline.
Staff Hawkins described a situation when the City had requested relocating a bus stop from the
intersection of Encinal/Versailles to Encinal/Grove. Since the stop would have been changed
from a controlled to an uncontrolled intersection, and the new location was a skewed
intersection, AC Transit would have absolved themselves of all liability
Commissioner Krueger asked if there are a defined circumstances under which AC Transit would
transfer all liability to the City.
Mr. Diest Lorgion said that their traffic engineer would have to review the location for safety
concerns, and that this is done on a case by case basis.
Chair Knox White said that AC Transit's policy seems to address the Commission's concerns.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that all stops should be safe, but potential usage should be a big
factor in the stop location.
3",TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-06-11,5,"suggested a report of expenditures be done each quarter: Former Councilmember
Doug deHaan, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated the projection of a 29% reserve by June 30, 2014 and a
25% reserve by the end of June 30, 2015 should be celebrated; however, the Council
and staff are also preparing for risks and buying time to address hard decisions on how
to address OPEB and PERS costs; Council and staff are doing everything possible to
increase revenue and control costs.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Council is ready to tackle OPEB and PERS;
that she is confident the City will continue to work hard; everyone has worked together.
Councilmember Tam stated the budget reflects the community's priorities; the City has
partnered with bargaining units in sharing the pain and starting to get better; Alameda
reaching the sales tax average would be $3.78 million, which happens to be the deficit
in Fiscal Year 2015-16.
Councilmember Chen stated the Council listened to the public and is doing everything
possible to maintain quality of life in Alameda.
Mayor Gilmore stated the Council does not intend to kick the can down the road and
realizes problems can only be dealt with when everyone works together cooperatively;
that she is interested in seeing what can be accomplished under the City's first two year
budget.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:32
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk and
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to
4
the Community Improvement Commission
June 11, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-06-11.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2008-08-14,4,"sufficient interest from the community to maximize use of the auditorium in the
Alameda Theatre.
The Use Policies outline more specific procedures related to the availability of the Theatre
for Community Use, the permit process, fees and deposits, and facility requirements. The
following highlights the most important Use Policies from each category:
Availability
The Theatre may be reserved Sunday through Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to Midnight,
excluding City holidays, for no longer than six (6) consecutive hours.
The movie operator reserves the right to reject any given date, provided that he
offers at least two alternative dates, each of which shall be within 15 days of the
originally proposed dates. There is no guarantee that the reservation of any Friday
or Saturday night will be granted.
Permit Process
Reservations will not be accepted less than sixty (60) working days or more than
one (1) year prior to the date requested.
All requests will be considered on a first-come, first-served basis and granted upon
demonstration of their adherence to the Guiding Policies.
No Organization will be allowed to reserve more than one Community Use day in
any given 12-month period.
Fees & Deposits
A cost recovery fee of $40 per hour will be charged to pay for an assigned staff
person that will arrive 15 minutes before the permit time and will be in charge of the
facility during the entire permit time.
A Security Deposit of $500 is required at the time of booking, which includes a non-
refundable $25 processing fee; and an additional Security Deposit of $1,000 is
required three (3) weeks prior to the event date.
A cleaning fee will be charged depending on the size of the event and the inclusion
of food and beverage as part of the event.
Facility Requirements
Community Use events may only use the Theatre's main auditorium and lobby
restrooms and are allowed to use the Theatre's lobby mezzanine and auditorium
balcony areas upon request. The main lobby concession area and the Cineplex will
remain open for business as usual.
A minimum attendance of 200 people is required for use of the Theatre. A Maximum
attendance is 750 people for the combined use of the Theatre's main auditorium,
auditorium balcony, and lobby mezzanine areas.
- 4 -
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg
Minutes - Thursday, August 14, 2008",RecreationandParkCommission/2008-08-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-06-05,26,"sufficient community discussion to reach two-thirds; the community demands specificity;
provided a School District example; two-thirds is a high threshold; inquired whether the
library bond required two-thirds vote.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the
measure passed by 78.8%.
Mayor Spencer stated the library measure is a great example of being very specific; she
does not think there are sufficient meetings; inquired how much was spent on polling
and mailers.
The Public Works Director responded around $50,000 to $60,000 was spent; stated
$25,000 was for the tracking survey; $25,000 was for financial calculations and legal
analysis; mailers were around $10,000 or $15,000.
Mayor Spencer stated that she did not get answers from the consultant the last time
bond measure was presented; there should be real community meetings with
discussions about community priorities; inquired about the polling for the $95 million.
The Public Works Director stated the last tracking survey showed support in the 70% to
73% range.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the original polling for the library measure showed
support was in the low 60s prior to any community education; the ballot measure was
based on the priories from the poll; it is doable.
Councilmember Oddie noted the County Measure A was polling in the 70s and is
getting 63%.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the polling was for different things than the new priorities being
put forward; not fully funding projects is very different than a library bond; paving five
miles of City streets is only a fraction of the miles of streets in the City; a lot of work
needs to be done, including how the projects will be fully funded; the polling being used
does not reflect what is being proposed now.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember
Oddie: No; Vice Mayor Vella: No; and Mayor Spencer: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
The Acting City Manager requested the Council address sales tax; stated there is a
limited amount of time to proceed with a sales tax measure; the economic cycle is
relatively good, which has proven to be the time to actually put a measure on the ballot;
the five year forecast is not a great picture; in addition to reducing expenditures, help is
needed on the revenue side.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-12-16,5,"sudden deaths are a big killer in the country; the mortality rate
increases 10% per minute.
(08-544) Gretchen Lipow Alameda, urged Council to immediately
dissolve its relationship with D. E. Shaw; stated hedge funds are
about to go bust; economics are forecasting a continued downturn in
the economy ; the City should be very careful not to step into a
dark hole.
Mayor Johnson requested an explanation on what would happen if D.E.
Shaw failed.
The Assistant City Manager stated D.E. Shaw is funding the project;
D.E. Shaw would be in default of the Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement (ENA) if funding stopped and the ENA would terminate.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated D.E. Shaw is putting $10 million into the
project; the City will be lucky to get through the first phase; the
next phases are uncertain; all developers are going through a
sorting out phase; that he is looking forward to getting
information on Catellus' status.
Mayor Johnson stated there is good reason for uncertainty;
uncertainty is well justified right now.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the General Fund could lose $1 million to
$2 million each year if the project does not continue.
The Assistant City Manager stated negotiations would be difficult
regarding the developer's capability.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the matter should be a discussion point as
the project moves forward.
Councilmember Tam stated the City does not control funding that the
developer receives; the City can control the relationship with the
developer; the relationship would be terminated if D.E. Shaw goes
bankrupt the City has protections.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City should be aware; the devil is in
the details.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be placed on an agenda for
further discussion; the City would be in the same circumstances no
matter who was the developer.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter should be placed on the
next Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) agenda; that
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-12-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-25,9,"such as access to Encinal, will have to be addressed.
Mayor Johnson stated there would also be significant water savings.
Board Member Jensen inquired how much maintenance funding would be available to be
used elsewhere, to which the Director of Operations, Maintenance and Facilities responded
that he could provide said number.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding City funds that would be used, the
Interim City Manager stated the budget includes a special capital improvement
discretionary fund; the funds are from an Alameda Municipal Power $1.2 million back
payment, an assessment district administrative fee $880,000 back payment, and the sale of
the employee parking lot [on Lincoln Avenue] for $750,000.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he has concerns about the other places the City could use
the funding; further stated the Recreation and Parks Department provided a list of
deficiencies; inquired why the City has not been able to use [School] facilitates in the past;
stated Thompson and Encinal fields have not been available to the City.
The Superintendent responded staff has made a commitment to review all of the joint uses;
stated the swimming pool is another example; these [field] joint uses are step one; step two
would be to look at every field.
President Mooney stated one issue has been the need to ""rest"" natural grass; the joint use
agreement will create clear guidelines; taxpayers own the property, which should be put to
the best use; lead time is needed in order to have the fields built in the summer.
Mayor Johnson stated water and maintenance savings would be economically beneficial
and the community would benefit, too.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the matter would come back to Council with more detail; further
stated Alameda Point fields are other opportunities.
Board Member McMahon stated neighbors of Thompson field have opposed lighting the
field and Saturday morning use.
Mayor Johnson stated the limitations at Thompson field are understood, which is why she
prefers [improving] Encinal field.
Board Member Spencer stated involving the public is important; discussed the safety of
artificial fields.
Councilmember Matarrese stated direction should be given today; that he concurs with the
Mayor that the Encinal site is more conducive to continual use; safety data should be
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 25, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-25.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,2010-05-04,11,"succession planning; other alternatives are available to make things more efficient.
Councilmember Matarrese stated consolidating the housing effort in a single
department is good because duplication is avoided and a leaner organization provides
efficiency; having the elected body closely answerable to the performance of the group
puts him in favor of keeping the current structure or the Housing Authority could become
a department of the City as long as Council has the oversight role; the Housing
Authority is an excellent product.
The Interim City Manager stated other models are available in terms of delegated
responsibilities versus Council's oversight of money; the public and developers would
go to one place for all financing options.
(10-207) Park Master Plan - Request for Proposals Scope of Services
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Park Master Plan would include joint use of
facilities such as pools, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a detailed scope of work should be highlighted for
potential parks such as the land acquired by the City next to Towata Park, the Estuary
Park by the Fox/Collins/Dutra property, and Beltline property.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Grand Street Fire Station is not serviceable; Council
allocated $400,000 for a study for a new fire house; the feasibility of building a Fire
Station and Emergency Operation Center on the Beltline property should be studied;
having classrooms at the new fire station should be reviewed; classrooms could be
shared with the Police Department and could be opened up to the public; not having to
purchase land for a new fire station would be a huge savings.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated considering the Beltline property as a potential site for a fire
station should be addressed separately; Council has requested the City Attorney and
Interim City Manager to advise what has been gained by winning the lawsuit;
opportunities should be scoped out for passive parks.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the $400,000 spent on
evaluating a new for the fire station; a vacant building near Alameda Municipal Power is
big enough for a fire station; Mount Trashmore [the former waste disposal site] should
be considered as a future park.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she does not mean that she wants to spend money
allocated for the Park Master Plan on a fire station study; she does not want to get so
far down in scoping the Beltline property that a fire station would not be considered if
other parcels do not work out.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
May 4, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,10,"successfully built 128 units of affordable housing with the partner and a lower subsidy per unit;
staff is confident the City has been set up to meet the 25% affordable housing requirement; APP
will not be building the affordable housing units; an affordable housing developer will be brought
in to partner with the City and APP to build the affordable housing; the term sheet has a high
likelihood of success; the 25% affordable housing units is a City requirement; staff cannot
guarantee the success; however, the term sheet puts the City in the best possible position to
meet the requirement.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired why the City does not put money from the sale of
market rate units into a trust until the affordable housing units are built; expressed support for
covering 15%.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the investors for the project need
to invest millions of dollars to make the project move forward and build infrastructure to prepare
the property for vertical developers; investors need to have a return; if the City requires a trust,
the project will no longer be financially viable.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether for sale units might end up being rentals.
The Community Development Director responded the determination has not yet been made;
stated a mix of market rate and affordable housing units is the current plan; the developer could
reconsider if there is a dramatic shift in the market.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the for sale market rate units could end up
being market rate units for rent.
The Community Development Director responded that the approach is not the current plan.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter provides a sixth amendment to the DDA;
inquired the reason the developer has been unable to perform the prior amendments.
Karen Tiedemann, Goldfarb and Lipman, responded it is not accurate to state the developer has
been unable to perform the various amendments; stated the developer has performed on most
of the amendments; previous amendments revised the agreement, but have not released the
developer from obligations; the fourth and fifth amendments related to affordable housing and
timing; the amendments related to performance of obligations and schedules needed to be
revised; a project of significant size and multi-phases typically has a variety of amendments;
changes occur over time, many things cannot be predicted and adjustments must be made.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated inflation is at a current 40-year high; inquired how the
high inflation rates will impact the ability to complete the project and perform the sixth
amendment.
Mr. Doezema responded inflation is not a favorable factor and does not help the project;
inflation can drive interest rates up placing downward pressure on sales prices; the project is
feasible at this time; a guarantee cannot be made about changes to future conditions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired why staff is not recommending tethering the
affordable housing units to market rate units.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
10",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-10-22,3,"success, such as single-family homes, townhomes, live-work, multifamily tuck-under,
senior housing, workforce housing, commercial development, and mixed use retail. He
noted that a diverse housing mix enables more flexible and effective reaction to a
changing marketplace.
Mr. Matthew Ridgway, Fehr & Peers, noted that Megan Mitman's name should be on the
slide as well, due to her significant contribution to this work in close coordination with
the City. He augmented Mr. Thomas' comments on the contractual arrangement on this
project. He noted that while SunCal provided the funding, Fehr and Peers' contract was
with the City of Alameda. He displayed a series of slides illustrating present and future
auto congestion, which they anticipated would become worse with or without the
Alameda Point development. He noted that they encouraged people to use alternate
transportation modes as much as possible. He noted that there was no draw on the
General Fund, and that the project was at least fiscally neutral.
Mr. Ridgway detailed the six guiding principles of this project:
1. Attract eco-minded residents and tenants. All residents and businesses will pay for
an ecopass program, whether they use it or not;
2. Create a self-sufficient community, with shopping, work, child care, educational
(elementary school) and recreational opportunities on-site;
3. Provide the best transportation services and facilities in the city, with a dedicated
shuttle to connect to the 12th Street BART in Oakland in the initial phase. A Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) system with two routes (between Alameda Point and 12th
Street BART, as well as to the Fruitvale BART station) will be implemented.
He noted that the proposed addition of the new ferry terminal at the seaplane
lagoon would enhance ferry operations. He noted that the Transportation
Coordinator would host regular transportation fairs and organize rideshare
matching. He detailed the route and operations of the dedicated shuttle line, and
added that a new shuttle would augment the 63 route. He estimated that the costs
for the overall transit improvements would be between $35-50 million.
4. Provide Island-wide benefits for the City. He noted that reduction in auto use
must be implemented to free up the capacity for the additional travel associated
with the development of Alameda Point. He noted that it was expected that there
would be a 2-4% reduction in motor vehicle trips, and a significant increase in
infrastructure to accomplish that goal. The BRT system would be an addition to
the transit choices. The bikeway system would provide an additional benefit, and
that a trail facility would be extended along the former Alameda Belt Line
corridor along the length of the Island. The $5-7 million cost would be built into
the development pro forma. The system would provide additional travel and
recreational opportunities, as well as travel to the Ferry Terminal.
3",TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-05-07,12,"substantially omitted by management.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstention:
Councilmember Chen - 1.
(13-229) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14807, ""Confirming the Webster Street
Business Improvement Area for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 and Levying an Annual
Assessment on the Webster Street Business Improvement Area."" Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog announced that he would recuse himself and left the dais.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes there is a typo in the staff report which
says the Consumer Price Index increase will raise the projected annual Webster Street
BIA collection total to approximately $47,000 on page 1, then, on page 12, it says the
estimated BIA revenue for 2013 to 2014 is $37,000.
Ms. Young responded that Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft is correct; the BIA assessment for
2013-2014 is $47,000.
Councilmember Chen moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(13-230) Recommendation to Endorse a Preferred Conceptual Plan for a Passive
Recreational Use Program at the Future Alameda Beltline/Jean Sweeney Open Space
Park.
The Recreation Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Tam inquired if there are some specifics on the endowment fund concept.
The Recreation Director responded in the negative; stated right now there are just ideas;
other models have not been actively pursued because the focus has been on developing
concepts and seeking initial funding; ongoing maintenance needs to be taken into account.
In response to Councilmember Tam's further inquiry, the Recreation Director stated that
she can provide better estimates once the basic uses are known; tonight's meeting is to
determine about passive uses versus more active uses; maintenance costs would be
significantly higher if there are soccer fields, rather than trails, playgrounds and community
gardens.
Councilmember Tam noted a cost recovery component pays off capital costs by passing
on charges to the teams using fields; stated the same cost recovery cannot be done with
trails or more passive uses.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
May 7, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-05-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-17,21,"substance.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the process is soliciting a second vote.
The Assistant City Attorney responded there is no violation of the Brown Act because it
is only two Councilmembers, less than a quorum.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how the process is different from a Councilmember emailing
other Councilmembers.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the difference is whether or not the other
Councilmember is in support of calling the item for review; the Councilmembers should
not be having a discussion on the merits or what position the Councilmember calling the
item for review wants to take.
The City Clerk suggested if once one Councilmember responds she can send out an
email stating the item is being called for review and to have no one else respond.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired why a Councilmember cannot send out the email to other
Councilmembers and why does the City Clerk have to send the email.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that staff would send out a form.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to hear from the member of the
public; expressed concern with the clarifying questions drifting into discussion.
Mayor Spencer stressed the importance of Council being able to ask clarifying
questions.
Councilmember Matarrese moved to have the speaker talk and have clarifying
questions after the speakers, which FAILED due to a lack of second.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested not naming the Councilmember calling the
item for review; inquired how the form would work.
The Assistant City Attorney clarified how the proposed call for review process would
work.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the purpose of the proposed changes is
to have more of a balance.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the purpose is to raise the standard to ensure
the process is worth the time.
Mayor Spencer inquired how other cities handle the call for review process.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 17, 2017
17",CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,15,"subsidizing ferry service and he does not want to say they support a lot or a little, but looking
back at history, he suggested staff not put that as the first request.
Commissioner Bertken replied they put a lot of money into the ferry and they still are, but the
point that was being talked about was only so much would be allocated. Also, this does not get
project specific until later and it would be geographically based.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Jon Spangler stated that he was contacted by BART Board Director Robert Rayburn about this
agenda item a few days ago and he was concerned about the lack of specific access to transit
items in the plan. He said as it was originally prepared he does not know what changes were
made in the last few days. He conveyed this to Staff Payne to make sure this was known and she
responded quickly on ways to include transit connections especially the leg of the Cross
Alameda Trail, the need to replace Miller Sweeney Bridge and possibly make better transit
connections across the new lifeline span. When hearing Jennifer Ott's priorities, he liked the
ferries, but the service is much dirtier per passenger mile than other forms of transit. He
suggested they look at capital expenditures that are a lot greener such as Hydrogen Fuel Cell
powered or sail powered ferries that get off the carbon emissions conveyor belt. He explained
that access to BART is a key part of this Cross Alameda Trail, which connects Alameda Point to
Fruitvale BART. He went on to say that including pedestrian and bicycle access that feeds into
Tilden Way from downtown and the east end, Fernside as well as the northern waterfront is
Alameda's part of the pie and part of Regional Measure 3. He also noted that transbay bus
service is something to support and he will do his own work with his contact to get more
information on what is behind the green curtain in Sacramento and elsewhere.
Lucy Gigli stated that two places that critically need improvement is off island access to
Fruitvale BART, Tilden Way and Fruitvale Bridge from the east end. She explained it was
critical for bikes to be able to travel from the east end to BART, plus it is part of the Cross
Alameda Trail. She also mentioned the Estuary Crossing because the service is not a real long-
term or medium range solution because it has limited hours and is overall cumbersome. Yet, the
Estuary Crossing is number one in the biking and pedestrian plan so she urged staff to keep
looking for solutions. She heard that the Alameda Landing and shuttle is way off in the distance,
so she asked staff to keep the number one item in the forefront because the City has other
challenges that need to be fixed.
Commissioner Miley thanked staff for bringing this forward and thanked the speakers who made
great points. He said his experiences with regional measure specifics are important for the City,
but the MTC and state legislature look at the broad funding categories. He said their hope would
be that they create categories and hopefully they fund the categories to the extent that City staff
could submit a competitive application. He also felt that BART to Alameda was a real long-term
goal and solution for transit issues, but the project will be so expensive and they are not
considering this project in this measure, but do not forget BART to Alameda.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he would like to see Jon Spangler and Lucy Gigli's
recommendations for emphasis on Fruitvale BART, Tilden Way and access to the trail section of
this added to the staff presentation.
Page 15 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2020-08-17,6,"submit the electrical engineered plans they will provide both interior and exterior lighting
designs.
Vice President Saheba asked about where the landscaping would be located.
Mr. Greene pointed out the landscaping on the design.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted clarification on the hours of operation.
Dr. Oram clarified that they had applied for 9 am to 10 pm but that staff had recommended
9 am to 9 pm. The recommended time was acceptable to him.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted clarification from the staff on the prohibited distance
from Edison Elementary and the Public Library on Oak St from the dispensary.
Staff Member Sablan said that the Free Library is not considered part of the sensitive use
and Edison Elementary was around 1200 to 1300 foot range, past the protected area.
Board Member Rothenberg wanted to know if the Good Neighbor Policy for the dispensary
was consistent with the other dispensaries that have been approved.
Staff Member Sablan answered yes.
Board Member Ruiz asked about the fence on the south side of the building and if it would
be fully enclosed.
Mr. Greene answered if the city wants it they can make that fence fully enclosed.
Board Member Ruiz asked if the applicant was opposed to extending the landscaping
down to the southern property and fully enclosing the site.
Mr. Greene said the applicant was not opposed.
Board Member Curtis wanted to know about the staff's recommendation about the
operational hours.
Staff Member Sablan said it was because of uniformity with other dispensaries.
Board Member Curtis believed this was ""micro-managing"" the business by the city. If there
was no objection and it was allowed by the ordinance, he believed the hours should be
set by the business owner.
Vice President Saheba asked what the purpose of the area of P5 and why the landscaping
was designed the way it was.
Mr. Greene said the width of the landscape area was a recommendation by staff and gave
his thoughts about the parking area saying he was very open to other ideas from the
board.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 13
August 17, 2020",PlanningBoard/2020-08-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-03-05,9,"submit comments addressing transit.
Mr. Jaynes stated the VA is concerned about transportation to the facility; the VA staff
met with AC Transit staff on July 24, 2012 to review the demographics of the staff,
patients and trips; AC Transit staff indicated the route to Alameda Point could be
extended; the VA's architect designed a bus stop as part of the project; the VA will have
to submit an application to the AC Transit Board for rerouting the bus line in 11/2 to 2
years; further stated the VA will run a shuttle during the clinic's hours of operation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Biological Opinion references the City working with
East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD); that she has great concern and objection to
doing anything with EBRPD while the District is suing the City; inquired whether the
references in the Biological Opinion commit the City to any actions.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the statements do not commit
the City; stated the 150 acre park is discussed; however, a particular service provider is
not identified; the USF&WS has to approve the provider to ensure capability to operate
adjacent to an endangered species colony; nothing in the Biological Opinion or term
sheet commit the City to work with a specific provider.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is reference to EBRPD holding a conservation
easement over the undeveloped land; that she does not believe the conservation
easement is still being considered; inquired whether or not the easement is being
considered.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that she understands there
have been numerous conversations between USF&WS and the VA about placing a
conservation easement on federal land; a determination was made that the federal
government cannot place a conservation easement on its own land.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the Biological Opinion
restricting the number of ferry crossings, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point
stated Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA) plans to lease land from the City; the
ferries stationed at the site would leave and return through the breakwater gap; the
breakwater gap might also be used if the ferry terminal is moved to the sea plane
lagoon; the language was included to build in flexibility.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City faces risks due to a statement in
the term sheet about the VA access road being subject to the availability of funds.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the entire VA project is subject
to the availability of funds; stated presumably, the VA would not start the project or road
construction if funds are not available.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the clause was not included in other areas of the term
sheet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
March 5, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-03-05.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-02-24,3,"subject to the Public Art Ordinance. Projects that are currently in
process or will be soon include: Bay Ship & Yacht, Bridgeside Center,
Harbor Island Complex, Park & Webster Streetscape Projects, Blanding
Street Work/Live project, South Shore Center, and Washington Park
Recreation Building.
CM Rosenberg asked if Staff could provide a map of Alameda's existing
and proposed public art projects. RSM Lillard stated that Staff would get
a map.
B.
Continued Discussion of Public Art Donation Policy - (Discussion
Item)
In regards to the donation of items, RSM Lillard explained that there are
common criteria for their acceptance between cities.
Criteria include:
- Outlines and responsibilities for installation and maintenance
- Procedures for establishing the title and ownership
- Provisions for dispensation for the work
C.
Consideration of Request to Fund Art Centers with the Public Art
Allocation Funds - (Discussion/Action Item)
Pat Colburn, from Alameda Art Center, and Lynn Faris, from Alameda
Civic Light Opera, attended the meeting. Ms. Faris expressed her
interest in learning how, or if, public art funds will be distributed to local
non-profits.
C Huston explained that developers would ultimately present plans to the
City for the art they would like to place. PAAC will approve or decline the
art based on the established guidelines of quality and accessibility. She
went on to state that there is no direct link between arts organizations and
the Public Art Fund. However, the developer may choose to use the
allotted money to create performance or exhibition spaces.
CM Rosenberg stated that the developer could choose to place the
money in the in-lieu fund. If this is the case, PAAC could then create a
competition for non-profits to compete for said funds. C Huston explained
that RSM Lillard had previously stated the funds could not be used for on
going operating costs.
Director Ota explained that money collected through the Ordinance could
be placed in one of two pots. First, developers can put their public art
allocation towards on site art. Secondly, developers can choose to place
their allocation in the in-lieu fund, where the City decides how to allocate
the money.
Ms. Faris inquired as to whether there is a plan for non-profits and
developers to be in contact. Director Ota stated that a list of non-profits
could be included in the developer's packet. CM Wolfe stated that the list
PAAC Meeting
3
Minutes
February 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-11-21,4,"subject to budget approval and Council could lower the amount in outgoing years.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to know where the estimate comes from and
how much has been spent.
The City Manager responded that the amount is a renewal of the best practice.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to understand what has been spent over the
past budget cycle.
The City Manager inquired whether Council could approve the item tonight for one year
and return the item to Council in a year.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the contract is returning to Council
regardless, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City is not spending $150,000 and is only
authorizing a contract up to $150,000; he does not want Public Works contracts stalled.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of both the civil and structural engineering
contracts.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 21, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-21.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-05-03,17,"subcommittees to brainstorm and come back with a report to the full group for a healthy
discussion; it sets the framework and a provides a structure on how to talk about each
issue.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired what the boundaries are with respect to what the
Commission could do tonight.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney read the section of the bylaws related to the item; stated
her opinion is the Commission has the authority to take action since it has been properly
agendized.
Vice Chair Shabazz stated what he shared previously about having goals and listening to
different people's ideas are helpful; Chair Tilos discussed the use of technology to make
things efficient and accessible; there have been many conversations around
transparency, accessibility, accountability and equity; it is a thematic or principle way of
thinking about the work goals; other categories include the null and void remedy,
Sunshine Ordinance revisions and public presentations to engage people to know about
the Commission; another potential way to consider organizing the Commission is related
to how the Sunshine Ordinance is written; there is a section related to records and one
related to meetings; a subcommittee could be formed to deal with any of the sections; a
subcommittee could be formed to deal specifically with the Commission's structure;
identifying the priorities is a good start along with who is willing to do work.
Chair Tilos suggested choosing one big issue to have a subcommittee address; stated it
would leave room to tackle other topics.
Commissioner LoPilato inquired whether there is interest in utilizing this mechanism of
preparing a report on practical and policy problems encountered in the administration of
the Sunshine Ordinance; stated it could be an ongoing subcommittee; the two people
would be charged with listening to the Commission's items that come up addressing
complaints and keeping notes to compile an annual report; two people should be
identified to work on it, even though it would not be active immediately; this would be in
addition to having a high priority subcommittee.
Chair Tilos stated perhaps reserving the last 10 minutes of a meeting to summarize the
big issues could be a method for a subcommittee to compile the top issues onto a
spreadsheet that could be an agenda item to decide what to present to the Council.
Commissioner LoPilato stated that she likes that idea; she would like it to be more than
wrapping it up at the end of a meeting and going into the minutes; in a lot of cases it would
be an actual report that the Commission does not necessarily have the authority to ask
staff to do; she agrees with the method of doing a collective wrap-up and then charging
two people with putting something together.
Vice Chair Shabazz suggested having speaking time limits for the Commissioners; stated
potential specific reports could go forward, including concerns related to the City's
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
May 3, 2021
17",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-07-15,12,"subcommittee could write the ballot argument and rebuttal.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion stipulated the $12.00
rate and included a Plan B.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the City Manager would present
Plan B, which would address where cuts would be made if the ballot
measure does not passi she does not want Plan B to be included in
the motion because it should be a stand-alone item as opposed to
being bundled into the proposed real property transaction tax.
On the call of the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing the City
Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of having Councilmembers deHaan and
Matarrese prepare the argument in favor and having the Mayor sign
on behalf of the Council.
The Deputy City Manager stated the Mayor could sign on behalf of
all Councilmembers other signatures could be obtained to show
broad based support for the measure.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the subcommittee could organize a
community task force.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the
subcommittee would be preparing an argument in favor of the measure
and a rebuttal if necessary.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(08-312) Resolution No. 14246, ""Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the
Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City
of Alameda Charter by Amending Sections 2-4, 2-6, 2-9, -7(A), 3-
7 ( (B) , 3 - (C), 3-7(F), - 3 - 7 (I), 3-15, 9-1 - (E) , - 3 (D) , 17-10, 22-4,
and 28 - 6 (A) Thereof by Deleting Sections 3 - 7 (E) , 3-15.1, 17-11,
23-4, - 23-5, - Art. XXV, and 28-6(B) Thereof and by Adding Section 2-
16 Thereto, to Delete Obsolete and Unclear Language and Conform to
General Law and Other Sections of the Charter; and Proposing Said
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-18,6,"styrofoam is not recyclable in Alameda's program and belongs in the
gray garbage bins.
Councilmember deHaan stated in-store recycle bins need to be the
encouraging factor because the replacement material should not end
up in the landfill; Acapulco and La Piñata have been using
cardboard and aluminum for take out for ages vegetables are pre-
packed in trays.
The Public Works Director stated currently Trader Joe's brings said
vegetables from outside the City and would be exempt from the
proposed ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan stated Trader Joes's should be encouraged to
be observant; packing material needs to be segregated and disposed
of in a good orderly manner. the issue should be addressed at some
point.
The Public Works Director stated future steps could be taken to
address the issue.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that cities should ban together and
tactfully suggest that Trader Joe's change ways of dealing with
pre-packaged vegetables.
The Public Works Director suggested keeping the exemption regarding
packaging outside the City in place for now; stated the issue could
be brought back in a year and would allow enough time to work with
businesses to make a change.
Councilmember Matarrese stated packaging outside the City is self-
explanatory; Lucky packages eggs in styrofoam; Section 4-4.6 (a)
exemption could state foods packaged outside the City; a caterer
could come to Alameda with prepared food and dish the food out in
styrofoam containers; suggested that exemptions be granted up to
one year from the date of the effectiveness of the ordinance and
apply only to existing businesses.
Mayor Johnson stated people need to understand that things that go
into the landfill, even though recyclable, do not decompose very
easily, if at all.
Councilmember Matarrese stated styrofoam can break down and is
recyclable, but the infrastructure is not there to handle it;
eventually, infrastructure will need to be in place to recycle
styrofoam.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
December 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-05-15,15,"style, to which Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; stated early articles describe the
South course as being links style; characterized links style; further stated the North
course would never play similarly; there would be two distinctly different styles available.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding pesticides use reduction,
Mr. Kelley responded that he has not been able to see the current pesticides used;
Greenway Golf's pesticide reduction has been anywhere from 30% to 70%.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Greenway Golf could commit to pesticide
reduction during the negotiation phase.
Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; stated Greenway Golf's turf management
program involves less inputs: less water, less pesticide, and less fertilizer; less grass is
grown to reduce input.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether pesticides reduction is because there is less
grass.
Mr. Kelley responded said reduction is because of less growth, not less grass;
discussed grasses.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether it would be the same for the North course, to
which Mr. Kelley responded in the affirmative; stated the North course would start
almost immediately; a special machine from Australia introduces kokua grass into the
surface with minimal disruption; explained the process.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding animal management, Mr.
Kelley stated there is not really a friendly way to deal with animals.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she would prefer not killing unwanted animals;
using natural predators does not bother her; a better way than trapping and euthanizing
should be sought and discussed during negotiations; inquired how the matter is handled
now.
The former Recreation and Parks Director responded dogs are used to deal with the
goose problem; stated there is not an active trapping program.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the Mif Albright course, Mr.
Blake stated a new practice area will be built, the greens will be resurfaced, and the
quality will be raised.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the area would work as a training academy.
Ben Blake, KemperSports, responded the driving range will be significantly improved,
which will help with teaching; there are a series of steps; beginner golfers are taught
how to hit the ball; the first step is to go to the Mif and learn the nuances of the game
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
May 15, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-07-25,9,"study. He does not know if it needed to be included and that is a question for staff. He felt that a
background of the General Plan and Senate Bill SB 375 should be addressed and land use
policies should be discussed in conjunction with the Planning Board. He also addressed the need
to reference other BRT projects in regards to number of miles, cost and ridership in future
documents.
Staff Khan spoke about the Bay Farm area. The funding that the City received was intended to
connect Alameda Point to the BART station. However, the analysis could lead staff and the
Commission to discussions on the Long Range Transit Plan.
Commissioner Bertken commented that it was worthwhile to bring up that staff had a diagram of
the route, which includes the ferry terminal, but the corridor stopped at the edge of the base. He
mentioned that there is discussion to have a transit center at the terminal. So, as a matter of
presentation, the corridors should end where the new terminal will be placed. Also, he pointed
out that there would be 300 new ferry passengers due to Alameda Point development. Yet, there
is no place within the report to show that there are close to 700 trips today across the Bay to San
Francisco. Lastly, he asked staff if the consultants that were used would be on board for the entire
study.
Staff Khan explained that Nelson Nygaard would be on board for the entire plan.
Commissioner Bertken said Nelson Nygaard did a wonderful job putting the information together
as an introduction to where we stand today, but further discussion is needed. He mentioned that
the lines that are shown in the report are not where the population lies. They might be good
streets from a physical standpoint, but for attracting riders who may want a relatively short
walking distance, they may not be.
6.
Staff Communications
On-going Traffic Calming Projects
Staff Khan mentioned that staff held a community meeting at Fernside Blvd about the traffic-
calming project at the end of June, but the meeting was not well attended given that it was a
holiday season.
Complete Streets Policy Requirement
Staff will bring information about a proposed Complete Street Policy to the Commission at the
September meeting. The policy requirement is coming from the following two different sources:
1) the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) recently approved the One Bay Area
Grant and the funding is coming from federal sources. So every jurisdiction should have a
complete street policy adopted by early 2013, and 2) the Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC) has a Complete Street requirement in their funding agreement that the City
signed and must adhere to in order to receive Measure B funds by June 30, 2013. One advantage
for the City is that they recently updated their Transportation Element in the General Plan.
Page 9 of 11",TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2014-04-14,2,"student destination before retail.
Vice President Henneberry commented that a coffee cart while launching a kayak is a
great start.
7-B
Alameda Point (AP) - Wayfinding Sign Program - PLN14-0127 - City of
Alameda.Public Hearing to consider a Wayfinding Sign Program for Alameda Point. The
proposed signs include street names and addressing, informal landmarks and district
naming. Signs are proposed for up to 25 locations throughout Alameda Point. (Applicant -
City of Alameda)
Ms. Debbie Potter, Director, provided a report and presentation.
Ms. Scott Tyler, Square Peg, made a presentation and introduced his company.
Vice President Henneberry asked about the flags that were in the presentation.
Mr. Tyler mentioned the flags are an example of diversifying signage.
Board member Tang asked about maintaining signage.
Mr. Tyler explained color fasting has improved, and grafitti removal elements are available
when coating signs.
Vice President Henneberry opened the public comment period.
Ms. Carol Gottstein, former Planning Board member, commented on a past resolution
regarding signage for Alameda Point which states any signage should maintain the
art-deco style that is part of AP. There needs to be attention to contrast.
Ms. Karen Bey, resident, stated that she is excited to see things moving forward at AP.
She asked that signs be more of an art project, and its important to pay for a nice
statement entrance. She stated that often temporary solutions turn into long term and
suggested getting input from the tenants regarding the signage.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni liked the signage, but asked for lighting to be considered.
She doesn't like the entrance, stating it looks out of balance. She would like a historical
reference at the entrance, and landscaping. She agreed with talking to tenants for their
thoughts.
Board member Knox White agreed the entrance needs more work, but feels there are a lot
of good points. He finds it odd the City logo is on all of the street signs, and there is
confusion with colors changing. He likes the logo with the wings. He would like to see the
map larger and is not sure the Hanger Row sign is needed. He agreed the spirit alley
tenants should weigh in on the signage for the area.
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 4
April 14, 2014",PlanningBoard/2014-04-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,5,"structures, and that they were not as stringent. He believed the 40-foot height limit on this parcel was
justified. He believed the height and bulk restrictions were being ignored on the Oak Street side.
Ms. Jasmine Tokuda was called to speak, but was not in attendance.
Mr. Ron Schaeffer was called to speak, but was not in attendance.
Ms. Hanna Fry, 1507-A Chestnut Street, spoke in support of this application, and believed it would
be beneficial to Alameda.
Mr. Court Summerfield, 1507 Park Street, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he was
a merchant on Park Street and would be happy to see additional parking in the district.
Ms. Jan Schaeffer, 1184 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she had
previously been the Director of Theater Operations for Alan Michaan's Renaissance Rialto Theaters.
She disagreed with those who believed that a smaller house would not be financially feasible, and
noted that the Grand Lake Theater, a four-screen house, was very successful because of low
overhead and a quality project. She noted that people traveled long distances to attend that theater,
and believed that a scaled-down theater could be successful without eight screens. She urged the
applicant to restore the interior of the theater.
Ms. Pat Payne, 2121 Alameda Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that the
surrounding neighborhoods were already short of parking, and did not believe the City needed this
theater.
Mr. Vern Marsh, P.O. Box 800, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe the cineplex
should be built at all. He believed that a majority of people did not want it, and that the Planning
Board and the City Council passed the project through despite their wishes.
Mr. Anders Lee, PO Box 800, spoke in opposition to this item, and was concerned about the series
of events that led to this meeting. He believed the building was too massive for Alameda. He
believed the parking demand would exceed the capacity.
Ms. Carol Fairweather, 920 Walnut Street, spoke in support of this application. She noted that she
and her husband would be able to walk to the theater.
Ms. Pauline Kelley, 1121 Sherman Street, spoke in support of this application. She did not wish to
go out of town to attend movies.
Mr. Frank George, 2600 Otis Drive, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he was a Park
Street merchant and a member of Property Owners on Park Street (POPS), which had approximately
100 members. He noted that there were approximately 400 merchants on Park Street, and has spoken
with many merchants who strongly supported this project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,21,"structures require a certain size to be workable, and that 17,000 square feet may
accommodate 43 extra spaces. The new complex did not sit on a large site. She noted that
the operator, Kyle Connor, was not a large corporate entity, and was an independent
operator; he knows the community and the residents. She noted that this theater never did
have the 2,200 seats that had been discussed. She noted that the $25 million price tag
included the $10 million for acquisition and seismic upgrades and stabilization to meet
Code requirement. Another $10 million of public money would go into the parking
structure, which had been identified by PSBA as being a priority for the business
association and downtown. She noted that a shade analysis would be performed; she did
not believe it would cast a shadow onto Santa Clara Street because of the location of
Long's. Staff would follow up on that item at the next meeting. She noted that other retail
uses, such as restaurants, already provided patrons on the street; those patrons would be
drawn to the theater as well. She did not expect the theater to be patronized by all new
people, and that there would be some crossover trips.
Mr. Piziali understood that there was concern in the City about this project, but that he
had not been approached by anyone who has expressed that opinion. He emphasized that
this project has been discussed for five years, starting with the Downtown Visioning
Process. He noted that he listened very carefully to people in the City about this and other
projects.
Vice President Cook believed it was important to take into account all the comments
throughout the process. She noted that she had been Chair of the Visioning Process, was
on the EDC six years ago, and knew how important this project has been over the years to
enliven downtown. She acknowledged this was not the perfect project on the perfect site.
She stated that the people working for the City had the City's best interests in mind. She
wanted to make it clear throughout the process that full restoration of the historic theater
had not been possible, and had stated that on the record in the past.
Ms. McNamara noted that her concerns were regarding the financial nature of the
restoration. She noted that the City budget was in a critical state right now, and
questioned whether this was the time to spend the money on the restoration of the historic
theater.
Ms. Little advised that the project used tax increment dollars, as well as Section 108
dollars, neither of which can be used to pay for services, salaries, or overhead. She added
that they were economic development dollars that were specifically intended to create
new revenues in communities. She noted that they could be used in other capital interest
projects within a certain period of time, but could not be used for fire, police, or social
services.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Little stated that it was not the case that
the only choices were to build a seven-screen theater or to tear it down.
Ms. Little stated that staff went through six public meetings about setting the ultimate
design criteria regarding what would be dealt with, to identify the major issues for
Planning Board Minutes
Page 21
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-10-24,5,"structure with a metal building, expansion of this structure by 900 sq. ft.; the construction of a
second building of similar design, in an area previously approved as an outdoor work area, that will
be used as a boat refit bay; and the construction of a new building housing a lunchroom, supply
room and production office. The new buildings would replace other existing facilities, consequently
there would not be an increase in project capacity or intensity of use.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
October 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-07-18,2,"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.
Matt Fragner, with the Council's/Board's/Commission's approval, revised and recited the precise
language modifying the three specific issues of the ENA.
Councilmember/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.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:27 by Mayor/Chair Johnson.
Respectfully
submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
2
Authority and Community Improvement Commission
July 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-09-16,6,"strong and there were more residential than commercial responses; housing is a little
more definitive in terms of the market demand; San Francisco has a higher commercial
demand; Harbor Bay has more job intensive uses.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether the potential developers would parcel off 82
acres into sub groups.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded both developers are proposing
a master developer approach to development.
Councilmember Chen stated receiving only three qualified submissions through the
RFQ is disappointing.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff would not have to come to
Council if the developers were not qualified; staff did not feel pressured to go forward
just to provide Council with a recommendation.
The City Manager stated different values have been articulated by each
Councilmember; the most important issue for staff is fiscal neutrality; if the goal is to
develop Alameda Point as quickly as possible, the market could fund that right now;
Site B being purely residential does not serve Alameda's needs and does not solve
revenue generation over time; there has to be a balance; if a quality proposal is not
available, the City would be better served by not developing Alameda Point than doing it
wrong.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding land banking, the Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the term sheet will require a phasing and
milestone schedule in the DDA; the term sheet will be attached to the ENA indicating
that the City does not want the developer to land bank.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested a definition of land banking.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated land banking is when a developer
invests in the land, but holds the land without developing it; having a developer hold
land for a public entity does not make financial sense, as the City could hold the land for
no cost.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the two finalists have a good track record; inquired
whether it is possible that both developers would end up working on Site B, to which the
Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded it is too early to tell.
The City Manager noted having both developers at Site B is a possible outcome, but not
probable.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-09-16.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,2006-09-05,14,"stretched the envelope; the project drops 18 inches to get into the
lower level; there has to be another wayi he is concerned with mass
and the eight-foot driveway the Fire Department should review the
driveway.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to clarify whether the
eight-foot driveway meets code.
The Supervising Planner stated the existing driveway can be
retained; further stated the minimum code for driveways now is
eight and a half feet.
Councilmember Matarrese stated relation to other houses in the
neighborhood is a planning and design issue.
Mayor Johnson stated more work needs to be done; size is relevant
to the historic character of the house; approving the demolition is
an extraordinary act and historic preservation should be expected
in return; the duplexes are going to be larger than some houses in
Alameda; limiting the size and requesting more details would
preserve the historic character.
Councilmember Matarrese moved that the matter be sent back to the
HAB to review the impact of the expansion on the historic nature of
the structures and review additional detail to bring the structures
closer to original form.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, with the caveat that one
of the structures could be moved closer to the property line, which
could change the opportunity of making the project work and change
access points.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there are examples of
remodels that have gone wrong; the project meets Code but no one
likes the look; questioned when the Code would be changed stated
people trying to do projects should have a better idea about what
is acceptable.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the big issue is the 30%
[demolition] or else the project should go forward.
Councilmember deHaan noted the City should be vigilant i City
funding is going into the project.
The Supervising Planner noted that the houses are covered in
asbestos shingles and the detail would not be known until the
shingles are removed; therefore, the drawing is devoid of some
details; the shadow line would be found to determine trim detail.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2016-11-29,5,"stressed kids. Ms. Murray suggested working with the PTA to educate parents about having
conversations in a way that do not spill over to the kids.
Board discussion:
Staff noted that, up until a few years ago, the Alameda Multicultural Center was active and would
host multicultural events, and, in 2004-06, SSHRB hosted Festival of Families events that brought
the entire community together.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to refer the input and recommendations heard at tonight's
public hearing to the Board's Human Relations Workgroup, authorize the workgroup to have SSHRB
support/co-sponsor activities that are consistent with the Board's mission, and have the President of
SSHRB draft a letter to the City Council setting forth the recommendations received from the public.
M/S Hyman/Sorensen Unanimous
4.
BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA - NONE
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 PM
M/S Sorensen / Blake Unanimous
Respectfully submitted by:
Jim Franz, Secretary",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2016-11-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-12-21,20,"streets; he is unsure how to move forward with a new camera program until the City addresses
the Clearview issue; expressed support for a discussion on Clearview prior to moving forward;
stated that he will not support the matter; the matter is security theatre and will pull away current
resources with nothing to show for it in two to three years; dozens of agencies use ALPR
technology; there is not one study that shows an impact on crime; he will not support ALPRs
until the data shows an impact on crime.
Councilmember Daysog stated two to three Police Chiefs supporting ALPRs should amount to
something; other agencies using ALPRs should amount for something; he has to balance data
reports and recommendations from APD staff; ALPRs are not being installed for no reason;
ALPRs are recommended as a tool to help deter and solving crimes; Council owes APD and
residents ALPRs; it appears the City will be waiting another seven years to find a perfect tool.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is willing to consider moving forward after the questions
she has posed have been answered.
Councilmember Knox White stated the City has four cameras with two in the shop due to
maintenance; the ALPRs were not deemed important enough to fix and put back on patrol; he is
not looking for the perfect tool, he is looking for a tool which shows impactful data; many studies
show speed cameras slow speeds and reduce crashes to increase safety.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to give the Police Chief the
opportunity to respond to Council comments; expressed support for clarification about cameras
in the shop and the best use of current Officers.
The Police Chief stated the current ALPRs in APD vehicles are not in use are due to the
vehicles being out of commission; in order to move the ALPR equipment from the vehicles
which are out of commission would require initiating another contract with the current vendor;
the City can work with other vendors.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the best use of APD Officers and ALPR equipment.
The Police Chief responded there is value in ALPRs; ALPRs are a tool; crimes are solved by
people; there is value in a tool which will help people solve crimes.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is not about whether a tool can be useful; the matter is about
how effective the tool can be; Councilmembers have raised concerns about efficacy and
efficiency; expressed support for creating limitations to protect members of the public without a
chilling effect; part of Council's job as policymakers is to evaluate all aspects; Council can listen
to staff recommendations; however, Council must ultimately make the policy decisions;
expressed concern about previous policy decisions around privacy parameters; stated certain
things should not be decided or responded to after-the-fact.
On the call for the question, the motion 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 Herrera Spencer stated Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft has provided direction for staff
to
return to Council with information; inquired how much time staff needs to return and address the
points raised.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-02-26,4,"streets or developing new projects.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if we have data to show that the bicycle lane on Central
has many collisions. She asked if the physical barrier is necessary for safety and
questioned whether two way separated bike lanes are appropriate in applications where
there are numerous cross street and/or driveway conflicts.
Staff Member Thomas outlined some of the safety concerns along Central Avenue that
lead to the staff recommendation for separated bike lanes.
Chair Soules mentioned that it was clear when she was on the Central Avenue site visit
that some of the simpler safety measures that could be applied to the Central and Webster
intersection had not been deployed. She said there is a balance between doing regular
maintenance safety measures and the larger, transformative projects.
Staff Member Payne stated that Public Works is working with Caltrans to implement short-
term visibility and other safety improvements along Central Avenue ahead of the larger
safety project.
Staff Member McGuire said that the resolution preference for separated bikeways does
not dictate two-way facilities and that there would be a number of new one-way separated
facilities, especially at Alameda Point.
4",TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2014-06-23,3,"streets on the south side, but on Chapin there is no connection.
Ms. Wooldridge stated there is a parking lot owed by Housing Authority who didn't want
access to the park.
President Burton likes the plan, and is excited about the outdoor classroom. He thanked
everyone involved, along with board member Köster who donated his time.
Board member Zuppan motioned to approve the Master Park Plan.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni seconded.
Motioned carried, 4-0
7.B. Public Workshop to Discuss a Draft Master Plan and Development Plan
(PLN14-0059) for the Rehabilitation, Reuse, and Redevelopment of the Former Del Monte
Warehouse Site Located at 1501 Buena Vista Avenue
Mr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, provided a presentation and update on the history of
the development plan, including the transportation and parking plans.
Mr. Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, presented the Board with more details, and
commended staff for working with them. He introduced the rest of his team.
Mr. William Dunkerson, BAR, architects, made a presentation on the materials.
Board member Zuppan asked about the report comparing the Master Plan to the current
Development Plan.
Mr. Thomas stated the draft Master Plan is older than the staff report. There are three
documents for this project. He stated the Development Agreement is the final agreement
between the City and developer.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni asked about Universal Design and how does Measure A
effect this plan.
Mr. Thomas referred to state law, single family homes, and zoning. In 2012 the city
designated 1% of land to be multi-family and this is one of those sites.
Mr. Dunkerson stated Universal Design is an overall design on the property, There is
a
model for aging in place in the ground floor units.
President Burton asked about the live/work design being adaptable.
Mr. Dunkerson stated the first floor is an accessible route throughout the property. The
live/work units have stairs, but there is a possibility for making them accessible.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni questioned why the building looks so different and asked
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 9
June 23, 2014",PlanningBoard/2014-06-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,7,"street with drivers and not ride on the sidewalk.
Staff Khan clarified one item within the presentation, when he said 6 inches versus 4 inches, he
did not mean to reduce the bicycle lane width on the traffic side. He was thinking on the parking
lane side. There is a requirement from Caltrans, which states that the bike lane stripe should be 6
inches. Also, including the T's at 7 feet instead of 8 feet is intriguing and he will look into it.
Commissioner Moehring liked the T's in the bike lane from the door zone.
Commissioner Bertken discussed his interest in the T's within the bicycle lane and how it
encourages better parking.
Staff Khan will come back for a final recommendation from the TC in March.
4C.
Transportation Commission Bylaw Revisions
Staff Payne summarized the staff report to revise the commission bylaws.
Commissioner Bertken stated regarding the minutes to break the one paragraph that presents
three different concepts into three paragraphs.
Commissioner Moehring called for public comments or questions.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, objected to
removing the monthly meetings to every other month and to the quorum definition for the rules
of order section C, subsection M. To abandon the initial rule and to not define the quorum is
unacceptable. In Section A, under meeting minutes, Mr. Spangler mentioned that the TC is as
important as the Planning Board and this body should make its case with the City Council to
meet every month depending on staff and commissioners' workload.
Commissioner Moehring stated that for a long period Alameda TC would meet every month, but
would cancel meetings because there was not enough on the agenda. It is stated in the bylaws
that the TC must define the meeting periods. The TC can schedule special meetings when
necessary and then publicize the meetings in a sufficient timeframe.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, did not have an objection of when meetings
occur, but there must be list of dates publicized so the public is aware of these meetings.
Commissioner Bertken stated the reason to meet every other month is due to staff time to prepare
for each meeting and should be considered the most. If there are enough items then TC members
should schedule a special meeting.
Commissioner Vargas responded by suggesting on a trial basis to conduct a meeting every other
month depending on the workload, and when necessary to schedule a meeting earlier to finish by
11 p.m.
Page 7 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-10-26,6,"street or screened if not possible; bringing back the materials and colors board for final
approval before issuance of building permits, as suggested by Board Member Köster;
and widening the seating area and obtaining the sidewalk encroachment permit. Board
Member Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1 (Sullivan).
7-D 2015-2206
Final Review of colors, materials, and pediment design for a 31-Unit
Affordable Housing Development. Applicant: TL Partners I, LP and City of
Alameda Housing Authority (PLN15-0185). A final review of colors,
materials, and pediment design for a 31-unit affordable, multiple-family
building on an approximately .81-acre site within the MX Zoning District
located on the northeast corner of Buena Vista Avenue and Sherman
Street within the Del Monte Master Plan planning area.
Andrew Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
tps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2485519&GUID=057EDFFC-
04D9-47B2-8553-D184308CAE8D&FullText=1
Steve, from BAR architects, gave a presentation and answered some materials
questions from the board.
There were no public speakers.
Board Member Burton said he is strongly opposed to adding the pediments on this
building. He said he liked the rich colors in the design.
Board Member Köster said he also is against adding the pediments. He said he liked the
colors.
Board Member Zuppan said she liked the pediments.
Board Member Henneberry said the pediments do not look good and prefers not to have
them.
Board Member Mitchell said he liked the colors, but not the metal mesh panels. He said
he liked the straight line design without the pediments.
Board Member Sullivan said she liked the idea of some sort of pediment, but these
pediments do not look good.
President Knox White said he also preferred the design without the pediments.
Page 6 of 8
Approved Minutes
October 12, 2015
Planning Board Meeting",PlanningBoard/2015-10-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-02-25,8,"street lots, perhaps along the side streets or on Webster Street that will accommodate a
broad range of uses. She did not believe the in lieu fees should be limited to transit
funding at this point.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft understood Vice President Kohlstrand's concerns, and
suggested that an eventual parking permit system be instituted. She noted that the
enforcement of the parking restrictions were an important part of the process.
Board Member Lynch believed it was very important to examine and clarify the
enforcement policy for the City. He hoped that Parking Enforcement had not been aware
of this issue, and that they become aware of it going forward.
President Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Major
Design Review approval to construct an approximately 8,274-square foot, two-story,
mixed use building to be located on the southwesterly corner of Webster Street and
Pacific Avenue. The ground floor area would be divided into retail space. The second
floor would be composed of two dwelling units and a separate office/storage area. The
applicants are also requesting approval to permit the payment of parking in-lieu fees.
Conditions will be added regarding:
1.
The transformers;
2.
Clear glazing;
3.
The red no-parking zone;
4.
The hazardous materials;
5.
The design details to wrap around the corner, and there will be
coordination between the two façades; and
6.
The awnings will be installed prior to building occupancy; and
7.
Trash enclosures.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would confirm that the two parking spaces would be
available. If not, they would be added to the parking in lieu fee.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.
Mr. Thomas noted that staff would work with WABA with respect to the parking issues.
9-B.
PLN07-0061 - SRM Associates - 2800 Harbor Bay Parkway. Applicant
requests a Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development
Amendment for reduced parking, and Tentative Map approval for the construction
of ten new office buildings totaling approximately 109,280 square feet in floor
area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a 9.22 acre site. The
site is located within the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, and Planned
Development Zoning District. (DV)
Page 8 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-02-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-03-03,13,"street ; the historic context of the street should have been
evaluated by the HAB rather than a Design Review.
The Planner III stated the 1200 block of Bay Street has set backs
of approximately 30 feet or less; approximately twelve homes near
1150 Bay Street maintain the 34-37 foot set back; the west side of
Bay Street does not have a uniform set back.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether 1115, 1128, 1134, and 1160 Bay
Street have less than a 30 foot set back and have porches with
similar designs.
The Planner III responded 1232 and 1114 Bay Street have a set back
less than 34-37 feet; stated that he cannot confirm set backs for
the other houses.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of granting the appeal with
reference only to the seven-foot extension of the porch into the
yard.
Councilmember Tam inquired what would be done with the HAB decision
to grant a Certificate of Approval to alter more than 30% of the
value of the building.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Appellant has indicated that the only
issue is the front porch.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion is to uphold the appeal
specific to the seven feet of the front porch area.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the property owner could proceed
if a porch was built that would not encroach seven feet.
The City Attorney responded that there is no legal issue with the
fact that the design of the porch extends forward seven feet
stated there is no set back violation in the front yard; the porch
design is the issue based on the 30% value of the building or
alternatively the variance of the side yard set back.
louncilmember Tam stated the Planning Board considered the design
review and approved the entire project, including the front porch
and the variance for the front porch and reduced side yard set
back.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the houses were built in a certain
fashion and none of them have front porches; a similar issue
occurred on Encinal Avenue; a row of three or four Victorians are
viewed as historic.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
March 3, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-04-06,7,"strategy; stated it is important to collect data; the City should not get bogged down in collecting
very specific types of data; expressed support for spending funds on services; stated the
ultimate strategy and goal is providing services; efficacy is difficult to determine and is
dependent on the definition; she wants to be cautious in ensuring funding is going to direct
services and housing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for City staff; stated the personal testimony shared from
lived experience at City facilities is a testament; the City needs to address and prevent
homelessness; it is especially important now coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic; eviction
protections will expire at some point; the City should provide assistance with back-utility
payments; a homeless count was not conducted last year due to COVID-19; the numbers are
surely higher; she wants to ensure a discussion of funding sources for proposed programs will
occur around the time for the budget; expressed support for information shared by individuals
with lived experience; stated that she has no qualms over the individuals and organizations
represented; measurable objectives are important; she is satisfied hearing how the Steering
Committee was put together; many Mayors in the area are working with the County to address
homelessness on a regional basis; it is a success when housing is able to be found for an
individual living in an encampment; regional solutions have are important; expressed support for
more information about the form of the public education campaign; stated that she supports the
idea of matching local employers with individuals experiencing housing instability to find jobs
and strengthen the housing navigation process; expressed support for the efforts to look out for
seniors; stated that she wants to ensure seniors are kept from sliding into homelessness and
housing insecurity; non-congregate type housing is important during the COVID-19 era; many
unsheltered individuals prefer non-congregate housing; expressed support for Alameda
Municipal Power (AMP) considering adding a voluntary fee for a low-income assistance fund.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how much money the City is spending per month on
the Safe Parking program.
The Community Development Manager responded the contract with Village of Love/Creative
Build is $150,000 for 9 and a half months.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the cost includes payment for Safe Parking
staff.
The Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the provider
leverages existing services and contributions from other groups; faith based programs and food
banks provide meals; there is a lot of leveraging from existing programs, including outreach and
case management.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the data that she received being shared
for public benefit; stated there are 28 adults and 10 children; 38 people have been served in six
months through the program; it is important to share the information; the Safe Parking program
offers 25 spaces each evening; 10 to 12 of the available spaces are used nightly; there are
concerns about people sleeping in their cars throughout Alameda as opposed to using the Safe
Parking spaces; she would like to know what efforts are being made to communicate the
availability of space; people need to be encouraged to use the available space and services;
expressed support for the personal testimony about services which are working; stated Council
needs data in order to know what is working and how to make improvements; there is an
opportunity to help; expressed support for WiFi being offered at the Safe Parking site; stated the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 06, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-04-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-18,5,"strategy; Building 612 is in the Enterprise Area; short term leases are being done to
provide a consistent revenue stream and to maintain tenants in small buildings.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the building will be marketed after 24
months.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the Enterprise Zone is
marketed in its entirety as a packet; short term tenants are kept so by the time the
developer is ready to move forward, the tenant can be eased out of the building.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the $2,500 rent is the going rate for a 4,000 square
foot building at Alameda Point, to which Mr. Schmieder responded in the affirmative;
stated the rent has been increased 6%.
Mayor Spencer moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*17-258) Recommendation to Accept Status Report on Tidal Canal Project Phase I and
Provide Direction to Staff on Moving Forward with Phase II and Phase III. Accepted.
The Assistant City Attorney gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the height of the fence which is proposed to be
constructed around the bulkhead, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the
standard height is six feet; the proposed fencing would be for safety and would not
obstruct the view.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the
strategy is to treat everyone the same with two exceptions; one property on the west
side added landscaping and private asphalt, reducing the pathway to five feet wide; the
City proposes to retain the existing improvement under a license agreement; the second
exception is the property which added a pool and stairs.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the plan is to add fencing for the remaining
three properties, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative;
stated there is the exception for the property on the eastern most point with the pool and
stairs, which is encroaching on City land; the costs to remove the encroachments are
prohibitive, so staff is considering offering a leasing arrangement.
Councilmember Oddie inquired why the City issued a permit for the pool to be built if the
property is City-owned.
The City Planner responded permits and the project were never finaled; the City
inspector stated there is a problem and the project cannot move forward.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf
PlanningBoard,2011-10-24,3,"strategies and alternative construction technologies including straw bale construction, earth
bag construction, and the use of salvaged, donated and surplus materials for non-structural
building components such as windows, doors, flooring and wall materials.
Doug Biggs, Director, Alameda Point Collaborative gave an overview of the nursery and its
connection with the residents of the Collaborative. He stated that the new building will
enhance the retail and wholesale business at the nursery and act as an education center.
President Ezzy Ashcraft spoke fondly of the nursery and its contributions to the City.
Board member Zuppan commended the Alameda Point Collaborative for the work they do at
the nursery.
Board member Burton asked what the estimated timeline was for construction.
Mr. Biggs stated that the construction is slated to being in the spring of 2012.
Board member Burton mentioned that fund raising efforts by Community Action for
Sustainable Alameda (CASA) could possibly be done to add to the solar panels and
additional items for the building. He stated that it is an exciting project and Ploughshares
Nursery is a great asset to the City.
Motion was made by Board member Burton and seconded by Board member Zuppan to find
the project exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to guideline section 15303;
and approve Design Review Application PLN11-0286. Approved 4-0.
9-B Recommend Adoption of An Ordinance for Food Truck Operations Amending
Alameda Municipal Code Sections 6-27.4, 6-52.1 and 22-8.1 to allow Sale of Goods
from a Rolling Store with Approval of a Special Event Permit or Conditional Use
Permit; and Adopt Food Truck Program Guidelines, including Standard Conditions of
approval for Conditional Use Permit or Encroachment Permit for Rolling Stores.
Staff requests continuance to a future meeting.
9-C
Public Hearing / Scoping Session of the Environmental Impact Report for the
proposal to reconfigure the Chuck Corica Golf Course, build up to 130 housing units
on the lands currently occupied by the Mif Albright 9-hole course and build playing
fields on 12 acres of land on North Loop Road in the Harbor Bay Business Park.
Mr. Thomas stated that the purpose of the hearing is to provide a forum for the public to
identify issues or questions that may be of concern to the community. Also to provide an
opportunity for the public to submit comments on the scope of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) that will be prepared if the City Council chooses to examine the
proposal. The DEIR should fully inform the community and City decision makers about
the potential environmental impacts of the proposal and enable a well-informed decision
at a future date on the project. He stated that there would not be any action taken by
the Planning Board at this meeting but should the City Council decide to go forward with
the project the Planning Board will play a very important role in making the final
recommendation on the project to the Council.
Page 3 of 8",PlanningBoard/2011-10-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,15,"strapped to branches when construction commences protecting the
root system is the most important action; that he recommends
placing a thin layer of compost, wood chips, and plywood to protect
the root system.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired when Mr. Bowen last visited the sight,
to which Mr. Bowen responded about a month ago, on April 7.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Bowen has visited the site
to witness the activity.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Bowen has seen the
exposed root system, to which Mr. Bowen responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan noted the fenced off area is only five feet.
Mayor Johnson stated Mr. Bowen should conduct further analysis and
determine whether restoration is needed before other measures are
implemented.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated Mr. Bowen visited the site a month ago
and created a plan for protection of the tree; apparently the plan
was ignored; that she is not convinced a plan will be followed;
that she understands the neighbors' concern; inquired whether the
City could require the owners to post a bond for the security of
the trees.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; noted the
resolution states: ""prior to issuance of building permits for the
development on the site, the Applicants shall sign and record with
the County Recorder's Office a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with
the City to ensure maintenance of the Coast Live Oak Trees on the
property. The Landscape Maintenance Agreement shall be in effect
for five years from the date of the recording; Council is
discussing having specific terms and conditions as part of the
recorded Agreement that runs with the land and any violations can
be enforced through Code Enforcement; the terms and conditions
could include posting of a bond to ensure protection.
Councilmember Daysog noted that the City Council has certain powers
under the City Charter with regard to compelling testimony;
inquired when the arborist heard about the disturbance at the site.
Mr. Bowen responded tonight; the last time he spoke to the owner
was to give advice on how to set up a fence around the drip line of
the tree; the he understood the site would be untouched until the
building process began; he was unaware any site work was being
done; his recommendations were to take place before construction
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,9,"straightened out before the open season street naming is becoming
more clear; she is unclear on how facilities are named; inquired
how the process was established for naming facilities within parks
with different names than the park.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the process was
recommended by the community at the time.
The City Manager stated staff would provide recommendations to
Council in the next couple of meetings.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that flow charts be provided.
Councilmember deHaan stated Council should discuss how far the
naming policy should extend.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should be consistency between
commissions.
The City Manager stated a policy would be provided to Council while
moving forward with adding Willie Stargell to the current street
naming list.
Councilmember Daysog noted an Alameda resident mentioned naming the
Dog Park after a resident who was instrumental in getting the Dog
Park up and running.
(06-296)
Resolution No. 13971, ""Opposing State Legislation to
Permit the Towing of Triple Tractor Trailers on State Highways in
California. "" Adopted.
The Assistant to the City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated previously the City Attorney pointed out
that some roads in Alameda are designated as State Highways
;
potentially triple tractor trailers could move within the City
limits; the City would have no jurisdiction or authority to
regulate or ban the triple tractor trailers if the legislation
passes.
Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated his position on the matter is
neutral suggested Council ensure that adoption of the resolution
does not curtail progress in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would prefer to see the industry
remove tractor trailers from the streets and onto rails; he
supports the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2014-06-09,3,"story of losing work and a landlord raising her rent. She stated there are a lot of single
women in Alameda who cannot afford to be here and are afraid of being forced out.
Ms. Lisa Hall, spoke on being a lifelong resident and told her story of losing work and her
house, and trying to find a rental. She found an apartment, but rental increases on a fixed
income is a hardship.
Ms. Helen Sause, commended the city on the increased number of units to be developed
in Alameda. She asked if more can be done to increase the number of affordable units.
She urged to be mindful of what the long-term land use will look like.
Ms. Karen Bey, spoke on being a landlord and the struggles of keeping properties in good
condition. She commented on the issue being supply and demand for rentals. It's been a
very long time without new multi-family units being built in Alameda. Putting the burden
on small landlords isn't fair.
Closed public comment.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni is fine with what is proposed.
Board member Zuppan thanked staff for their work. She would like the transportation in
Alameda addressed, stating that demand management needs to be proactive for the entire
city.
Board member Köster thanked staff for their work and he agrees with Board member
Zuppan on the need for parking and transportation issues to be addressed.
Board member Knox White asked about the employee housing program.
Mr. Thomas stated this is a response to a state law.
Board member Knox White supports Ms. Harp's comment. He wants a change to the list of
meetings, and acknowledgment that everyone was spoken with.
Mr. Thomas stated there have been a number of meetings and this list is only the boards
and commissions. He commented that an annual report will address the overall city
housing health.
Vice President Henneberry commended staff for the work done on the past two HE's.
President Burton commented on the Universal Design language and agreed with Ms.
Harp's suggestion.
Mr. Thomas reviewed the suggestions from PB.
Vice Henneberry asked staff to explain the role of the board in setting up the proposed
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 7
June 9, 2014",PlanningBoard/2014-06-09.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-06-07,3,"stores are now being reimbursed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(16-265) Alison Greene, Alameda, read statements from Heather Little and herself,
urged the City to start building safety into development plans; stated conversations
need to be started around bicycle safety, daylighting street corners and marking
crosswalks; requested more resources go to Bike Walk Alameda; thanked the Police
Chief for discussions on community involvement in traffic safety; thanked everyone for
joining their safety campaigns; encouraged everyone to keep working together.
Tara Etayo, Alameda, stated that she supports slowing down traffic in the City of
Alameda; every street in Alameda is residential and traffic needs to slow down.
Amy Rose, Alameda PEEPS, stated there used to be a lot of stories of people getting
hit or almost hit; she appreciates the stepped up traffic enforcement; there is a need for
more traffic signs.
Kristen Welch, Alameda, stated she is scared her children will get hit on the way to
school; the City needs more stop signs and traffic signs.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor Matarrese 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.]
(*16-266) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on Tuesday,
May 3, 2016. Approved.
(*16-267) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,913,446.48.
(*16-268) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to
an Agreement with Russell Resources, Inc. to Add the Amount of $121,900 for FY2016-
17 for a Total Contract Amount of $677,400 for Environmental Consulting Services
Related to Alameda Point. Accepted.
(*16-269) Recommendation to Approve Proposed Structure of the Mayor's Economic
Development Advisory Panel. Accepted.
(*16-270) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $438,533.50,
Including Contingencies, to Ranger Pipelines, Inc. for the Construction of the Park/Otis
Force Main Replacement Project, No. P.W. 10-15-19. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 7, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,15,"stops. This potential service change should be included as part of any discussions
regarding how to best use an extra bus if that becomes available.
Since the bus schedule cannot currently accommodate the additional run time required to
serve Shoreline Drive, bus stops should be installed at the intersections of Otis/Sandcreek
and Otis/Willow to support the City's bus stop spacing guidelines. This change in the
TC's previous recommendation is in response to the Alameda Police Dept. indicating that
they are comfortable with the location of the bus stop at the Otis/Sandcreek intersection.
The cuts will be on an interim basis, and if they do not work, additional cuts or rerouting
should be identified
Commissioner Krueger suggested an additional amendment discussed in the subcommittee that
was not included in the report: The ferry terminal cut should not be made without the capital
improvements at the terminal.
Chair Knox White noted that there were 18 unfunded bus shelters in the City already.
Staff Khan wished to clarify that the area on Main Street was a wetland area, and constructing a
stop there may have some serious environmental implications. He noted that an environmental
document may need to be prepared.
With respect to the need for more run time, Chair Knox White inquired whether the
Transportation Commission preferred going straight to the ferry terminal and Encinal High
School all day, or whether those locations would be examined after an interim period.
Commissioner Schatmeier preferred the latter choice.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the capital improvements could be made a priority, if
not a contingency, for shifting the line.
Chair Knox White noted that the installation of a new stop must meet all ADA requirements,
which would prevent it from becoming a muddy swamp.
Following a discussion of which items would be retained in the motion, Chair Knox White
summarized the Commission's consensus that Items #3 and #4 should be removed from the
discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the date this item would go to the City
Council, Staff Khan replied that at the latest, it would be in December.
Chair Knox White noted that it would be difficult for him to support a motion that discussed
additional buses on an interim basis before other cuts are made.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that it was not correct that he would never support another bus;
he would not support another bus on the existing route to make up six minutes that were missing.
Transportation Commission
Page 15 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,5,"stops. Mr. Bruzzone noted that the average speed does not include dwell time, but does include
stops for traffic signals and other stops not associated with loading and unloading passengers.
Commissioner Krueger noted that Exhibit 1 discussed magnetic stripe payment systems, and
inquired about the comparison between Translink reader systems and the magnetic stripes. Mr.
Bruzzone noted that when they work, the Translink reader systems were faster, and added that
magnetic stripes were extremely slow. He noted that on Spare the Air Day, when fares were not
collected, an MCI bus took 3.2 seconds per passenger to board; paying passengers increased the
time to 8 seconds per passenger.
Chair Knox White inquired about the percent of on-time performance (OTP) under ""Line 51 Best
Practices."" He was surprised at how well the 51 seemed to be doing at 67.8%, and noted that as a
regular rider of the line, he did not perceive that to be the case. Mr. Bruzzone noted that on-time
performance consisted of being within five minutes of the scheduled time. Chair Knox White
inquired whether OTP included stops at the early part of the route.
Puja Sarna of AC Transit replied that it was for the full day. He inquired whether OTP was
measured at some key spots such as 12th and Broadway during certain times of the day. He did
not perceive that OTP figure as being representative of the performance at the key spots. He
noted that he frequently hears complaining about the route in downtown Oakland. Ms. Sarna
noted the OTP averaged the data from the entire day. She noted that they could make a range of
OTP at the same points, and noted that during the next data collection effort, they would have
traffic checkers at certain points along the route, checking to see how far apart the headways
would be, as well as what the lead times would be. They could match the OTP to those same
points during different times of the day. She noted that the data was skewed with the 6 - 8 a.m.
data, and 10 p.m. to midnight data, which would be much more on-time than peak times.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that when he used the 51, he would ride into Oakland in mid-
morning, and return to Alameda about 7:30-8:00 p.m. and found the service to be reliable at that
time. He acknowledged that the traffic congestion at that time was not as bad, and crush loads
were not being carried.
Mr. Bruzzone noted that the measure of on-time performance was minus 1/plus 5, and that a bus
on a 10-minute headway drops back five minutes, that would create a big gap. If the follower bus
was up one minute, there would be only four minutes between buses, leading to bunching. They
would also examine headway adherence, as well as running times.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the fact that the line was being observed would have an
impact on the on-time performance. Mr. Bruzzone noted that was a good point, but they did not
observe that. He noted that performance does change with manual traffic checkers, but not with
an APC unit. He noted that some traffic checkers board with tickets so they would not be
apparent to the driver as a traffic checker.
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 5 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,7,"stoplights especially by the school to regulate traffic. He said currently, there are two poles with
bright orange flags and that is the only way to get across the street safely. He exclaimed that
safety is the most important thing.
Commissioner Bellows asked that the speakers with children line up so she can pull their speaker
slips in light of the current time.
Cosma Hatragi, Maya Lin School student, said he bikes to school every day. He said he
sometimes ride his bike after school to Franklin Park Pool to his sister's swim lessons. He
explained during his ride there are many fast moving cars and he rides on the sidewalk, which is
not safe for pedestrians. He thinks there should be bike lanes on Central Avenue.
Deena Hatragin, mother, cyclist and Alameda resident, said she moved to Alameda because it is
a bike able town and she uses her bicycle for everyday transportation. She felt very strongly to
have her children ride bicycles as well and she hopes that more people will get out of their cars
and onto bicycles. She heard over and over again that the City needs to make the island safe
enough for everyone to ride, SO she approved the plan.
Marissa Wood, Alameda Community Learning Center student, said she regularly shops at the
farmer's market and Webster Street businesses. She explained when coming from the west end
and approaching onto Webster Street she attempts to bike onto Santa Clara Avenue, but the part
of Santa Clara Avenue west of Webster Street has many stop signs and the road is hard to share
with cars. So, she stated that when she does not bike down Santa Clara Avenue, she will bike
down Central Avenue which is very dangerous. She felt the project would help all members of
the community because there will be parking spaces for motorists and the plan will reduce speed
limits benefitting pedestrians.
Jerry Cevente, 5th Street resident, thanked the Commission and staff for embarking on the study.
He said he and his wife have been to all of the public workshops and he has lived on 5th Street
for 25 years. He went on to say that he drives, walks, and bicycles on Central Avenue and it is
harder to walk across and along Central Avenue. He said he likes seeing the amount of cyclists
increasing, but on Central Avenue the cyclists end up on the sidewalk. He noticed the vehicle
speeds along Central Avenue are a lot faster than the speed limit sign. He believed the bulb-outs
and the flashing beacons at the crosswalks will create an advantage for pedestrians and make
traffic flow better. He noted that the traffic signal installed at 3rd street is good, but that will
bend the end of Taylor Avenue and eliminate the right turn lane with the ability to turn right onto
3rd Street. He explained that the report stated that a traffic signal on 5th Street may be erected
and he felt it would be advantageous to have the signal sooner than later and possibly not run it
as a true traffic signal all day, but during peak hours and then have it as a flashing red the rest of
the day. He brought up the fact that Webster Street and the way that you see the traffic signals
work on Central Avenue one light is available and then there is a turn coming up Webster Street
going south has its own signal and coming up Webster north it has its own signal. Thus, each
direction should have its own signal. He requested that the City work with the merchants on the
northwest corner of Webster Street and Central Avenue about the impact to deliveries in the
morning. Overall, he felt the plan is a real benefit because of the bicycle lane and narrow streets
to have complete streets.
Page 7 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-03-06,9,"stop; he recommends that the matter go back to the Transportation
Commission to review Otis Drive alternatives other than Pond Isle
or Sandcreek Way and rerouting the 63-line back down to Shoreline
Drive as the preferred alternative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is not in favor of putting a
bus stop at Pond Isle because it might not be the correct way to
route the bus; a major distraction would occur by putting a bus
stop with a crosswalk at Pond Isle because people look ahead to the
Lum School crosswalk; the City has a Transit Plan that encourages
ridership; the City demanded that a Transit Plan be in place for
the Alameda Point and Alameda Landing development on day one the
number one complaint is traffic and congestion which can be reduced
by having more conveniently located public transit; the City has to
be proactive in working on the Transit Plan; she is not ready to
recommend putting bus stops on Otis Drive tonight; the City needs
to work with AC Transit; the process is not driven by citizen
requests.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore;
stated traffic congestion is the number one complaint; buses are
the best way to eliminate the continual use of single occupancy
vehicles; tonight is not the night to decide on bus stop locations
too many questions are unanswered; he does not want a bus stop at
Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive; he recommends that the matter go back
to the Transportation Commission and staff work with AC Transit on
finding an alternative stop on Otis Drive or a reroute that would
help pick up ridership as well as mitigate the issue that has
occurred between Sandcreek Way and Willow Street and Whitehall
Place.
Mayor Johnson stated cars are a hazard around schools, not bus
drivers; traffic is a big concern; traffic problems are not solved
by taking out bus stops; concurred that options need to be
reviewed; people will complain regardless of where bus stops are
placed; the matter should go back to the Transportation Commission.
Vice Mayor Tam stated transit options will be necessary as the
Alameda Towne Centre is developed; she advocates having a bus stop
as close to Alameda Hospital as possible; sufficient information is
not available to distinguish whether the bus stop should be at
Sandcreek Way or Pond Isle; she leans toward having the bus stop at
Pond Isle because a safety buffer is needed between the pedestrian
crossing; she would like to receive more information regarding the
frequency of bus stops and the necessity of routes.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Whitehall Place walkway is no more
than three feet wide and is inadequate; pedestrians walk in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
March 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-11-21,9,"still meet the needs of the Council Chambers.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the PEG funds are collected.
The Information Technology Director responded the fee is assessed to Comcast
customers, Comcast pays the State and the State provides the franchise fees.
Discussed the CTE program and grants: Felicia Vargas, AUSD.
Provided background information on the program and broadcasting; urged support:
John Dalton, AUSD.
Expressed support for the project; discussed the Peralta Community College station's
partnership with the City of Oakland: Jeffrey Heyman, Alameda.
Expressed support for the effort; stated collaborative efforts with the community have
worked for a radio station: Kevin Gorham, AUSD.
Outlined her involvement with the radio station development: Nanette Gray, AUSD.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is ready to support the program.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what happens after the facility is built; who would pay
for maintenance.
The Information Technology Director responded the details will be worked out when the
contract is approved; different models will be explored.
Councilmember Oddie stated there is usually a tug of war with AUSD on who will pay
for the long term plan; he does not want to see a huge empty space sit idle with no way
to pay for operations.
The Information Technology Director stated the details will be part of the joint use
agreement.
Vice Mayor Vella that stated she would support the program; she would like to know
funds are put in to ensure the sustainability of the operations.
Mayor Spencer thanked the City and AUSD staff for working on the program; stated the
program is much needed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 21, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-11-17,12,"steps on OAAP; the letter went to the Transportation Commission and had been changed
to not give away portions of the deal; then, the letter came to Council as an agenda item
wanting to secure funding for the bike pedestrian bridge; noted the concerns for Oakland
Chinatown are legitimate, that he supports the OAAP; outlined letters provided by the City
of Oakland and ACTC; stated the concerns from bike pedestrian bridge advocates and
the OAAP should be fleshed out in public versus private; expressed support for a win-win
situation where one project is not put at-risk; the revised letter provides a win for one
project, but not the other; funding is not guaranteed; expressed support for a funding
recommendation from ACTC staff; stated the current Tube design is not multimodal; the
project must be a collaboration with regional support; expressed support for engaging
State representatives and for ACTC alternate Vice Mayor Knox White to be included in
the process.
Councilmember Daysog stated the project is a long-time coming; the historic initial project
was to improve Alameda resident's access to Interstate-880; the project will help
residents get off the Island and deal with concerns raised by residents; his goal is to help
improve vehicular traffic out of the Posey Tube based off data; vehicle traffic is a primary
component in morning traffic; outlined morning vehicle traffic statistics; stated
infrastructure is needed to facilitate the goals; expressed concern about the proposed
speed limit decrease; outlined data showing time savings even with the speed decrease;
expressed support for the OAAP; stated the bike pedestrian bridge should be considered
separate from the OAAP.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the possible commitments ACTC staff could make to
recommending funding as a condition of OAAP approval.
Ms. Lengyel responded ACTC has previously committed to funding; stated should she
receive a letter from the City of Alameda, she can commit to bringing consideration of the
next phase forward to the Commission; noted the Commission funds in phases; projects
are not funded through feasibility and construction; there is a lot of work to complete
between now and when the consideration is brought to the Commission to ensure an
appropriate level of funding is being recommended; discussions with City staff will be
important to provide a clear consideration for the Commission.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes it is important and essential that the City
approves the OAAP; the current design has not been fair to Oakland Chinatown; the
solution is auto-centric; cars will not stop travelling through the Posey Tube; Council has
the opportunity to stop the impacts on Oakland Chinatown; some matters require trust;
while funding is not guaranteed, there are good assurances that funding is present; noted
that she has received enthusiastic support from other Commissioners; stated there have
been obstacles with the Coast Guard in showing a navigable bridge over waterways
outside of the Coast Guard Base.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether ACTC staff will bring forward the City's request
and commit to bringing the matter forward as a staff recommendation to the Commission.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-11-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,28,"steady funding stream; providing a large amount of money one time
would not work; a plan should be established.
Councilmember Daysog stated use of the General Fund reserve should
be considered.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember
Daysog.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is actually losing money and should
be spending the money [ on infrastructure] if money is sitting in
the General Fund reserve while a huge debt is being incurred; there
needs to be a plan to ensure the City does not end up in the same
situation in 10 years.
Councilmember Daysog stated the General Fund reserve is at the
current level because money was borrowed from infrastructure
maintenance.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-249) - Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated City staff is handling the
budget situation excellently; PSBA would be happy to identify
resources to help the City purchase in Alameda; that he would
enlist other business associations to partner with the City to
ensure the City purchases as much as possible in Alameda; thanked
Council for showing the courage and persistence to proceed with the
Theatre project.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-250) Councilmember deHaan stated Council approved going
forward with the purchase of a vehicle tonight [paragraph no. 05-
233] ; there is not a Ford dealership in Alameda, encouraged staff
to consider Chevrolet.
The Acting City Manager stated the Animal Control vehicle could be
a Ford or equivalent.
(05-251) Councilmember deHaan stated at one point, CalTrans was
going to upgrade the lighting in the tube; requested a report on
the matter.
(05-252) Councilmember deHaan thanked staff for staying for the
budget discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
28
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-04-11,12,"stay? Do you have a source of income?"" All these different things that you need to know, and then
guide you to people that can help you. So it's a wonderful resource, and I wish everyone knew about
it. Any questions?
Jenn Barrett: If you're calling on a cellphone that's in another area, but you're physically in the
area that you want assistance, it'll work?
Laurie Kozisek: Generally the cell tower you are closest to is where it will go. So, sometimes if
you're right on the border in the Oakland hills, you will end up in the wrong one. And in that case,
whoever you get to will say, I'll get a call from someone who lives in Brentwood but is working in
Oakland, and she calls on her lunch break and says, ""I need some services in Brentwood."" But she
gets to the 211 in Alameda County, so they switch her over to me in Contra Costa County and do
their live transfer, or you just give them the backdoor number.
Jenn Barrett: Great, thank you.
04/11/18
Page 12 of 18",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-04-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-18,25,"status of the property.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the report could be rolled into a presentation if a new
application is submitted, rather than asking staff to address it now.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is concerned the City having a right to the strip of land
was not made clear at the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City Attorney's interpretation of the property rights appears
to be different than the developer's interpretation; it would be helpful to get guidance.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not want to wait until the developer submits an
application; she would like the issue to be resolved so the Council and community know
whether the property is the City's and how much it would cost.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City Attorney has information readily available, to
which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated staff has started pulling
together the documents so an analysis of the City's rights could be done relatively
quickly.
Councilmember Oddie stated he is concerned taking action on the referral so quickly
would bump other referrals; he does not think the referral has a higher priority than
some others.
Councilmember Matarrese restated the motion to approve the referral, including
receiving a report on the current status of the property and whether a future developer
would still have to provide improvements as a public benefit if the City takes title to the
property.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the referral's priority,
Councilmember Matarrese stated the referral is medium priority; he does not think the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
April 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-11-27,15,"statistics: Ryan Agabao, Alameda Safe Cannabis Access.
Discussed benefits of cannabis, which should be sold in grocery stores: Howard
Harawitz, Alameda.
Submitted petitions; expressed concern over cannabis being near youth: Joanna Lau,
International Chi Institute.
Expressed support for the ordinance: Christina Ramirez, Alameda.
Discussed an online petition to support cannabis businesses and the importance of
educating youth: Vivian Vu, Alameda.
Stated that he opposes cannabis businesses near youth centers; suggested the
dispensary be delivery only: Wally Beaver, Alameda.
Discussed giving out free cannabis: Phillip Redd, Alameda.
Stated that he opposes the ordinance; dispensaries should not be next to students: Don
Sharrat, Alameda.
Expressed support for cannabis: John F. Sikes, Alameda.
Stated cities that have embraced cannabis are now stepping back buffer zones: Serena
Chen, Alameda.
Stated businesses can co-exist: Josh Von Trap, Alameda.
Discussed the ages of his students and other uses near the institute: Yanging Ding,
International Chi Institute.
Stated that he opposes the ordinance; suggested considering mixed use zones: Ben
Mickus, Alameda.
Expressed concern over smoking and protecting youth from addiction: Mohammad
Alekozai, Quba Mosque.
Stated that he opposes the dispensary location: Maaz Khan, Quba Mosque.
Expressed concern over placing cannabis businesses near youth: Amanda Naprawa,
Public Health Institute.
Stated that he opposes the definition change: Shanon Lee, Alameda.
Stated that he supports cannabis businesses; urged the City should to follow the State
definition: Aaron Kraw, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 27, 2018
13",CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-08-21,12,"station because gas prices are less.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether volume is important, to which
the Appellant responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that Use Permits run with the land,
not the operator; the current owners took over the gas station and
asked for an extension of hours when she was on the Planning Board;
the previous owner caused a lot of problems for the neighborhood ;
the Use Permit was denied because the Planning Board thought that
the current owners had not proven themselves yet; the owners
requested an extension of hours three years later the neighborhood
complained: the current owners have established a good record for
keeping the place clean and controlling noise; the Planning Board
voted to extend the hours and were overturned on appeal by the City
Council she has a lot of sympathy for the owners; the owners could
decide to sell the business; she might be more sympathetic to
extend the hours if there was a review period.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council could grant the
additional hours with a condition that the Use Permit could be
revoked if there was abuse.
The City Attorney responded some unwanted burdens could be drafted
into the conditions; stated a trail period could be established.
Mayor Johnson stated that she likes Councilmember Matarrese':
suggestion [revoking the Use Permit if abused occurs]
Councilmember Gilmore stated the current owners have been under a
trial period; neighborhood impacts of extending the hours are
unknown; the matter should be reviewed after a period of time.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council could require a review in
six months and also provide a clause that would allow Council to
have the ability to revoke the Use Permit if abuse occurs.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the condition of the
intersection.
The Planning Services Manager responded he does not know the Level
of Service stated the intersection is not critical.
Councilmember deHaan stated the intersection is very accident
prone.
The Planning Services Manager stated problems at the intersection
Regular Meeting
12
Alameda City Council
August 21, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-04-20,20,"static pictures; outlined an engineering firm providing simulations in Lafayette; stated other cities
offer video simulations for projects; stated 1,400 students come out of Encinal High School at
3:00 p.m.; expressed support for a simulation video; stated the project is not ready to go;
expressed concern about staff responses to daylighting outreach; stated the outreach should
have already happened; the specifics are missing from the project; she cannot support a project
which does not have daylighting addresses identified by phase; the public has a right to have
public conversation; discussed bicycling through Alameda and Central Avenue; expressed
concern about cars coming out of roundabouts; stated data provided from only 2020 is not
realistic; she cannot support any of the roundabouts without being shown a simulation; a project
of this magnitude needs to be phased; community members need to be identified and provided
information if a parking space will be lost; many renters cannot afford a house with a driveway
or garage; there is a problem for the visually impaired; videos show audio cues need to be
heard; she does not want just a flashing light at the roundabout, she wants cars to stop; people
do not know if cars are going to stop; it is Council's job to make dangerous intersections safer;
cars do not always stop at crossings with flashing lights; she is disappointed there was not more
work done before coming to Council.
***
(21-274) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a vote is need to consider new items after 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether there are time sensitive items.
The City Manager responded the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) [paragraph no. 21-276
could be heard at the May meeting.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the Long Term Financial Plan
[paragraph no. 21-275 tonight and deferring the remaining items.
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.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the data collection methods.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff did no traffic counts or analysis
of existing conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Vice Mayor Vella discussed the Sherman Street and Central Avenue intersection; stated the two
crossings are barely able to be completed in time; questioned the proposal for Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft to support the roundabout at the intersection; stated there are currently no audio cues
or safety measures in place; she would like to understand the vision for the intersection based
on current concerns.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated one thing would be to time the signal lights to allow longer crossing
times; outlined intersections with ample crossing times; stated the intersection could be made
safer with audio cues; there have been major improvements to the design; the street closure is
an extreme remedy and could be addressed in other ways; expressed support for acquiring
more land in order for a logical roundabout design.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
April 20, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-04-20.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-12-11,12,"statement. He noted that a 46-foot-high tower was not very high, and the apartment buildings were
substantially higher.
Member Kohlstrand noted that she met with the project sponsor after the last Planning Board meeting
and looked at the model. She noted that the timing of approvals were a complex balance with other
issues, and would like further discussion of that item. She acknowledged that better waterfront views
would be possible if the tower were to be moved, but she noted that the property owner and business
owners should have some flexibility in terms of where their tenants were located. She supported the
changes that had been incorporated. She had spoken with the Chair of the Transportation
Commission, and believed that they were beginning to move towards the access solutions.
Mr. Kyte noted that staff has been acutely aware of the implications of this piece of the project, long
before it was appealed to the Planning Board by community members under the design review
submittal. They re-examined the conditions for this phase of the development, including what should
be done to meet the conditions of the 2003 PDA as it related to this phase, including parking layout,
ratio and landscaping. They believed all those conditions for this phase had been met.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern that this project may be stopped at this point while awaiting
clarification of the issues addressing previous approvals. She believed that for years, Alameda
residents wanted to see this deteriorating shopping center improved. She hoped that there would be a
chance for a walk-through. She noted that some of the concerns regarding waterfront views had been
met in different ways besides having a tower that faced directly on the water. ""She liked the cut-
throughs, and did not want to see the issues swept under the rug, and inquired whether the Board
could request a date certain for completion of incomplete items once the questions have been
clarified."" She was concerned that the retail leases could not be held open indefinitely, because retail
openings are time-sensitive. She believed the design was attractive. She wanted the center to be
pedestrian-friendly, with an emphasis on their safety, particularly on the walkway in front of Building
300.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft liked the improvements in Building 500, but believed that it needed a south-
facing entrance. She understood that the current tenant did not want to have people looking out on
the car wash property, but noted that it may not always be a carwash. She believed that would aid the
waterfront view.
Mr. Thomas suggested that before the EIR for Target was finalized, staff should return before the
Board in January with the 2003 resolution, the map, the matrix, the adopted conditions and an
explanation of how the sidewalk condition was handled.
Mr. Kyte noted that when they approached staff regarding the sidewalk and the conflicts regarding the
driveways and stormwater systems, the north-south orientation became an obvious solution. They
believed that if there was a condition with a long-term Master Plan or strategy in place to control
sidewalks throughout the shopping center, some would be achievable and others would be more
difficult where other owners' property was involved. Regarding the building's design and the Bed
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
December 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,7,"statement from Chair Huston was ""The goal of the Alameda Cultural Arts Grant Program
is to serve as a catalyst to stimulate public art in the community.'
It was agreed upon that it was vague.
Commissioner Arrants pointed out the statement on the literature he was given by Mr.
Vu. He read the points out loud and related those points to the conversation. He
realized that the struggles are the mechanics of the program. He wants to know things
such as what is going to happen with such a small amount of money.
Chair Huston reiterated the protocol. She clarified that what Commissioner Arrants read
was the mission statement for the Public Art Commission and how their original initiative
was to administer money on the percentage for arts but it is shifting and now they will be
defining and administering the Public Art Cultural Grants Program. She feels that
everyone is on the same page as to how the program will proceed; including grants to
individuals and organizations and would not include bringing in people from outside
Alameda. She added a part that is related to a long-term goal that involves an art
center.
Commissioner Wolfe stated that just the calling for arts would stimulate a lot of interest.
Chair Huston brought up a 'social practice artist' and described what that is. Her
example illustrated how some artists rearrange exhibits to show the contradictions
between what is represented and what is not said. It's about a reframing of an
institution. An idea she had was to seek out practitioners do not participate and include
them in the grant program.
Commissioner Rosenberg suggested creating some sort of call for artists.
Chair Huston said that dealing with the basics such as the individual and organizational
grants is first but then it's about digging out the rest of the community and finding ways
to include them.
Commissioner Rosenberg replied that was a good idea.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he thinks that whatever happens, the ""first launch"" should be
good. He wants to try to capture as many as possible in the first go around.
Chair Huston brought up the criteria and how there could be an easy misapprehension.
She mentioned the tile project and how conflicted it is. It included a lot of people but
didn't show a bigger picture. She is concerned with issues of quality.
Ms. Woodbury said that they have made good progress. She said this is the preliminary
step to creating a program.
Vice-Chair Lee mentioned that there is no website of an inventory of who is doing what
and what they would like to do. She thinks it would be nice to start a website that has a
catalog of who has done what as well as having a blog. She suggested a ""wiki"" style site
so people could add to it.
7",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
GolfCommission,2010-12-15,4,"stated: ""Norma, I thought that Richard Lee, at that meeting, I was present at the
meeting, recommended that the spinoff be the Alameda Junior Golf Tournament and
Scholarships?"" Norma Arnerich stated: ""We did, but we changed that today,
because in talking to my board, just talking to them individually, they didn't want to
have to open up a new bank account, take our funds out of the bank account we
have, it would just be more trouble, so we voted today to keep Alameda Junior Golf
Club as it is and the spinoff will be ""Friends of the Mif."" Chair Sullwold asked: ""If it
proves to be a problem negotiating with the City, would the Alameda Junior Golf
Board reconsider?"" Norma Arnerich stated: ""I don't think it's going to be a problem,
the City Manager didn't feel it was going to be a problem, she just said that changes
some, but she didn't feel it was going to be a problem."" Commissioner Gaul asked:
""Was she referring to the meeting today or the meeting you had with her?""
Commissioner Gammell answered: ""Today's meeting."" Commissioner Gaul stated:
""I didn't know she was at today's meeting"". Chair Sullwold stated: ""She was the one
who asked for this meeting. That's what this is all about."" Norma Arnerich stated:
""She said whatever we called ourselves, they would follow through with that.'
Bob Sullwold stated: ""I agree, it will be a problem, that you will hear this from the
City Manager or Mr. Lillard or the Mayor, now the terms of the deal have completely
changed, that we thought that we were negotiating with Alameda Junior Golf, now
we find out that it's a completely different entity, we're back at square one, there's no
deal on the table. I predict that you will hear that.' Commissioner Schmitz asked:
""Was there anyone else there from the City other than the City Manager?' Mrs.
Arnerich answered: ""Dale Lillard was there and the City Manager and John Vest sat
in on the meeting, but he didn't say anything."" Chair Sullwold stated: ""I hate to be
pessimistic about it, but given all the road blocks that we've had in our way, I tend to
think we've got to be wary of what Bob is predicting. It may be seized upon by
Beverly Johnson, as 'now you're changing the whole nature of what you've been
representing to us all year,' and we've got to be ready to at least think about whether
there's some way to salvage this."" Commissioner Schmitz asked: ""This still under
the umbrella of Junior Golf, right?"" Mrs. Arnerich stated: ""It's just a spinoff"". Connie
Wendling stated: ""Dick Lee, our attorney, suggested that.' Chair Sullwold stated:
""No, he suggested just the opposite, though, he suggested that you spinoff the
assets of Alameda Junior Golf to the new non-profit, so that they're protected under
a revised name and that you continue with Alameda Junior Golf Association,
because that's the entity we've represented would be the sponsoring organization
for the Mif. That was his original suggestion.""
Mrs. Arnerich stated: ""Well, it didn't sound like to me there was any roadblocks,
because we are going to meet again with the City Manager and she has requested
what she wants from us, from our minutes, anything we had record of forming of
taking over the Mif course. We are following through. We are going to meet with
her again after the holidays.' Chair Sullwold stated: ""No, I'm not saying that, I'm just
saying, don't take her word only, she's not the one who gets to make the decision on
this one, and we've got Beverly Johnson actively campaigning against this."" Mrs.
Arnerich stated: ""She's only one person."" Chair Sullwold stated: ""She is, but, you
just don't know who she can turn by using things in the right way, so that's why
I
- 4 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, December 15, 2010",GolfCommission/2010-12-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-05-01,5,"stated there would be a breach of the lease and a notice to cure would be issued; if the
cure does not happen, the lease would be terminated.
Councilmember Tam inquired what types of improvements, particularly for America's
Cup, are being considered by year five.
Tim Kelly, Keyser Marston Associates, responded $1.5 million is required to be spent in
the next 15 years; accelerated and up front improvements are primarily dredging and
bulkhead repairs.
Councilmember Johnson stated she is critical of poorly drafted long term leases, but the
lease is a model long term lease and is appropriate.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Johnson and commended both
parties.
Urged approval of the lease: Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship & Yacht, and Noel Wise,
Alameda.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired if there is a concept for a recreational component or
a
destination for water access.
The Community Development Director responded as part of the planning process,
market conditions will be reviewed and different uses of the site will be considered.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-
5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(12-205) The City Manager announced that meeting scheduled for tomorrow night has
been moved to May 8th and the budget meeting will be held on May 29th.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(12-206) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, announced that the College of Alameda is
hosting a job fair tomorrow.
(12-207) Ray Gaul, Golf Commission, responded to Ms. Sullwold's comments regarding
the Golf Commission meeting [paragraph no.12-192]; clarified he would not have voted
for Greenway Golf.
(12-208) Jon Spangler, Alameda, invited everyone to attend a bike safety course.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 1, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-05-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-06-05,7,"stated the recruitment will be open; the position is very technical, information technology
focused and requires a unique skill set.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired what happens if the Council does not
approve the recommendation.
The AMP General Manager responded a consultant is currently performing the function
along with other parts of the workforce; stated using a third party has worked as AMP
has ramped up deployment of the meters; somebody in house day-to-day is needed;
the position will interface with staff working on the meters; having the position in house
makes more sense.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the overall net savings, the AMP
General Manager stated that he does not have the number; AMP had three meter
readers and is now down to one.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the pay, the Human Resources
Director stated there is a savings because the cost of two meter readers is closer to
$150,000.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether AMP's rates recently increased, to which the AMP
General Manager responded the Public Utilities Board (PUB) recently approved a 1%
average rate increase, which will start in July; stated a 5% rate increase was projected
last year; the numbers were refined and the strong financial performance over the past
year allowed value to be returned to the rate payers in the form a lower than expected
rate increase.
Councilmember Oddie noted the majority of the Council previously voted against a
position in another department, which would have been covered from cost recovery,
because it was under PERS; compared the staffing requests; noted there seems to be
different standards for different departments.
Mayor Spencer stated the position is different because other positions are being cut due
to smart meters being installed.
The AMP General Manager noted AMP's staffing level has been reduced in the last four
years.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Fire Chief was instructed to bring the matter
back to Council when the costs savings is known.
The Acting City Manager noted the position being approved does not come from the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-02,5,"stated the numbers are for the City of Alameda.
Councilmember Vella requested the median household incomes be restated.
The Community Development Director stated the median renter income is $72,063 and
the Citywide median income is in excess of $92,000.
Expressed support for a rent cap at 65% of CPI; outlined articles related to affordable
housing; stated city governments can help residents stay in their homes; discussed the
meaning of being a sanctuary city: Jeanne Nader, Alameda Progressives, Alameda
Justice Alliance (AJA).
Expressed support for the annual general adjustment in rent; thanked City staff and
Council for bringing the item forward; stated a cap at 100% of CPI is a good start but
Council should consider ways to provide more to help the City's low income and most
vulnerable population: Sophia DeWitt, East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO).
Discussed general principles to maintain the affordable housing stock; stated 65% of
CPI addresses rent cost increase; requested the number of tenants per unit be removed
from the rent registry and square footage be added; stated a hearing officer is needed:
Eric Strimling, Alameda.
Expressed support for rent caps set at 65% of CPI; outlined her experience renting in
Alameda; stated a real rent cap is needed: Kaitlin Alcontin, Filipino Advocates for
Justice (FAJ).
Outlined her experience as a teacher and renter in Alameda; discussed CPI increases;
expressed support of no banking and no pass-through. Ayssa Morisato, FAJ.
Outlined her experience renting at 2510 Central Avenue; stated tenants are at risk due
to a previous fire; more concrete measures are needed for rent control: Diana
Cabcabin, FAJ.
Stated just cause and rent control go hand-in-hand; outlined her experience with friends
moving due to rent increases; stated salaries of tech workers skew CPI above working
class families affordability: Salina Igot, FAJ.
Outlined his experience living in Alameda; urged Council to approve 65% of CPI, no
pass-through, no banking: Lester Dixon, FAJ, Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC),
People of Bonanza (POB).
Stated there is no end in sight for the crisis of housing costs in Alameda; expressed
support for 65% of CPI, elimination of banking, lowering the ceiling from 5% to 4%, and
the appointment of an administrative law judge as a hearing officer; outlined her
experience renting in Alameda: Laura Woodward, ARC.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 2, 2019
4",CityCouncil/2019-07-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-17,10,"stated the comparison would be the SSHRB's next step if there is time; the survey was
selected in order to allow comparison to other cities.
Councilmember Johnson thanked Ms. Wasko and the SSHRB; stated the survey
provides better understanding of the community.
Councilmember Tam expressed her appreciation; stated the community services noted
in the presentation are generally provided by non-profits or the County; inquired why the
need for library services is listed so high and whether there is an access issue; noted
public safety is similar.
Ms. Wasko responded one explanation could be people really value library services and
see having a library in the community as one of the highest needs; stated health
services become the highest priority for lower income; senior services become a higher
priority for central Alameda; the Board looks forward to having a joint meeting with the
Council to review the data; all non-profits can access the raw data and do analysis.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved approval of accepting the needs assessment.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-402) Recommendation to Acknowledge Rent Increase Concerns at 300 Westline
Drive and Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter Encouraging the Owner to Comply with
the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) Recommendations.
David Perry, RRAC, gave a brief presentation.
Provided background information on the rent increase and issues and urged Council to
approve the staff recommendation: Mark Dahmen, Renter.
Provided background information and spoke in opposition of the recommendation Erin
Johnson, Prometheus-Property Community Manager; and Jason Villareal, Prometheus.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she appreciates Ms. Johnson and Mr. Villareal coming and
providing information; however, the item probably could have been avoided if the
property management sent someone to the RRAC meeting to resolve the matter.
Councilmember Tam concurred with Mayor Gilmore; stated that she would recommend
sending the matter back to the RRAC and Council could revisit the issue if it is not
resolved.
Councilmember Johnson stated the suggestion is good; the RRAC hearing is the
process for resolving disputes between tenants and landlords in a more amicable way;
Alameda does not have rent control; the process should be followed.
Vice Mayor Bonta concurred; stated the whole point of the process is to try to mediate
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 17, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-17.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
CityCouncil,2021-05-04,11,"stated the amount should not include any loan fees or interest; as-written, it is not clear that
the interest is not part of the pass-through; the Culver City program includes language
which precludes any maintenance projects due to wear and tear or due to landlord neglect;
there have been comments alluding to landlords purposefully neglecting buildings in order
to pass-through repair cost; expressed support for not penalizing good landlords; stated
staff brought back what Council previously requested; the matter is complicated; there is
time; inquired who oversees appeals.
Special Counsel responded appeals and handled by the Hearing Officer; stated the City has
a panel of 3 to 4 Hearing Officers that hear complaints from tenants or fair return petitions
from landlords; Hearing Officers are well versed in rent control law; the ordinance provides
that the Program Administrator is not to give any consideration to any additional costs a
landlord incurs for property damage or deterioration due to an unreasonable delay in the
undertaking or completion of any improvement or repair; the ordinance language is intended
to deal with situations where a landlord puts off reasonable improvements; staff can look at
the Culver City language and create more specific language.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council is discussing sending the matter back with potential
changes and alternatives; expressed support for discussing the timeline and when the
matter will return to Council, and for removing the fees and interest from the total
calculation; stated there have been questions relative to the definitions used in the
proposed policy and other policies relative to relocation; expressed support for staff
reviewing the questions raised and using the same definitions in the ordinances; stated
there have been questioned raised about the language relative to defining Capital
Improvement; the comments related to the Culver City language are helpful in defining what
constitutes a Capital Improvement; there is interest in clarifying what a CIP is; there are
concerns about making the ordinance too subjective and the definitions narrow; the
ordinance is 33 pages long and is not simple or easy to follow; expressed concern about
creating a complicated and difficult to follow process; expressed support for staff addressing
all issues; stated Council should discuss how to boil the matter down; expressed support for
a one-page document accompanying the final document, which refers to sections of the
ordinance; questioned what will constitute a reasonable delay or greater damage to
property and what the 5% amount applies to; stated that she understands the 5% is of the
rent not the CIP, which should be defined more clearly; stated unreasonable delay and who
decides an unreasonable delay must be defined clearly; she understands the Hearing
Officer will define unreasonable delay; questioned the documentation needed for
unreasonable delay.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the matter returning with further clarification
and substantiation as to the threshold to be used; stated whatever number is used will need
to be further substantiated with a range of data with respect to examples of upgrade costs;
some upgrades are noted as not being able to reach the threshold; smaller mom and pop
landlords may have a difficult time reaching thresholds; however, larger landlords with 50 or
more units may not; expressed support for modeling how the different thresholds apply to
different size landlords.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated if the City is trying to encourage maintenance of
rental properties, she would like to see analysis that demonstrates the proposed formula will
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
May 4, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-04.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,2006-06-20,28,"stated the Administrative Analyst position would provide a lot
of
bang for the buck; the person would provide the ADA
Transition Plan oversight, risk management services, and safety
services.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated there
is an advantage to having the position in the City Attorney's
office because of internal audit functions; Option 3 provides
advantages.
Mayor/Chair Johnson suggested filling the Risk Management
Analyst position and holding off on hiring another attorney to
see how one City Attorney and two staff attorneys work; stated
the City needs to provide legal services in the most efficient
way possible.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City
Attorney's office has been working with three attorneys over the
last several months and the situation has been an issue.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
teaching safety should be handled through Human Resources;
further inquired who is taking care of workers compensation.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded Risk Management
handles workers compensation.
louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the City
Attorney/Legal Counsel's latitude is very limited.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated she hired an attorney to
start July 5.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated looking
into hiring an additional attorney might be appropriate.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of
hiring another staff attorney.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese clarified that
the motion is to have the staffing level of the City Attorney
and three staff attorneys; the Risk Management Analyst position
would be held in abeyance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
14
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
GolfCommission,2018-02-15,3,"stated that this is not unusual due to the size of the investment being made. Chair
Downing asked if there are any performance clauses in the lease amendment, and Ms.
Wooldridge stated there were no specific time line requirements in the amendment.
Chair Downing expressed his concern that the north course renovation will take longer
than expected as did the south course, and Ms. Wooldridge explained that there were
things that affected the original timeline that will not be in play with the North Course.
For example, it took a year to obtain the environmental report along with permitting,
which is now in place. Also, Greenway is not sandcapping the North Course and the
irrigation situation is different. Mr. Campbell stated that will start grassing immediately
instead of waiting till the holes are done, as well as sodding. They are proposing the
renovation will take 2 to 2-1/2 years.
Tom Geanekos stated his support of the lease amendment for Greenway.
Commissioner Carlson made a motion and Vice-Chair Saxton seconded the motion to
recommend the City move forward with the Lease Amendment with Greenway. The
motion passed unanimously.
5-C Approve South Course Alameda Resident Golf Rates
See attached Exhibit B for the proposed rate schedule.
Ken Campbell stated that they had previously provided the commission with a range of
rates for the south course resident rate, and is looking for the Commission's
endorsement and ultimately the City's approval to have the South Course Alameda
resident rate to be $40 Monday- Friday and $50 Saturday, Sunday and holidays. These
will be considered prime time rates, there will lower twilight rates later in the day. Chair
Downing asked about rates for the service clubs and Mr. Campbell explained that they
would pay the resident rate on tournament play only, but stated that they are still looking
at an Alameda County resident card which would give them a similar resident rate.
Commissioner Carlson made a motion and seconded by Vice-Chair Saxton to approve
the proposed rates, and the motion passed unanimously.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
3
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, February 15, 2018",GolfCommission/2018-02-15.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-06-09,9,"stated that he felt the group has already had ample opportunity. Chair Ingram stated that in
his opinion he did not feel that was the case when Alameda Soccer has come back with a
letter that has seven questions.
PM McDonald stated that he did not want to give anyone the thought that this will take care
of all the maintenance problems. The Maintenance Division was just given another field
near the Alameda Point Gym that is approximately five acres and there is no extra money
to maintain it. Also, there is the Main Street Soccer Field and there were no extra funds
appropriated to take care of that field.
Commissioner Kahuanui asked if the group, by having this fee, that this does not mean that
the lawns are not going to be cut on their demand. AD Lillard stated that the group
understands that this is an attempt to defray a part of the cost. At no time has this been
presented to them as solving all of the field maintenance problems.
PM McDonald stated that since he has been here (1995) there has not been a whole lot of
support for maintenance costs. Granted there have been donations to repair damage or to
build or rebuild something, but no monies were given to assist with field maintenance costs.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the Acting Director recommended approving the policy.
AD Lillard stated yes.
Chair Ingram stated that again he favors giving the groups ample opportunity to review and
actually feels that having each group sign off would be the proper community process.
M/S OLIVER/KAHUANUI
(not approved)
""That the Field Use Fee Policy be accepted as is and approved tonight.
""
In Favor (2):
Kahuanui, Oliver
Opposed (1):
Ingram
Abstention (1):
Johnson
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
PM McDonald provided plans for the Dog Park drainage to the Commission.
Chair Ingram mentioned that he liked the newly installed gate at Franklin Park.
For additional information see attached Activity Report.
B.
Recreation Division
9
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, June 9, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-06-09.pdf
GolfCommission,2010-01-21,4,"stated that he did not have the exact figures with him. He also stated due to the fact
that at the time there strict water restrictions, hand watering was being done for 10
hours a week at a rate of $32.00 per hour. Commissioner Gaul asked Matt if these
figures included benefits and he stated they did not as well as did not include any
payroll taxes. Matt was asked by an unknown person why the water bill was the
same as the previous year with less usage, and he explained that the water rates
were raised in July 2009. The water bill for April and May was high due to the fact
that the course was essentially dead. Chair Sullwold asked Matt if the water bill
included any other part of the Golf Complex and he stated that it was strictly for the
Mif Albright course and the cart barn. There are other meters for the remainder of
the complex. Matt explained the cart barn uses very little water.
Chair Sullwold stated that she has someone they can contact regarding non-profit
operation of the Mif Albright course.
4
AGENDA ITEMS
4-A
Status Report on RFP
Commissioner Schmitz stated that he and Chair Sullwold sat in on the interviews of
the applicants on the RFP. He stated that it will be the City Manager's
recommendation. He and Chair Sullwold asked questions in an open discussion,
but they have no vote or say as to her recommendation. Chair Sullwold stated that
she had sent an email to Ann Marie Gallant asking if she was planning on having
another meeting with herself and Commission Schmitz and Ms. Gallant responded
that she was intending to do that, but that everything is being delayed until after
February 3, 2010. Chair Sullwold stated that this was for a recommendation of
which of the two proposers to begin negotiating with, not enter into a contract, with
negotiations taking 90-120 days. She also stated that Bob Sullwold has been in
email contact with Michelle Ellson from the Alameda Journal. Michelle had asked
the City under the ""Freedom of Information"" request for the responses to the RFP
and Terry Highsmith, the City Attorney, responded ""no way"" and gave her five
detailed reasons as to why these are confidential because they are protecting the
business planning of the people who respond from being invaded by other
competitors, and it would be very dangerous for their business interests if it was
released prematurely, but the bottom line of Terry Highsmith's email was that until
the City enters into a contract with a bidder, the RFP will remain confidential. Chair
Sullwold believes that Ann Marie Gallant will have a meeting with herself and
Commissioner Schmitz at which time they can express their opinion, then Ms.
Gallant will reach her own decision with consultations from her hired consultant who
is being paid out of the Golf Enterprise Fund and she will then, on the second
meeting in February, go to the City Council and say ""I recommend you authorize me
to negotiate with ABC company"" and she won't disclose what ABC company's
proposal was or what they wanted to do. Commissioner Schmitz suggested that
would be the time for the public to state their opinions regarding the structure of the
Golf Complex.
- 4
Golf Commission Minutes - -Thursday, January 21, 2010",GolfCommission/2010-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-10-06,10,"stated temporary shelter is important when assisting people in encampments around
the Posey Tube; there have been a range of ""carrots"" discussed in terms of outreach
and medical assistance; the discussion is in the right direction for addressing
homelessness; with more emphasis placed on temporary housing options,
encampments can be addressed in a compassionate way; the City is working carefully
in the same framework as the Boise decision; compared the Boise decision with the City
of
Alameda's approach; stated the City is beginning to move forward on the
encampment issue.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she looks forward to hearing back from staff about the
progress.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
9:11 p.m.
***
(20-646) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Negotiate
and Execute Rent Relief Agreements with Commercial Tenants in City-Owned Alameda
Point Properties via a $1.5 Million Loan Conversion Assistance Program and Implement
an Alameda Point Non-Profit and Spirits Alley Businesses Rent Relief Program in
Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic; and
(20-646A) Resolution No. 15708, ""Appropriating $1.5 Million from the Base Reuse Fund
for the Loan Conversion Assistance Program and $315,000 from the General Fund to
Assist the Alameda Theater."" Adopted.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a presentation.
Councilmember Vella stated Council previously provided direction; inquired whether the
matter affects the City's ability to pay for other things at Alameda Point; stated the
money will be set aside in a fund as opposed to paying for other items; inquired whether
the impact has been calculated.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the money is coming out of
the fund balance; stated the fund balance is healthy and can operate Alameda Point
without any incoming revenue for one year; the annual operating budget is roughly $14
million; previously a fund balance of $2 million was considered healthy; the increase is
due in part to competitive deals being approved; even with the reduction in rent from
MARAD leaving, Alameda Point continues to remain competitive and have healthy
revenue generation.
Councilmember Vella inquired the impact should all tenants default at Alameda Point as
a worst-case scenario.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 6, 2020
8",CityCouncil/2020-10-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-02-16,15,"stated significant amounts of time are used to allocate additional speaking time for
Councilmembers.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the public has the right to hear Council deliberate and vote;
noted Council has been doing better staying within speaking time limits; stated rules
may be suspended by four affirmative votes.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the ten minute presentation limit;
stated seven minutes of Council speaking time tends to work fine; he recommends and
proposes keeping the nine minute speaking time while trying to keep speaking time to
seven minutes; stated the matter can return for further consideration should the full nine
minutes be used on average; lowering Council speaking to seven minutes is not likely to
impact the length of meetings; the Brown Act allows people to hear Council make
decisions and understand the reason behind decisions; the Brown Act is not designed
to allow for unlimited public comment with limited Council discussion; expressed
concern for cramping Council ability to have discussions.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a big part of the Brown Act is hearing from the
public and the public gets to hear Council; noted that she will not support a one minute
public comment time limit; stated the limit needs to be a two minute minimum; there is a
difference between Council comments and public comments; it is unfair to request
concise public comments be condensed into one minute; pressure should be placed on
Council to make points within the time.
Vice Mayor Vella stated members of the public are at liberty to e-mail Councilmembers
and share thoughts publically ahead of the meeting; some Councilmembers will not take
certain meetings with members of the public or interested parties ahead of Council
meetings; the first time she hears from colleagues is at the Council meeting, after
hearing from members of the public; Councilmember free speech is limited by the
Brown Act where members of the public are not curtailed; Council is attempting to
create a succinct as possible process for a functional meeting; noted there have been
dysfunctional Council meetings; stated rules have been put in place to provide
expectations for working through the agenda; expressed concern about creating a false
equivalent.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 1. Noes: 4.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval Staff Report Items 1 [under Oral
Communications, speakers would have two minutes to comment], 2-A [members of the
public would comment once on the entire Consent Calendar and not be able to
withdraw items for discussion], 2-C [Councilmembers would not pull items simply to
record a non-affirmative vote and would have up to five minutes to speak on each item
pulled for discussion] and 4 [all presentations would be limited to 10 minutes].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
February 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-02-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-02,7,"stated opportunities will be lost if the City is not first in line; that he looks forward to
having the application in by March 26th; encouraged everyone who has a blog or
website to publish a link to wirealameda.org.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10-102) Public Hearing to Consider a Call for Review of the Planning Board's
Modification of a Use Permit for Extended Hours of Operation at the Kohl's Store
Located at 2201 South Shore Center, and Adoption of Related Resolution. Continued to
March 16, 2010.
(10-103) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Enter into
Negotiations with Kemper Sports Management for the Long-Term Management and
Operation of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. Continued to March 16, 2010.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(10-104) Consider Pursing the Establishment of a Task Group to Promote, Market and
Support Businesses, Educational and Technology Resource Opportunities. Continued
to March 16, 2010.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(10-105) Councilmember Gilmore stated Alameda has been dragged into internet time
and cannot afford to let things go through customary channels which needs to be kept in
mind when interacting with the community; people's expectations have changed; people
want things done yesterday, especially with businesses; when relocating, businesses
want to know whether the area is business friendly and know how long it will take to get
things from City Hall before the business can be opened.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Matarrese adjourned the meeting at 8:46
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
7
March 2, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-02.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2013-04-22,2,"stated no, it is just a narrow pilot project.
Chair-Lord Hausman thanked Ms. Nielsen for the presentation and providing
information.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
5-A.
Goals and Objectives 2012 (Chair Lord-Hausman)
Chair Lord-Hausman distributed a list of 2012 accomplishments.
5-B.
Universal Design Work Group Update (Vice Chair Harp)
Commissioner Harp discussed the Draft Universal Design Ordinance.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated she intended to seek approval of the CDI and will then
forward to City Planner, Andrew Thomas, for consideration by the Planning Board.
The Commissioners and Stephen Beard acknowledged the hard work and commitment of
the CDI.
Ayes - 8
No - 0
Abstain - 0
5-C.
Park Street Bench Project (Chair Lord-Hausman)
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the benches have arrived and will soon be installed along
Park Street. This will create a more friendly environment along Park Street.
5-D.
City Council Meeting Report (Commissioner Fort)
Commissioner Fort had no report.
5-E.
Planning Board Meeting Report (Chair Lord-Hausman)
Chair Lord-Hausman discussed the progress of Alameda Landing where the site will be
for the new Target and Safeway, Chair-Lord Hausman will work with City Planner,
Andrew Thomas, as part of on-going engagement of the project.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS (Secretary Akil)
6-A.
Commissioner Tam acknowledged that the new sound system, assistive listening device,
in Council Chambers works great!",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2013-04-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,2,"stated he appreciates Chief Matthews making the Police Department
an integral part of the community.
Supervisor Lai Bitker presented a proclamation on behalf of the
Board of Supervisors; stated she has enjoyed working with Chief
Matthews and appreciates his work with children.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-325) Presentation by the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society to the City of Alameda of a Historic Preservation Award for
the adaptive re-use of the City Hall West Building at Alameda
Point.
Denise Brady, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society,
presented the Award to Mayor Johnson.
Mayor Johnson thanked Ms. Brady and stated that the Award would be
displayed in a prominent place in City Hall.
(05-326) Library Project update.
The Project Manager gave an update on the Library Project.
Mayor Johnson stated the Project is progressing very well.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired when the cranes would arrive.
The Project Manager responded that the cranes would tentatively
arrive on July 25; street closure would be necessary from 6:00 a.m.
for about four or five hours for two days.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City is being environmentally
conscious with the construction of public buildings.
The Project Manager stated the bid received a year ago was
approximately 20% over budget. thanked the Council for the
foresight to allow the Contract to be negotiated.
Mayor Johnson noted that the Pentagon is a LEED certified building.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 21% project completion
was on time.
The Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated an
expanded budget and schedule presentation would be provided every
six months; stated that another city received revised bids which
came in 25% over budget.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-07-27,13,"stated everyone's hard work and perseverance has paid off.
Councilmember/Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated the commitment has always been there;
timing has been everything; site control is all-important with fundraising.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(10-386 CC) Resolution No. 14480, ""Authorizing the Sale of 2216 Lincoln Avenue,
Approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement Between the City of Alameda and
Community Improvement Commission, and Authorizing the Interim City Manager to
Execute the Agreement and Related Documents."" Adopted; and
(10-61 CIC) Resolution No. 10-169, ""Authorizing the Purchase of 2216 Lincoln Avenue,
Approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement Between the City of Alameda and
Community Improvement Commission, and Authorizing the Interim executive Director to
Execute the Agreement and Related Documents."" Adopted.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the project is very positive for Alameda; affordable housing
would be a great use for the site and the location is good because it is near City
facilities and transportation.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the location is great and the proposed use is
sorely needed; the City would be selling the property to itself; inquired how staff arrived
at the $735,000 purchase price.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager responded two appraisals were
performed and the difference was split.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the proposal would be to put 19 units on half
an acre; inquired how Measure A or Article 26 of the City Charter would apply.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager responded the Guyton exemption is
a settlement agreement that allows the Housing Authority to develop a number of
affordable units exempt from Measure A as long as the Housing Authority is the owner;
stated the project would be built pursuant to the Guyton exception and settlement
agreement.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the process would include
Planning Board design review and site planning, and whether Council would have final
approval.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
13
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-14,4,"stated disaster preparedness should include comprehensive plans for
detouring traffic around the tubes or bridges and ensure everyone
is informed of alternate routes when accidents occur.
Mayor Johnson requested that the City's protocols be reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan outlined a similar situation that occurred at
the Park Street Bridge; stated redirecting traffic earlier would be
advantageous.
The City Manager stated the Police Chief would report back on the
matter.
(06-545) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, thanked the
Council and staff for the free meter parking and wished everyone a
happy Thanksgiving.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-546 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Commission on Disability Issues, Housing Commission, Recreation
and Parks Commission, Social Services Human Relations Board, and
Transportation Commission; and Mayor's appointment to the Rent
Review Advisory Committee.
Mayor Johnson nominated Margaret A. Hakason to the Commission on
Disability Issues; Joy Pratt to the Housing Commission; Joseph S.
Restagno to the Recreation and Park Commission; Jonathan D. Soglin
to the Social Service Human Relations Board; and Srikant
Subramaniam to the Transportation Commission; and appointed Gail
Patton to the Rent Review Advisory Committee.
(06-547) Councilmember Matarrese requested that the midyear budget
review include budget tracking, and updates on staffing and
revenues.
Mayor Johnson noted updates were in February the last two years.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants to ensure the last
several years' direction on how the City is accomplishing the
delivery of services is being followed; requested that the
continued decline in sales tax be highlighted to make the public
aware.
(06-548) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she received complaints
about cars parking too close to intersections, for example at St.
Charles Street and Lincoln Avenue; drivers cannot see until they
are out into the oncoming traffic lane because cars are parked too
Adjourned Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
November 14, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-05-19,31,"stated Webster Street does not have a parking structure; urged the City to plan for a
Webster Street parking structure or solution; expressed concern about partially closing
of Versailles Avenue without advance public discussion: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated a recent report showed a child on a bike
almost hit by a speeding car at Pacific Avenue and Schiller Street; the intersection is
without a barricade; a barricade is be requested at the intersection.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he appreciates the network map included in the staff
report; noted the map shows developing the program into the business portion; slower
streets are safer than what exists; noted a pedestrian was hit earlier in the day at a
properly designed intersection of Constitution Way and Buena Vista Avenue; stated
current streets are not hospitable to those walking and bicycling; expressed support for
the program, and prioritizing signage at every intersection; stated it is not a shelter in
place program, it is a social distancing program; the program is going to be needed at
least through the end of 2020.
Councilmember Vella expressed support for more signage and barricades, especially
where near misses have occurred; stated the design should be as safe as possible;
expressed concern about limited information being provided and learning about
programs after-the-fact; signage and barricades are critical at pass-through traffic areas;
the program is related to social distancing and many people will be working and learning
from home until the end of the year; the program should be continued until at least the
end of 2020.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the program; stated that she regrets the
lack of notification to residents; the program was brought by a series of unfortunate
incidents; the program should be expanded over time under the Active Transportation
Plan to allow for community input; discussed walking through town; stated residents
support slowing streets; people are still sheltering in place; Council must remain aware
of staff time; noted East Bay Regional Park (EBRPD) Board Member Ellen Corbett is
urging cities to close streets allowing people more space to spread out and properly
allow social distancing.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of endorsing temporary street reconfiguration
for social distancing in response to the COVID-19 emergency, with clarification that this
is during social distancing, not just shelter in place orders, and endorsement of moving
forward in the spirit of Ms. Corbett's request of expanding the program on a temporary
basis working through the Active Transportation Program in order to address it on a
more permanent basis in the future.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Absent; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Absent; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3; Absent: 2.
Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie returned.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2020-05-20,22,"stated Webster Street does not have a parking structure; urged the City to plan for a
Webster Street parking structure or solution; expressed concern about partially closing
of Versailles Avenue without advance public discussion: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated a recent report showed a child on a bike
almost hit by a speeding car at Pacific Avenue and Schiller Street; the intersection is
without a barricade; a barricade is be requested at the intersection.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he appreciates the network map included in the staff
report; noted the map shows developing the program into the business portion; slower
streets are safer than what exists; noted a pedestrian was hit earlier in the day at a
properly designed intersection of Constitution Way and Buena Vista Avenue; stated
current streets are not hospitable to those walking and bicycling; expressed support for
the program, and prioritizing signage at every intersection; stated it is not a shelter in
place program, it is a social distancing program; the program is going to be needed at
least through the end of 2020.
Councilmember Vella expressed support for more signage and barricades, especially
where near misses have occurred; stated the design should be as safe as possible;
expressed concern about limited information being provided and learning about
programs after-the-fact; signage and barricades are critical at pass-through traffic areas;
the program is related to social distancing and many people will be working and learning
from home until the end of the year; the program should be continued until at least the
end of 2020.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the program; stated that she regrets the
lack of notification to residents; the program was brought by a series of unfortunate
incidents; the program should be expanded over time under the Active Transportation
Plan to allow for community input; discussed walking through town; stated residents
support slowing streets; people are still sheltering in place; Council must remain aware
of staff time; noted East Bay Regional Park (EBRPD) Board Member Ellen Corbett is
urging cities to close streets allowing people more space to spread out and properly
allow social distancing.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of endorsing temporary street reconfiguration
for social distancing in response to the COVID-19 emergency, with clarification that this
is during social distancing, not just shelter in place orders, and endorsement of moving
forward in the spirit of Ms. Corbett's request of expanding the program on a temporary
basis working through the Active Transportation Program in order to address it on a
more permanent basis in the future.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Absent; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Absent; Vella: Aye; and
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3; Absent: 2.
Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie returned.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-09-17,3,"stated Certificates of Participation (COPs) are more complex than general obligation
bonds because the action is actually leasing; going forward, staff will include a clear
summary sentence explaining the action.
The City Attorney stated the formatting will be improved; a blogger mentioned the
Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which is in the title; the language is not hard to
read and understand even though the title is long; listing the actual action is legally
required and particularly important in bond deals; bond counsel has to issue legal
opinions as to whether the action was duly authorized and issued; going forward, a
caption will be added at the top of the title; however, the caption has to be neutral and
fair, without editorial comments; the title is in compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance,
but the title is long and staff will work to ensure language is as easy to understand as
possible.
The Finance Director noted timing is important; stated the City wants to proceed to take
advantage of lower interest rates.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member Ezzy Ashrcraft stated the title is lengthy; however, the
legislation language is very clear; everything is posted on the website.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated that she understands the legal requirements; the public
scans agendas to issue spot items which are of interest.
The City Clerk stated the new agenda system allows the public to receive notifications
when a matter of interest is on a meeting; the website includes instructions on how to
set up notifications.
Councilmember/Authority Member Tam stated the Sunshine Ordinance directs being
clear to the average 8th grader.
Councilmember/Authority Member Chen inquired what is the estimate to build the EOC.
The City Manager responded $3 million will pay for the EOC, but does not pay for Fire
Station 3.
The Assistant City Manager stated the EOC estimate is $2.8 million, which does not
include any contingency.
Councilmember/Authority Member Chen inquired whether adopting the resolution
tonight means an EOC will be built.
The City Manager responded staff would like to start construction in spring 2014.
The Assistant City Manager stated a design contract would be presented at an
upcoming Council meeting.
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, City of Alameda Financing
2
Authority and Alameda Public Improvement Corporation
September 17, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-05-19,21,"state which doubles the cost; a program has to have $800,000 homes to generate
revenue; other challenges include infrastructure related problems, affordable housing,
and transportation; meeting the objectives residents want is a struggle; the project is
very tight and loading on new objectives is difficult.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should not lose sight of solutions that can
be done now; she appreciates all of the updates which give Council more information to
make an informed decision.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated negotiations are not over; he hopes Council's input is
being heard; the Mayor raised issues that stretch the envelope but are all points that
need to go back to the bargaining table; Council has an obligation to deliver and fulfill its
promise to the community.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(15-354) Council Oddie announced that he attended the Alameda County Waste
Management Authority (ACWMA) programs and administration meeting last week and
discussed expansion of the reusable bag ordinance.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether ACWMA discussed extending the ordinance to
stores other than grocery, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative;
stated the ordinance could apply to other stores, just not restaurants; that he will ask for
Council guidance before voting.
ADJOURNMENT
(15-355) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at
1:47 a.m. in memory of B.B. King.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
May 19, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-20,16,"state there is a connection between the housing stock shortage and rent control; that he
does not want Alameda to turn into downtown San Francisco full of tech people; one
short term objective is collection of data; he would like staff to recommend a quantitative
analysis of rent control as a tool to maintain stable rents and affordable housing; some
type of just cause eviction needs to be evaluated; the hearing process should include
only the parties, not attorneys; a mechanism should be built in for a continuance;
percentage should be re-evaluated ensuring not to prohibit anything under the
percentage from being reviewed; notices should include language regarding tenant
rights and that retaliation is illegal.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he reviewed a range of data; discussed ways to
strengthen the six points raised; gave a Power Point presentation regarding rental
households.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of having staff bring back an implementation
plan for applying the five principles to the RRAC.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion.
Vice Mayor Matarrese amended his motion to include having staff gather the necessary
data to answer the questions posed in September staff report and use the Alameda
Rental Housing Community Discussion Group as a resource.
Mayor Spencer retracted her second.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Mayor Spencer stated that she has been a renter in Alameda for 15 years and has
a
good relationship with her landlord; she strongly supports the first part of the motion; the
Alameda Rental Housing Community Discussion Group completed their task and now it
is the Council's turn to take action; she feels the 10% increase is too high, but would
entertain 5%.
Vice Mayor Matarrese amended the motion to move approval of the five consensus
points, with direction for staff to come back with an implementation plan in parallel with
taking input from the working group, and recommendations to come back to Council on
the sixth point.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the motion would allow the five points to move forward
without the sixth, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated
that he does not want to delay moving forward.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a tenant should not be subsequently barred from
challenging an increase if they fail to appear at an RRAC hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
January 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-03,20,"state people cannot be taken from companies; discussed Oakland's experience with
outsourcing.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has lived near Webster Street for about 10 years
and he has received at least 10 parking tickets; part-time parking enforcement staff are
efficient; expressed support for Option 2; stated the cost for outsourcing is bore by the
City, but some vendors might over-ticket causing issue within the community.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should think about what message is being sent;
choices should encourage walking over driving.
The City Manager stated with Options 2 through 4 there will be much more
enforcement; there will be impacts and an increase in complaints; urged Council to take
into account that parking is a sensitive issue; stated moving to other modes of
transportation is an effective strategy.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated there are 8 part-time positions available and only 3 were
able to be filled; expressed support for Option 3 or 4; stated Council has just passed a
Climate Action Plan that requires Council to start adopting policies; there are many
plans in place to help achieve the goals; the 3 parking enforcement staff members are
efficient, however, they cannot cover the work of a full staff of 8; questioned whether
there could be consensus for a two-year pilot program that leads to Option 3.
Councilmember Oddie stated the thought that people will return when jobs are
outsourced is magical thinking; that he has a visceral reaction to outsourcing jobs to the
private sector; inquired whether there could be a hybrid of Option 2 and 3 with some
part-time and some full-time staff.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is possible to include language that protects
valid interests, but also look at the reality of the situation.
Councilmember Oddie responded the matter is about values; discussed a rally he
attended for Kaiser due to outsourcing of janitorial services and gardening services.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there appears to be a plurality not a majority; values can be
kept intact while addressing the issue; expressed support for a hybrid Option 4 leading
to Option 3 as it will be most effective.
Councilmember Oddie stated the Charter requires 3 votes for any Council action.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is providing direction.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated giving direction to move forward with a hybrid contract
model will do no good; the contract will need to be approved by 3 votes.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 3, 2019
18",CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf
GolfCommission,2007-08-15,2,"state law regarding open meetings, the Brown Act. The advent of email has
made communicating easier and more convenient in some ways. However, the
Brown Act prohibits the use of technological devices, including email, to be used
by a majority of a legislative body such as the Golf Commission to develop a
collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item. To avoid running
afoul of the Brown Act, please ensure that your communications are made at a
noticed and open-to-the-public meeting rather than by email. If you need any
clarification, please feel free to contact me. Donna Mooney, Assistant City
Attorney
Chair Wood wrote a letter to the Assistant City Attorney stating that the
procedural question has not been placed on the Golf Commission agenda, nor is
it likely to be placed on the agenda. Secretary Sullwold mentioned that she sent
an email to the Assistant City Attorney in response stating that as a lawyer she
didn't agree with the Assistant City Attorney's interpretation of the Brown Act and
asked for specifics as to why she felt any communications that were exchanged
were in violation of the Brown Act, what provision and how they violated the Act.
In response Secretary Sullwold received an email yesterday saying that the City
Attorney, Teresa Highsmith, has done a lot of research into the Brown Act and
has prepared a presentation that has been given to several other Commissions
and legislative bodies within the City that explains her interpretation of the Brown
Act and what does and doesn't violate it. The Assistant City Attorney said that
she would schedule an appearance at an upcoming Golf Commission meeting to
give her input on the matter. Secretary Sullwold stated that in other words the
question was not answered, it was ducked for a future discussion. The Golf
Commission was annoyed with the implication of wrongdoing. Vice Chair Gaul
stated that there is a problem with the golf cart fee structure and too many
customers are renting carts as single riders and not doubling up. The Golf
Services Manager reminded the Golf Commission that it at their recommendation
that the single rider rate of $18 be discontinued. Customers are renting carts and
not doubling up since the rate is $15 per rider. The suggestion was made to
revisit the single rider rate to avoid additional carts going out per group and
increase the potential of running out of carts. The Golf Services Manager stated
that running out of carts was not a bad thing; it means we had a very busy day.
Chair Wood argued that it is not very service oriented to run out of golf carts and
will those customers who were unable to rent a cart going to be return
customers. The Golf Services Manager stated to help with the problem the
prepaid Golf 707 rounds no longer include a golf cart and can rent one, if
available, when they arrive at the course. The Superintendent stated he didn't
know that the Complex was running out of carts and the golf cart fleet was
recently reduced to 120 carts from 150 carts. There is an option of leasing more
carts if deemed necessary, although the cart barns can only hold and charge 130
carts at a time. The Golf Services Manager said that on busy days the cart crew
will pull aside all of the carts needed for the days tournaments to ensure that they
are available. The suggestion was made to set a policy allowing only 2 carts per
foursome and 3 carts per fivesome. It was noted that some customers want to
ride alone and if they are not allowed to do so they will go elsewhere to play golf.
The suggestion was made to get the cart marshal more involved in checking on
how many carts a group has on the first tee and encourage them to double up.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 2
8/15/07
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2007-08-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,13,"state and federal program, but one of the two does not fund improvements to high schools.
Jim Wullschleger, Broadway and Central resident, was glad to see the Commission approve the
pedestrian buttons and he is fully in support of the action. He noticed that the pedestrian button
could be a nuisance if the locator button is too loud or not adjusted correctly. He felt Staff Payne
did a great job on the Shore Line project and he is in support of a volunteer based traffic
program. He would like to see a speed tracker use flash photography to capture speeders once
technology becomes cheaper.
5D. Revised Draft Prioritized Transportation Project Lists
Staff Payne presented a summary of the report.
Commissioner Vargas asked if staff was seeking the Commission's approval of the list so it
could move forward to the Planning Board and then the City Council.
Staff Payne replied the item would go to the Planning Board on December 10, 2012 and the City
Council on January 14, 2013.
Commissioner Miley thanked staff for taking feedback from the Planning Board, Transportation
Commission and City Council and incorporating the comments into the list.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked about the paratransit shuttle listed as a project within the list.
Staff Payne replied the paratransit shuttle is listed on page 1of the Implementation List right after
Exhibit 1.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he was against the shuttle service before its implementation
because he was skeptical about the way it would be deployed. Thus, he would like to have some
performance data since its implementation.
Staff Payne replied that the performance report would be provided at the next meeting as part of
the annual review of the Paratransit program.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he noticed that part of the next action after implementation is a
quarterly report coming back to the Commission and Planning Board. Yet, he remembered that
some comments provided by others such as the Planning Boardmember John Knox White
recommended a report annually or biannually. So, he wanted to know why staff decided on a
quarterly report.
Staff Payne stated that staff will present a quarterly report on project updates and they plan to
update the list annually.
Commissioner Vargas asked how the list considered Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375.
Staff Payne replied that these bills are highlighted in the Complete Street Policy Resolution (item
Page 13 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2016-06-08,15,"starting to feel a little wobbly when they walk. There are so many different reasons for having these
things. I mean, I've asked to be in on these kinds of things, because I will surely push for getting
more and more. Now when we talk about 20% or 25% or 30%, my question is on some of these
things, should we just follow the pack, or should we make Alameda stand out? And one day people
will look and they'll say, ""Look at Alameda, they've got this really great UDO."" And, ""Let's even
surpass them, or get up to them.'
Arnold Brillinger: No reason for us to follow the pack, we don't have that many places. It's not like
we're in the Midwest where we just keep on spreading out over farmland or something. We only
have so many places, we need to say, ""Hey, we know that you want to build housing, but if you're
going to do it in Alameda, you're going to have to do it in this way.""
Beth Kenny: Thank you, Arnold. I really appreciate what you had to say. Do any of the other
commissioners what to speak?
Anto Aghapekian: I really liked the last part that you said, Arnold. Because I've seen some samples
of what other cities are doing and what we should do, and I think that Alameda can do better than
what other people are doing, or other counties and cities are doing. So I really appreciate what you
just said.
Arnold Brillinger: We need to be leaders, people ought to say, ""Oh, there's a group there that could
stick to their guns, and look what they've got. They've got a city where they've got a lot of units now
that have visitability. They've got a lot of units that are adaptable for whatever kind of people live in
those homes."" Because if you buy yourself a place out there at Marina Shores for what, $1.2
million, right? And it's not a real big footprint, but I'm sure they're real nice houses, but I'd like to
get inside and see what they look like, and how innovative they are, but I can't get in there.
Beth Kenny: Thank you, well said. Do we have any comment on this item?
Audrey Lord-Hausman: Hi, my name is Audrey Lord-Hausman, past commissioner of this
esteemed Commission. And the UDO has been top of my list for, let's see, since 2012. And I think
this is a great information sheet, and a lot of interesting items in here. I think through all of this
since 2012, the Commission has educated the community on a number of levels, I will say that.
I
know more people talk about it now, and there's more interest out there from the general public, but
how do we reach them to get them sitting here, getting them to come to the planning meeting, the
Planning Board, whatever gatherings in order to speak to this. And I also think people still don't
understand it exactly, in terms of it's not just persons with disabilities, it's the aging process, and
issues that happen to all ages throughout our lives that are unexpected and change our lives
dramatically.
Audrey Lord-Hausman: And I think in the design area, that adaptability is key in the discussion,
because people will say, ""Well, not everybody has a disability, so why do we have to put all of that
stuff in there to start?"" Well, you don't have to do everything, but it has to be built with adaptability
in mind. And so I think that's something that I would encourage the Commission as you're
continuing the conversation, don't let some roadblocks come up from developers about, ""Well, we
can't do this, we can't do that."" ""Well, wait a minute, why can't you built something with an
adaptable design that a young healthy family can move in, and then either something happens or
they want to move a parent, or a grandparent in, or they sell it, and I want to move in, and I need to
08/17/16
Page 15 of 19",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2021-04-14,3,"started in Sweden
Deaths are preventable with changes to the system
Heart of Vision Zero is the need to reduce speed, some streets were designed to
encourage speeds faster than 25 mph
Safety is the highest priority in transportation efforts in Alameda
We need this because every year in Alameda 2 people die, 10 suffer severe injuries, and
221 have injuries
Younger and older people are overrepresented in severe and fatal crashes, as are
pedestrians and bicyclists
40% of severe crashes are in socially vulnerable areas while only 30% of roads are in a
socially vulnerable area
We also developed high injury corridor maps, including intersections -- 70% of injuries
happen here even though they cover 20% of streets
Top 2 most dangerous behaviors are failure to yield to pedestrian and unsafe speeds
Now developing a Vision Zero action plan for the next 5 years - actions to increase street
safety
July - releasing a draft plan and will come back to the Commission in August
Meantime - working to improve street safety
Have a Vision Zero implementation team, prioritize street safety improvements
Central Avenue is headed to the City Council after 8 years of work on April 20
Proposal for 4 roundabouts as part of this project",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2021-04-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2021-07-26,14,"standing seam. Concrete tended to be too heavy and would add enough weight to be a
structural consideration.
Vice President Saheba asked if and where would the staff parking be.
Mr. Biggs said it would be adjacent to the East Bay Regional Park area. He added that
some staff would also be taking public transit.
Vice President Saheba asked when the decision for the roof would be made.
Mr. Ebert said the asphalt shingles was the one they were confident they could afford, the
standing seam were the ones they wanted if they could get there.
Vice President Saheba asked about the wood-look siding.
Mr. Ebert explained the properties of the product and what made it an excellent choice.
Vice President Saheba asked about the exterior lighting plan.
Mr. Ebert said it should have been in the full Design Review Package.
Vice President Saheba asked about the gable roof and how that space was being used.
Mr. Ebert said they were getting double use out of that area that was where they would
store mechanical equipment. It was not really a usable space for programming.
President Teague informed Vice President Sahaba that the exterior lighting design was
on page 53.
Board Member Curtis stated that he had met with Mr. Biggs prior to this meeting and had
answered a lot of his questions. He had no other questions at this time.
Board Member Rothenberg thanked the staff and applicant for the presentation. She
asked about how they had chosen the occupancy class. She also asked about how the
building would be powered.
Mr. Ebert explained how his background had helped with this design and how the clinical
use of the buildings also dedicated what it needed to be classified as.
Board Member Rothenberg asked if the clinic would be open 24/7.
Mr. Biggs said the clinic would be open during the daytime hours and there will be staff on
duty all night as well.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 14 of 21
July 26, 2021",PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.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
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,10,"staff. He commended Catellus for being on the leading edge with a TDM, which he viewed as an
unfolding work in progress. He believed it was important to integrate AC Transit's views as
expressed in the memo, and that best practices should be implemented with other organizations.
He believed the City should be careful in evaluating the TDM plan and the impact of Catellus at
Alameda Landing overall, not just in terms of shoppers, workers and business owners, but also
the potential costs and benefits realized by the entire community from the TDM options that
would be funded by residents of Alameda and Oakland. He hoped that as the City evaluates the
TDM, that it will be able to examine tourism funding, funding through the Port of Oakland and
Chamber of Commerce, or other economic development sources normally used in Alameda. He
was encouraged by this progressive approach.
Jeff Cambra, Board member of Bike Alameda, spoke on behalf of the Estuary Crossing
Coalition, agreed with Mr. Spangler's comments. He noted that the Coalition's interests include:
1) Establishing criteria for the earliest possible initiation of the Estuary water shuttle
service, taking into account that there is sufficient project improvements and occupancy
to create ridership;
2) Such criteria should include
a. extra Alameda Landing west end demand, as determined by non-developer-
funded surveys and City-sponsored feasibility studies;
b. operational effectiveness as determined by the use of Estuary water shuttle
ridership surveys and other TDM surveys proposed by Catellus to determine
regional impact;
c.
any disagreement regarding initiation of the Estuary water shuttle should be
addressed as part of the TDM annual report submitted to the Council.
Mr. Cambra noted that it was the Coalition's understanding that the Coalition and Catellus agree
in principle on these interests, and that the Coalition supports this draft document as it relates to
the Estuary water shuttle. Due to the short time between the release of the draft TDM document
and this meeting, the Coalition will continue to meet with Catellus to provide additional
comments for the next TC meeting in February.
Closed Public Comment
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he was interested in the shuttle service, and that
Commission as a whole was interested in reducing single-occupant automobile trips, rather than
trips in general. He wished to echo the AC Transit comments and concerns about how a shuttle
service can be overlaid with AC Transit service. He understood that the details had not been
worked out yet. He believed that 30-minute headways are not sufficient. He added that pricing
needs to be further investigated, and that the AC Transit fare from the development into
downtown Oakland of $1.75, plus $0.25 for a transfer, when piggybacked on top of a BART fare
would be a deterrent to ridership. He stated that free shuttles such as those operated MacArthur
BART to the Kaiser facility also detracts from AC Transit ridership. He suggested subsidizing
the AC Transit fare on the 19 line in coordination with a free shuttle.
Commissioner Krueger stated that the utility of transit increases when integrated into a larger
network. For this reason, that he was not generally a fan of small, limited shuttle services, and",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,3,"staff would report back to Council next month.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the review would affect the
project's timeline, to which the Project Manager responded in the
affirmative.
The City Manager stated that she discussed the matter with the
Finance Director; leasing may not be cost-effective; a computer
equipment replacement fund is being considered for the up-coming
budget and would cover replacements every three years.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the grand opening hinged
on having the computers in place, to which the Project Manager
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the matter could be brought
back to the Council.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the computers are scattered
throughout the building, to which the Project Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the computers are a standard
model, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City partners with a
large computer company.
The Finance Director responded the City does not partner, but that
COMPAQ computers are exclusively purchased for replacement part
standardization and to allow the City to purchase at a bulk rate;
mass purchasing is usually done through the State Department of
General Services.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether costs are similar to
educational pricing, to which the Finance Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the Requests for Proposals should move forward
if a cost comparison has already been reviewed; inquired whether a
separate maintenance agreement would need to be purchased if the
computers are leased.
The Finance Director responded a 90-day warranty would be issued on
leased equipment.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 68 computers are the full
compliment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
PlanningBoard,2006-09-11,6,"staff would prefer to explore the ideas regarding shading and parking. He would rather have the
option to explore the ideas and then bring it back to the Board. President Lynch noted that he was
inclined to support this project, and was very reluctant to place a condition about parking in addition
to something that was outside the purview of the Code. He did not want to step onto a slippery slope
about numbers of cars allowed.
Member Kohlstrand expressed concern about the Board advocating for additional off-street parking,
and also had issues about scale with respect to the garage and paving in front of the house, which may
dominate the house. She did not want the street view of the house to be adversely affected, and
would not recommend additional parking on the site.
Member McNamara noted that the nearby Lincoln School parking lot was heavily utilized, and did
not know how the Board could control parking for school events as it related to this matter.
Member Cunningham believed that a benefit of cutting the roof back would increase privacy, by
eliminating the windows on the side property face, looking into Mr. McCarver's property. He
suggested using a skylight instead for natural daylight, which would reduce the cost of construction.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the item be continued in order to incorporate these design ideas.
M/S Cunningham/ Ezzy Ashcraft to continue this item to the meeting of September 25, 2006.
AYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
September 11, 2006",PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2014-06-23,4,"staff to talk about the Secretary of Interior Standards.
Mr. Thomas explained the design and asked the public to view the building as to what is
historic and what is an addition. This site design has the addition much more stated as
new. This usually happens at the design review approval process.
Vice President Henneberry asked if Windriver has been approached for parking.
Mr, Thomas stated there have been discussions with Windriver and they are ongoing.
President Burton asked about the retail space uses and parking ratios for retail, and how
was the number decided. He asked about the unbundling of spaces.
Mr. Thomas stated the need will probably be 45 spaces for retail, but there are further
discussions to overall parking. Adjustments can be made. He stated there are 326
spaces within the footprint.
Mr. O'Hara clarified the 2:1 ratios were as the site sits currently.
President Burton asked about the site using Density Bonus and Multi-Family Overlay and
how does that affect affordable unit count, being 414 total.
Mr. Thomas stated the site is zoned at 30 units per acre. He walked through the
calculations of arriving at the affordable number. There will be 55 affordable units.
President Burton asked about the development of pads B and C.
Mr. O'Hara stated there are some agencies they are working with to partner for the
affordable units.
Vice President Henneberry motioned to limit speakers to three minutes.
Board member Alvarez-Morroni seconded.
Motioned carried, 4-0
Open to public comment.
Mr. Tom Mills, resident ask if his house at the corner of Bay and Eagle has been rezoned.
He is against a rezoning and opposed to moving trucks with commerce. He was denied
years ago to add a unit under his home because of no parking.
Mr. Nick Cabral, resident, stateed he remembers being before the board many years ago
and he is completely for this project. Its time to move forward.
Mr. Rion Cassidy, resident, stated he has received no official notification on the project.
He has read about it in the newspaper, or been informed by neighbors. He would like
residents to be involved in parking discussions. He asked if the units will be leased or
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 9
June 23, 2014",PlanningBoard/2014-06-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-07-06,34,"staff time will be spent on the matter; she does not like taking frivolous actions however,
she understands the need for clarity.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not support an appeal; she appreciates the
uniqueness of the City being an island, however, the ""uniqueness club"" is not an
exclusive one, and there are cities up and down the state arguing a different
uniqueness; the reason HCD has rules put forth is due to cities not meeting obligations
to provide housing; the housing crisis continues to worsen; outlined housing project
delays and expenses; she would prefer Council look for solutions; HCD will not let the
housing allocations slide; HCD will take the unused portion of housing allocation and
place it upon another city; allocation appeals can be made from other cities onto
Alameda and can cause a slippery slope; the grounds for an appeal are not strong;
outlined previous arguments presented by other cities; she is surprised and
disappointed in the majority support for filing an appeal.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer questioned whether Councilmember Knox White
included portions of the City being infilled by the San Francisco Bay and are more
vulnerable to seismic events and liquefaction.
Councilmember Daysog stated the appeal will be strengthened with a number included
for the allocation; the last few allocations have been set at roughly 1,730 units; the new
allocation is set at roughly 5,300; expressed support for splitting the difference and
setting the units at 2,650 which is substantially above previous the 1,733 allocation;
expressed support for the allocation appeal request being set at 2,650.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the remaining units will be sent to a named-
specific city.
Councilmember Daysog responded the remaining units are not his responsibility; stated
the state will be responsible for finding where the remaining units will go; his
responsibility is to specify a number of units which Alameda can bear; proposed a
friendly amendment to the motion of setting the allocation appeal at 2,650 units.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be re-stated.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her understanding is a motion to approve
filing an appeal, including the grounds proposed by Councilmember Knox White.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be clarified for the record.
Councilmember Knox White stated the three grounds for the appeal are as follows: 1)
60% of voters recently upheld the voter adopted Charter provision that prohibits
multifamily housing from being built. Meeting our RHNA allocation means thwarting the
will of Alameda voters; 2) Alameda's uniqueness as an island in San Francisco bay,
subject to sea level-rise and emergent groundwater, liquefaction and loss of access to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-06-28,6,"staff reviews the issue every year and cost allocations are adjusted.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether adjustments have not been made for the last six
years, to which the Acting City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta concurred with Councilmember/Board
Member/Commissioner Johnson regarding having an early preview workshop in the fall;
inquired whether any plans are being made to increase ambulance billing collection.
The Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated that he cannot guarantee
increased collection this year; staff has been working hard to improve record keeping.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated another inspection concept would be
coming to Council, which could generate approximately $100,000 per year.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a conscious decision has
been made to lease big apparatus over the last two years; inquired whether support
vehicles are purchased, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated procurement for the next
two years is aggressive.
The Interim Fire Chief stated a report was provided several months ago outlining
financing options; fire trucks and engines need to be replaced on a scheduled basis to
avoid passing their useful life.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated the former Interim
Finance Director alerted Council to the workers compensation deficit; a policy needs to
be established so that the same situation does not happen again.
The Controller stated having a fund with a deficit for one year is okay, but becomes a
problem over multiple years.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated a policy needs to be in
place; a budget should not be balanced by not contributing to funds.
The Assistant City Manager stated a policy could be brought to Council.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Council wants to
establish separate funding to build up revenue for vehicle replacement and workers
compensation; getting away from leasing vehicles would be good.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff would bring back a policy for review in
September; the vehicle replacement fund would be completely wiped out if expensive
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda
6
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 28, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2022-02-14,7,"staff parking at City Hall be eliminated so that employees could set a good example by
taking public transit. He also felt that the Planning Board only focused on compliance and
should change its name to the Compliance Board.
Harvey Rosenthal, the owner of Neptune Plaza, gave his thoughts on height limits and
why not everything could have a blanket height limit. He also discussed other
developments and why now was the time to increase height limits.
Zac Bowling supported the staff's proposal and believed they were on the right track. He
was excited about redevelopment along Webster St.
Christopher Buckley, with the AAPS, discussed and went over the main point in a letter
the society had sent.
Therese Hall was curious how the public was being notified about these workshops. She
was very concerned about the creation of microclimates with these tall buildings. She was
also concerned about limiting vehicular traffic since it felt that there was little or no concern
for disabled people.
Marilyn Alwan supported Neptune Plaza being treated like all the other shopping centers
and saw it as a great housing opportunity.
Alex Spehr expressed her approval of the staff's proposal to upzone, especially Neptune
Plaza. She was shocked to hear there was no historic protection on Webster Street, she
wanted to see some historic protection as well as upzoning to get more housing. She also
pointed out that disabled people use motorized wheelchairs as well as transit and
sidewalks, not just cars.
Daniel Hoy, Design Committee and Board of Directors for WABA, wanted to do more
canvassing of parcel owners in the Webster Area to ensure they were aware of all the
changes.
Drew Dara Abrams discussed the height limits and densities. He believed that they
needed to encourage private developers to build units in these areas that brought a mix
of amenities. He liked seeing the different ways to improve the pedestrian experience. He
also hoped to see a BART station on Webster.
President Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Teague discussed the importance of being very clear so people
understand why they were doing things the way they were. He wanted to use Housing
Needs Overlays to deal with the Multi-Family Density issues instead of changing zoning
directly. He discussed different overlays and how they would be beneficial.
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 10
February 14, 2022",PlanningBoard/2022-02-14.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
GolfCommission,2009-07-15,3,"staff has advised golfers who show up before the Pro Shop opens that they need to
wait and check in with the shop before starting play. Commissioner Gammell asked
whether the new policy of allowing carts to go between the ponds on the 8th hole of
the South Course has been a problem; John indicated he would look into it. He also
informed the Commission of the internet survey that was sent out to the golf
community, and said he would notify the Commission of the survey results. Since
the Mif course reopened on May 22, 4,074 rounds have been played, generating
revenue of $25,606, plus more to come from NCGA when it reimburses junior
rounds. Connie Wendling asked why the dogs have been discontinued, as the
goose population seems extremely large right now. Superintendent Matt Wisely said
he doesn't think the dogs work very well, so he is looking into other solutions.
5-B
Golf Complex Maintenance activities report by Matt Wisely
Matt Wisely stated they have eradicated the daisies and have put seed on all the tee
boxes. They have been topdressing tee boxes. Two weeks ago EBMUD notified
the Complex of a main line water break, which meant that we were not able to get
any recycled water. The Complex was forced to fill the ponds with potable water.
EBMUD gave us a non-drought surcharge grace period because it was their issue,
but the higher cost of water meant that we were only able to water one course per
day. Staffing has been limited recently due to the fact that the City employees had
to start using their vacation before June 30 or they would stop accumulating vacation
days. Both courses were aerified last week and greens will be topdressed next
week. EBMUD notified the golf course that the backflow devices need to be dealt
with or they will turn off our water. Overseeding of fairways will be started shortly.
Commissioner Gammell requested that boxes be put on the tee boxes for the broken
tees. Matt stated that they have been looking into replacing the NCGA plaques, but
they cost $35.00 each.
5-C
Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich
Mrs. Arnerich stated that she had spoke with Matt Wisely and that he wanted to put
more trees along the entrance to the golf course opposite the first green. She has
another group waiting for a tree planting. She also stated that the East Bay Junior
Golf tournament was a huge success this year and she thanked the staff for all their
help.
5-D
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course
None
6.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
6-A
Marketing and Promotions, Commissioner Gammell
None
- 3 -
Golf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, July 15, 2009",GolfCommission/2009-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-05-17,20,"staff for clarification; inquired whether Councilmembers can reach out to staff for additional
clarifying information.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff is available to answer
questions and will typically review the agenda with Councilmembers the week of the meeting;
not every Councilmember has the availability for a briefing prior to each meeting.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the matter requires four affirmative votes; expressed
support for Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry about unit amounts being answered prior
to approval.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded Councilmember Herrera Spencer has indicated that she will
vote in favor of the lease extension.
Councilmember Knox White stated the matter has been agendized for almost a month and
questions could have been made prior to the meeting; Council can request a briefing prior to the
meeting.
Councilmember Knox White moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated Council has been discussing the Enterprise District
for some time; the City needs to make the most of the property and not displace tenants while
the City is working on the Enterprise District plan; she will support the motion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about whether the matter needs three
or four affirmative votes.
The City Attorney stated the lease requires four affirmative votes.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what would happen to the tenant if the matter does
not pass.
The Management Analyst responded the existing lease has expired; stated the tenant is being
held over on a month-to-month tenancy; if the lease is not passed, staff will continue the month-
to-month tenancy and could renegotiate further if Council desires; if renegotiation do not occur,
staff would make considerations to remove the tenant.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the tenant is paying the lower rent amount during month-
to-month tenancy.
The Community Development Director responded the language provided in the holdover lease
dictates the rent; stated holdover rent is typically 150% to 200% of the initial rent.
The Management Analyst stated the lease allows the City to charge 200% of the current rent
during the holdover period; staff has opted to maintain the current rate due to scheduling issues.
The City Attorney stated the City should charge the set amount of rent shown in the lease; staff
can implement the letter of the lease if Council does not approve the matter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2022
20",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-02-01,8,"staff felt that it was timely to bring the matter to the Commission's attention; the
Commission can either revise the language to leave it.
Commissioner Dieter stated the Open Government Commission is here to make
revisions; nothing is ever set in stone; the Commission can always make changes;
things can always be made better; public records should be saved forever since they
contain historical information about how and why certain laws were enacted; money has
been spent on holding meetings; money should be spent to preserve meetings; history
matters; the past is a valuable primary source for future generations, which the public
will be able to see historic events as they unfolded; no one knows which decisions will
be the most valuable; being able to see the Council and those who spoke connects
future generations; that she feels very strongly that 10 years should not be used unless
storage becomes a problem for the City.
Acting Chair Foreman inquired whether Commissioner Dieter is making a motion to
change the language, to which Commissioner Dieter responded the language should be
to what she provided.
Acting Chair Foreman called for a vote on keeping the records indefinitely, which did not
receive three affirmative votes by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Dieter
and Tauzon - 2. Abstentions: Acting Chair Foreman - 1. [Absent: Commissioner
Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.]
The Assistant City Attorney stated the language would be brought to the Council with
the note that there was not a majority vote.
Acting Chair Foreman stated he would change his vote to aye, which caused the motion
to carry by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Commissioner Bonta and Chair Aguilar
- 2.]
Acting Chair Foreman stated the next item is public comments by members of policy
bodies and opinions of public concern.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission did not feel that there is a particular
reason to include the two sections in the ordinance, but reluctantly went along with the
language recommended by staff; Council felt that neither section is really important or
critical to the Sunshine Ordinance; the Commission and Council recommendation is that
the sections be deleted; deletion is proposed unless the Commission feels differently.
Commissioner Dieter moved approval of the City Council recommendation to delete the
sections.
Commissioner Tauzon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
3. [Absent: Commissioners Bonta and Chair Aguilar - 2.]
Acting Chair Foreman stated the next item is responding to public records requests.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 2, 2015
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2021-02-02,20,"staff estimates the information will be received in a reasonable amount of time, which
should be public and could help address questions related to those being stopped.
The City Manager responded a company has been contacted; stated the services for
Alameda are in the queue and a short time frame is not available; staff will need to
return with an estimate if Council wants to change direction.
The Police Captain stated the company contacted is the Center for Police Equity (CPE);
initial requests showed the company to be extremely backlogged; contact with the
company has been made several times and confirmation of a start date has not
occurred; part of the cause for delay is the updates to APD's Computer Aided Dispatch
(CAD) and Record Management System (RMS), which the company uses to pull data;
data can be provided in the years to come, not just as a one-time thing; staff is willing to
look into other companies.
The City Manager stated prior to the pandemic, the Council created privacy policies,
including facial recognition, which added a new component to LPRs; staff needs to
evaluate the matter prior to bringing it back for Council consideration.
Vice Mayor Vella stated concerns about privacy and limiting the scope of the
photograph being taken was previous included in the LPR matter; several follow-up
meetings occurred to discuss pros and cons of data capture and accessibility; the State
changed public records request laws adding another element and causing concern
about adequate staffing levels; outlined previous concerns about protecting privacy and
releasing information; stated her understanding is the LPR matter included privacy
concerns; many instances of firearm usage were stated to have been between parties
having knowledge of each other; inquired whether the incidents were related to
business transactions and personal issues.
The Interim Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated a number were domestic
issues, some were matters of prostitution, illegal drug sales and the furtherance of
street gangs.
Vice Mayor Vella stated part of the matter relates to training and expertise; different
types of underlying relationships and interactions require different types of policing
tactics; traffic stops are typically related to drug sales; inquired whether traffic stops
have uncovered evidence of large transaction sales as opposed to a domestic incidents.
The Interim Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated APD does not have a
domestic violence advocate or youth services unit; the programs have been present in
the past; proactive policing helps stop some of the prostitution, drug sales and other
matters which draw violence.
***
(21-074) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a vote is needed to consider new items after 11:00
p.m.; stated that she will only support a motion to go to 11:59 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
February 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,18,"staff does not know if the height of the containers exceeds the fencing; she would like
someone to clarify the issue.
Robert Hawke, Matson, responded there will be no stacking of cargo or parts outside
the building; the lease could be amended to specifically say cargo will not be stacked
and the building will not be used as a logistics facility; the facility is used strictly for
warehousing ship repair parts.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if Matson would be willing to restrict the number of
containers; stated the lease could be revisited if the need arises.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated
that he would like a way to quantify the number of containers.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Vice Mayor Matarrese was concerned with the
percentage or the actual number of containers.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is concerned with truck traffic.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to hear from Mr. Hawke.
Mr. Hawke stated most of the containers used are approximately 40 feet in length, 8
feet wide.
Mayor Spencer inquired on the height of the containers.
Mr. Hawke responded the containers are 8 to 10 feet in height; a single container would
cover approximately 240 square feet of space outside the building; width 30 in total, a
small fraction of the outside area would be covered; does not see having more than 25
to 30 containers outside at a time.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is the height of the screening.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded she believes the fencing is 6
feet in height.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many containers are currently at the site.
Mr. Hawke responded they are at a rarely high number at 30 containers currently.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the average number of containers would be for the site, to
which Mr. Hawke responded 30 containers is the average.
Mayor Spencer inquired even though it was stated there is currently an unusual amount
of containers because of the move, 30 is also anticipated to be the average at the new
site.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-12-06,4,"staff comes up with something to better meet the needs of the City.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.]
(16-624) Recommendation to Approve the First Amendment to the Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement (ENA) between the City of Alameda and a Consortium of Four
Developers Consisting of MidPen Housing, Alameda Point Collaborative, Building
Futures with Women and Children, and Operation Dignity to Extend the Term if the ENA
to December 31, 2017 unless Terminated or Extended as Provided in the ENA, and
Complete an Implementation Term Sheet, Disposition and Development Agreement,
and Development Plan for the Design and Construction of a New Supportive Housing
Facilities on a 10.4-Acre Parcel in the Main Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the extension is to determine how to
incorporate the units slated for veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
The Redevelopment Project Manager responded the extension is needed because the
Main Street Plan is not finalized.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports additional units being provided
for
Operation Dignity for veterans with PTSD; he would like the details to be included in the
beginning of the process, not at the end.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated she would like a state of the art facility built to
meet the needs of people requiring accommodations; she plans to support the project.
On the call for the questions, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.]
(*16-625) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year
Agreement with ECS Imaging, Inc. for Laserfiche Services and Maintenance in an
Amount not to Exceed $165,000. Accepted.
(*16-626) Recommendation to Enter into StopWaste's Expansion of the Countywide
Reusable Bag Ordinance. Accepted.
(*16-627) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $252,230, Including
Contingencies, to Andy's Roofing Company, Inc. for the Maintenance Service Center
Roof Replacement, No. P.W. 19-16-18. Accepted.
(*16-628) Recommendation to Reject All Bids and Authorize a Call for Rebid for the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
December 6, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2022-04-19,24,"staff can bring back the Housing Element back.
The City Manager responded staff can bring the Housing Element on May 3rd or 17th.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can place the matter under Continued Agenda Items to
ensure it is heard.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council has received correspondence requesting Council
hold a second hearing after the May 5th Historical Advisory Board meeting; proposed Council
hear the matter on May 17th; staff has stated the matter can be brought forth that date.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are any deadlines related to wrapping up the
draft Housing Element.
The City Manager responded the Housing Element should be heard by May or early June.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft proposed Council place the supportive housing matter on the Continued
Agenda Items section of the May 3rd meeting agenda and she would decide whether to continue
the Housing Element matter on the same section for May 3rd or on the May 17th meeting
agenda.
The Assistant City Manager stated the deadline to submit the draft Housing Element is the week
of May 23rd; Council can hear the matter on May 17th without issue.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether it is possible to frame the draft Housing Element
discussion as a Council discussion.
The City Attorney responded the frame of the discussion depends on the staff report; actions
able to be taken by Council will be limited by the agenda title and report contents.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of placing the supportive housing and Housing
Element on the May 3rd meeting under the Continued Agenda Items section.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like the Housing Element heard
May 3rd; continuing the matter to only May 17th does not allow for a vote on the draft
recommendation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for options being presented to address
multiple concerns.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. [Absent:
Councilmembers Knox White and Vella - 2.]
(22-278) Public Hearing to Review and Comment on Annual Report on the General Plan and
Draft Housing Element Update. Not heard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 19, 2022
22",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,15,"staff and minimal consultant time would be needed to ensure that things are done right;
the application process is straight forward because Oakland has already gone through
the more extensive process.
Councilmember Gilmore stated activation seems reasonable; staff would bring back
site-specific opportunities to Council.
Mayor Johnson stated that she agrees with Councilmember Gilmore; activation does
not mean that the floodgates need to open.
Councilmember Gilmore stated community input would be needed also.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City of Oakland is in favor of Alameda's
potential activation.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded the City of Oakland has
been very helpful in initial conversations; stated staff did not want to go too far out
without getting Council direction.
Mayor Johnson stated activation would present regional opportunities through jobs and
economic development.
Speakers: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda; and Alex Chen, Alameda.
Following Former Councilmember Daysog's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired
whether the City of Oakland would be in control, if activation would occur.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded the City's activation
would be part of Oakland's FTZ; stated Matson Global Distribution Services operates
the general-purpose FTZ.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda would have control over what goes in
Alameda.
The Interim City Manager responded uses would belong to Alameda; stated Matson
Global Distribution Services would administer the FTZ in compliance with federal law.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated participation would be on a
site-specific basis.
Councilmember Matarrese requested verification that whatever goes into the Alameda
section of the FTZ would be controlled exclusively by Alameda within constraints of
federal law, to which the Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether participation would not be activated until a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,8,"staff and Grant Allocation Committee endorsed; more work needs to
be done to refine the information; there are plans to have a Town
Hall meeting next week or the following week; then staff will
provide a status report to Council; a better job can be done on
marketing the ferry.
Mayor Johnson stated that when the ferry problem became apparent,
the Acting City Manager immediately took action and set up meetings
with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; thanked the Acting
City Manager for the efforts taken to negotiate one more year.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested that e-mails be sent to concerned
citizens [regarding the Town Hall meeting] in addition to the
normal noticing procedures.
(05-179) Consideration of Mayor's nominations (3) for appointment
to the Golf Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Ray Gaul, Jane Sullwold, and Bill Schmitz
to the Gold Commission.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was extremely impressed with
the applicants' depth; he would hope that the individuals look at
other commissions and boards.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember deHaan.
(05-180) - Consideration of the Mayor's nomination for appointment
to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board.
Continued.
(05-181) Selection of alternate to serve on the Alameda County
Lead Abatement Joint Powers Authority Board.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember deHaan has indicated an
interest to serve as the alternate.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that Councilmember deHaan serve on the
Alameda County Lead Abatement Joint Powers Authority Board.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-182) Councilmember Daysog noted that today is the City of
Alameda's 151st birthday.
(05-183 - ) Councilmember deHaan requested a report on the Lincoln
School drop off area situation; there is concern with the next
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,14,"stabilization task force; discussed survey results: William Smith, Renewed Hope
Housing Advocates;
Stated that he supports passing the Housing Element but is concerned with the 50%
increase of housing units; further stated the City seems to be figuring out ways around
Measure A: Jim Smallman, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society.
The City Manager invited Mr. Smallman to talk to the City Planner about his concerns
as some of his information is factually incorrect.
Mayor Gilmore stated showing where housing could be built is a State requirement.
In response to Mr. Smallman's inquiry, the City Planner stated Alameda has to show
there is enough land to accommodate 1,725 units; the Housing Element can
accommodate more than 1,725, but the 1,725 amount gives the City flexibility at each
individual site.
Congratulated staff and the Planning Board on the Housing Element which emphasizes
senior housing and rental issues; that she supports a task force which is not attached to
the Housing Element: Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda Home Team and Housing
Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES).
Stated that she supports the Housing Element, communication on housing in Alameda,
and is impressed by RRAC; submitted letters: Ann DeBardeleben, Alameda Association
of Realtors.
Urged approval of the Housing Element with the Planning Board recommendation:
Amparo Adlao, Alameda.
Stated every city has a rent stabilization problem; that she does not support the plan or
changing Measure A: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda.
Stated Renewed Hope conducted a rent survey; that she supports forming a task force
that is evenly balanced between property owners and tenants: Laura Thomas, Renewed
Hope Housing Advocates.
Inquired whether RRAC members should have term limits; urged spreading the word
about the RRAC: Lois Pryor, Renewed Hope.
Stated that she supports the multi-family overlay and Density Bonus for Affordable
Housing in the plan; proposes the City do a study on the effectiveness of the overlay
and current density bonus incentive; submitted letter: Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope.
Urged the creation of a rent stabilization task force; submitted survey results: Catherine
Relucio, Renewed Hope.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-06-06,14,"stabilization ordinance regardless of the funding.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(17-352) Resolution No. 15270, ""Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to
Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter
Approved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election
Held November 7, 2000 for the Alameda Library."" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(17-353) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with
Saildrone, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, for a Five-Year Lease with Two Five-Year
Extension Options and a Right of First Negotiation for the Purchase of Building 12
Located at 1050 West Tower Avenue 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.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft gave a brief description of what Saildrone does.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer encouraged people to visit Saildrone to see their
products.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(17-354) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Alameda
Animal Shelter Services Agreement and a Lease Agreement with the Friends of the
Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) for an Amount Not to Exceed $804,300 in Fiscal Year
(FY) 2018-19 with an Escalator for the Second Year, plus $45,000 for Capital
Improvements in FY 2017-18.
The City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with Alameda Point Collaborative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 6, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf