{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -APRIL 16, 2013- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. Councilmember Chen led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(13-151) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Resolution of Appointment [paragraph no.\n13-160 would be considered after Oral Communications; the Resolution Declaring that\nFreedom from Domestic Violence is a Fundamental Human Right [paragraph no. 13-\n169 would be considered after the Consent Calendar; and then, the joint meeting would\nbe held.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(13-152) Proclamation Declaring April 2013 as Fair Housing Month.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Sally Han and Nina Lim,\nAlameda Association of Realtors.\n(13-153) Proclamation Declaring April 7 through April 13, 2013 as Boys & Girls Club\nWeek.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Jeff Miller and Marc Morales,\nBoys & Girls Club.\n(13-154) Proclamation Declaring April 20, 2013 as Earth Day.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Heather Rider, Monkey Bars\nOwner.\n(13-155) Proclamation Declaring April 26, 2013 as Arbor Day.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Doug Biggs, Ploughshare\nNursery, and the Public Works Superintendent.\n(13-156) Proclamation Declaring May 4, 2013 as Paint Our Town Purple Day.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Lisa Loverton, Relay for Life.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 2, "text": "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(13-157) Kathy Moehring, Harbor Bay Isle Associates, submitted and read a letter\nregarding moving the Harbor Bay Club.\n(13-158) Vicki Bell, Mastick Senior Thrift Store, invited everyone to attend an upcoming\nfashion show.\n(13-159) Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda, discussed the project\nretrofitting the Tubes; expressed concern.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(13-160) Resolution No. 14790, \"Reappointing Joy Pratt as a Member of the Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms. Pratt with a\nCertificate of Appointment.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that final passage of the ordinance [paragraph no. 13-168\nwas removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*13-161) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on March 19,\n2013. Approved.\n(*13-162) Ratified bills in the amount of $761,496.37.\n(*13-163) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Report on Claims Paid. Accepted.\n(*13-164) Recommendation to Approve a Grant of a Nonexclusive Easement and\nPartial Assignment Agreement between the City of Alameda and the East Bay Municipal\nUtility District for an Existing Water Line at Alameda Landing. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 3, "text": "(*13-165) Recommendation to Approve an Amendment to the Contract with Columbia\nElectric, Increasing the Budget by $40,000 for a Total Amount of $320,800, to Complete\nthe Woodstock to Webster Street Neighborhood Improvement Project, and Authorize\nthe City Manager to Execute the Amendment. Accepted.\n(*13-166) Resolution No. 14791, \"Approve Designation of the Alameda County Source\nReduction and Recycling Board as the Local Task Force Under State Law for the\nPurpose of Reviewing and Commenting on County Integrated Waste Management Plan\nAmendments.\" Adopted, and\n(*13-166 A) Resolution No. 14792, \"Approving an Amendment of the Joint Exercise of\nPowers Agreement Creating the Alameda County Waste Management Authority.\nAdopted.\n(*13-167) Resolution No.14793, \"Amending the City of Alameda Management and\nConfidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the\nClassifications of Public Safety Communications Supervisor, Police Records\nSupervisor, Public Safety Information Technology Systems Coordinator, Information\nTechnology Systems Coordinator, Communications Engagement Specialist, Senior\nHuman Resources Analyst, Human Resources Analyst II, and Human Resources\nAnalyst I.\" Adopted.\n(13-168) Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Various Sections of the Alameda\nMunicipal Code Contained in Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) Related to the\nNorth Park Street Planning Area. Amended and introduced.\nThe City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired when the design manual would be ready.\nThe City Planner responded the draft guidelines for taller buildings would be presented\nto the Planning Board in late June or early July.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how the design guidelines would allow residential buildings to fit\nwith commercial buildings in the mixed use zone.\nThe City Planner responded mixed use properties are a mix of residential use and\nbusinesses which have legally opened over the last 50 years; stated businesses in the\ndistrict are typically in buildings which were built as residential buildings and are not\nconcrete block commercial buildings; the design guidelines and new zoning would allow\nlighter commercial uses to continue in the mixed use zone; the guidelines show how\nnew buildings accommodating commercial uses can be built to look like residential\nbuildings to avoid inconsistent new commercial buildings in the area.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a sentence can be added to Table A which\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 4, "text": "buildings.\nThe City Planner responded three to four parcels could accommodate a four-story 60-\nfoot building; stated parking would need to be provided; residential buildings have open\nspace requirements.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding guidelines being used to\nencourage lowering a 60 foot project, the City Planner stated staff would create design\nguidelines which would ensure any 60-foot building is beautiful and replicates existing\nbuildings, accenting the streetscape; a 60-foot building would only be approved if the\ndesign is consistent with the guidelines for taller buildings.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired whether scrutiny would be required to go above the 50\nfoot threshold.\nThe City Planner responded any building, even if just one story, requires Planning\nBoard review to ensure a beautiful design and consistent with the guidelines; stated\nanother set of guidelines would be added to the design manual to indicate the City\nexpects something pretty special if a building goes up to 60 feet.\nCouncilmember Tam stated all buildings have to go through a rigorous set of guidelines;\n60 foot buildings have to go through an extra level of guidelines.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted developers may or may not come to Alameda to build\nfour stories of residential on top of businesses, which could not be done with the 50-foot\ntrigger; inquired whether thought has been given to the messages Alameda is sending.\nThe City Planner responded the City worked closely with the development community;\nstated the form based code is designed to show in diagrams and words how buildings\nshould look and feel; the document was created to inform developers how to create a\ngood project, which will get through the public hearing process and building permits\nquickly and inexpensively; the City wants developers to spend money on the\narchitecture of the building with beautiful details and materials rather than spending\nhundreds of hours redesigning a project; further stated the design manual provides\ncertainty for both developers and neighbors; adjacent property owners have certainty\nthat only buildings consistent with the design manual will be approved.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 8:13 p.m. and returned at 8:15 p.m.\nStated adoption of the Housing Element has been a change since the guidelines were\nadopted; urged Council to consider the single family homes in the Wedge\nNeighborhood: Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.\nEncouraged the Council to include the Santa Cruz framework and that the final Design\nReview Manual Addendum be approved by Council and have extra authority; discussed\ndensity bonus: Chris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS).\nStated AAPS would like a 40 foot height limit with exceptions; encouraged authority not\nbe delegated to the Design Review process: Jim Smallman, Alameda resident and\nAAPS member.\nUrged the ordinance be finalized as quickly as possible; explained why PSBA supports\nthe 60 foot height limit: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association.\nEncouraged the Design Review Manual provisions be adopted prior to approving the 60\nfoot height limit: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda Citizens Taskforce.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 6, "text": "Explained that the Planning Board adopted the 60 foot height limit in order to lower the\ncurrent 100 foot height limit: Mike Henneberry, Alameda and Planning Board member.\nStated the regulations have checks and balances and encouraged moving forward:\nKaren Bey, Alameda.\nExpressed concern with the 60 foot height limit: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the City Planner stated Council can\ndirect staff to take the additional design manual guidelines through the public process of\ngoing to the Planning Board and Council for final approval.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired what assurance can be given that each application,\nespecially 60-foot structures, would be handled with due-diligence, that the right\nprocess and amount of time would be given to projects, and that projects would be\nreviewed by the Planning Board and, potentially, the City Council.\nThe City Planner responded a Planning Board public hearing is held for every new\nbuilding on Park Street; stated projects are thoroughly reviewed by staff; local\nnewspapers have been very good about reporting on projects that come to the Planning\nBoard; the community, AAPS and neighbors are instrumental in the process; structural\nchanges have been made to ensure there is good oversight; most design review\nmistakes in the City are quite old and predate the current design review processes.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance with amendment to\ninclude the following sentence at the end of Table A: \"New buildings over 50 feet in\nheight shall not be approved unless it may be determined by the Planning Board, or by\nthe City Council upon appeal, that the building is consistent with the Design Review\nManual's special design guidelines for tall buildings on Park Street.\"\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the sentence would be better if it states\n\"Planning Board and City Council\" instead of \"Planning Board or City Council\".\nThe City Planner responded that he would advise against changing the sentence to\n\"Planning Board and City Council\" because it would create an internal inconsistency\nwithin the Municipal Code; stated design review is approved by the Planning Board;\nindividual Councilmembers have the ability to call for review any action of the Planning\nBoard; Council already has oversight.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired how Councilmembers stay abreast of what is happening\nat the Planning Board level, to which the City Planner responded Council will know\nabout every new building on Park Street; stated nothing would get past the Council's\nnotice.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he wants language included setting minimum of 15,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 7, "text": "preferably 20, feet for the ground floor.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's recommendation\nwould be appropriate to include in the zoning amendment or the design review\nstandards.\nThe City Planner responded Councilmember Daysog is addressing internal space,\nwhich is included in the design manual; stated the zoning ordinance requires one story\nbuildings on Park Street be a minimum of 20 feet in height because anything shorter\nwould look strange on the streetscape.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he is referring to a ground floor building with floors on\ntop, not single story.\nThe City Planner stated the design review manual includes a minimum of 14 feet for the\nfirst floor; special height can be added if the Council so desires.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is not asking for 14 or 15 feet across the board,\ncorner buildings should be a little more elegant than others.\nThe City Planner stated the special height guidelines would go to the Planning Board for\nadjustments; the Council can review the special guidelines after the Planning Board.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Gilmore clarified the motion is to add the language Vice Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft read into the record; inquired whether the ordinance would return to\nCouncil in two weeks for the second reading and would go into effect in one month, to\nwhich the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that his second to the motion is for the compromise of 50\nfeet and the language added by Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft.\nCouncilmember Daysog clarified the language does not create a 50 foot maximum,\nrather a 50 foot building triggers requirements.\nCouncilmember Chen agreed there is a trigger beyond 50 feet.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(13-169) Resolution No. 14794, \"Declaring that Freedom from Domestic Violence is a\nFundamental Human Right.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the resolution recognizes the need to move to a culture of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 8, "text": "nonviolence, especially against women and children; a panel discussion in March\ninspired the resolution and highlighted the importance of local government's role in\ndomestic violence intervention; the panel included District Attorney Nancy O'Malley, Bolt\nLaw School Professor Nancy Lemon, Judge Tara Flanagan, and Alameda's former\nChief Financial Officer Juelle Ann Boyer; the culture of non-violence should begin at\nhome; Alameda is very fortunate that the Social Services Human Relations Board\n(SSHRB) formed a Domestic Violence Task Force and has resources, such as the\nMidway Shelter, Building Futures for Women and Children and Police Officers with\nspecialized training to handle domestic violence situations; about 29% of crimes\nreported in Alameda are domestic violence related and disproportionately affect women\nof color; thanked Jim Franz, Juelle Ann Boyer, the Police Chief, and Sergeant Wayland\nGee for helping develop the resolution; stated Alameda will be the first city to declare\nthat freedom from domestic violence is a basic human right.\nUrged adoption of the resolution: Liz Verela, Domestic Violence Task Force.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 9:03 p.m. to hold the joint meeting and reconvened\nthe meeting at 9:51 p.m. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft left the dais at 9:51 p.m. and\nreturned at 9:55 p.m.\n(13-170) Public Hearing to Consider Approving Amendment #2 to the FY11-12\nCommunity Development Block Grant Action Plan and Amendment #1 to the FY12-13\nCommunity Development Block Grant Action Plan and Authorize the City Manager to\nNegotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications.\nThe Program Manager gave a brief presentation.\nUrged approval of the amendment: Liz Varela, Building Futures with Women and\nChildren.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Community Development Block Grant\n(CDBG) funds can be used to improve the Parrot Village basketball courts.\nCouncilmember Chen responded CDBG funding gets smaller every year and the\nnumber of people applying for the funding increases every year; stated trying to provide\nsafety net core services is tough to balance; after school activities, such as a basketball\ncourt, are essential and important; however, people not being able to afford child care or\nrent and having to go to a shelter usually takes precedence.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she fully supports the re-programing of funds because\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 9, "text": "the shelter provides a critical sanctuary for the community; the funding that is being re-\nprogramed for the Boys and Girls Club is a very modest amount and keeps with the\nCity's desire to help the community develop more community gardens.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(13-171) Recommendation to Receive a Report on the 2010 Community-Wide\nGreenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory and a Draft Estimated Revision to the\n2005 GHG Baseline Inventory.\nThe Utility Energy Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the target is a 25% reduction over the 15-year period\nfrom 2005 to 2020, to which the Utility Energy Analyst responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the orange line on the chart pointing to 2010\nrepresents an 8% reduction between 2005 and 2010, to which the Utility Energy Analyst\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether data on the 2013 status is available, to which\nthe Utility Energy Analyst responded in the negative; stated the reports are a big\nundertaking; the City does not currently have a system in place to provide the\ninformation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the baseline is being updated and goes out to\n2025, to which the Utility Energy Analyst responded the baseline is not being updated;\nstated 2005 is maintained as the base year; reductions are compared to the 2005\nbaseline number; the baseline is being updated to be accurately represented.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the baseline figure is being updated, not the baseline year;\nnoted the numbers are actually changing.\nThe Utility Energy Analyst stated Councilmember Chen is correct; the report is updating\nthe figures to reflect current technologies; the protocol used to do the calculations has\nbeen updated to reflect more segments.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted Alameda is susceptible to global climate change and\nrising tides and needs to take GHG issues seriously; stated that he appreciates\nAlameda Municipal Power (AMP) taking the lead on this issue.\nMayor Gilmore expressed her appreciation for the report; stated residents should know\nthat the community is very adamant about recycling; the report is a nice way to check\nwhether or not the community's collective efforts are making a difference.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 10, "text": "Stated the City has more work than previously thought; outlined changes which are\nunder the City's control: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nDiscussed success in Alameda and provided handouts: Ruth Abbe, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore thanked Ms. Abbe for sharing the successes; stated small successes\nget everyone motivated and add up to big successes.\n(13-172) Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $250,000 to Skidmore,\nOwings, and Merrill, LLP (SOM) to Prepare the Town Center and Waterfront Precise\nPlan for Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\n* *\n(13-173) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the remainder of the\nagenda items after 10:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the town center map shows a separate\nresidential area not on the waterfront.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the yellow area being referred\nto is not part of the boundary which will be studied.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's further inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer -\nAlameda Point stated the area actually overlaps two zoning districts: the town center\nzoning sub district and portions of the maritime district; the district is separate because\nthe area is in the public trust and is State land; keeping the area separate is easier\nsince the property has additional restrictions.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the town center would have a mixture of\nresidential, commercial and recreational uses within a convenient walk to the waterfront\nand transit services; and whether there would be a range of uses, including multifamily\nresidential housing, recreational and visitor uses, retail/commercial space, and\nmaritime/commercia industrial uses within close proximity of transit.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the\ncurrent zoning precludes single family detached homes in the town center; the area is\nreserved for higher density development in general, but also includes housing.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether residential could be on the corner area by the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 11, "text": "Alameda's ability to get regional funding to subsidize the ferry operations; the\nassumption for the foreseeable future is that the transit corridor will remain at the\nnorthern location; however, staff continues to work with WETA about the long term\npossibility of moving the terminal.\nMayor Gilmore noted the Oak to 9th Street project received a big infusion of funds;\nstated the project could create another set of Oakland riders, which could change things\nas far as WETA is concerned.\nExpressed support of the firms selected: Helen Sause, Housing Opportunities Make\nEconomic Sense (HOMES).\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how the matter syncs up with the General Plan\namendment process started by the Planning Board.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the zoning has sub-districts;\nstated two sub districts require a more detailed plan: the town center and the residential\narea; zoning does not stop with the site-wide zoning; the next level of planning is being\nfunded; the zoning is sufficient to contemplate applications from potential employment\nusers.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n(13-174) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting past\n11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\n(13-175) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease\nAmendment with Margaret Su Doing Business As Wonky and Wonky Kitchen LLC\nExtending Current Lease for up to Fifteen Months and 28 Days in Building 119 Located\nat 151 West Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Chen moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n(13-176) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with\nAuctions by the Bay, Inc. for Three Years in Building 18 Located at 2700 Saratoga\nStreet at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired what formula is used to calculate base rent.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded the formula is based on\ncomparable spaces outside of Alameda Point and includes adjustments based on\ntenant investments, infrastructure challenges, building comparisons and similar East\nBay uses; stated Alameda Point rents are consistent with the East Bay.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the rental market is on the up-swing; rental space is all\nabout supply and demand; inquired how much current rental space is in move-in\ncondition.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded most of the spaces are very\nlarge; stated many inquiries are from small users; large space is more challenging and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 13, "text": "requires creativity; staff is hiring an architect to review dividing some of the buildings to\nallow multiple tenants; short term tenants, such as the America's Cup teams, will be\ngone in the fall; most small spaces at Alameda Point are already leased; that she would\nprovide a more detailed report to answer the question based on square footage.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-177) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with\nAuctions by the Bay, Inc. for Five Years in Building 525 Located at 2751 Todd Street at\nAlameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the tenant has insurance covering the building's\ncontents, to which the Economic Development Division Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(13-178) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease\nAmendment with Auctions by the Bay, Inc. for Ten Years with an Additional Option of\nTen Years in Building 20 Located at 2701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point.\nIntroduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the tenant invested nearly $1 million in\nupgrades, to which the Economic Development Division Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam noted tenants need enough time to recoup investments when\nmaking significant improvements; inquired what happened to recapturing investment\ncosts on the theater improvements.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded the matter is complicated;\nstated staff is dismantling the current deal and transitioning to a purchase option with\nthe tenant; the tenant has some credit for building improvements; negotiations are\naddressing the value of the improvements, which will be used as a credit to the\npurchase price in the future so the City does not have to put any cash into the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 14, "text": "transaction.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired why the City is entering into purchase negotiations before\nconveyance.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded the City is not entering into\npurchase negotiations now; stated three leases include a purchase option; negotiations\nhave not started; conveyance will occur in June; the City should not entertain purchase\noptions for ten to fifteen more years according to the Economic Development Strategy\nto allow lease revenue to continue as an infrastructure engine and support City\noperations at Alameda Point; the strategy manages tenant expectations; tenants cannot\nmake purchases right after the City gets the property.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Economic Development Division\nManager stated a third party property management company, PM Reality, manages the\nproperties at Alameda Point.\nThe City Manager noted a Request for Proposals to manage the commercial and\nresidential properties will go out this month.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-179) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease\nAmendment with Alameda Municipal Power Extending Their Current Lease for up to\nTwo Years in Building 162 Located at 400 West Atlantic Avenue at Alameda Point.\nIntroduced; and\n(13-179 A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease\nAmendment with Alameda Municipal Power Extending Current Lease for up to Two\nYears in 1890 Viking Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether staff has gone through the storage, to which the\nAssistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 15, "text": "(13-180) The City Manager announced dates for an upcoming brokerage event, the\nbudget sessions, a meeting addressing backyard farm animals and the website\nconversion.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-181) Mayor Gilmore announced that she, the Vice Mayor and a Planning Board\nmember attended a hearing regarding changing the composition of the Water\nEmergency Task Force Board.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the seat is for Alameda County or the City of\nAlameda, to which Mayor Gilmore responded the City.\nCouncilmember Tam stated one seat is represented by a person from Alameda, but the\nseat is not specifically assigned to Alameda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the proposal is to allocate three seats to three\ncounties, and does not include Alameda County; some proposed counties do not even\nhave ferry service yet.\nThe City Manager stated Alameda contributes more than half of the fare box revenues;\nAlameda is the only city of its size in the County that does not have an interstate\nhighway; WETA was formed primarily out of City of Alameda assets; WETA has always\nhad a City of Alameda member on the board; more ferries would be good, but\neliminating Alameda's representation is bad public policy.\n(13-182) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended the League of California\nCities meeting and was appointed to the task force reviewing California Environmental\nQuality Act (CEQA) reform; Statewide efforts to ban plastic bags were reviewed to\nensure the law does not preempt local county ordinances like the stopwaste.org just\nadopted.\n(13-183) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the upcoming League of Women Voters\n\"Meet Your Public Officials\" event.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 16, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\n(13-184) There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at\n11:10 p.m. in memory of those killed or seriously injured at the Boston Marathon.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 17, "text": "SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL\nTUESDAY- -APRIL 16, 2013- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(13-150) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation\npursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City\nInitiating Legal Action)\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nTHE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--APRIL 16, 2013- 7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 9:03 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Agency Members Chen, Daysog,\nEzzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Chen moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*13-185 CC/13-010 SACIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held\non March 19, 2013. Approved.\n(*13-186 CC/13-011 SACIC) Recommendation to Approve a Second Amendment to\nAgreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Expanding the Scope of Work and\nAdding $15,000, for a Total Contract Amount of $89,000 to Provide Successor Agency\nFinancial Consulting Services. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(13-187 CC/13-012 SACIC) Recommendation to Approve the Updated Alameda\nLanding Retail Tenanting Strategy.\nThe Housing Program Manager gave a brief presentation.\nSean Whiskeman, Catellus, gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated at a previous meeting there was some doubt as to when the\nrest of the retail would be completed, which seems to be moving faster than anticipated;\ninquired whether the change is a result of the market improving, the economy\nimproving, or marketing efforts for the site.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n1\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 19, "text": "Mr. Whiskeman responded the market is creating a lot of opportunity; stated Target is\nunder construction, which is a driver and has generated additional interest; Safeway is\nalso a driver of activity and holds the key to the rest of the retail; the economy is\nimproving; things are getting better; challenges still exist; retailers are still cautious\nabout expansion, but the market has helped create opportunities; noted the Safeway\nwould include a fuel center just like South Shore; the fuel center would be on a separate\nparcel that is not part of the Alameda Landing DDA and would be at the entry to the site;\nthree buildings are proposed for the entry site, including the fuel center; approval would\ngo through the Planning Board process.\nVice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft commended Catellus for all the hard work\nmarketing the center; stated that she is very excited to see the list of potential retailers;\nher only concern is the Safeway Gas Station; she visited the site; the community is\nconcerned about the appearance of gateways to Alameda; hopefully, Park Street will\nget better due to the new North Park Street Zoning Code just adopted; a couple of\nbusiness are being proposed for Webster Street; rumors are a drive-thru burger\nestablishment is in the mix; the Planning Board is hesitant to add a drive-thru, except\npharmacies which benefit the community; that she is concerned about the appearance\ncoming out of the Tube; the West End should not look like it is off of a freeway with a\ngas station and drive thru restaurant; when the Planning Board previously heard the\nmatter there was a lot of discussion about not competing with Webster Street; the\nPlanning Board limited the minimum footprint of stores at Alameda Landing to not\ncompete directly with the footprint size of stores on Webster Street; fuel falling under\nsales leakage surprised her; in the past couple of years, two different gas stations\nrequested use permits changes, including longer hours, due to not getting enough\nbusiness; a Webster Street station is adding a convenient store and wanted to be able\nto sell liquor to bring in more business, which was denied; there is a free market, but\nagreements regarding Webster Street should not be ignored; she is concerned about\nboth the appearance of the West End gateway and the competition being added for the\nWebster Street fuel stations; she would prefer to see other proposed retailers on the\nparcel instead; she is taken aback that the Safeway is a package deal with the fuel\nstation; that she would not vote to approve the grocery store if automatic approval of the\nfuel station is included.\nMr. Whiskeman stated the fuel station is not before the Council tonight; Safeway wants\nto include a fuel center; the fuel center at the entry site would go through the Planning\nBoard process on its own track; the entry site is not being approved tonight.\nVice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she raised the matter because\nthe staff report indicates one of Safeway's location requirements is the ability to build a\nSafeway gas station as part of its store.\nMr. Whiskeman stated the tenanting strategy includes approving grocery as a category,\nwhich hopefully will be Safeway.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n2\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 20, "text": "Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is a Safeway lifestyle store.\nMr. Whiskeman responded Safeway uses the term lifestyle to define stores and\ndescribe new markets.\nVice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated 45,000 square feet is the proposed\nfootprint; inquired how the size compares to the South Shore and Harbor Bay Safeway\nstores.\nMr. Whiskeman responded that he believes South Shore Store is larger; stated typical\nstores are 55,000 square feet.\nVice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated a speaker indicated the South Shore\nstore is about 60,000 square feet; inquired whether the size would be closer to the\nHarbor Bay store.\nMr. Whiskeman responded that he believes the Harbor Bay store is a little bit smaller.\nVice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the size would be\nsomewhere between the Harbor Bay and South Shore stores, to which Mr. Whiskeman\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Daysog stated the project is exciting; Safeway's\nlifestyle stores have expanded organic and specialty food selections, as well as an in\nstore signature cafe and food center; having a lifestyle store allows residents to\npurchase prepared meals and better food; having a supermarket of such quality is\nimperative, which is why he embraces the strategy and cannot wait to see the\ndevelopment happen; that he likes the initial drawings and de-linking the gas station;\nthat he is indifferent about the gas station; proposing a McDonald's might be a problem;\na different establishment, such as Five Guys, might be acceptable; further stated that he\nbelieves the Catellus project has stimulated improvements on Webster Street and the\nCollege of Alameda; stated efforts have been purposely made to improve the gateway.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Tam stated that she appreciates the accommodations\nand changes made to be responsive to leakage categories; she does not have an issue\nwith the fuel station because fuel falls under the leakage category; fuel station issues\narise when stations are located near residential areas; Safeway is probably the best\ngrocery store tenant based on labor history and successes in Alameda; Mr. Whiskeman\nindicated Safeway would be a good anchor tenant and would stimulate interest in the\ncenter; inquired why Safeway thinks the location makes demographic sense given the\nproximity of the Lucky's at Webster Street and Constitution Way.\nMr. Whiskerman responded Safeway has real experience in Alameda; Safeway stores\nare overburdened, especially the South Shore location; Safeway might envision that the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n3\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 21, "text": "Alameda Landing store would help the South Shore store and views the store as an\nopportunity to capture additional sales on the West End as well as future growth and\nextending beyond Alameda into Oakland; the two stores in Alameda do extremely well;\nall grocery stores in Alameda over perform based on an average basis.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member inquired whether the choice may be associated with\nfuture residential development, to which Mr. Whiskerman responded in the affirmative;\nstated future growth on the West End is very strong draw.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Tam explained that she recently learned about Five\nGuys and In-N-Out Burger; stated that she is not opposed to having a hamburger\nestablishment.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Chen stated that he welcomes Safeway; he has not\nheard any opposition; Safeway stores are over producing due to being well run; that he\nwas hoping for an Asian market; inquired how the Safeway would cut into Lucky's\nprofits; stated freedom of choice with two grocery stores provides residents with better\nprices and variety.\nMr. Whiskeman responded the vast majority of the grocery stores are over performing;\nstated Lucky's is the only store currently serving the West End; Safeway provides\nanother option; determining the impacts on Lucky's is difficult.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Chen stated the potential sales tax revenue which\nwould be generated is exciting.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated Lucky's may have a tendency to take customers for granted\nsince it is the only West End grocery store; hopefully, competition might end said\ntendency and Lucky's might improve in the face of competition; Alameda consumers,\nparticularly those in the West End, would be the winners.\nVice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Safeway lifestyle store will differ\nfrom Lucky's; agreed with the Mayor/Chair; Safeway and the Encinal Market improved\nwhen Trader Joe's opened at South Shore; Alameda has other choices, such as Nob\nHill Market and the Market Place; West End residents might be driving across the Island\nor out of Alameda; the Safeway would be environmentally friendly and would reduce\ncarbon footprints; Bayport residents were shown plans which included a grocery store\nwithin walking distance when the homes were originally sold; not having to always get in\na car is nice; sometimes a little competition helps raise the bar.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director thanked Catellus for stepping up to the plate;\nstated that he gave Catellus a hard time about leakage categories at a prior meeting; he\nhad several lengthy discussions with Catellus's Chief Executive Officer; Catellus has\nadapted to meet the City's desires; now Catellus is proposing to promptly construct all\nnine buildings; the City will devote resources to help Catellus get the buildings up in\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n4\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-16", "page": 22, "text": "Alameda City Council and Successor Agency\n5\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nApril 16, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf"}