body,date,page,text,path
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,2005-06-07,23,"Acting City Manager to determine where an appropriate one-stop
permit center could be; funding has been set aside.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is an improvement in
the vver-the-counter permit processing.
The Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated front
line staff upgrades have freed up Planners' time.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether goals could be met with
streamlined staffing, to which the Building Official responded in
the affirmative.
The Development Services Director gave a Power Point presentation
on the Development Services Department, CIC and ARRA budget.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there would be a Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) grant available for the Phase 2 of
the Park and Webster Streets Streetscape Projects next year, to
which the Development Services Director responded that MTC believes
the City would be a better candidate once the project has been
completed.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the City would apply for grant
funding next year, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much the City's match would be.
The Development Services Director responded that the formula
criteria is not known; stated that a number of funding options have
been identified, such as supplemental tax increment payments or
unused redevelopment bond money earmarked for the Library project.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that it is important to ensure that
money is budgeted for Phase 2 next year.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that the City needs to be
very careful in Fiscal Year 2005-061 what happens in the coming
year will ripple into the following years; stated there are a lot
of committed projects.
The Development Services Director concurred with Commissioner/Boaró
Member Daysog; stated that the Development Services Department is
anticipating the resignation of a division director mid year; the
position will not be filled; a number of the Development Services
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
8
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,23,"Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the typical lead-time is from
the time the City Attorney knows outside counsel is needed to the
time outside counsel is hired.
The City Attorney responded usually the same day the City receives
a lawsuit; for example, in a recent lawsuit, the City had 30 days
to answer but in the interim the City had a motion for preliminary
injunction; within 24 hours of receiving the notice, the Council
would receive a paragraph describing the lawsuit received: the
immediate notification to the Council would include a description
as to what the City Attorney intends to do; a component would be
the discretion would be limited through the [counsel] panels, so
the Council would know who the City Attorney's office would be
selecting; the panels would be reviewed annually; the reason for
the immediacy is due to the requirement to respond immediately;
there is a balance because when litigation is received, by the next
meeting, the Council could indicate that it does not approve of
what is being done and how it is being done; the practical reality
is that within the first two weeks, significant initial work would
be done, which is why the proposal might not be the perfect
solution; a lot of knowledge will be given to the Council; there
could be additional oversight and opportunities for change after
seeing how the proposal works.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether $35,000 would cover two
weeks.
The City Attorney responded $35,000 was picked as the average cost
of litigation; the City Attorney's office actually totaled up costs
and $35,000 was the average cost; 50% of the cases are more than
$35,000 and 50% are less; the Council will know about the matter
within 24 hours, get a report and budget within 30 days, and have
the opportunity to schedule the matter for closed session; anything
which is significant, such as a bigger case, will automatically go
to Council for approval in a closed session; Council will know
[about lawsuits] within 24 hours and always have the opportunity to
request the matter be placed on the agenda; the City Attorney's
discretion in the selection of outside counsel will be from the
competitively selected panels of attorneys.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Charter states : ""The Council, or
any board with the consent of the Council, may empower the City
Attorney, at his request to employ special legal counsel;"" what is
being discussed is how the Council empowers the City Attorney to
make choices; a practical approach is to empower a certain dollar
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,23,"are a condition to have the façade treatment on the Oak Street
portion of the parking structure provide vertical elements similar
to the ones presented by AAPS and a condition to have the treatment
of the Central Avenue façade of the Cineplex provide a less modern
treatment of the window in between the historic theater and the
corner portion of the Cineplex second-story view spot that is
curved outwards.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated AAPS presented two pictures.
Mayor Johnson requested that the picture be shown.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the picture he was referring to was
not the garage in Staunton, Virginia.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the picture was of the garage with
openings.
The Business Development Division Manager stated the picture is of
a garage in Walnut Creek and displayed the picture.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council direction was to have
the [Cineplex] architecture be less modern than original
renderings.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese
referring to ""less modern"" applies to the overhang that is on the
front of the Cineplex.
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated that
he was referring to the glass lobby that is curved.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese had any
direction in defining less modern.
Councilmember Matarrese responded squared off with some sloping
treatments; however, he is not an architect. the direction should
be general : the architect should come back with something less
modern for that window specifically and the architect should
understand the idea for the parking structure from the picture.
Mayor Johnson requested that the colors be more compatible; further
requested staff to review the possibility of having the ticket
booth out in front to make the historic theater look like it used
to look; stated the booth would not have to be useable.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,23,"Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated part of
the reason for building a new Clubhouse is to change the look of
the Golf Course and increase revenues.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Joint City Council and Golf
Commission Meeting is scheduled soon.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated the Golf Commission
is reviewing a business plan and issues beyond rainy days.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Golf Commission should not be
looking at the issue as a short-term rain problem; the national
trend has been declining golf for years; inquired whether the
restricted reserves would be used for the Clubhouse.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded the restricted
reserves identify the actual capital assets.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the business plan should be adjusted
to reflect the current revenue.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the ROI
was decreased currently but was increased in the past to address
the City's shortfall.
The Finance Director stated the Council adopted an ordinance
that established the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) and ROI in
Fiscal Year 2004-2005; the ROI applies to the Alameda Power and
Telecom and Golf funds; the PILOT applies to the sewer fund,
Alameda Power and Telecom and Golf fund; the PILOT and ROI
produced additional revenue which was helpful in 2005 and 2006;
the recommendation was to reduce the ROI by 50% on the Golf fund
and Alameda Power and Telecom because of the increasing General
Fund revenue.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
lowering the ROI further is anticipated, to which the Finance
Director responded possibly.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the ROI should not be considered
a
permanent source of revenue.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
9
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,23,"City throughout the next building phases.
Commissioner Gilmore stated applicants are required to provide
information on any status change, which includes a change in the
family size; the Social Security Administration letter was not as
clear as the testimony tonight she would have no problem
dismissing the $4,000 in overtime if a person in authority provided
a letter stating that no overtime would be allowed; the Peralta
College income is more problematic; documentation would need to be
provided from the College.
Commissioner deHaan stated past trends indicate that Mr. Rutledge
would teach this year; the evaluation period is important to keep
in mind; he is not happy with the prior procedure; the application
clearly indicates what the income should include.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether qualification was based on
the 2006 income.
The Development Services Director responded verification was to be
provided to the ADC by December twelve-month income was then
projected.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether a twelve-month window was
projected from the time of the application.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative
earnings are projected forward twelve months after the application
is complete and an earning pattern is reviewed.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether January 2006 to December
2006 income was used for evaluation purposes.
The Development Services Director responded income was to cover
March 2006 to March 2007.
Commissioner Matarrese stated income projection should be tighter
since it is now September an accurate income could be projected if
the Social Security Administration certified that no overtime would
occur and the Peralta Community College District certified that Mr.
Rutledge is on sabbatical figures could be reviewed to see if the
income falls within the window.
Commissioner Daysog stated 300 affordable homes would be built at
Alameda Point west of Main Street; the precedent should be to work
with a process that is fair.
Commissioner Gilmore stated documented changes are important a
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
4
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-19,23,"Contracts.
Commissioner Matarrese requested that the budget portion of staff
reports identify whether or not costs are included in the theater
and garage project budgets in the future.
The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation; provided
a
handout on the budget.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether other increases are
anticipated, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the
negative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether a milestone chart would be
available, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded a milestone
charge would be available within a week or two.
Commissioner deHaan stated the Council should be provided with any
information given to the public ahead of time.
Chair Johnson stated the public should know that parking would not
be available at the old Video Maniacs site after September 28.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of staff recommendations to
approve the amended Contract with Architectural Resources Group
[paragraph no. 06-056CIC] and to approve the amended Contract with
Komorous-Towey Architects [paragraph no. 06-057CIC].
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan inquired where the developer
stands within the process.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the developer is a little bit
behind the garage process; stated the developer is finalizing
construction drawings and would be submitting the drawings for plan
check and to other contractors for pricing.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has met all
financial requirements.
The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the
City is working closely with the Bank of Alameda to finalize the
developer's financing.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Chair Johnson - 4. Noes Commissioner deHaan - 1.
(06-057CIC)
Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
2
and Redevelopment Authority, Community
Improvement Commission, and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.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
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,23,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there might be an ENA or some other
agreement or no agreement at all .
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(06-571CC/06-071CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider the Proposed
Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business
and Waterfront Improvement Project.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents : None.
Opponents : None.
Neutral : Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; and Bill
Smith, Alameda.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to respond to
Ms. Kerr's comments regarding the use designations.
The Development Services Director stated land use changes in the
current redevelopment plan would make it consistent with the
General Plan; the modifications to the CIC's land use map are being
made in order to have it conform with the City's General Plan.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the General
Plan has the designation of Community-Commercial (C-C), which is
the designation he is familiar with for all of the stations;
inquired whether there is an error and requested someone to check.
The Development Services Director responded that she does not have
a way to check tonight ; the documents were reviewed by the Planning
and Building Department staff because the General Plan needed to be
overlaid onto the land use mapi the language in the plan amendment
being considered would make the General Plan the dominant land use
document ; the General Plan, as amended from time to time, would be
the guiding land use plan.
ouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested the land use map be
modified to match the General Plan if the General Plan has the C-C
designation; stated the City needs to get on a path to amend the
General Plan if C-C is not the General Plan designation; the
stations have always been referred to as C-C; said change would be
an administrative change the General Plan needs to change if it
has the medium density residential designation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
11
Community Improvement Commission
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,23,"project.
In response to Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore,
the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the DDA
requires Catellus to come back to the Economic Development
Commission (EDC) and CIC and amend the DDA if deviations are made
to the tenanting strategy and leakage analysis; accountability is
built into the DDA.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired how a
better quality apparel retailer mix is being addressed.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded focus is
placed on retail categories and would be addressed at the staff
quarterly meetings.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the projected amount per
square foot for the retail area.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
performa currently shows a net of $12.01 per square foot; the net
would be in the high $20.00'S per square foot when Catellus builds
the improvements and enters into leases.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
footprints larger than 50,000 square feet are anticipated.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded there is
nothing to cap the amount of square footage for any individual
retail user.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
the square footage could be as high as 225,000 square feet for one
tenant.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded it would
be highly unlikely to have one tenant at 225,000 square feet and
the rest making up 75,000 square feet.
louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the issue
should come back to Council, the EDC, or Planning Board; Council
did not have aspirations for the type of tenants at Bridgeside; Bed
Bath and Beyond and Borders would go into the Towne Center most
likely; overlap questions need to be addressed.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
12
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,23,"other alternatives.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
Tinker Avenue alternative budget is $20 million minus the STIP
grant, which is $16 million minus whatever is spent getting to
Tinker Avenue feasibility or infeasibility; the payment has a
formula in the TDM Program in the event that the alternative is
infeasible.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are any updates on Clif Bar.
Mr. Marshall, Catellus Executive Vice President, responded all
systems are goi stated Clif Bar is anticipated to move in late
summer of 2008.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Catellus
has submitted a very ambitious work schedule for Planning Board
approval.
Mayor Johnson stated she likes the project with Clif Bar because of
the reuse of the historic waterfront structure.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Clif Bar signed the lease.
Mr. Marshall responded in the negative; stated a 100% binding lease
would not be signed for a couple of months.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether cost estimates are available
for the proposed maintenance district.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded
approvals require that a Municipal Services District (MSD) be
established for the entire project; the public portions of the
wharf would be covered under the MSD the private portions would be
maintained by either Catellus or the tenants; staff would be
returning to Council with a request to approve the Contract for the
overall project in a couple of months.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he likes the adaptive reuse of the
wharf; the reuse comes with an ongoing cost.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the City
would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the entire
wharf under the existing DDA; the amount of public ownership has
been reduced; a portion of the wharf would be privately owned and
maintained.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the private portion of the dock
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,23,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the historic theater completion
timeline is March or April 2008.
The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated November
2007 is the anticipated completion date.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the layout area would be a
problem once the Cineplex construction starts.
The Development Manager responded staff is meeting with Overaa and
the developer to coordinate a number of issues; stated the site is
tight ; Overaa is prepared to deal with the issues the trailers
should be removed from the Cineplex site by the end of the month;
Overaa could utilize some unfinished space in the historic theater
mezzanine area; staff would continue to coordinate with Overaa on
an on-going basis.
Commissioner Matarrese requested that any Cineplex design changes
come back to Council; stated discretionary decisions should not be
made.
Commissioner deHaan stated priorities have not been set.
Chair Johnson called the public speakers.
Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, outlined concerns with the value-
engineered changes itemized in Attachment 3.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda, outlined some parking garage ""at
risk"" details.
Chair Johnson inquired when decisions need to be made on the items
outlined by Mr. Buckley.
The Development Manager responded the canopy and blade sign prices
are secured for six months in addition to some items that may be
added later.
Chair Johnson inquired whether fund raising opportunities are
possible.
The Development Manager responded absolutely; stated private
funding could be used for the mural underneath the mezzanine wall.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether prices are secured for six
months from now.
The Development Manager responded prices are secured for six months
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
3
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-06-19,23,"contributions i stated all Board Members are due paying members and
contribute to special projects.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether solicitations are sent to
major employers in the City.
Ms. Coler-Dark responded said solicitations were tried; nothing was
received.
Ms. Dileo stated a big corporate effort has not been made because a
great amount of time has been given to special exhibits and flood
repair; past solicitation efforts have not been successful.
Mayor Johnson stated that she received a Meyers House brochure; the
brochure contained a membership form but no request for
solicitation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that requests for solicitation should
be included in mailers.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is supportive of a Cultural
Arts Program; the City has a Public Arts Fund with a balance of
$42,789; developers are required to either provide Public Art or
pay in lieu fees; 25% is available for programs $10,000 could be
used for something other than public art and has not been
dispersed; seeds are there for a Cultural Arts Program; the City
should financially support the Museum; he would support keeping the
current level of the Museum's subsidy a 10% cut would cause the
Museum to go away; the Museum needs help; there should be a
condition requiring the establishment of a business plan that has
an aggressive fundraising plan.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City could help by offering a
donation match; other non-profit organizations are in need of
funding also; the Museum has very little money in donations.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Museum support is important an
agreement is needed going forward; the Museum needs a business and
fundraising plan for long-term issues. the Museum occupies a space
that could be a retail space; rents will go up as Park Street
improves; the City can help with providing resources for the
business and fundraising plan and with finding another space; the
City is not asking the Museum to do anything different than other
non-profits: museums should pull resources together for a
fundraiser and split the proceeds the Museum needs to approach the
operation more like a business; long-term strategic planning is
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
12
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-07-17,23,"Christopher Buckley, Alameda, submitted handout stated the
proposed banners should be larger to cover the three center
bays; a trompe d'oil treatment or grilled panels are options.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the recommended options could be
done after the completion of the parking structure, to which Mr.
Buckley responded in the affirmative.
Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, stated evergreens are a good
decoration studio; that he does not think money should be spent
on
banners; banners draw attention to the façade
an
architectural grilled screen system might be a possibility.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated the PSBA Board of Directors urges the
Commission to take a low cost option.
Chair Johnson stated the Cineplex developer should not be
rushed; the City waited more than twenty-six years for the
Historical Theater restoration; staff should inform the
Commission if other [restoration] items need to be addressed
while there is the opportunity; options need to be weighed
inquired whether damaged niches are being replaced.
The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
the niches have been re-varnished.
Chair Johnson stated that she does not want items overlooked.
The Redevelopment Manager stated a list of items and cost
estimates would be provided.
Chair Johnson stated the project team is doing a great job.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether staff would ensure that
the viewable improvements, such as countertops and cabinetry,
are the same quality and are appropriate for the restored
interior, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the
affirmative.
MINUTES
(07-027) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement
Commission (CIC) meeting and the Special CIC meeting held on
July 3, 2007. Approved.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
3
July 17, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-11,23,"Principal Property Tax Payers
Fiscal Year 2006-2007
Taxpayer
Taxable Value
Alameda Real Estate Investment
$ 218,524,744
KW Alameda, LLC
$
87,291,200
Wind River Systems, Inc.
$ 60,593,386
Harsch Investment Realty, LLC
$
50,486,980
Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC
$
49,815,105
Limar Realty Corp #13 and Limar
$
31,469,388
Ballena Village, LLC
$
28,365,760
SRM-PCCP Harbor Associates, LLC
$
26,823,831
South Shore Beach and Tennis Club
$
26,476,524
Woodstock Homes Corporation
$
26,011,914
Source: FY 2006-07 County Assessor data, MuniServices, LLC
15
Largest Employers
2006
Employer
Number of Employees
Alameda Unified School District
1,000
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc
671
City of Alameda
626
Alameda Hospital
600
College of Alameda
472
Safeway Stores
345
Wind River Systems
339
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
252
Ut Starcom Inc.
223
Celera Diagnostics LLC
215
Source (2006-07): MuniServices, LLC
Results based on direct correspondence with city's local businesses
16
8",CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-06,23,"Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Public Works
Department is comfortable with the plan.
The Housing Authority Executive Director responded the matter has
been discussed with the Recreation and Parks Department, not Public
Works.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the same issues were
discussed in 2005; the City has a Vehicle Procurement Policy the
next step is to get a Vehicle Use Policy; the vacant lot purchased
from EBMUD would be designated as a park, which is a positive stepi
the motion should include that the staff recommendation is accepted
with the provision that the City develop a Vehicle Use Policy and
that no more park space be taken from the site.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated that she does not think that
this [parking lot] is the best use of the parkland; she will not
support the staff recommendation.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion with
direction that the City develop a Vehicle Use Policy and that no
more park space be taken from the site.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Matarrese,
Commissioner Torrey, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 4. Noes
:
Councilmember / Commissioner Tam - 1. Abstentions: Councilmember /
Commissioner Gilmore - 1. [Note: Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore
recused herself from the item because of the possible appearance of
bias ]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
5
Authority Board of Commissioners
November 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-20,23,"Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. .
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:52 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
2
November 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,23,"disposition of the second warehouse, the developer will go back to
the Planning Board and make a presentation regarding the
feasibility of retaining the warehouse; the May and September plans
do not contemplate the retention of the second warehouse;
currently, the Plan calls for the retention of the first warehouse
for Clif Bar; several other warehouses south of the wharf will be
partially deconstructed and made into parking sheds; the developer
is committed to recycle and reuse elements if the second warehouse
is not used.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the office space
square footage for Clif Bar, to which the Base Reuse and Community
Development Manager responded approximately 100,000 square feet.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the
remaining square footage of the building, to which the Base Reuse
and Community Development Manager responded approximately 300,000
square feet.
Councilmember/CommissionerdeHaan inquired whether three to five
story buildings are still contemplated on the wharf.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
Master Plan provides for a maximum of five stories; stated the
height limit was reduced to 85 feet last year.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the waterfront
would have five-story buildings, to which the Base Reuse and
Community Development Manager responded possibly.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the issue would
be contrary to the planning principles of having more open, step
down designs to the waterfront.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
Master Plan provides for a maximum of five stories; stated the new
buildings would be set back from the waterfront; there would be
waterfront access and open space more than 100 feet from the water ;
the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) requires a
minimum 100 foot setback from the water.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the cost
estimate for retrofitting the wharf.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded between
$30 million and $35 million; stated San Francisco waterfront
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
9
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-01-15,23,"The Supervising Engineer stated that funding could be pursued once
the project becomes part of the 2035 Transportation Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to start working
with the State to deed the land to the City for nothing.
Mayor Johnson stated that she recalls a transit hub may not be the
best place for a park-and-ride.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that nothing prevents having
multiple hubs; the West End does not have other places for a ride
share lot.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the staff report notes that the
development of a sewer master plan and design to upgrade existing
drainage improvements would need to be deferred.
The Supervising Engineer stated staff time would be impacted; the
bicycle master plan update could be delayed also.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that said delays are not good trade-
offs.
The City Manager stated applying for grant funding can be done now.
Mayor Johnson stated transit hub locations should be reviewed; the
proposed area may be okay for a park-and-ride but not a transit
hub; staff can apply for a park-and-ride grant and review the
transit hub issue.
The Supervising Engineer stated that staff is reviewing the idea of
adding a queue jump lane at Webster Street as part of the Tinker
Avenue Extension Project; the park-and-ride lot could tie into the
Posey Tube entrance.
Councilmember Matarrese noted that staff provided drawings that
show configuration and aerial views.
The City Manager stated that staff would update Council on the
grant application.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(
08-035 ) Mayor Johnson stated the information that she requested
under item 5-C should be posted to the website and should clarify
that the General Fund non-contracted portion is used to pay for all
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
January 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-02-19,23,"Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan
stated that balancing is being done at the expense of the General
Fund reserve.
The Finance Director stated revenues were reduced by $4 million;
expenditure reductions totaled $3 million; the difference will be
funded by the General Fund reserve money that is not spent at the
end of the year would go into the General Fund reserve.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(08-073 CC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the period ending September 30, 2007.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson requested that sales tax figures be posted to the
website; stated services are hurt by the fact that residents spend
money outside of Alameda.
The Finance Director stated the per-capita comparison can be posted
to the website.
Mayor Johnson questioned how much more money would be generated if
Alameda had a per-capita similar to the City of Fremont.
The Finance Director stated sales tax revenue would double and
provide $4 million.
Councilmember Gilmore stated $4 million is the amount of the gap.
Mayor Johnson stated Development Services has enabled the City to
stay even; the City will lose most of the auto sales tax.
The Finance Director stated hopefully new businesses will replace
the loss.
Councilmember deHaan stated the third quarter had $1.3 million in
sales tax revenue; the City is on the verge of bringing in more
retail; the Alameda Towne Centre is approximately 60% filled; there
will not be a lot of change retail is taking the biggest
[economic] hit; looking toward the future is important.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
11
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
February 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-05-06,23,"of Shinsei Gardens Apartments at 401 Wilver ""Willie"" Stargell
Avenue. "" Adopted; and
(*08-173CC) - Resolution No. 14200, ""Authorizing Conveyance of Various
Easements for the Development of Shinsei Gardens Apartments at
Wilver ""Willie"" Stargell Avenue. "" Adopted.
( *08-174CC/*08-24CIC) Recommendation to approve an Addendum to the
Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report a Letter of Intent regarding property
exchange by and among Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, Peralta
Community College District and the CIC; and a Letter of Agreement
between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation
for dedication of the Stargell Avenue Right-of-Way;
(*08-174A CC) Resolution No. 14201, ""Approving a Right-of-Way
Contract Between the City of Alameda and the Peralta Community
College District for the Stargell Extension Project. Adopted; and
(*08-08-24A - CIC) Resolution No. 08-155, ""Approving Letter of Intent
by and Among Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, Peralta Community
College District, and the CIC and Authorizing the CIC to Accept the
Deed to Property. "" Adopted.
AGENDA ITEMS
(08-175CC/08-25 CIC) Recommendation to approve modifications to the
City of Alameda Down Payment Assistance Program to include
refinance mortgage recovery loans for qualified existing
homeowners.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff
recommendation.
louncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the
bad loans that led to the current crisis are being addressed
putting the safety net in place is important.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(08-176CC/08-2 CIC) Recommendation to adopt Loan Guidelines for
Downpayment Assistance Loan Program and Below Market Rate Ownership
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
2
Improvement Commission, and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
May 6, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,23,"because the amount is deferred.
Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated that she totaled a
$5.1 million debt; $6 million would be issued; inquired whether
there is some minimum limit.
The Finance Director responded $6 million is the approximate
amount; stated $5,490,000 would be issued; interest rates change
the numbers are based on estimated interest rates; the interest
rates are favorable now.
Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the matter is a cash
flow issue; approximately $600,000 would not be spent in the first
year; $600,000 would be spent over fifteen years.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the loans
were refinanced already.
The Finance Director responded only the Police Building was
refinanced in 1996.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired why the Police
Building was refinanced.
The Finance Director responded because interest rates dropped
significantly.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated the City gets into
trouble by deferring and refinancing.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired when the Police Building was
constructed, to which the Finance Director responded 1990.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what was the original planned bond
issue.
The Finance Director responded the $2.8 million bond was issued in
1990 with interest rates of 5.8% to 7.25%.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired when the bond would have been paid if
not refinanced, to which the Finance Director responded she would
guess 2010.
Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated that he is not in
favor; savings are not being made on the interest rates and future
Councils will be burdened; debt will be deferred if not paid now.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
9
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-17,23,"assessments are needed; repair costs need to be evaluated versus
replacement costs.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated vehicle use needs to be identified; fuel
efficiency needs to be reviewed if a vehicle travels a lot of
miles.
The Fire Chief stated the proposal is to replace Fire Department
sedans with hybrid vehicles.
Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
vehicles would be replaced with the Toyota Prius.
The Fire Chief responded vehicles would be replaced with Ford
Escapes.
Mayor/Chair Johnson questioned whether the command vehicle needs to
be replaced next year.
louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated annual fuel
costs need to be reviewed for take home vehicles; decisions need to
be made regarding reassigning vehicles and reduction of the overall
inventory.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that the proposed
budget reflects a certain level of trade offs $300,000 would be
generated through the proposed fee structure and would offset the
$820,000 in mandatory [Fire Department) overtime costs; there still
would be $520,000 in mandatory overtime cost expenditures that
would be controlled through rotating the closing of a fire truck;
inquired what differs other than postponement.
The Fire Chief responded hopefully some other revenues enhancements
will occur in the fall; stated the additional $300,000 would be
counted on to delay the immediate closure [of a fire truck].
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that additional funds could be generated
by not replacing vehicles.
Vice Mayor/Boar Member/Commissioner Tam stated said savings is not
on-going.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated continued discussions are needed
regarding long-term issues.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated increased Police
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
13
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-07-01,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JULY 1, 2008- - -6:30 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(08-279) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54953.9 i Name of Case: Gabriel J. Hurst V. City of Alameda, et
al.
(08-280) Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claim
(54956.95 ; Claimant Erin Astrup; Agency Claimed Against : City of
Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Existing Litigation,
Council gave direction to Legal Counsel regarding defense;
regarding Liability, Council gave settlement direction to Legal
Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 1, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-07-15,23,"Commissioner Matarrese stated data needs to be gathered on the
correlation of increased sales tax and the City's return.
Following Ms. Jacob's comments, Chair Johnson stated WABA and
PSBA's marketing, advertising, and promotion costs justify the
investment; GABA provides an excellent service to its members
public benefit needs to be highlighted.
Ms. Jacobs stated that there is a direct correlation between
strong, healthy businesses and public benefit; GABA does not put on
public events; GABA's advertising remains consistent; a monthly
two-page spread is placed in the Alameda Sun which lists all GABA
members; GABA affords low-cost, full color advertising to any GABA
business.
Chair Johnson stated a certain percentage of grant funding should
be used for marketing and promotion; a threshold should be set.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the City receives three benefits from
PSBA and WABA: 1) street maintenance; 2) sales tax revenue; and 3)
business license tax revenue; investments should be reviewed every
year to see the correlation with the return.
Chair Johnson stated GABA's administrative costs are funded that
she is not sure whether using grant funding for said purpose is
appropriate.
Commissioner deHaan stated GABA is a very small operation, but is
viable and important; four members would be impacted when Orchard
Supply Hardware moves into the Alameda Towne Centre; GABA's
proposed grant amount is not that monumental.
Chair Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with the
amount, but with funding administrative costs requiring that a
certain percentage of funding be spent on marketing, advertising,
and promotion would satisfy the requirement of ensuring a return to
the public; the City does not fund the Chamber of Commerce and
Harbor Bay Business Park.
Ms. Jacobs stated one of the reasons for the inception of GABA was
to afford businesses outside the two districts an opportunity and
venue to be an association.
Chair Johnson stated GABA provides a very useful, valuable function
to its members; the question is how to ensure that the public is
getting a return; Alameda has many worthy non-profits that are not
funded; inquired whether PSBA or WABA would have any problem with
setting a 40%-50% threshold [for advertising and promotion], to
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
4
July 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-08-19,23,"billion hedge fund; D.E. Shaw is SunCal's existing partner for a
big project in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how D.E.
Shaw builds assets.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded D.E.
Shaw is a typical hedge fund; stated D.E. Shaw's wherewithal to
finance obligations pursuant to the ENA has been verified.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Lehman Brothers was ever a
partner of the Alameda Point project, to which the Base Reuse and
Community Development Manager responded in the negative.
The Assistant City Manager stated D.: E. Shaw is a privately held
hedge fund; investors are confidential.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated cross-
default is a concern because of all the projects that SunCal and
D.E. Shaw have together ; the City wants to ensure that any ripples
stop before reaching Alameda if something happens to another SunCal
project.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese restated the
motion to move approval of the staff recommendation with direction
to: 1) negotiate a second amendment to the ENA, which would include
a provision that the City would have the right to terminate the ENA
if SunCal was removed for any reason other than illegal activity or
material cause; 2) place a cap on the timeline to remove the
flexibility of an automatic extension; 3) insulate against the
possibility of cross defaults; and 4) establish mandatory
milestones which would be synced with the status of the project.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(ARRA) Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory
Board (RAB) representative.
Board Member Matarrese stated the August 13, 2008 Chronicle had an
article about the Army giving the Fort Ord Reuse Authority 3,300
acres and $100 million for remediation: inquired whether
information is true, to which the Assistant City Manager responded
in the affirmative.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
6
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
August 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-07,23,"Councilmember Matarrese stated staff recommends that Council accept
and endorse the Park Street north of Lincoln Strategic Plan and
direct staff to amend the City's zoning regulations. inquired
whether direction is to include expanding the Work/Live Ordinance;
stated that he advocates using work/live beyond the current scope
in order to review rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings
outside zones currently designated and as a way to meet Community
Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) goals.
The Development Services Director stated the Strategic Plan
provides a framework; the next step would be to start exploring
form-based zoning.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not advocate changing
the interior Work/Live Ordinance requirements but expanding
locations within the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan stated six properties fall under the Work/Live
Ordinance; only one property has moved forward; the work/live idea
seems to have hit a wall; the proposed plan sets benchmark visions.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the City has the opportunity to take control
of its destiny by going through concerted efforts with the Planning
Department rather than allowing haphazard market forces to decide.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with direction to put
effort into the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan,
including the integrated area and review expansion of the Work/Live
Ordinance.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated direction should include
review of obstacles associated with work/live projects because only
one project has moved forward; the Work/Live Ordinance is a
critical piece for reuse of historic assets in the northern
waterfront area.
Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember Matarrese concurred to amend the
motion to include Councilmember Matarrese's and Mayor Johnson's
recommendations
Mayor Johnson stated the area should not be named the Gateway
District.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
4
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.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,2008-12-02,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMEN'T AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING
TUESDAY - -DECEMBER 2, 2008- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:12 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Board Members deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
(08-496) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8) ;
Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating parties City, ARRA and SunCal
Under negotiations: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that Council/Board Members were
briefed on real property negotiation aspects; no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 2, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-01-06,23,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 12:20 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 and
Community Improvement Commission
January 6, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-03,23,"specific hours of operation; many potential tenants that could not
do lunch hours were disqualified; the owner would not have been
granted the lease for just a bar.
Commissioner deHaan stated starting a new business is a challenge i
the owner would go back to full hours if the right mix is found; a
lot of money has been forgiven at Alameda Point a six month trial
period is reasonable.
Chair Johnson stated there are reasons for business hours.
businesses need to be open to have a customer base.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the business is already profitable
later in the day and in the evening; that she does not understand
how the business would be built up by closing from 11:00 a .m. to
4:00 p.m.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the Commission was very clear on the
lease provisions; the business is profitable now and ahead of
projections; dead hours cannot be addressed if the business is not
open; that he does not see the advantage of reducing hours; a
change in the lease is premature.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of deferring any change to
the lease until the business faces possible closure.
Chair Johnson stated the business owner needs to implement the
original business plan; changes need to be made.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Tam stated that she would abstain
from voting on the matter the staff report suggests the need for
more marketing; that she does not feel there is enough information
to tell the business owner how the business should be operated.
Commissioner Gilmore stated that the business owner should live up
to the terms of the lease; the hours of operation are very clear.
Commissioner deHaan stated the business owner needs some leeway ;
the City needs to work with the business owner.
Commissioner Matarrese stated street activity was part of the plan
to renovate the theatre and build the parking structure. the
business plan is a good model; the retail side needs to be
reviewed; salvaging the business might be an option if the business
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
3
and Community Improvement Commission
February 3, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-02-07,23,"Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the $2.6 million deficit
would be caught up in three years under the proposed plan, to which
the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated a decision cannot be made until Council hears
the OPEB options; inquired whether staff has a better handle on the
numbers to ensure the departments pay their share going forward.
The Interim Finance Director responded the formula is fine going
forward.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the need for $600,000 for IT.
The Interim Finance Director responded major work needs to be done
between now and June 30 because the system is becoming too risky to
operate; outlined the needs; stated auditors have commented that
upgrades are needed; the cost to massively overhaul the system
would be over $2 million.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any of the fund has been
obligated, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the
negative.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry about when the City
learned of the problems, the Interim Finance Director stated the
analysis came recently; the new GASB rules require an IT audit.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired why he did not see the analysis, to
which the Interim Finance Director responded the analysis was in a
separate memo.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would be changing from the
Groupwise system.
The Interim Finance Director responded that she does not know; more
detail would be provided.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the information should have been presented
as part of the audit at the last meeting; inquired whether the
Fiscal Sustainability Committee (FSC) has been informed.
The Interim Finance Director responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson requested that the Groupwise issue be addressed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated $600,000 from equipment replacement
needs to be reprioritized for IT to deal with a critical problem;
rolling over debt goes to the bottom line of the General Fund; that
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
February 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-10-20,23,"be decided administratively, to which the City Attorney responded
in the affirmative.
The Planning Services Manager stated the proposed ordinance would
require that a project requesting a density bonus to go before the
Planning Board.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the density bonus
ordinance waivers match the State requirement, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how other cities handle
density bonus ordinances.
The Planning Services Manager responded some cities have adopted
density bonus ordinances; stated other cities rely upon State
regulations; some cities include more concessions and incentives in
an ordinance, some have less.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the default is the State's ordinance;
cities have the option to tailor a density bonus ordinance.
The Planning Services Manager stated the City is better off
adopting its own community regulations.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the density bonus has
been handled in the past; stated the Collin's case was not
approved.
The City Attorney stated the case is still under litigation.
The Planning Services Manager stated a new Collin's application
requests a density bonus; the previous application was denied based
on other findings not related to density bonus.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City would be
safeguarded with the new density bonus.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Collin's project has a
variety of issues; stated that he does not think the proposed
density bonus ordinance would be the determining factor; issues
revolve around open space and lot layout.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether an application has been
submitted and whether the new proposal fits within the density
bonus ordinance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-11-03,23,"The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the CIC residential
profit participation revenue is over and above the base price.
The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the $19.3 million pays for project obligations; stated all
of the profit participation and land sale proceeds received from
the project go back into the project to retire obligations; a $7
million obligation for the developer advance still remains; profit
participation expectations were higher two years ago.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether State level
problems and redevelopment fund take away will have any affect on
the bond.
The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the State's financial condition has hurt the bond market.
stated redevelopment bonds have done much better than other types
of bonds; today's bond market is much higher than a couple of years
ago; nobody will allow the City to bond until how the City will
make the State payment is determined; the City has the capacity to
issue a bond much larger than recommended by staff; that she
recommends not to bond to capacity because of State uncertainties.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether staff would provide
a complete bond overview, to which the Economic Development
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City has the
capacity on paper: estimates were raised as the project was built;
using revenue streams to pay bonds back is subject to the State
take away; the State's structural problems are not going to be
remedied.
The Economic Development Director stated that she has had
conversations with the Interim City Manager/Executive Director
regarding consideration of strategies for just using tax increment
generated off the project for the next year or SO.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the annual tax increment from
the project.
The Economic Development Director responded over $3 million; stated
there is $866,000 per year in existing debt service payoff of old
bonds that anchor the project.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
November 3, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2009-11-17,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 17, 2009- -6:50 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor
Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(09-455 - ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b)
of Section 54956.9. Number of cases: Onel Under negotiation:
Price and terms.
(09-456) Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claim
(54956.95) i Claimant Mohamed Mahama Agency Claimed Against :
City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated
Litigation, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel on a
matter of potential litigation; no action was taken; regarding
Liability Claim, Council discussed the claim with Legal Counsel
and provided direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-02-16,23,"differently; the Council/Board/Commission can request that SunCal consider a different
amendment to the ENA, such as releasing negotiation documents.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal letters discussed withdrawing agenda items;
SunCal does not withdraw agenda items; SunCal can just withdraw their requests; the
agenda items stay in place.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated SunCal's letter
indicates that they want to formally address the Notice of Default in formal discussions.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she would be more
comfortable if SunCal was given the same courtesy that they gave the City in terms of
asking specifically what the Council/Board/Commission would like to see as an
amendment to the ENA.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that his motion is to
direct the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director to ask just that [about a
specific ENA amendment to lift confidentiality restrictions].
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated certain things will never come
out of closed session; however, the vast majority should be released and discussed.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:09
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
5
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
February 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-03-16,23,"Mayor Johnson stated the motion does not include picking a configuration; inquired
whether it would make sense to have a workshop to explain options at the golf course
during the period of negotiations; stated tonight's meeting is not the best place to
discuss what would work.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated a different concept has been presented tonight; that he
would like to have more defined direction; he is not sure about having a workshop.
Mayor Johnson stated golfers should have the opportunity to provide input.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she has a very clear understanding of what golfers
want; financial feasibility is the only issue.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not believe a decision will be a specific option;
there will be tradeoffs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated financial boundaries need to be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she understands the issue regarding the two 18-hole
courses; that she does not believe the issue is black and white.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated everything is open for discussion; that he would like to be
able to provide what he prefers.
Mayor Johnson stated that everyone agrees with having two 18-hole courses; the
question is economic feasibility.
Ms. Sullwold inquired whether a joint City Council and Golf Commission workshop could
be held after 60 days to discuss ideas.
The Interim City Manager stated a business term sheet could be provided in July and
could be turned into a lease or license agreement between one or two parties.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of negotiating with both parties with the
understanding that components are needed for a par 3, driving range, and two 18-hole
championship courses; stated the starting point would be two 18-hole courses and
looking for financial feasibility; direction is to come back with a business term sheet
based on the starting point, incorporating the non-profit aspect for operating the par 3
and working backwards from there.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion with the modification that the Mif Albright
course portion not be addressed after the fact.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion started with the need for
a par 3 course.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-04-20,23,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated
the Notice of Preparation will have a footnote describing the difference between
Measure B and density bonus option; Measure B and the density bonus option are
essentially the same in terms of residential units; the density bonus option includes one
additional acre of open space and additional commercial square footage.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan questioned why SunCal had a
Measure A non-compliant proposal because the numbers are the same.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the [modified OEA] project is
Measure A compliant.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the density bonus
is Measure A compliant.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a density bonus
application has not been submitted; the [density bonus] project is foreseeable and
needs to be studied under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because
SunCal submitted a project description letter.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether there are any
obligations to outreach to Chinatown regarding the scooping session.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a Notice of Preparation
would be sent to Chinatown.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether Chinatown would
need to attend the public scooping session and the City would not have a special
session with Chinatown, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services
regular meetings are scheduled with Chinatown; a special meeting can be discussed.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there is
committee with Planning Board Members.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated
the committee meets monthly; stated the Planning Services Manager represents the
City and would raise the issue; the Chinatown Committee would receive the Notice of
Preparation and be invited to attend the May 10th meeting.
In response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding the agreement with Chinatown
capping the number of housing units at 1,100 until a transportation solution is in place,
the Planning Supervises Manager stated the agreement with Chinatown is designed to
ensure coordination with Chinatown in the preparation of the EIR; the 1,100 figure is not
a cap; the agreement states that the City would provide a specific amount for
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
3
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-05-04,23,"Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Daisa is working on a transportation plan.
The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded not that she is aware of;
stated Kimley-Horn has worked with SunCal to develop the chapters in the Master Plan.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the plan can be called transit oriented when there
has not been a lot of transportation planning yet.
Mr. Brown responded a land plan is designed first; Peter Calthorpe, Calthorpe
Associates, brings a higher level of design sensibility on how a community functions;
blocks are designed with a scale of walk ability and transportation connections; home
density surrounding the infrastructure encourages people to use facilities and not get
into a car first.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a high unit count project is not a transit-oriented
development; having enhanced public transit access does not make a plan transit
oriented.
Mr. Brown stated the challenge is to ensure the reality of what will be delivered and that
the community is comfortable that the vision has mechanisms in place.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated many questions have not been answered yet; the
community keeps hearing that answers will come; people are anxious to get answers to
questions.
Mr. Brown stated the challenge is to convince decision makers that the plan is one that
meets expectations and quality standards and solves mitigation problems.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated transit planning should not be just a reaction to mitigation
issues identified in the EIR.
Mr. Brown stated the process is an iterative process; traffic impacts are determined;
volumes need to be understood.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a transit oriented plan should be proactive rather than
reactive to an EIR.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that Mr. Brown stated
the base plan is a viable plan, but the intent is to build a density bonus plan; inquired
whether the base plan is viable as a base plan to push off of to get to the density bonus
plan.
Mr. Brown responded that the base plan could be built but does not achieve some of
SunCall's goals of creating the nexus to have success with a transit oriented
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
6
Improvement Commission
May 4, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-06-01,23,"development at Alameda Point in order to create a more robust ferry system; otherwise,
there would not be any ridership; inquired what is the threshold to obtain new ridership,
to which the Public Works Director responded a ten minute walk.
In response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the Public
Works Director responded SunCal has not provided ridership estimates; the developer
normally provides the information.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the last study showed
that 24% of Alamedans go to San Francisco; thoughts are that every ferry would move
all masses to San Francisco, which is not the case.
The Public Works Director stated SunCal is proposing that more people would commute
to San Francisco because SunCal's product would be more appealing to people who
work in San Francisco; the ferry is only one part of the transportation proposal; the bus
rapid transit would be in the later phase.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the PDC included the bus
rapid transit; denser areas would provide an opportunity for more ridership; requested
that all information be brought back; stated that he has not seen anything new.
The Public Works Director stated the City developed a preliminary traffic analysis for
Measure B; the PDC did not have any traffic analysis but had ideas to sustain a transit
oriented development; level of service analyses were not done; the first time a level of
service analysis was done was in the Election Report and was very preliminary.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated a lot of new studies have not
been conducted in the last three years; the issue would be addressed with SunCal at
Thursday's meeting; said discussion could be brought back at the next meeting.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated there still seems to be
an
issue regarding where the ferry terminal would be placed; transit solutions need to
function as a whole; inquired how work can start on the rest of the transportation system
when the ferry terminal location is unknown.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the ferry would be part of the transit hub.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the ferry terminal would
meet the bus rapid transit; the matter would be discussed with WETA.
In response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated SunCal
has told the City where it wants the ferry terminal.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated planning is needed.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
12
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-06-15,23,"not be enforceable.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he does not think there will ever be a right period.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a right period would be an odd-numbered year when no
one is running for anything; the ordinance is rampant with conflict of interest.
Mayor Johnson stated that she feels the ordinance is for the public.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that public wants more public discussion; the only time
the matter has been of concern was when a candidate spent a lot of money.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated anyone can spend any amount of their own money; that he
wishes the issue could be included but it cannot.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Council voted three to two to introduce the
ordinance; three Councilmembers would be putting through a rushed campaign
financing law which is very important to the City; an ordinance is needed but not on a
rushed basis without public input.
Mayor Johnson stated there has been opportunity for public comment; lack of public
input indicates that the community is not opposed to what Council is proposing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated in the time between the first reading and this meeting,
he found out that people do not know about the ordinance and more public hearing is
needed.
Councilmember Tam stated everyone supports campaign finance limits; the ordinance
needs to be meaningful and reflective of the community; if the idea is to limit the amount
of expenditures and to make it more transparent on who receives money from whom,
she does not think an individual contribution limit is the way to go because it would drive
money underground and would force a PAC to fund campaigns to the nth degree that
no one would have any control over; the voluntary expenditure limit is the way to go and
should substitute for contribution limits; giving an opportunity for more review and
comment would not take that much more time; inquired whether there should be a
motion to extend the deadline for public comment, to which Councilmember Gilmore
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of extending the deadline for public comment
and sending the ordinance to the Sunshine Task Force with participation from the
League of Women Voters; that she would direct the Sunshine Task Force to the League
of California Cities website.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired when the ordinance would be brought
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.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
CityCouncil,2010-07-27,23,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the fund also includes rental
income.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the fund also pays for a Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) debt service loan; the fund will be closed when the HUD
loan is paid off; the Council/Commission/Board Member's would then need to figure out
what to do with the excess revenue.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated excess revenues could
be used for maintenance.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated Fund 621.2 is the Alameda/Oakland
Ferry Service fund which has a negative projected cash fund balance; the service is
being packaged up to send to WETA; the 600 series are Enterprise Funds; numbers are
merged assets and liabilities and are not necessarily negative cash but depreciation; in
the very near future, the City will only have two enterprise funds: sewer and golf.
* *
(10-390 CC/ARRA/10-64 CIC) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing
the meeting past 12:00 midnight.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated previous discussions
have involved surveying the Beltline property; that she has discussed the potential for
having a fire station on one of the pieces or property with the Interim City
Manager/Executive Director; $400,000 has been set aside for soft costs for a fire
station; inquired whether the idea is still being pursued.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated a
corner piece of the Beltline property could be a good spot for relocation of Fire Station
3; that she thinks looking at a complete site analysis and location would be warranted;
using existing City property for buildings is important because buying property and
building the structure costs too much; constructing a building on City-owned land could
easily be done with some one-time monies in the CIP Fund; the CIP Discretionary Fund
does not include dollars discussed earlier regarding the sale of the employee parking lot
but does include two hits of one-time revenues, which are AMP back payments in the
amount of $1.2 million and approximately $800,000 of administrative dollars that had
not been charged to the refinanced assessment districts for approximately ten years;
the CIP Discretionary Fund has approximately a $2 million projected balance; expenses
have not been projected; six to eight months ago, Public Works sold a small portion of
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
23
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-09-07,23,"regarding the Alaska Packers Building; a guide of the ENA should be to protect the
Alaska Packers Building as a City asset to ensure that there would not be future
incompatibilities with a working boat yard and adjacent residences; a project labor
agreement would be needed; zoning should be reviewed to ensure compatibility; said
issues should be spelled out as ENA conditions.
Commissioner Tam stated tonight, she is not ready to craft a motion to enter into an
ENA; that she is does not have the same level of comfort as her colleagues without a
comprehensive review of relocation plans and financing; the Animal Shelter is a very
sensitive, emotional issue in the community; public comment is needed before she is
comfortable with moving forward.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would be the timeframe for bringing the matter
back; further inquired whether relocation sites and costs could not be started.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the contract to do so
[relocation study] is separate.
Commissioner Gilmore stated she would like to move forward with looking at relocation
sites and costs.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the review would take eight
months to a year.
Commissioner Gilmore stated coming back with an [revised] ENA would not take eight
months to a year.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services inquired whether Council would like
staff to come back [with the ENA] in twelve months.
Chair Johnson stated staff should get started on the relocation part.
Commissioner Tam stated certain things need to be nailed down; that she does not
know how long it would take to nail things down; the public process needs to be
transparent.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services inquired whether the Commission
wants the relocation study started or completed [before entering into the ENA].
The Interim Executive Director stated that she recommends a parallel track; a complete
relocation analysis and study with a consultant would take several months.
Chair Johnson stated that she likes an almost parallel track, suggested getting started
on the relocation part.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Community
5
Improvement Commission
September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-02-15,23,"AGENDA ITEM
(11-093 CC/11-019 ARRA/11-011 CIC) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly
Financial Report Through December 31, 2010 and Approve the Mid-Year Budget
Adjustments to the City's FY10-11 Budget.
The Controller gave brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether the $1.1 million for the Alameda Point Going
Forward Project is related to what was requested tonight under another item [Perkins +
Will contract, paragraph no. 11-018 ARRA]
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the Contract is included
in the $1.1 million; stated staff is suggesting using $300,000 in bond money so that the
net would be $700,000, which includes $400,000 for water and $330,000 for the
Alameda Point Going Forward Project.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether approving the funding would back ARRA into
approving the contract.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the item would not go
forward without the contract being approved by ARRA.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated that she and Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner
deHaan asked for an explanation regarding the General Fund balance.
The Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated a memo would go out tomorrow.
The Controller stated the available reserves in the General Fund ranged from 14% to
21% for Fiscal Year 2001-2002; the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 budget is at 21% and is
similar to Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and Fiscal Year 2003-2004; the main reason the
percentage has gone up is that the Fleet Industrial Service Center (FISC) Special
Revenue Fund has repaid the City $1 million from a loan; the City has had expenditure
savings on average of about 5% the last couple of years; unexpected vacancies result
in savings; capital maintenance expenditures were approximately $600,000 for Fiscal
Year 2004-2005; in Fiscal Year 2009-2010, $1.5 million was spent; $2 million has been
budged for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
The Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated departments have done a lot of belt
tightening; one year, expenditures came in $5 million under budget.
The Controller stated Fiscal Year 2009-2010 had a positive variance and generated
about $3 million in savings; the percentage variance was only 2% for revenues in Fiscal
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
8
Community Improvement Commission
February 15, 2001",CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-06-19,23,"[Absent: Vice Mayor Bonta - 1.]
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the property owner needs to go forward with
the work to allow a tenant to move in, to which Mr. Cederborg responded in the
affirmative.
The Chief Building Official stated once the lien has been filed, the $5,000 goes away
and permit fees could be discussed.
Mayor Gilmore stated placing a lien on the property wipes the slate clean and allows the
property owners to obtain the permits needed.
The City Manager stated the property is out of compliance; staff can be directed to work
with the property owner to get into compliance; the $5,000 lien is not operative now.
Mayor Gilmore stated placing the lien would allow the property owner to go back to
court and explain there was misrepresentation.",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-04-02,23,"estimates on a three-phase approach to improving both Encinal and Emma Hood pool
facilities, which includes cosmetic improvements for Encinal and a two- phase process
for the Emma Hood facility improvements; the District and City staff are working on the
matter; the joint use agreement for the use and management of the pools is up for
renewal in June.
ADJOURNMENT
(13-149) There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at
11:50 p.m. in memory of former Mayor Terry LeCroix.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
April 2, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2013-07-23,23,"(13-369) Recommendation to Endorse Comments on Alameda Point Conceptual
Planning Guide.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Guide is really fun to read; the staff report noted
the document represents 17 years of previous planning documents and efforts; the City
has been working on the issue for a long time; moving forward is exciting; compressive
planning information has gone into the Guide; the Planning Board has suggested
specific changes to the Guide; one suggestion was to add language to clarify parks and
open space are to be used for employees as well as residents; requested an
explanation.
In response, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the Guide specifically
states parks are for residents; stated a Planning Board member noted parks are also for
employees; another solution would be to take out language about parks being for
residents since parks are for everyone.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Recreation and Parks Director's presentation
tonight revealed parks are used by residents more than nonresidents, but parks are
open for everybody; stated the list of stakeholders includes the West Alameda Business
Association (WABA), commercial and residential development professionals, Alameda
Point commercial tenants, and others; inquired why the Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) is a stakeholder.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded both WABA and the Chamber
of Commerce were included; stated PSBA was added just to be as inclusive as possible
and to have all business associations involved in the process.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Park Street is a long way away; stated broad-based
community outreach will use the website, social media and editorial board briefings in
both the print and online media; listed media groups; questioned whether other journals,
such as the San Francisco Chronicle, East Bay Business Times, and San Francisco
Business Times, should be included; stated the net should be cast wider than the City
limits to attract potential businesses and investors; that she is pleased there is room for
new architecture in new areas while the historic nature of the historical zone would be
respected; the Guide talks about business retention and attraction and notes initially,
compromises need to be made to retain and attract business; inquired what is meant by
compromises needing to be made initially.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded one idea was regarding parking
pricing; stated transit use is encouraged in areas which have high parking demand;
customers might not want to go to a retail location which charges for parking; charging
for parking initially would only discourage people from going to the location; including
parking pricing in the City's tool kit could be used to address concerns regarding
successfully attracting retail customers long term.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
July 23, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,23,"I am saddened on how this has really affected my budget the last past 12 months. I can't seen to save
any money with the way our economy is still below percentage for jobs and resources to improve
employment status.
Currently unemployed. No income. Paying rent from savings. Cannot afford another rental increase.
Where will I move?
""NO REAL CONCERN BEYOND NORMAL. LANDLORD USALLY HAS ASKED ME IF I COULD
AFFORD A RENT INCREASE? SOME TIMES HE DOES NOT INCREASE'S IT. 3% IS Fair. I LIVE
IN A GOOD AREA OF ALAMEDA. ALAMEDA IS WORTH MORE TO LIVE HERE.
COMPARED TO S.F. SAFER THAN NEIGHBORING TOWN'S. I PAY ELECTRIC ONLY.
I SEE CITY VARIOUS BUSINESS FEE'S GOING UP. I SEE IN THE NEWS THAT PROPERTY TAX'S
ARE GOING UP.LANDLOARD PAY'S ACI, EBMUD AND PG&E. LANDLOARD SAY'S LOAN IS ON A
VARIABLE %.
Greater than 10% increase in single month.
This landlord purchased the two buildings 2 months before I moved in. ALL the tenants save 2 have
moved out because she increased the rent by $200 if not more. One tenant was an 85 yr old SICK
woman who ran out of money & had to move into state run home- she died after being there 4 days! All
the tenants who moved in after me are paying $1650 & over. After a fire in one unit & subsequent
construction ( still ongoing), landlord is trying to get $1850 + for 1 bedroom apts. I'm sure she will raise
my rent at end of lease in November.
We are mostly concerned about the reasons for the increase: HOA dues, parcel tax increase, and other
increased expenses. The dues we discovered increased by only 11.00 and if there we are asked to
vote on parcel tax increase, we now feel we'd be charged for those increased expenses so it's
pressured us to offer a negative vote regardless of the issue.
I'm disabled and my social security disability is my only source of income because I receive my benefit
on the 2nd Wednesday of the month I am always late and pay a $100 fee. In addition I locked myself
out and he onside manager charged me $50 to unlock my door! I am paying 90 percent of my income
on rent
My husband and I live in a studio apartment that we moved into when I was on a contract job and he
was just starting a new job because we figured in 6 months or a year when our employment situations
stabilized, we would move to a 1 bedroom, which was going for about $1200 at the time, I would say.
They have gone up so much that we consider something in the $1400-1500 range a bargain, but not a
good enough price to consider moving. Meanwhile we are in fear of our rent going up to what a 1
bedroom was when we first came to Alameda just over 1 year ago.
The building I have called home for the last seven years recently changed hands and the rent was
increased. The increase was uneven and I believe illegally applied. This is a five unit converted
Victorian with 4 one bedroom units and a studio. Two of the one bedrooms have a small bonus space,
maybe big enough for an office or a nursery, with a window and a door but no closet. When XXX was
managing the building they said they did not qualify as bedrooms.
Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015
5
www.RenewedHopeHousing.org
RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com
Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.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
CityCouncil,2015-01-20,23,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 1:28 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
January 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-01-21,23,"Councilmember Oddie stated that he also has a few concerns; the open house is not a
bad idea; however, Council gave staff a lot of work today and yesterday; he is not sure
he wants to give staff more work tonight; if Council asks staff to do something, staff are
will give 110%, which takes a generous amount of effort; perhaps the matter would be
tabled and brought back in the summer time; the first discussion point is submission of
matters, which refers to a Municipal Code section; order of business, rules of order,
start time and length of meetings, and continuation of items also refer to Municipal Code
sections; teleconferencing refers to the Government Code Brown Act; the public does
not have notice if Council is going to consider changes; there is not an opportunity to
hear staff's in depth analysis of impacts; two readings are required to change an
ordinance; that he is not sure the intended outcome of tonight's meeting.
Mayor Spencer responded that she thinks reviewing the matters is important so the
Council knows the process, such as for referrals; today, Council went through the
referral process, which was not necessarily as clean as it could have been; she would
like to review how to hold meetings under the Brown Act and the exact protocol; from
the School Board, she is used to calling an agenda item, having a staff presentation,
clarifying questions, public comment, discussion, and then the motion, which is the way
she has been running meetings.
Councilmember Oddie stated the Council has its own procedures; the School Board's
procedures are different; Mayor Spencer's comment about being able to explain a no
vote is in the School Board procedures, not Council procedures.
Councilmember Daysog stated the agenda item seems appropriate and does not have
any specific actions that alter any of the ordinances; his interpretation of what Mayor
Spencer is seeking to do is have a conversation about the submittal of matters, not
saying Council is going to alter the ordinance tonight, rather Council is going to discuss
it; Council is not going to take specific actions to alter anything; Council is not precluded
from having such discussions; he is fine with the idea of a future open house.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is happy to bring the open house back as a referral;
having this conversation is important.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Spencer that having the
conversation is important; stated that she is concerned members of the public might like
to be included in the conversation; inquired whether Mayor Spencer would consider
tabling the matter to the next Council meeting; stated the agenda for the first meeting in
February is still light; there would be time for a staff report to be generated with more
information.
The City Clerk noted the February 3, 2015 meeting packet would be published
tomorrow.
Councilmember Daysog stated the matter is properly described in the very first
background sentence: the Mayor is requesting to give the new Council and members of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-02-17,23,"Vice Mayor/Agency Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-111 CC) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ending
December 31, 2014.
The Interim Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor/Chair Spencer noted the City Treasurer reviewed the report and found it
complies with the investment policy established.
Councilmember/Agency Member Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-112 CC/15-005 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Second Quarter Financial
Report for the Period Ending December 31, 2014.
The Interim Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor/Chair Spencer noted the City Treasurer reviewed the report and found it
complies with the investment policy established.
Councilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff
recommendation.
Councilmember/Agency Member Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:23
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to
the Community Improvement Commission
February 17, 2015
2",CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-09-15,23,"Councilmember Daysog responded if the TOT is raised, he would describe the job as
someone who could put together a marketing strategy and outreach to major employers
in town to coordinate with the lodging and activities providers.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the staff report could review the additional impact
on public safety and Public Works.
The Interim City Manager stated staff would be presenting revenue measures in
October which could include the TOT issue; the Community Development Director has
been researching the matter and could address the issue further.
The Community Development Director stated more resources are extremely helpful;
one challenge is a TOT increase has to be placed on the ballot; an alternative is to
create an assessment district comprised of the all the City's hotels which would form a
Board and work with the City on how funds are expended; funds are dedicated to visitor
serving uses; staff would recommend a consultant identified to address the specific
assessment district; over 100 California cities have set up the assessment district.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the business districts, the Community
Development Director stated the hotels would want to do the assessment in conjunction
with restaurants, retailers, special events promoters, and other cross-promotional
activities.
Councilmember Daysog stated a hotel assessment district is a great idea; increasing
taxes is hard; recommended that AirBnbs would be outside of the districts.
The Community Development Director stated the vast majority of funds raised would be
from the hotels; having a staff person for enforcement on AirBnbs would be difficult.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he likes both ideas; some combination of increasing
the TOT and funding from a visitor service assessment district could work.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports moving forward and having a report
return with different alternatives.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-563) Consider Directing the Interim City Manager to Draft Policies with Regard to
AirBnb and Related Temporary Lodging Activities in Residential Homes and Zoning
Districts. (Councilmember Daysog).
Councilmember Daysog gave a brief Power Point presentation.
Expressed support for the idea: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
September 19, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,23,"ships out of the Port of San Francisco is a daunting task and not realistic in the next 10
years; the site is not in the Enterprise Zone, which provides the proper buffer between
the neighborhood and the working waterfront; he would hate to lose the tenant for
something doable for the next 10 years.
Councilmember Daysog requested clarification on the sublease with Matson; inquired
whether any tenant can go into Building 23 after Matson vacates it, to which the
Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated Matson might want to stay in Building 23; that he has a
hard time denying a lease to someone that has been operating without any problems.
Mayor Spencer stated there have been problems; complaints about the containers.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he has not heard complaints; he thought steps were
taken to alleviate concerns.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the containers could be stored between the two buildings to
be less visible.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the negative; stated
Matson indicated the items inside need to be accessible.
***
(15-628) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the meeting past 11:00
p.m.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m.]
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the fence will help mitigate; if there is a problem, he would
like to be able to come back and adjust provisions; the most important thing is no using
the site for logistics, not stacking containers, counting truck trips and limiting to 36.
Mayor Spencer stated the containers need to be as invisible as possible.
Councilmember Oddie confirmed that he would second the amended motion.
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.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-11-04,23,"503
did not work.
Councilmember Oddie stated a mixture would be needed since single family units would
not be eligible for arbitration.
The Community Development Director stated the next layer is staff would draft a just
cause eviction ordinance that would include relocation benefits.
Councilmember Oddie stated there should be a review period.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Community Development Director
stated relocation assistance and just cause eviction provisions would apply to all units.
Councilmember Oddie stated an extended notice period should be considered if only
relocation assistance is considered.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter should return to the Council in a year.
Mayor Spencer stated ""not to exceed 8%"" should be added to Section 2 of the urgency
ordinance.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft read the language: ""...no housing provider shall notice
an increase in rent or increase rent above 8% per year.""
Councilmember Daysog stated the language should include ""cumulatively looking back
twelve months; the sum of which surpasses 8%.""
Mayor Spencer inquired whether rent could not be increased above 8% even if the
tenant already received notice, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative;
stated rent cannot be increased during the period.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney questioned whether the
landlord could not evict a tenant during the period even if the notice has been served.
In response Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the
language could be clarified to: ""in accordance with State law"" and staff would review the
matter.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that he does not believe the City could trump an
eviction if already noticed; stated the language will have to be tweaked to comply with
State law.
Consensus was reached to add the language: ""in accordance with State law.""
Mayor Spencer inquired whether a definition of rent could be added to make it clear that
fees are included.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 4, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-12-15,23,"533
Following the December 18, 2015 Closed Session, Vice Mayor Matarrese announced
that regarding Appointment/Hiring, direction was given to staff regarding conditions of
employment.
Adjournment
On December 18, 2015, there being no further business, Vice Mayor Matarrese
adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 15 and 18, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-15.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
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,23,"Mountain View.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the provision has been effective in addressing
housing issues.
The Community Development Director stated a one year lease exempts all other
requirements regarding relocation in Glendale.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff is addressing relocation benefits
yet.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
recommendation to offer one year leases for tenants' protection and to bring stability;
clarified the only question is whether the Council wants to include in place tenants.
Mayor Spencer inquired if a one year lease would then become month to month.
The Community Development Director responded residential leases typically roll to
month to month.
Mayor Spencer inquired if there is an actual requirement.
The Community Development Director responded that if there is an existing lease, the
new lease would have to be materially the same.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a tenant who chooses the month to month
instead of a year lease would still only get one increase a year, to which the Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the staff recommendation includes the tenant
receiving an option of a one-year lease of one year when a lease expires and whether
the offer is only one time.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether tenants would be subject to a rent increase
after the year.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the offer
would be the first time there is notice of a rent increase after the ordinance goes into
effect.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether it would only apply to rent increases in the first year
after the ordinance goes into effect.
The Community Development Director responded the ordinance is written to require,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-16,23,"being requested.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a redacted copy with the name blocked
out could be submitted.
The Community Development Director responded the information could be collected
and then the names be redacted when information is being made public.
Mayor Spencer stated she is fine with Subsection 6-58.140A2.
The Community Development Director stated the issue of redacting the name will be in
the program guidelines; Subsection 6-58140A2 could be expanded to read: ""the
housing provider must provide to the program administrator a copy of the notice to
vacate served on the tenant and the amount of the rent in effect at the time the notice to
vacate was served and the amount of the rent that the new tenant will be charged:' 6-
58.140A3 would be deleted in its entirety.
Mayor Spencer agreed.
Councilmember Daysog stated the names and relevant information need to be
collected; it is up to staff to protect the information.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the landlord could redact the information before it is
submitted.
The Community Development Director responded the underlying point is that the
prospective tenant would not have a rent 5% higher than the in-place tenant; stated
data must have the landlord state what the rent would be for the new tenant; the law
says it cannot be more than 5% higher; the paperwork should be completed at the time
of notice of termination.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether only the unit and rent amount are needed,
names and phone numbers are not needed, to which the Community Development
Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired if all are in agreement; all Councilmembers agreed.
Mayor Spencer stated the requirement for owner move in is a natural person who has at
least a 50% interest as opposed to 10% or 33%; inquired where 50% came from.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the idea is that a human would be asking for the
owner move in or owner's family move in; theoretically, a human being could own 25%
interest and a corporation could own 75% interest.
Mayor Spencer stated she agrees with staff's proposal; inquired if everyone agrees with
staff's proposal.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,23,"(16-117) Consider Directing the City Manager to Revise the Mix-Use Zoning
Designation and Related Policies to Aid Retention of Beneficial Commercial Uses
Citywide. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)
Vice Mayor Matarrese made brief comments on his referral.
Read a letter from Mr. DeLap, former harbor master, opposing the Bay West
development of high density housing; stated the State gives high priority to preserving
recreational and boating use of the shoreline: Peter Brand, Alameda.
Expressed support of Alameda Marinas and marine services: Joseph Woodard,
Alameda.
Provided a petition of Barnhill Marina neighbors; urged support of maintaining marina
services: Bill Cox, Alameda.
Urged support of Alameda's coast; stated the waterways are an asset: George Lythcott,
Alameda.
Stated that he is concerned about the long term outlook of the boating community;
urged support of maintaining Alameda's maritime community: Grant Hayes, Alameda.
Showed a map; expressed support of maritime services; proposed expansion of the
area to retail and recreation: Nancy Hird, Alameda.
Expressed support of the marinas and services: Paul Mueller, Alameda.
Stated Alameda's northern waterfront could have other opportunities and bring in larger
boats if dredged; urged Council to maintain the waterfront for deep water boating uses:
Andy McKinley, Alameda.
Stated that he opposes the residential development at Clement Street: Dan Goldfield,
Alameda Aikikai.
Expressed concern about loss of resources at Alameda Marina; stated that she is
opposed to development: Maggie Sabovich, Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association.
Stated that she opposes the referral if it seeks to change the multi-family overlay zone:
Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope.
Stated his children benefit from the Aikido dojo; he does not want more development in
the Clement Street area: Matt Langwerowski, Alameda.
Stated the light industry maritime businesses bolsters the Alameda economy as it is
active worldwide; urged preservation of the marina and businesses: Liz Taylor,
Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-06-21,23,"Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to modify the draft ordinance to
include in the powers and duties of the Director language that incorporates compliance
with the sections of the Charter that cover the declaration of emergency.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a timing issue; stated next item
deals with workers compensation for volunteers; inquired whether the City is leaving
itself exposed to potential liability; the City cannot approve the workers compensation
resolution without the Disaster Council ordinance; urged Council to pass an ordinance
tonight that would still suffice as a first reading.
Vice Mayor Matarrese reiterated his motion is to modify the draft ordinance with addition
of section 22-24.6 to reference the Charter provision 3-12 and 6-1 and 7-2(B).
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Mayor Spencer suggested an amendment to substitute the word ""appoint"" with
""nominate"" in section 2-24.e regarding the representatives of the Disaster Council.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Attorney stated a first reading of
the ordinance could be done with the suggested modifications; restated the
modifications.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to vote on the language
separately.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved to call the question, which was seconded by Mayor
Spencer and failed.
Councilmember Oddie suggested adding Section 2-24.8 that the development of the
emergency management plan shall be developed consistent with the Charter.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is fine with the amendment.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested inserting a sentence that states ""this
ordinance is deemed consistent with all relevant provisions of the Alameda City Charter""
so each and every instance of the Charter provisions does not need to be spelled out.
Councilmember Daysog stated he prefers the Charter provisions be spelled out.
Vice Mayor Matarrese concurred, stated the Charter provisions need to be outlined.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice votes: Ayes -
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, and Oddie - 4, Noes - Mayor
Spencer - 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 21, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-07-05,23,"and Additional Parking Common Areas as Part of the Original Premises at 1951
Monarch Street at Alameda Point. [In accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301(c) - Existing Facilities.] Not heard.
(16-346) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Facilitate the City's Ability to Disperse
Public Art Funds, and Amend the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Public Art Fund Budget by
$200,000 and Capital Improvement Projects Fund Budget by $100,000. [The Proposed
Amendments are Categorically Exempt from the Requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor
Alterations to Land Use Limitations.] Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(16-347) The City Manager thanked Assemblymember Bonta for sponsoring Assembly
Bill AB366 to enable the City to put a potential half-cent sales tax on the ballot.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(16-348) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate and Begin the Process with the
Planning Board to Propose Revisions to the Ordinance and Code Sections Defining
Alameda's Inclusionary Housing for Residential Development. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)
Not heard.
(16-349) Consider Directing the City Manager to Schedule a Priority Setting Work
Session. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard.
(16-350) Consider Directing the City Manager to Immediately Hold a City Council
Workshop on the Final Phase of the Bayport-Alameda Landing Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA)\Development Plan. (Councilmember Daysog) Not
heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(16-351) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Civil Service
Board and Golf Commission.
Mayor Spencer nominated Troy Hosmer to the Civil Service Board and Ron Taylor to
the Golf Commission.
(16-352) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended the Board of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-09-20,23,"The Assistant Community Development Director responded the City cannot do so; the
private sector builds a majority of the affordable housing in the State; if the private
sector cannot build any more market rate housing, the vast majority of affordable
housing will be cut off.
Mayor Spencer inquired about work force housing: in between affordable and market;
stated the project does not have work force housing.
The Base Reuse Director responded she considers moderate income units work force
housing; 80 to 100% of Annual Median Income (AMI) is considered work force housing
and will depend on the market rate units structure in terms of size; staff has not reached
said level of planning yet.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to discuss the matter at a later date; inquired
if the entire project could be counted as one project to obtain the 125 units.
The Base Reuse Director responded the 125 remaining units are reserve units to help
facilitate infrastructure north of Midway; units were left for the northern part of the site.
Mayor Spencer stated more work force housing is needed; the goal should not just be to
do market rate and affordable, but also work force housing; she would like pathways to
higher paying jobs for the commercial; she does not support retail; assisted living
belongs in residential, not commercial; transportation will be an issue for people living in
collaborative housing; she plans to support the project; inquired if someone could look
into the 125 units being used for work force housing.
The Base Reuse Director responded staff would come back with a draft plan to get early
feedback from Council and with the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to move forward
with the Phase 1 parcel; the next steps would be to tell the developer to include work
force housing; right now there is no plan to address the 125 units; the future phase for
north of Midway might include the 125 units; the decision will be at Council's discretion.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the 125 units can be part of the current project.
The Base Reuse Director responded the decision is up to Council.
The City Manager inquired if the Base Reuse Director could add in the RFQ a request
for the developer to do work force housing without specifying 125 units, along the lines
of 30% affordable.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated tradeoffs can be
discussed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded there are all kinds of tradeoffs; money is a
key factor.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-10-18,23,"Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog thanked St. George Spirits for advertising
the City of Alameda.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation to consent
to a sublease between St. George Spirits, Inc., a California Corporation, and Heads,
Hearts, Tails, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for a portion of the leased
space.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing Mayor Spencer to write
an appropriately worded letter encouraging support of legislation that would allow Mr.
Winter of St. George Spirits to be allowed to open a restaurant.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(16-538) Presentation of Alameda Free Library Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Annual Report.
The Library Director gave a Power Point presentation.
(16-539) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the Public Hearing to
amend the Zoning Ordinance [paragraph no. 16-540].
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
The Library Director continued the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what the increased budget was used for, to which the
Library Director responded a lot of material was purchased.
Mayor Spencer inquired how the do-it-yourself bike station at the main library was paid
for to which the Library Director responded the station was paid for with a grant received
by the library cooperative.
Mayor Spencer stated that she has heard very good feedback on the station; inquired
whether a station will be available at the other Alameda libraries.
The Library Director responded there is not currently a plan to add the station to the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 18, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-11-01,23,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated doing so addresses the concern about Council
interfering Council with a project that is going through the approval process.
Councilmember Oddie stated Council interference should be everyone's concern.
Councilmember Daysog stated the public should be able to discuss Bayport-Alameda
Landing in its own study session.
Mayor Spencer stated a motion is not needed to address remaining agenda items
because Council already is hearing the referrals; a vote will be done at 11:00 p.m. to
see if Council wants to continue.
The City Manager continued the presentation on referrals.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to defer some of the items to
the priority work session; some of the referrals should be done in a priority work session
after the first of the year.
Mayor Spencer stated there should be a vote on whether or not to proceed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft left the dais at 10:34 p.m. and returned at 10:37 p.m.
Spoke on Inclusionary Housing and Bayport-Alameda Landing [paragraph no. 16-576]:
Stated there is a housing problem; new workforce homes are needed; market rate
homes with large mortgages make it impossible for middle income workers to purchase
homes: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.
Spoke on the Regulation and Taxation of Commercial Cannabis [paragraph no. 16-580]:
Encouraged Council to explore the opportunities and options afforded to the City by
updating regulations and potential taxation of commercial cannabis; stated cannabis will
bring jobs and money to the community: Alex Seville, Attorney.
Spoke on the Mixed-Use Zoning [paragraph no. 16-578]: Stated Alameda needs to build
businesses, not retail type shops that do not support the tax base needed to support the
City; Alameda Marina provides jobs and businesses; Alameda needs to support existing
businesses: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council's preference is to go through each referral in
order.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of following the direction of the referral and
following staff's proposal to schedule a workshop in early 2017.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-07,23,"concerned about having someone from outside the community; the RRAC members
have an inherent interest in resolving the issue; paying someone might not be as
effective; her goal has been for cases to reach a settlement.
Sunset Clause
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council has not discussed the sunset clause; that she would
prefer to remove the sunset clause since Council can amend the ordinance at any time.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not think it matters; a Council will have to
address the matter when the sunset clause ends; the voters approved language
allowing the Council to amend the ordinance.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he supports removing the clause.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does
not want to remove the clause if it will take additional time.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated leaving the provision in for now is okay; the City
just completed the first year; more information is needed.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with leaving the provision in right now.
RRAC Study
The Community Development Director stated that she would like to address the RRAC
study which has been requested.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would consider setting a limit to the amount
that can be spent on the study.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want to a make a decision
without more information.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the matter has to return to Council if the amount is
above a certain threshold, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director noted the amount is up to $75,000.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council is authorizing staff to spend up to $75,000, to
which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated the amount is under the City Manager's purview.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the information is worthwhile; that he does not want to
make a decision based on the tradition of having the RRAC; having the matter
Continued April 4, 2017 Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
April 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-04-18,23,"same: Patricia Gannon, FAWR.
Stated there are many development plans in Alameda; establishing a bird safe
ordinance is urgent to ensure there is environmentally safe development: Cindy
Margulis, Golden Gate Audubon Society.
Stated that she is excited that Alameda is joining the list of communities that are
concerned about bird safe buildings: Leora Feeney, FAWR.
Discussed the importance of landscaping and trees for people who live near well-lit
buildings: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.
Mayor Spencer stated that she submitted a separate referral based on the Golden Gate
Audubon Society's standards for wildlife safety, not just bird safe; she would like a more
comprehensive effort for protecting Alameda's wildlife, including artificial lighting and
trees.
Vic Mayor Vella stated the sample draft ordinance could work and includes the
importance of landscaping and future related standards, atriums, greenhouses, and
some of the lighting aspects; she hopes the ordinance addresses some of Mayor
Spencer's concerns; she would like the effort to be comprehensive as well, not just
piece-meal.
Councilmember Oddie stated the draft Ordinance from the City of Richmond addresses
the concerns; he would like Alameda to be celebrate being recognized for the effort;
Alameda has done a lot of work to protect wildlife; Councilmember Matarrese took the
lead on protecting the seals; taking the next step is important.
Mayor Spencer stated that she wants to make sure Council is agreeable to combining
the referrals for a comprehensive effort.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should place the appropriate priority level
on the referral; the matter will go to the City Planner for review; she would like to know
all the considerations.
In response to the City Manager's inquiry, Councilmember Matarrese stated the referral
is a medium priority similar to the lighting ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of giving direction to consider a
comprehensive bird friendly ordinance with protections for other wildlife.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated while staff is reviewing the
applicable criteria, the referral could be dependent on, and combined with, other
projects or work efforts.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
April 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-05-16,23,"and Mayor Spencer - 2.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(17-328) Consider Directing Staff to Create a ""Straws on Request"" Ordinance. Not
heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:38 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
23
May 16, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-06-06,23,"Stated that he is not in favor of the ordinance; expressed concern for the landlord
having to pay relocation fees on a Governmental Order to Vacate: Carl Searway,
Alameda.
Mayor Spencer questioned whether Council wants to make any changes to the
language other than those made earlier.
Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support changing the ordinance; Measure L1
passed with overwhelming support; Council worked very hard to fashion an ordinance
that is a compromise; tenants and landlords did not receive everything they wanted;
read the argument in favor of Measure L1; stated Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and
Councilmember Oddie are refusing to honor their own words from the argument in favor
of Measure L1.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned for families with small
children and seniors; she supports just cause eviction; tenants are afraid to report
needed repairs to landlords for fear of eviction; expressed concerns for mom and pop
landlords regarding relocation fees; stated that she would like to sit down with renters
and landlords to hear from both sides; she cannot support mass evictions; inquired
whether the $20.00 business license fee is comparable to other cities.
The Community Development Director responded the fee is a tax, which is very low.
The Assistant City Manager noted changing the fee amount would require a vote of the
people.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated housing is a very important basic right; she is
open to suggestions from small mom and pop landlord regarding solutions on how to
address the relocation fees; she does not advocate for the Housing Authority formula for
calculating relocation fees.
Vice Mayor Vella noted she is not a landlord; stated people are protesting the relocation
fees and relocation fees have not changed; she is confused by people trying to make
Ordinance 3148 a Charter amendment; a Charter amendment would make the changes
that people are complaining about permanent; she has not heard a valid reason for a
landlord to evict a tenant for no cause; fear can be a weapon used to prevent tenants
from coming forward with habitability issues; she would like staff to review how other
cities are doing the program fee; she is ready to move forward with the ordinance as
amended.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the just cause eviction is a complex dynamic for
landlords and tenants; inquired whether Council could separate the vote on the
ordinance and the program fee; stated the program fee should be lower and an even
number; he will not support the ordinance, but will support the fee; would like to review
outcomes and be ready to make adjustments based on outcomes.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 6, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-06-20,23,"The City Manager clarified staff is currently starting outreach to the businesses and
education to the public.
Mayor Spencer stated doing so is not the referral process; staff should determine
whether the current ordinance needs additional language or can be interpreted and
enforced with the local businesses.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to create a straws on
request ordinance with the appropriate additions, including the question of composting,
straws for people who need them, and reviewing the current ordinance to see if it covers
the intent.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the motion includes other disposables or just straws.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion includes plastic to go wares, as written in
the body of the referral.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion with a friendly amendment to not have to
wait to start outreach.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred; stated that he heard the City Manager and the
Interim Public Works Director state that the outreach is starting now regardless; he
accepts the amendment.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is the timeframe.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like a determination on which way staff
is going to go before Council is out for recess in August; a new ordinance would take
two meetings.
The City Manager responded staff would only have one week to make the July 18th
meeting.
Councilmember Matarrese agrees the earliest practical meeting would be September.
Mayor Spencer stated that she had requested September.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is referring to a new ordinance
or making amendments.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he put that as an ""or"" in his motion; staff would return
with the suggestion on which option is recommended.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the decision is up to staff.
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the negative; stated staff would provide
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 20, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,23,"Mr. Ernst responded the best guarantee to get Phase 3 built is to build Phase 2.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether any type of bond can be done, to which Mr. Ernst
responded in the negative.
Stated that he supports the character of Mr. Ernst, his partners and the project: Mike
Gaines, San Francisco.
Stated Alameda Point Site A will revitalize the area and provide much needed housing;
the Carpenter's Union fully supports the project: Daniel Gregg, Carpenter's Union.
Stated Bay Ship & Yacht supports the project: Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship & Yacht.
Stated the project will employee thousands of people; the project will provide housing in
Alameda: Jim Summers, DeSilva Gates Construction.
Stated that she supports the project; urged Council to move forward with the project:
Kari Thompson, Alameda.
Stated that he is concerned the project might not go through; the project not going
through affects businesses in the area and housing; the developer has proved himself
time and time again; it is not fair to question his integrity; penalizing the developer for
things out of his control is really penalizing the businesses out at the Base and the
people that have waited 20 years to have development: Michael McDonough, Alameda
Chamber of Commerce.
Stated that she supports the project; urged Council to move forward: Linda Asbury,
West Alameda Business Association.
Stated that he voted for the project on the Planning Board; the developer should put up
a bond or letter of credit to assure Phase 3 will be done: Ron Curtis, Alameda.
Strongly urged Council to support the project; stated the project will be a great
employment opportunity for Alameda workers; development is a risky and uncertain
business; if the project is not approved, the only certainty is the project will die and it will
be years before anything moves forward: Andreas Cluver, Building Trades Council.
Stated that he supports the project; the infrastructure will make the area better; the
current infrastructure is not first world infrastructure for the businesses and residences
out at Alameda Point: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.
Stated AUSD is the lowest funded District in the County; there is difficulty recruiting and
retaining teachers; 45% of AUSD employees said they cannot afford to live in Alameda;
the cost to place housing on the land AUSD already owns would be double the cost for
the Site A project; urged Council to move forward with the project: Anne McKereghan,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-18,23,"Mr. O'Neill responded he cannot speak for the franchisee.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the hours are in the UP or can the franchisee change
the hours.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the franchisee can change
the hours.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. O'Neill would be amenable to not extend the
operating hours beyond the current operating hours.
Mr. O'Neill responded he would prefer not to be limited to the hours.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. O'Neill is committing that cars would not block the
sidewalk.
Mr. O'Neill responded Big O' Tires would do their best to not block the sidewalk.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Big O' Tires is committing to not parking in the
metered spaces.
Mr. O'Neill responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired why the City is not enforcing parking in the metered
spaces and not paying, which is illegal.
The City Attorney responded the question is for parking enforcement.
Mayor Spencer inquired how staff encouraging the current operators to find a different
location impacts the City's ability to clarify the terms of the UP for the new owners.
The Assistant City Attorney responded staff encouraged the current operators to find
a
different location because of the success of the business which would be better suited
in a larger location.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City telling the current operator to relocate when
the matter had not even appeared before Council is legal.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that he would be surprised if the Planning Board
or City staff would have told an occupant to leave.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated City staff never told the
operators they need to leave; there were many public hearings and two and a half years
of meetings with the operators being told that they are not complying with the UP
conditions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-09-05,23,"387
encroachment ordinances.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmember
Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she hopes the landlords and tenants get
together to come to a solution.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is the City's involvement because the matter is a
referendum of a City ordinance.
The City Manager responded cost.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what the cost is to the City.
The City Manager responded that is dependent on which election the Council decides to
put on the item; the June election would be more expensive than placing the item on the
general election in November.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the specific cost would be.
The City Clerk responded it would depend on how many other items are on the June
ballot; worse case would be around $700,000; if the item is added to the November
ballot, the cost would be approximately $25,000 for printing and typesetting costs.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.
(17-517) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Patricia Lamborn as a Member of the
Planning Board; and
(17-517A) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Alan Teague as a Member of the Planning
Board. Not heard.
(17-518) Recommendation to Appoint Gene Kahane and Cathy Dana as Alameda's
Poet Laureates. Not heard.
(17-519) SUMMARY: Introduce Two Ordinances that Resolve Two Encroachment
Issues on City Property in Order to Facilitate the Start of Construction of the Cross
Alameda Trail Project along Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, Between Main and
Webster Streets.
Introduction of Ordinance Approving an Amended and Restated Lease and Authorizing
the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-03,23,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if someone from City staff attends WETA board
meetings, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she concurs with the referral brought by
Councilmember Oddie; suggested having the workshop at the Harbor Bay Community
Center.
Vice Mayor Vella stated if the workshop is done at Harbor Bay Community Center she
would also like a workshop held on the West End; suggested if a joint meeting is done,
the workshop should be agendized to inform people what time the item will be
discussed.
Mayor Spencer clarified if there are two different sites there would be two different
agendas; inquired when the workshop will be held.
The City Manager responded after mid-January.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would like the workshop to occur in December
before the matter returns to Council in mid-January.
The City Manager responded that the issue would be trying to get the other agency staff
to attend.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if WETA could poll ferry riders to see when they
would want the meeting to be held.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of directing staff to conduct a workshop and to
expand the workshop, as Councilmember Matarrese suggested, to include more than
just the Harbor Bay ferry.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, with the recognition that the direction
is important but not urgent.
The City Manager inquired whether Council would like to conduct the survey to find the
best time for residents, to which Council concurred.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(17-596) Mayor Spencer nominated Penny Cozad for appointment to the Planning
Board.
(17-597) Vice Mayor Vella stated there is a lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP)
training for the remediation and removal of lead paint on pre-1978 homes Saturday in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-10-17,23,"The City Manager responded Council requested the PAC be added.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the PAC is covered in the call
for review process; the direction can be to provide Council with an action agenda any
time one of the three boards meets stating what action was taken and whether the
action is appealable.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not understand why the PAC is
being included.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that PAC decisions include
the review and approval of a developer's public art proposal, which is allowed to have a
call for review.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested leaving PAC out of the process.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there have been public art issues in other cities; she would like
to reserve the right to call certain decisions for review.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council is giving direction to have staff provide an
action agenda for the PAC.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded that all three are included:
Planning Board, HAB and PAC.
Mayor Spencer clarified there are four Councilmembers giving direction for staff to
provide an action agenda.
Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance with the amendments.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the two amendments to the
ordinance are: 1) ""now requires two Councilmembers;"" and 2) ""okay for different
reasons.""
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(17-368) Resolution No. 15320, ""Approving Guidelines for the Sister Cities Program.""
Adopted.
The Community Development Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff evaluates and recommends potential sister cities
or is that only done by Alameda Sister City Association (ASCA).
The Community Development Management Analyst responded that staff forwards
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 17, 2017
19",CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-11-07,23,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated her notes read that the Vice Mayor's concern was
employee safety; hours of operation should be 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Councilmember Oddie stated the extra hour was to allow for closing up shop, delivering
or receiving product, or going to the bank.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether hours of operation means when a customer can come
into the store, to which the Community Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the language could be clarified; stated that she would
like the language to read: ""hours open to the public are 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
The City Manager responded business hours is used because a lab does not have
customers.
Mayor Spencer stated the language needs to be amended.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the hours of operation pertains to the business hours; the extra
hour is to go to the bank, get shipments or conduct business.
Mayor Spencer stated the language needs to be clear.
The Community Development Director stated the only entity open to the public is
dispensaries; the language will be clarified.
The City Manager stated three votes are needed to pass the ordinance tonight; if there
are not three votes, Council needs to focus on a ban to meet the State regulations; if
there are enough changes or Council does not have the three votes, time should be
spent focusing on the ban.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would accept two nurseries, to which Council
did not agree.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether food can be allowed by State law, to which the
Assistant City Attorney responded State law only prohibits alcohol.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether allowing food is a different type of
permit; stated a medicinal dispensary allows for edibles.
The Community Development Director responded food means non-cannabis infused
food.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the applicant can apply for the required permit; the ban would
even restrict vending machines.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-12-05,23,"Expressed concern over the Police Department's License Plate Readers (LPRs) being
accessed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which does not seem
consistent with being a Sanctuary City: Gaby Dolphin, Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not believe the City is big enough to
warrant an oversight committee; the Council is immediately accessible to the public; the
Council holds the City Manager accountable; requested staff to respond to the LPR
database being used by ICE.
The Police Chief stated ICE is one of the 28 or 29 agencies that is part of the Northern
California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC); the LPR policy addresses the data
going to NCRIC; data is purged every six months; LPRs do not photograph the
occupants of the vehicle; information on the license plate has to be accessed through
the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV); the way the readers operate should not be a
problem; noted four LPRs are mounted on four patrol cars.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not support an oversight committee; the
Council is the oversight committee; issues can be discussed with the City Manager; that
he would not want to relinquish his Councilmember role of dealing with said issues.
Councilmember Oddie briefly discussed the LPR scenario; stated the City is really not
providing any information that federal agencies cannot already access; stated the
matter will be discussed in more detail at another time; read from an email Council
received regarding the matter; stated the Police Department is responsible for oversight;
the City Manager reports directly to Council; the City is small enough to react quickly;
discussed racial profiling and a recent neighborhood meeting; stated that he has not
seen data showing there is a profiling issue; he is not sure the committee is needed at
this point.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the LPRs could capture patterns and habits; her concern is
agencies will use the City's data to track patterns and habits; the Sanctuary City
resolution addresses actively deciding whether or not to enable ICE; she does not have
enough information on the issue; stated the City did have a Police Commission at one
point in the early 1900s, which was in the City Charter and decided upon by the voters;
discussed the historic information and suggested it be reviewed prior to forming a
committee.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has an outstanding Police Department;
discussed the current police climate; stated that she does not see a need for the
committee.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the public can anonymously report issues, to which the
Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Spencer inquiry how the public can do so, the Police Chief stated
online, via letter, or on a complaint form; stated all anonymous complaints are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
December 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-12-19,23,"The Assistant City Attorney clarified the revised resolution is up for consideration.
There was no motion on the DA Ordinance and subsequent items.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(17-767) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process.
(17-768) The City Manager stated the Council will receive the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR) report between now and the end of the year; the report will
also be available on the City website.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(17-769) Consider Directing Staff to Draft an Ordinance Requiring the Licensure of
Tobacco Retailers, Including a Ban on the Sale of Menthol Cigarettes and Other
Flavored Tobacco and Enacting an Annual Fee. Not heard. (Councilmembers
Matarrese and Oddie)
(17-770) Consider Directing Staff to: 1) Determine Whether Council Can Enact City of
an Ordinance to Pass Through a Portion of the Housing Program (Rent) Fee to
Tenants; 2) Clarify the City's Collection Efforts for Landlords who do not Pay the Fee by
December 31, 2017; and 3) Clarify that the Fee May be Passed Through as Part of a
Rent Increase. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella)
(17-771) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Information on the Citywide Dockless Bike
Sharing Program and Return to Council with Additional Safety Requirements. Not
heard. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella)
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(17-772) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the memorial service
for San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee.
(17-773 Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability (CD)
and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners (HABOC).
Mayor Spencer nominated Jennifer Roloff to the CD and Brad Weinman to the HABOC.
ADJOURNMENT
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
December 19, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-12-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-01-16,23,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella would like that to be a friendly
amendment to the motion, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the motion.
Vice Mayor Vella clarified that she does not want to look at the new fee structure for the
next year without knowing what Council could be considering relative to administration
of the fee.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is requesting to know
said information by the spring, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director stated that prior to July 1st, staff will update the
fee study; she is hearing there might be an interest in looking at what are the
components of the work activity that goes into administering the program; pass-through
has to wait for one year from the date of the referendum; if the ordinance is incorporated
in the City Charter, staff and Council's abilities may be determined in November and
Council could be precluded from doing the pass-through.
Mayor Spencer requested clarification if the City Attorney's position is that if the Charter
amendment passes, there cannot be a subsequent action by Council in regards to pass-
through.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Spencer agreed to withdraw the referral.
No vote was taken on the motion.
(18-050) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Information on the Citywide Dockless Bike
Sharing Program and Return to Council with Additional Safety Requirements. Not
heard. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella)
(18-051) Consider Banning Motorized Commercial Vehicles, Including Robotic
Commercial Vehicles, from Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft Used for
Deliveries. Not heard. (Councilmember Matarrese)
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(18-052) Mayor Spencer noted that she and Councilmember Matarrese attended the
Martin Luther King ceremony held in City Hall.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-02-06,23,"(18-076) Janet Gibson, ACT, stated ACT has been advocating for a senior housing with
progressive assistance; discussed using developer impact fees for affordable housing
and rental assistance.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(18-077) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process.
(18-078) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Information on the Citywide Dockless Bike
Sharing Program and Return to Council with Additional Safety Requirements. Not
heard. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella)
(18-079) Consider Banning Motorized Commercial Vehicles, Including Robotic
Commercial Vehicles, from Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft Used for
Deliveries. Not heard. (Councilmember Matarrese)
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(18-080) Councilmember Oddie provided information on StopWaste.org.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:37 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 6, 2018
21",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-03-06,23,"conduct a lottery or random drawing.
Councilmember Oddie stated staff can suggest options to Council at the next meeting
when the item comes back.
The Community Development Director stated the RFP process is to award the right to
move forward to apply for an application; issues around Fire safety and security are
premature and would be better in the application side where people have to discuss the
physical layout of the building and other safety features.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with the suggestion to have a
Planning Board member on the panel; she feels law enforcement should still be on the
panel; she is opposed to each Councilmember appointing someone on the panel; the
process should not be politicized.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the organization of the RFP is fine; to understand the
City's risks, he would like a law enforcement presence on the panel to evaluate the
handling of cash and of the substance which is federally illegal; he would also like
having a City Attorney on the panel to evaluate risks; he would agree to consultants on
the panel to ensure other City work is still getting done, like the homeless and housing
issues.
The City Attorney noted there is an appeal to the City Attorney on the panel issue.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he withdraws his request for having a City
Attorney on the panel.
Mayor Spencer stated it is important to have rubrics and a five member panel; she does
not believe it is appropriate to have law enforcement on the panel; suggested
employees from other departments assist with the panel; stated the interview should be
pass/fail instead of 50 points because it is extremely subjective; she would like to
consider other criteria for the top percentage or a lottery.
Councilmember Oddie suggested the panel include a contracted City Attorney,
someone from Planning and real estate; stated an individual who can evaluate the
applications more broadly is needed.
The Community Development Director clarified the request from Council is: increasing
the panel to five members; no law enforcement on the panel because when the process
advances to the permit, the permit will be routed to the Fire and Police Departments to
add conditions of approval; and a mix of consultants and staff from a range of
departments.
Mayor Spencer stated that she did not hear anyone else say consultants; stated
consultants would need to be paid.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
March 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-04-17,23,"Mr. Anderson responded Shimmick could live with 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. with non-scheduled
trucking on a five-day schedule.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding noise complaints during the earlier
time, the Acting Assistant City Manager stated there have been no complaints as there
is a precedence.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Mr. Anderson stated the standard shift is 7:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m. to provide project support during day time hours.
Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance, with direction for staff to
negotiate regarding the truck schedule.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the change is minor
enough to constitute tonight as the first reading.
The City Attorney responded the change could be added to the rules and regulations
and is a minor change; Council could move forward with the direction and have the first
reading tonight.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like more information for the community when the
item comes back; she would like to see routes and truck size; she does not want any
surprises for the community.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired when was the use permit granted and was there a process.
The Community Development Director responded the use permit would have been
heard by Zoning Administrator with a 20-day notice period; the public process includes
an ad in the paper and noticing within 300 foot radius of the site.
Mayor Spencer stated the use permit process was internal; she would like to share
more information and pictures with the community.
The Community Development Director stated the standard process for the type of use
was followed; nothing about the process was different.
Mayor Spencer stated there was a lot of push-back with a previous containers item and
she would like to publicly share more information with the community.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of calling the question.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion to call the question, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella
- 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
April 17, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-05-15,23,"Mayor Spencer called a recess at 6:21 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 6:31 p.m.
and called a recess at 6:40 p.m. and reconvened at 6:53 p.m.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk
announced a settlement agreement was approved by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3. Noes: Vice Mayor Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 2; Mayor Spencer read a joint statement.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 15, 2018
3",CityCouncil/2018-05-15.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
CityCouncil,2018-06-19,23,"Mayor Spencer stated the same could be said if Council accepts the mid-cycle budget
requests and does not make cuts.
The Acting City Manager stated the City has a balanced budget this year.
The Finance Director continued the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie stated he appreciates that other cities are using Alameda's
CalPers policy as a model.
The Finance Director continued the presentation.
Expressed appreciation to Council for approving funding for tenant legal services; stated
tenants have no equity, credit, or ability to access legal assistance: Eric Strimling,
Alameda Renters Coalition.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Mayor Spencer requested the motions be bifurcated.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution approving and adopting the
City of Alameda operating and capital budget mid-cycle update.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Vella - 3. Noes:
Councilmember Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 2.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the SACIC budget resolution.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of approving the workforce changes.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Vella - 3. Noes:
Mayor Spencer - 1. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolution approving the ACEA and
EXME salary schedules.
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.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Successor Agency
to the Community Improvement Commission
6
June 19, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-10,23,"Barbara Thomas, Alameda.
Expressed concern over traffic, parking and the water table: Suzanne Diers, Alameda.
Discussed the City budget; urged a special tax district be created: Robert Matz,
Alameda.
***
(18-410) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining item
[referral: paragraph no. 18-412]; 12 speaker slips remain on the current item.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of hearing the referral.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Council has to go back into closed session
after the open session.
The motion failed due to lack of a second.
Urged approval of the project; outlined project benefits: Doff Fournier.
Stated the project is happening because of the multi-family overlay; the project is one of
the best waterfront projects and will be part of the established neighborhood where she
lives: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.
Stated the plan is great and should be approved; she is really excited about the
boatyard and dockyard and fears the marina will be untenable without the project; urged
approval: Kathi Fournier, Alameda Marina Assistant Harbor Master.
Stated since he was evicted, many boats have left; there are 48 boats now, but used to
be 163; the dry storage is inadequate and should be doubled; longer than six months is
needed to find an operator: Alan Hebert, Menlo Park.
Outlined short term benefits; stated in the long term, new businesses will increase the
housing deficit; the effect on affordable housing is in the EIR; read from the appendices:
Bill Smith, Alameda.
Discussed how the dry storage number was determined; stated there are currently 48
active sailors; versa docks would be available at no additional cost: Eileen Zedd,
Alameda Marina.
Urged Council to move forward on the project so the land does not become another
vacant lot on Clement Avenue: Charles Souza, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the project, which is one of the most challenging developments
Alameda has had; outlined issues, which the developer has done a great job addressing
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-07-24,23,"Councilmember Oddie stated the Boys and Girls Club is on the map; having it either
way does not cause anything to change since there is not a Commercial (C) zone.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Acting City Manager stated the charter
schools next to the Boys and Girls club causes an automatic 1,000 foot buffer.
The Economic Development Manager inquired whether off-campus after-school
programs and tutorial/learning centers should not be considered schools.
Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the buffer should be 600 feet and the uses should not be
considered a school.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the uses are not a school; she is fine with a 600 foot buffer.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated businesses can change; places where
unaccompanied children go should have a 1,000 foot buffer; areas where children are
supervised could have 600 feet or no buffer.
The Economic Development Manager stated said issue would be addressed next.
Mayor Spencer stated some Councilmembers are out of time; answers should be kept
as short as possible.
The Economic Development Director inquired whether learning centers should be
considered a sensitive use; stated there would be no buffer zone if learning centers are
not considered a sensitive use.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how after-school program is defined, to which the Economic
Development Director responded the matter is complicated; stated there is not a State
registry.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for not having a buffer zone.
Vice Mayor Vella stated an after-school program differs from tutorial/learning centers;
she does not want to create more gray areas.
Mayor Spencer inquired how far dispensaries have to be from libraries, grocery stores
and fast food restaurants, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded currently,
there is no buffer.
Mayor Spencer stated children walk to libraries, grocery stores and fast food restaurants
by themselves all the time; encouraged parents to educate their children.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated there should be no
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-09-04,23,"are homeless is an extravagance; there are ways of creating affordable-by-design
housing; consumers can make their decision where to apply; putting more affordable-
by-design options in developments is paramount; people who are housing insecure are
not worried about whether or not they have a balcony.
Councilmember Oddie stated his issue is with new developments; everyone should
have personal open space as an amenity, which is an equity issue; people who live in
multi-family housing should not be discriminated against.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation and
introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer requested a friendly amendment to add language
and conditions requiring projects to have a maintenance clause and bond for common
areas.
Councilmember Matarrese accepted the friendly amendment to add in a long-term
maintenance agreement.
The Planning Services Manager clarified, the Council is requesting to add conditions
regarding long-term maintenance of the open space areas as part of the Design Review
approval for the open space plans.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Abstention:
Councilmember Oddie - 1.
(18-486) Recommendation to Receive a Report on the Alameda Museum Archival
Activities on Behalf of the City; and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a
Five-Year Agreement with the Alameda Museum in an Amount Not to Exceed $42,600
Annually for a Five Year Total Expenditure of $213,000, for Archival Services of City of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
September 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-09-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2018-10-16,23,"The Economic Development Manager stated the discussion is for four dispensaries.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she wants to make sure two would be required to have
delivery options.
The Economic Development Manager inquired who supports four retail dispensaries,
two of which can be delivery-only but two must offer delivery; inquired whether Vice
Mayor Vella means four dispensaries with a storefront.
Vice Mayor Vella responded four could be storefront, two of which must provide
delivery; stated that she wants to mandate the second dispensary that comes in must
provide delivery.
Mayor Spencer stated there could be four storefront dispensaries, with a minimum of
two dispensaries providing delivery.
The Economic Development Manager stated Councilmember Oddie's request differs;
one dispensary could be delivery only or retail.
Councilmember Oddie stated the City needs at least two, all four dispensaries could
have delivery.
Mayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Oddie is okay with four storefronts.
Councilmember Oddie responded the City should have four storefronts, at least two of
them need to have delivery.
Councilmember Matarrese expressed concern with processes; stated those in favor of
the item have a financial interest; he is in favor of having medicinal use, and labs; the
process is not known until it actually occurs.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of staying the two ordinances until one
business runs through the process.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of a substitute motion to move forward
with additional delivery services, testing labs and medicinal only.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated many people do not want to register to get
medicinal cannabis; the process is cumbersome; stated some people find it helpful to
interact and discuss product options with consultants.
Mayor Spencer suggested calling the question.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
October 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-02-05,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 5, 2019- -7:01 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 10:51 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(19-084) Resolution No. 15489, ""Exploring Options to Mitigate Impacts of the Federal
Government Shutdown on Alameda Residents."" Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog stated the issue is vital; noted the number of federal
employees.
Councilmember Oddie stated the City needs to be proactive; the shutdown ended; the
City should have a plan to prevent evictions and provide services in the event of another
shutdown.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:53
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk and Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 5, 2019
1",CityCouncil/2019-02-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-03-19,23,"the previous VLF given up for property tax.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the State previously took
VLF's away from cities, but increased the property tax to cover the amount; continued
the Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Vella inquired the impact of the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act
(PEPRA) new hires under safety departments.
The Finance Director responded there are only 25 PEPRA employees.
In response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry regarding the number of vacancies, the
Fire Chief stated there are currently 11 sworn vacancies and one civilian vacancy in the
Fire Department.
The Human Resources Director responded there are approximately 10 vacancies in the
Police Department.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about the increase in the miscellaneous
retirement formula; stated that he would like to know more about the portion of reserves
above 25% that is dedicated to Other Oost-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and
retirement; inquired whether vacancies are driving up reserves.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated each department is trying to
hire staff.
Councilmember Daysog stated to the extent that departments are not hiring, there are
not actual dollars being expended causing the revenue side to be more than the
expenditures side.
The Finance Director stated the revenue will not repeat in the following year.
Councilmember Daysog stated some departments have had vacancies for multiple
years; expressed concern with the formula for excess reserves beyond 25%.
Vice Mayor Knox White requested clarification on the issue raised by Councilmember
Daysog.
Councilmember Daysog outlined his reasoning for the formulaic issue calculating
excess reserves beyond 25%.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands Councilmember Daysog's concern;
discussed her role in Council's use of budget surplus; stated Council established 25%
as a good reserve to have; Council has a growing OPEB and CalPERS liability and a
moral obligation to pay retirees; that she expects a recession in the future; the City has
saved over $1 million per year; the City needs to be extremely careful when adding to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-04-02,23,"consecutive days requires permission, and will be required of her over the summer
months; expressed concern about Section 2-14 not applying to the Auditor and
Treasurer positions; outlined Section 7-3 as an item to be discussed as a community; if
the positions of Auditor and Treasurer continue to exist and receive benefits,
inconsistent items apply to Council and not the Auditor or Treasurer; discussed Section
8-1 regarding City Attorney hiring requirements and limitations; requested bifurcation of
Charter items to be discussed with different interested parties; stated the process
should be made public; the Charter has not been updated for some time, the current
update process is due.
Councilmember Oddie stated some items to update can be compartmentalized and
reviewed together; expressed support for the process.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the LWV be included in the subcommittee
conversations; inquired if paid signature gatherers can be reviewed.
The City Clerk responded that the City Charter does trump the Elections Code, but the
issue would need to be reviewed.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated there are restrictions that can be adopted, but some
methods cannot be stopped.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is a good time to review the City Charter; learning from
other cities will be key; the City Attorney hiring requirements can be reviewed;
discussed the Measure A process; expressed support of looking at removing the Auditor
and Treasurer positions; stated the pregnancy provisions under the Charter need to be
updated; requested more refinement to the Charter updates.
Vice Mayor Knox White outlined the items to bring back to Council for discussion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft urged the LWV involvement.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for Councilmember's Oddie and Vella
breakdown to bifurcate topics or put them into ""bucket lists;"" suggested members of the
LWV assist Council in finding which items to place with others.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired how the Measure A item will be handled.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that item should be placed at the top of a discussion
list; discussed Measure A issues related to housing.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he will strike any Board and Commission updates;
Council pay will stay on as a discussion item; paid signature gathering will move to
another location, not the City Charter; outlined the general timeline.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
April 2, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-04-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-05-07,23,"Vice Mayor Knox White stated monitoring would be done under the idea that if
something is found, the water would be shut off; questioned if the applicant is amenable
to signing a lease with the knowledge of a monitoring list being added after.
Mr. Connaughton responded in the affirmative; stated the items being monitored should
be standards based.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for using the City's consultants as a resource.
In response the Vice Mayor's suggestion to have Sierra Club input, Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft stated the City needs to have measurable standards; that she does not support
including the Sierra Club.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated the Sierra Club would only be providing comments to
consultants about concerns.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Sierra Club's correspondence can be shared with the
consultants.
Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether there will be an opportunity for Council raise
issues and add comments.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the City's contracted
biologist and environmental consultants will provide recommendations and there should
be no argument between both parties.
The City Manager stated if the City and applicant are negotiating standards and criteria,
there is an ability to bring it back to Council.
***
Councilmember Daysog left the dais at 11:21 p.m. and returned at 11:25 p.m.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated Council will receive information
as the project moves along; that she is happy to provide feedback to the applicant.
Councilmember Oddie stated the risks outweigh the rewards; he will not support the
project; the remedy to environmental risks is to trust the applicant and agencies; the risk
of environmental impacts occurring are costly in both cleanup and potential litigation;
the Enterprise District Plan does not recommend long-term leases; prime property
within the Enterprise District will be tied up for 25 years, potentially losing out on
developing something better in the space; correspondence provided has de-bunked
some of the myths in relation to AMP benefits; job creation and infrastructure should be
the priority; the City will not see much money; after seeing the condition of the building
at the Enterprise District tour, he believes it should be torn down; the property should be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 7, 2019
22",CityCouncil/2019-05-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-02,23,"overview of a Health District Board meeting.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(19-408) Councilmember Oddie stated the County has honored the City for the tobacco
ordinance.
(19-409) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement about a call with Alameda
County Mayors related to Assembly Bill AB1487 which provides funding for homeless
services, and a Make a Wish East Bay event with Friends of Alameda Animal Shelter
(FAAS); stated FAAS will have a float with Girls Inc. at the 4th of July parade; expressed
support for a Pride Parade event.
(19-410) Vice Mayor Knox White made an announcement regarding the City Charter
subcommittee meeting held with the League of Women Voters (LWV) at Mastick and
Alameda Library.
Councilmember Daysog stated the LWV previously helped adopt the City Charter.
(19-411) Councilmember Vella stated that she attended the Lead Abatement meeting;
money will be put into an account; the City has five years to spend the funds; direction
has been given to submit a letter to the Lead Abatement Board requesting help from the
State and Board of Supervisors for staffing, as well as a letter to the courts outlining
related issues.
(19-412) Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California
Cities Annual Conference.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is currently the delegate and Councilmember
Daysog is the alternate; questioned whether Councilmember Vella would like to be
second alternate.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft being the voting
delegate, Councilmember Daysog being the first alternate and Councilmember Vella
being the second delegate.
Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(19-413) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners, Recreation and Parks Commission and
Transportation Commission.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Carly Grob for appointment to the Housing Authority
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 2, 2019
22",CityCouncil/2019-07-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-07-16,23,"by the policy and the City Manager is allowing for sufficient time to return within 6
months.
Councilmember Daysog stated something historic has happened and Council is being
asked to change policy.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft clarified that Council has no policy and is being asked to
implement new policy.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he intends to adopt a policy; the Grand Jury does
not direct and cannot compel Council to adopt a policy; the Grand Jury has
recommended a policy be adopted and Council's response is it intends to adopt a
policy; if there are delays in adopting policy, Council will report back to the Grand Jury;
expressed support for the current language.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Recommendation 19-3 and returning 4
months from the meeting for Council discussion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
[Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.]
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Recommendation 19-4.
Vice Mayor expressed support for option 2; stated that he would like to change the term
""expects"" to ""will.""
The City Manager expressed concern for the timeline of the Councilmember handbook;
stated the document could be lengthy; expressed support for a timeline of one-year for
the second part of the recommendation and 6 months for the first part.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the new language for the response.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like a comma after conduct.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the first line should read: ""these recommendations have not
been implemented.""
Vice Mayor Knox White clarified the recommendation is singular itself.
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Recommendation 19-4.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.]
Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the entire letter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-09-03,23,"Stated the Alameda Progressives supports extending the protections that have been
fought for: Cheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives.
Stated that she strongly supports the ordinance; discussed Assembly Bill (AB) 686:
Madeline Howard, Western Center on Law and Poverty.
Expressed support for the ordinance; urged approval: Lana Rishina, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether immigration status can be included in the
language, to which the City Attorney responded said status is fully protected by State
law.
Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the item.
Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the public speakers'
question can be answered by the City Attorney.
The City Attorney responded a landlord can legitimately go into a unit to document
damage.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City of San Jose passed a similar ordinance in the
past month; there are certain provisions included related to a fix-it period; discussed
delaying the ordinance for 60-days.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ordinance requires a second reading; there is 30 days
for landlord education; the prohibitions listed in the ordinance are things landlords
should know.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated it would be 45 days before the ordinance goes into
effect.
Councilmember Vella stated that she is not inclined to add another 15 days.
Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he is a fan of education and conversation.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern for bureaucratic HUD standards causing
smaller landlords not to be involved with the program; outlined HUD standards.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated workshops will be scheduled in September and October;
staff can be asked to provide more information.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 3, 2019
21",CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-10-15,23,"need funding; stated this is a good opportunity for a prioritization discussion; the
discussion should begin with the Recreation and Parks Commission; there are no plans
for taking down Building 29.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the item should be heard by the Recreation and
Parks Commission first.
Councilmember Oddie responded as long as there is a specific date; Item 6 of the
report should not be taken out, but can be listed as potential demolition; inquired when
the priority session would occur.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the Commission can hear the item in
December; stated based on the conversation, the item can be brought back to Council
in January or February.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the direction to staff is sufficient.
Councilmember Vella responded in the affirmative; stated a parallel track exists if a
community group is willing to work on the project.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated those interested can reach out to the Recreation and Parks
Director.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:30
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
21
October 15, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-10-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-11-19,23,"(19-654) Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he met with Love School Parent Teacher
Association (PTA) about traffic safety; thanked the Public Information Officer for
preparing the recognition of first responders; suggested the City Clerk share the staff
presentation at Recreation and Park Commission meeting with Ms. Adams.
ADJOURNMENT
(19-655) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting
at 11:48 p.m. in memory of Benjamin Reyes and Sia Sello.
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
November 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-11-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2019-12-18,23,"City Council Workshop
Workshop Report
Management Partners
- Personal reputation.
- Community pride and confidence.
Don't underestimate how important it is to a city manager to have a good working
relationship with the city council. It has been reported that the relationship with
the city council is the primary factor impacting a city manager's job satisfaction.
Among the reasons for this are the following:
- City councils are the source of formal performance feedback. Like almost
everyone, positive feedback from supervisor(s) is very important.
- City councils control the city manager's job security.
- City councils determine the city manager's compensation.
- City councils establish the city manager's ""parameters of success.""
- City council support for the city manager, particularly during tough times, is
of tremendous value.
Recommended Practices:
So while the stakes are high and the challenges significant, there are a variety of ""best
practices"" and techniques that can improve the odds of your individual success as a
mayor or councilmember, as well as the success of the city council and city as a whole.
The following are offered as ideas to consider in your efforts to establish and maintain a
strong and effective working relationship with your city manager:
Recognize that you are now ""different"" than before you were elected (and more
than you may realize):
You are now viewed as a community/city leader and what you do and say can
have a much greater impact. Your comments will now be viewed as representing
""the city."" What you do and say will also be more closely scrutinized. You should
be aware that the city staff will view you much differently now that you are one of
the organization's leaders. Even an offhand comment can be viewed as a directive
for action. So even though you may not view yourself any differently than before
you were elected, don't underestimate to what degree others are viewing you
differently.
3 -
17",CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf