{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-01", "page": 1, "text": "519\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - DECEMBER 1, 2015- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(15-702) Jay Ingram, Alameda, discussed the Encinal Terminals, requested City\nCouncil be engaged in the project moving forward.\n(15-703) Dennis Owens, Alameda, suggested the City Council consider a minimum\nwage ordinance; outlined other areas that have adopted minimum wage ordinances.\n(15-704) Matthew Frost expressed concern over the way improvements are being done\nat the Golf Complex.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*15-705) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council\nand Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the\nRegular City Council Meeting Held on November 3, 2015; and the Special City Council\nMeeting Held on November 4, 2015. Approved.\n(*15-706) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,705,478.26.\n(*15-707) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period\nEnding September 30, 2015 Collected During the Period April 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-01", "page": 2, "text": "520\nAccepted.\n(*15-708) Recommendation to Accept the Special Tax and Local Bond Measure Annual\nReport. Accepted.\n(*15-709) Recommendation to Accept the Police and Fire Services Fee Report.\nAccepted.\n(*15-710) Recommendation to Accept the Development Impact Fee and Fleet Industrial\nSupply Center (FISC)/Catellus Traffic Fee Report. Accepted.\n(*15-711) Recommendation to Accept Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR)\nSystems Audit Report. Accepted.\n(*15-712) Resolution No. 15104, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute an\nAgreement with Moffatt & Nichol to Provide Design and Permit Services for the Encinal\nBoat Launch Facility Renovation in an Amount Not to Exceed $226,302, Funded by a\nGrant from the California Department of Parks and Recreation Division of Boating and\nWaterways.' Adopted.\n(*15-713) Resolution No. 15105, \"Setting the 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Dates.\n\"\nAdopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(15-714) Resolution No. 15106, \"Appointing Christopher Griffiths as a Tenant Member\nof the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC);' Adopted, and\n(15-714A) Resolution No. 15107, \"Appointing Suzanne Warner as Homeowner (Non\nHousing Provider) Member of the Rent Review Advisory Committee.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates of\nappointment to Mr. Griffiths and Ms. Warner.\nExpressed support for the change in membership; stated that he will be looking forward\nto an actual debate on the 10% rent increases with the new members to RRAC: John\nKlein, Alameda.\n(15-715) Ordinance No. 3143, \"Removing Certain Grounds for Just Cause Evictions by\nAmending Ordinance No. 3140, an Urgency Ordinance of the City of Alameda Imposing\nwithin the City of Alameda a Temporary (65-Day) Moratorium on Certain Residential\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-01", "page": 3, "text": "521\nRent Increases and on Evictions from all Residential Rental Units Except for Just Cause\nEvictions.\" Adopted.\nThe Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nStated that she is a resident at Bay View Apartments and an Encinal High School\nstudent; renters rights deserve to be protected: Kristal Osorio, Filipinos Advocates for\nJustice.\nUrged City Council to put importance on rent control now: Erin Subido, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the Bay View Apartments residents being evicted; urged the\nCity Council to pass the ordinance: Jay Ferih, Filipinos Advocates for Justice.\nMayor Spencer noted that she counted 60 students present in the audience.\nUrged passing the ordinance to protect families: Sammy Gutierrez, Filipinos Advocates\nfor Justice.\nExpressed concern over being able to stay in his housing; stated the community is\nbeautiful because it is diverse; urged the ordinance be passed: Jimmy Nguyen,\nAlameda.\nQuestioned where evicted tenants will go and if they will have to live in tents; urged\nsomething be done about rent increases: Bunny Duncan, Alameda.\nUrged the language in the ordinance be changed as proposed; stated people live\nthrough remodels all the time; the community values family stability: Duane Moles,\nAlameda.\nExpressed concern over tenants receiving fair notice: Michael John Torres, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over children not having stable housing; suggested following Santa\nMonica's rent control ordinance; urged making the eviction ban a part of the permanent\nordinance in Alameda: Eric Strimling, Alameda.\nThanked the Council for making the change: John Klein, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the urgency ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nThe City Attorney outlined changes in the urgency ordinance; she stated that there are\ntwo sections within Exhibit A: Section 5 and 10; the language is being struck and\nintentionally omitted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-01", "page": 4, "text": "522\nVice Mayor Matarrese noted that the intention of putting the moratorium in place is to\nemphasize the freeze on no-fault evictions and provide protection while staff puts\ntogether an ordinance for Council consideration on January 5, 2016.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated everyone has a right to stay in their homes; Council is\nunited on the issue; he hopes staff comes back with a comprehensive set of reasonable\ntenant protections, not just a menu to choose from; he would like to see tenants\nprotected above and beyond Christmas time; housing is a critical need; requested staff\nfinds a way to structure the ordinance to protect tenants' rights to stay in their homes.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council will fight on behalf of the residents; the Council\nhas to implement legislation and modify just cause evictions; the matter is not only\nabout the West End, but all of Alameda is at risk; he would like to look at strengthening\nthe RRAC process; everything is on the table and Council is doing their best to\nrepresent the City.\nMayor Spencer thanked staff for bringing the item to Council; stated Council is united\nbehind the serious problem; there are excellent landlords with long term tenants, but\nthere are a few outliers that do not seem to get the message; the Council goal is to give\ntenants time to breathe; thanked the students from Encinal High School for coming to\nspeak at the meeting; stated that she hopes to continue to work together as a\ncommunity; it is the Alameda way.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the Council has serious challenges going\nforward; requested staff to take into account the needs of landlords; stated that she\nunderstands the needs to renovate, however, there are better ways to go about it;\nrequested the City look into adding to the housing stock while addressing traffic\nconcerns.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:09 p.m.\n***\n(15-716) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Upholding Planning Board\nDecision to Approve Design Review and Use Permit File No. PLN 15-0198 For the\nConstruction of a Five-Building Mixed Use Development Constructed with Shipping\nContainers with Ground Floor Offices and Outdoor Seating at 1926 Park Street. Not\nadopted.\nThe City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there were outdated plans on website;\nrequested staff to ensure all versions are up to date on the website.\nThe City Planner concurred; stated he would take care of it; continued his presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-01", "page": 5, "text": "523\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether safeguards would go into place to\nassure the City is getting the highest quality materials, to which the City Planner\nresponded final approval has to go to the Planning Board to review of the details.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the Design Review Manual on the City's website\nreferences North Park Street waterfront streets with an associated map; it is not a\nzoning designation, it is just an area; clarified the manual states the area may provide\nan appropriate setting for modern design; Council voted on the document called the City\nDesign Manual: North Park Street District in March 2013; the online version states the\narea provides an appropriate setting for modern design.\nThe City Planner responded the intent of the design manual is not to prevent modern\ndesign in any other area.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the issue is not one about design, it is about process;\ninquired whether the zoning says doing something other than the 9 things listed requires\na variance.\nThe City Planner responded in the negative; stated nothing in the zoning states that if\nyou are not within one block of the water you cannot do modern architecture.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the topic is not on the agenda.\nMayor Spencer stated the matter is on the agenda; requested that staff locate the\ndocument, which will be discussed at a later time.\nMarcel Sengul, Applicant, gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many units will be upstairs; stated it looks like the units are\nbeing counted separately and not connected.\nMr. Sengul responded there are five separate structures, which are two stories each;\nfour would be occupied by one company each; the last unit will be a coffee shop and his\npersonal residence.\n***\nCouncilmember Daysog left the dais at 8:46 p.m. and returned at 8:49 p.m.\n***\nExpressed concern over the location of the project; stated that he does not want to see\nshipping containers in the gateway to Alameda: Dave Case, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over parking and the building looking cheap; stated this is a\nkeystone location: Jim Smallman, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS).\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-01", "page": 6, "text": "524\nExpressed support for the project and change: David Cavanaugh, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the modern design; urged the Planning Board decision be\nupheld: Jeff Cavanaugh, Alameda.\nStated Alameda's history includes shipping containers; the project is great and would be\nan asset for Alameda: Scott Koehler, Alameda.\nStated that he owns several properties on Park Street and likes the project: Bill\nGonzalves, Alameda.\nDiscussed the AAPS letter and the types of architecture allowed; the project is in the\ngateway subdistrict and modern architecture is only allowed in 2 subdistricts, not the\ngateway: Elizabeth Tuckwell, Alameda.\nStated that she supports building with containers, but she thinks the project will cause\npeople to oppose containers; the location is not correct: Mary Anderson, Alameda.\nStated the project is green and the process has been followed; the business community\nshould be supported; urged approval: Michael McDonough, Alameda Chamber of\nCommerce.\nStated the gateway should reflect the historic buildings; the style of architecture belongs\nsomewhere else: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda Citizen Task Force (ACT).\nUrged the Council not to approve the project; stated the containers are unsightly no\nmatter how they are masked: Maria Dominguez, Alameda.\nStated that she supports the project; expressed support for allowing new and interesting\nprojects: Janet Koike, Rythmix Cultural Works.\nStated a car lot is not an appropriate place to construct a historic building; the area is\nbleak; expressed support for the green building and the project: Tina Blaine, Alameda.\nStated the design does not belong at the gateway to Alameda; suggested the design be\nchanged to keep with the history of Alameda: Mary Tigh, Alameda.\nOutlined design review requirements; stated Park Street's most interesting feature is\nbrick buildings; expressed opposition to the project: Reyla Graber, Alameda.\nStated that she opposes the project and the location: Patricia Gannon, Alameda.\nStated that he supports the project; all adjacent neighbors support the project;\ndiscussed a previous box car project; stated small space is needed and would be great\nincubator for small business tenants in Alameda: Rich Krinks, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-01", "page": 7, "text": "525\nSubmitted and showed pictures; expressed concern over the design: Anthony Sloan,\nAlameda.\nStated his business is next door and he looks forward to the project being completed:\nArthur Mercado, Alameda.\nStated the project will be a great entry for Alameda; another gateway project should be\ndone to blend with the project: Kyle Conner, Alameda.\nStated the Downtown Business Association (DABA) Board unanimously supports the\nproject; discussed the Planning Board hearings; stated shipping containers are being\nused all over the world: Robb Ratto, DABA.\nDiscussed historic buildings torn down years ago; stated that she does not appreciate\nthe looks of the building in the location; discussed facade projects: Nancy Gordon,\nAlameda.\nSubmitted information; discussed visioning processes: Former Councilmember Doug\ndeHaan, Alameda.\nStated that she supports the project; she works with tech companies which need\nincubator space: Yael Amyra, Alameda.\nStated that his business down the road is an incubator for artist; the area is industrial;\nthe project is wonderful: Chuck DiGuida, Bridgehead Studio.\nStated that she is against the project; urged the Council to rethink notification;\nsuggested that the City Planner have a column in the newspaper about projects: Janet\nGibson, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified the guiding principles of the strategic plan; noted\nthe key word is revitalization; stated when the City lost the revenue from the car dealers,\nit provided an opportunity for new businesses; development is incremental; some of the\nmost innovative projects have been developed the last few years; the economic strategy\nis innovative and there is a market for it; she appreciates the historic aspect, yet if being\ntoo fixated on the past could cause the City to miss out on opportunities in the present\nand the future; the corner property is industrial and does not have Victorians; the project\nalready went through the process and merits the support of the City; she supports the\nproject.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the project is consistent with the General\nPlan, zoning, and the Design Review Manual; stated the Design Review Manual\ncontemplates certain design attributes; the Park Street waterfront district is south of\nBlanding Avenue; there is inconsistency with the Design Review Manual; zoning for the\narea, is under Municipal Code Section 30-4.25 for North Park Street District; the\nchallenge that needs to be met is whether the project is consistent with the Alameda\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-01", "page": 8, "text": "526\nMunicipal Code; he does not see consistency; there was a lengthy process in creating\nthe gateway district, which helped to shape the buildings; Councilmember Daysog\nmoved approval of the City Council finding that the three issues have not been met, and\ntherefore, denies the project.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested staff to address the key issues.\nThe City Planner responded that from a technical standpoint, the project meets the\nGeneral Plan and zoning and is consistent with Design Review Manual; the manual is\nonly a guideline; the way to regulate design is through Design Review.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Councilmember Daysog indicated if the issue is black and\nwhite, the Council cannot approve it.\nCouncilmember Daysog clarified that was not what he said; the hearing de novo and the\nissue is not black and white.\nThe City Planner inquired whether Councilmember Daysog does not like the design or\nis it a question of the zoning.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded the issue is the process; there is a commitment to a\nparticular architectural style.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry about the vision would be for all four\ncorners, the City Planner gave a brief presentation of the gateway project vision.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to correct the idea that modern\narchitecture can be built, which is not accurate according to the Design Review Manual;\nthe project is not in the correct zoning district.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired which zoning designation is on the Blanding\nside of the project, to which the City Planner responded the entire project is in the\ngateway district.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what is the vision for the gateway, to which the City\nPlanner responded the vision is striving for excellent design in all areas; stated the goal\nis to incrementally improve the entire district on all four corners.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if something beautiful is built there would it be out of\nplace, to which the City Planner responded that there is no beautiful design in the area\nexcept for the bridge.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted the parcel is difficult to build on.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the issue comes down to opinion; other projects had\nderogatory terms attached when first built; then, eventually, everyone begins to love\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-01", "page": 9, "text": "527\nthem; people should be careful about demonizing projects; it sends the wrong message\nif Alameda makes property owners and developers go through a lengthy process then\nyanks it from them at the end; the project reduces greenhouse gas emissions; he feels\nwhat is important is what the neighbors think; most of the businesses are supportive\nand think it will be an asset to their businesses.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the site is difficult; the major constraint is that it is a\ngateway; that he was attracted to the project; the feedback from the community is that\nthe design does not belong there, but there were no objections to the use from the\ncommunity; if the design is changed, the community would like the project better.\nMayor Spencer expressed her concerns about the project; stated the Park Street\nStrategic Plan should have been shared with the owner at the beginning of the project;\nthe Strategic Plan cannot be disregarded as just guidance; the document specifically\ncalls out the intersection of Park Street and Blanding; the City cannot have a 10-month\nprocess and then, discount the report as just guidelines; the City should not depend on\nmembers of the community to bring the matter to the City's attention; the project has\npotential and she likes the green aspect; she is concerned there are no elevators; she\nwill not be able to support the project.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved denying the project because approval of the findings\nhave not been met.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether changes to the design would make the project\nmore palatable.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that the project has to follow the Design Review\nManual and gateway district plan; there is a framework in place on how to craft a\nproject.\nVice Mayor Matarrese requested the design move closer to the criteria; stated that he\nsupports the use and the placement; stated the simple question is, does the City really\nwant to put containers there; suggested going back to the design manual.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like see more analysis from the City\nAttorney and the City Planner on language.\nMayor Spencer stated that a motion is needed to continue past 11:00 p.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of continuing the meeting].\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n-\n5.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-01", "page": 10, "text": "528\nCouncilmember Oddie suggested amending the motion to refer the matter back to the\nPlanning Board based on Council comments for redesign.\nCouncilmember Daysog agreed to amend the motion.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is looking for a significant redesign; every Planning\nBoard member should read the strategic plan guidelines; the design does not reach the\nmark.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired that if the containers are camouflaged, would the design\nfit in better; stated he is trying to give as much direction as much as possible.\nMayor Spencer responded if there is a way to manipulate the design so that the project\ndoes not look like stacked shipping containers; suggested reaching out to people who\nhave concerns.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the developer should decide whether or not to use\ncontainers at all or start over with different materials.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated a sizeable amount of people did support the project; the\nneighbors cannot be discounted.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the property owner should have the ultimate say.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded that he does not want to send the owner back to\nchange something, then have the project rejected again.\nThe City Planner stated giving the applicant clear guidelines would be helpful because\nthe design will still be modern; inquired if Council has a problem with a modern design.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded modern architecture is a style; stated the urban\ndesign manual allows specific types of architectural design styles.\nMayor Spencer stated that she has no problem with modern design; the project should\nreflect the high degree of craft that is indicative of Alameda's past and forms the\nfoundation for its future.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the staff could fix the design manual flaw.\nThe City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated staff will go back to the Planning\nBoard to continue dialogue regarding the manual.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the issue is not what style is appropriate, it is the\nprocess.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-01", "page": 11, "text": "529\nThe City Planner stated staff will clarify the manual.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated 2008 was 8 years ago, the community changes.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what architectural style is the Perforce office\nbuilding.\nThe City Planner responded the building is not in the gateway district.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the building is in the district that allows modern design.\nThe City Clerk restated the motion.\nThe City Planner clarified the motion should also include that the Council confirms the\nUse Permit findings.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 11:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:15 p.m.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-717) The Interim City Manager announced the Public Works Department is offering\n5 free sandbags for upcoming storms; discussed the Fire Department receiving a Class\n1 Insurance Services Office rating.\nThe Interim City Manager announced the Holiday Tree Lighting would be held on\nSaturday.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-718) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination to the Rent Review Advisory Committee.\nNot heard.\n(15-719) Mayor Spencer discussed the trip to Dumaguete, Philippines; stated the sister\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-12-01", "page": 12, "text": "530\ncity memorandum of agreement was finalized; thanked the Dumaguete Mayor\nSagarbarria; stated the community was very welcoming.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-12-01.pdf"}