{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 1, "text": "361\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER - 6, 2016- -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\n(16-405) Proclamation Declaring September 17, 2016 as Coastal Cleanup Day.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to James Frank, East Bay\nRegional Park District, who made brief comments.\n(16-406) Proclamation Declaring October 2 through 8, 2016 as Public Power Week.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Laura Giuntini, Public Utilities\nBoard, who made brief comments.\nExpressed concern over climate change: Ken Peterson, Alameda.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(16-407) Jim Hager, Alameda, questioned whether the City has regulations to prohibit\nnoise and light control when industries move next door to neighborhoods.\n(16-408) Heather Little, Alameda, discussed a bike versus auto accident on Main Street;\nstated that she would like the Council to bring adopt Vision Zero.\nMayor Spencer stated Vision Zero is to have zero traffic deaths.\nThe City Manager stated the matter would come to Council.\n(16-409) Kristin Welch, Alameda, expressed appreciation for flashing pedestrian\ncrosswalk lights near schools; stated people are still speeding and something needs to\nbe done to protect pedestrians.\nThe City Manager stated staff is looking at improvements to the area to separate\nbicyclists from vehicles.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 06, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 2, "text": "362\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Manager is referring to the\nMain Street ferry terminal.\nThe City Manager responded Main Street and Singleton Avenue to the ferry; stated the\nCity is currently looking to fund the project in the next year's budget.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the Police rotate enforcement around different schools at the\nbeginning of the school year.\nThe City Manager responded that the Police do ongoing enforcement; stated the issue\nis a combined effort of enforcement and capital improvements to separate bicyclists.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft 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(*16-410) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on July 5,\n2016 and July 19, 2016. Approved.\n(*16-411) Ratified bills in the amount of $14,979,660.44.\n(*16-412) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Rosas Brothers Construction for the\nRepair of Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal\nYear (FY) 2015-16, Phase 16, No. P.W. 04-15-08. Accepted.\n(*16-413) Recommendation to Amend the Contract with Ranger Pipeline Inc. to\nIncrease the Contract Amount by $4,504,757.51, Including Contingency, for Cyclic\nSewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 13, No. P.W. 05-16-08, for a Total Compensation\nof $13,326,486, for Cyclic Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phases 11, 12 and 13.\nAccepted.\n(*16-414) Recommendation to Amend the Contract with Engineering Mapping\nSolutions, Inc. to Increase the Contract Amount by $74,525, Including Contingencies,\nfor a Total Compensation of $142,250 for Continued Geographic Information System\nSupport Services. Accepted.\n(*16-415) Recommendation to Amend a Contract to Extend the Term for One Year to\nLucity, Inc. for a Comprehensive Computerized Maintenance Management System.\nAccepted.\n(*16-416) Recommendation to Amend a Contract to Extend the Term for One Year to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 6, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 3, "text": "363\nWater Works Engineers for Engineering Services During Construction for the\nAbandonment and Relocation of Existing Sanitary Sewer Main and Lagoon Seawall,\nNo. P.W. 01-12-03. Accepted.\n(*16-417) Recommendation to Amend a Contract with RMC Water and Environment to\nIncrease the Contract Amount by $25,032, for a Total Compensation of $98,042, for\nSanitary Sewer System Management Plan Support Services. Accepted.\n(*16-418) Resolution No. 15191, \"Grant of Utility Easement to Pacific Gas & Electric\nCompany within Neptune Park\". Adopted.\n(*16-419) Resolution No. 15192, \"Amending the Alameda City Employees Association\n(ACEA) Salary Schedule to Amend the Work Week of Customer Service Representative\nand Lead Customer Service Representative Classifications from Thirty Seven and a\nHalf (37.5) Hours Per Week to Forty (40) Hours Per Week.' Adopted.\n(*16-420) Resolution No. 15193, \"for the Mayor's Signature Reaffirming the Authority\nPreviously Delegated to the City Manager, in Resolution No. 13135 Approved on\nSeptember 7, 1999, to Make Application for Industrial Disability Retirement for Local\nSafety Members with the California Public Employment Retirement System.\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-421) Public Hearing to Consider Call for Review and a Resolution Upholding\nPlanning Board Resolution No. PB-16-16 Approving Amendment (PLN16-0165) to the\nEsplanade Final Development Plan (PLN15-0092) to Allow Senior Assisted Living as a\nPermitted Use at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway (Project: Westmont of Harbor Bay Assisted\nLiving). Not adopted. [Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)\nGuidelines Section 15162, there have been no significant changes in circumstances\nthat require revisions to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report.]\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the space has always been zoned open space, to which the\nAssistant Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the site is\nzoned commercial.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City of Alameda entered into an agreement in 2002\nwith the Port of Oakland; inquired if the Port of Oakland or the Citizens League for\nAirport Safety and Serenity (CLASS) lawyers provided input on the project.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded that he has not spoken to\nthe CLASS lawyers but he has spoken directly with Port of Oakland staff to determine\nwhether the proposed use is consistent with the Settlement Agreement; stated the Port\nconfirmed the project does not violate any prior agreements; the City does not believe\nthere is a conflict.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 06, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 4, "text": "364\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if there is a letter or official confirmation, to which the\nAssistant Community Development Director responded there is email confirmation.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Assistant Community Development\nDirector stated the Planning Board passed a resolution that the site is appropriate for\nassisted living and office use; the Council needs to decide whether or not to uphold the\nPlanning Board's decision.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how the decision differs from the November 9, 2015\ndecision.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the November 9, 2015\ndecision was not a decision on the property, rather it clarified the Zoning Code; the\nquestion is whether assisted living is permitted under the Zoning Code.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether or not the assisted living facility is in\nconformance with the commercial use zoning is not what has been appealed, to which\nthe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nCouncil can question the use on the particular site.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a traffic and parking study was done for the\nsite; and if numbers compare traffic under the assisted living use and the original 2006\noffice building.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the use has 41 spaces during morning peak\nhours and afternoon versus 205 for the previously approved plan, to which the Assistant\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what type of parking design is required for the facility.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the parking is lower density\ncompared to the 2006 office plan; assisted living generates a lot less parking demand.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the project would provide 60 parking spaces;\nand whether the Code requires 43 spaces, so the plan is 17 spaces over the required\namount, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the use is within the Airport Land Use Compatibility\nplan, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the Water Emergency Transportation Authority\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 6, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 5, "text": "365\n(WETA) has expressed any interest in the property; and whether WETA or the City has\nthe ability to take the property.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded WETA has indicated it does\nnot have funding to purchase the property; stated eminent domain does not mean\ntaking the property, the property has to be bought; WETA, the City and residents are\nworking together to improve access to the ferry terminal; if the City took the property by\neminent domain, the City would have to buy the land.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding a parking lot, the Assistant\nCommunity Development Director stated the City is not interested in dragging more cars\ninto the neighborhood.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the project has gone before the Bay Conservation and\nDevelopment Commission (BCDC) and whether the project complies with BCDC\nagreements and land use.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) found any\nnesting birds or plants of special interest, to which the Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if jackrabbits are a protected species, to which the\nAssistant Community Development Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the EIR is bogus, to which the Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the negative; stated the EIR reviewed the entire\nHarbor Bay development; the City updates the EIR for traffic, airport noise and biology\nfor every development; all three of updates were done for the project.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the project has received an approval letter\nfrom the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission regarding compliance with\nsafety noise and height development, to which the Assistant Community Development\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a noise analysis was done by AGD\nAcoustic stating the project met City, State and County noise level requirements, to\nwhich the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether residential is not permitted at the site.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded under the Zoning Code and\nsettlement agreements, residential housing is not allowed at the site.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the job imbalance is part of the General Plan.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 06, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 6, "text": "366\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the General Plan directs\nthe City to work towards a job/housing balance to address traffic congestion; more jobs\non the Island helps traffic congestion; there is currently a poor job/housing balance in\nAlameda; the Planning Board decreased the assisted living and increased the office\nspace to have the project create more jobs.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry about the type of jobs, the Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director stated the jobs would be low salary jobs, assisting seniors with\ndaily living.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if assisted living is addressed in the Housing Element.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nresidents are requesting more senior housing.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the residents at the assisted living could register to\nvote, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated assisted living places are often polling places.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether an assisted living complex could be built in an area\nzoned for housing in Alameda, to which the Assistant Community Development Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired about the units in the assisted living facility; inquired\nwhether 60 to 75% would be one or two bedroom apartments and the rest a memory\ncare facility, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the senior housing units can be applied to the\nRegional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), to which the Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the negative; stated the units are not considered\nresidential units.\nMayor Spencer inquired what type of modification would have to occur for the units to\nbe counted towards housing.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded unit defined as residential\ncount toward the RHNA, but residential units would not be able to go on the project site.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether some units have kitchens, to which the Assistant\nCommunity Development Director responded units do not have full kitchens.\nChris Garwood and Michael O'Rourke, Pacific Union Land Company, gave a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 6, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 7, "text": "367\npresentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired about the distance to the hospital.\nMr. O'Rourke responded that the hospital is 3.5 miles away from the project site.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the project site is within half a mile from a Fire station with\na full service ambulance.\nKaitlin Bishop, Pacific Union Land Company, and Alan Rose, RGD Acoustics, continued\nthe presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how far away the project is from the 65 decibel line.\nMr. Rose responded that he did not measure the feet, but the current noise level is\nclose to the 65 decibel line.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how the 65 decibel line is determined.\nMr. Rose responded a noise modeling program projects aircraft activity; stated the noise\nlevel is projected 20 years into the future.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the decibel line is currently at 65 decibel or if 65\ndecibels was modeled in the future.\nMr. Rose responded the plan looks at a 20 year horizon; stated the recent contours are\nfrom 2015.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if there are plus/minus factors to the contour levels;\nand are there margins of error to be confident the noise level is within the line.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the there is an illustration showing the line in relation to the\nhomes and proposed development.\nMr. Rose presented a slide.\nStated the assisted living facility is a good idea, but not at the proposed site; workers\nwill have difficulties finding transportation to the facility: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.\nStated there is a need for an assisted living facility in Alameda; the traffic will be\nsubstantially different with the project: Kevin Hester, Alameda.\nStated the Council should look at the use and not the EIR; the proposed facility is not an\nappropriate use of the site; parking would be an appropriate use for the area; the focus\nshould be on increasing ferry ridership and parking for ferry riders: Tim Neilson,\nAlameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 06, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 8, "text": "368\nStated the parcel of land should be used for ferry ridership; the assisted living facility\ncould be placed elsewhere in Alameda: Steve Cvitanovic, Alameda.\nStated that he strongly supports the project; there are not enough affordable assisted\nliving facilities in Alameda; assisted living facilities do not have a lot of traffic: Larry\nWilliams, Alameda.\nShowed a video in support of the project: Matt Tunney; Becca Perata; John McManus;\nand Josh Reed.\nThe City Attorney stated showing the video is not a violation of the Brown Act.\nMayor Spencer requested that in the future speakers be present to speak instead of\nshowing a video.\nStated the Harbor Bay Business Association supports the project; urged Council to\nuphold the Planning Board's decision: Dan Reidy, Harbor Bay Business Association.\nStated the property is not appropriate for an assisted living facility; assisted living under\nState law is called residential care for the elderly; the zoning is not appropriate for the\nproperty: Dana Sack, Alameda.\nStated that he does not support the project; the facility is residential, not medical; an\nassisted living facility is an incompatible use for the project site because of the airport\nnoise: George Humphries, Alameda.\nShowed maps; stated the use is incompatible with the project site; the decibel level area\nis not an area to put seniors with health issues: Reyla Graber, Alameda.\nUrged Council to deny the Planning Board decision; stated noise is not good for elderly\nindividuals with Alzheimer's or memory problems; noise causes problems in sleep\npatterns, which is not healthy for elderly with memory problems: Patricia Gannon,\nAlameda.\nSubmitted a letter; urged Council to not approve the Planning Board decision; stated\npeople with Alzheimer's are very sensitive to noise: Marie Kane, Alameda.\nSubmitted documents; stated that she is opposed to the assisted living facility on the\nproposed project site and concerned about the safety of seniors, the City's legal liability,\nthe environmental impacts, and sea level: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.\nStated that he strongly supports the project; the noise and safety issues have been\naddressed by the Building Code; the City and WETA are not going to buy the property\nto make a parking lot for the ferry riders; the call for review process has become\nunacceptable: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 6, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 9, "text": "369\nStated that he is in favor of the project; the project has a very low amount of parking;\nurged Council to vote on what is best for the entire City, not a select few: Bob Osteman,\nAlameda.\nStated that he strongly supports the project; the project will produce a very low traffic\nimpact; the assisted living facility is better than a parking lot on the project site: Robert\nDoud, Alameda.\nStated that he has been to the project site many times and the airport noise is not\nnoticeable; urged Council to support the project; stated an assisted living facility will\nhelp the people who already live in Alameda stay in the area: Brock Grunt, Alameda.\nStated the zoning and use are in compliance; there is a high demand for the proposed\nproject; urged Council to uphold the Planning Board decision: Kristoffer K\u00f6ster,\nAlameda.\nStated that she supports the project; the site will be developed; the call for review\nprocess needs to be changed: Kari Thompson, Alameda.\nStated that he is concerned with the traffic and parking; he lives close to the site and\ncan hear airplane noise; there is a better site for an assisted living facility: Tom Krysiak,\nAlameda.\nRead letter on behalf of Kevin Connolly from WETA: WETA is working with City staff\nand Harbor Bay Homeowners Association to address parking concerns; WETA has\nincreased bike rack capacity and installed bicycle lockers; WETA strongly supports the\nproject: Bruce Meyers, WETA.\nStated assisted living facilities are good places for seniors to live; that she strongly\nsupports the project; residents were concerned with the noise level and safety of a past\nproject, which is now thriving: Alice Lai-Bitker, Peace of Mind Home Care.\nStated seniors with Alzheimer's need a quiet surrounding; there is a need for senior\nhousing but not at the proposed project site: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nStated the assisted living facility should be located in a different location: Rosemary\nMcNally, Alameda.\nStated the assisted living facility should not be located at the project site; the Zoning\nOrdinance as currently written does not authorize an assisted facility in the proposed\nproject site: Steven Gurtler.\nStated the project is a residential facility; traffic and airport noise have increased; bird\nmigrations have shifted; sea rise will happen; urged Council to demand a current EIR;\nstated the site is not suitable for an assisted living facility: Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 06, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 10, "text": "370\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 9:51 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:59 p.m.\n***\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how current is the EIR and the difference\nbetween a convalescent home and assisted living.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the EIR was updated in the\nthree areas: traffic, airport noise and biology; stated sea level rise will be addresses as\na standard condition of approval if the project is approved; the Planning Board has\nauthority to determine if a use is substantially similar.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there was a great deal of opposition to other\nprojects; people are opposed to change; staff is working on more ferry parking; the\nassisted living facility would alleviate some housing issues; the proposed use relates\nwell to the General Plan; that she does not believe having seniors in the area will cause\na disruption in the neighborhood; she supports the project; the project will be an asset to\nthe business park and the community; thanked the Planning Board.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated there is doubt about whether the project is in compliance\nwith the zoning; assisted living is closer to residential than to a rest home or\nconvalescent home; the model is great, but should be in another location in Alameda;\nthe project is not appropriate for the site.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned with placing residential units in an\narea where the City has an agreement with Oakland Airport saying there would be no\nresidential.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated having people submit a video for public speaking is the\nsame as having residents read letters for other people who cannot be present; there will\nbe 80% less traffic from the project; the project fits in with the goal to reduce parking;\nthe noise level is within acceptable limits; the Oakland Airport has said the project does\nnot violate the agreement with the City; the property is privately owned; a parking lot will\nnot be placed on the site; the use is appropriate for the site; there is a demand for\nassisted living facilities in Alameda.\n***\n(16-422) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items:\nBoatworks [paragraph no. 16-423]; the lease [paragraph no. 16-425]; the Transit Plan\n[paragraph no. 16-426]; the Council Referrals [paragraph nos. 16-428 through 16-434],\nand the League of California Cities Resolution [paragraph no. 16-435].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of addressing Boatworks, the lease, and\nthe Transit Plan; and having the League of California Cities Resolution on the next\nagenda Consent Calendar.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 6, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 11, "text": "371\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer stated the referrals and the League item would return\non September 20th\nCouncilmember Oddie suggested an amendment to the motion to not hear the Transit\nPlan since Council still needs to return to closed session.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.\nMayor Spencer summarized the motion; to hear Boatworks and the lease and have the\nLeague item return on the Consent Calendar.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nMayor Spencer stated if the project site is not appropriate for regular residential, the\nproject site is not appropriate for a vulnerable population; the assisted living facility is\nnot an appropriate use for the project site.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of overturning the Planning Boards decision.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the distinction is that assisted\nliving fits under commercial zoning; the Council is trying to determine if the location\ncould have market rate housing.\nMayor Spencer stated the Council was informed the location is not appropriate for\nresidential; an assisted living facility is more residential; the flight pattern in the area is\nincreasing.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if something from the Oakland Airport could would\nalleviate Councilmember Daysog's concern.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded in the negative; stated the number of planes is\nincreasing and the noise level will increase; the site is not appropriate for residential\nuse.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the agreement with the Airport limits the number of\nplanes.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded there are a lot of elements to the agreement; noted\nplanes fly overhead at all hours.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 06, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 12, "text": "372\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if Vice Mayor Matarrese would accept the staff\nrecommendation if the developer changes the design.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded changing the design would address one problem;\nstated the assisted living facility still would not work on the project site due to sea level\nrise and the noise level; the facility would work in another location where environmental\nconcerns are not an issue.\nMayor Spencer summarized the motion is approval of overturning the Planning Boards\ndecision.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers\nEzzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 2.\n(16-423) Public Hearing to Consider: Resolution No. 15194, \"Denying Application to\nExtend Boatworks Tentative Map #8060 (Originally Approved in 2011) for an Additional\nTwo Years.\" Adopted, and\n(16-423A) Resolution No. 15195, \"Upholding Approval of Development Plan and\nDensity Bonus Application PLN15-0582 and Open Space Design Review Application for\n2229, 2235 and 2241 Clement Street (APN 071 029000100 AND 071 028900500),\nKnown As the \"Boatworks\" Property, to Construct 182 Residential Units, Internal\nRoadways and Alleys and a Waterfront Park on a 9.48-Acre Property.\" Adopted. An\nEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed for the project in compliance\nwith the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what types of commitments the project has made with\nregard to transit uses, alternative transit uses and transit goals; how are the transit\ngoals going to be measured.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded there will be annual transit\npayments; stated all units would have AC Transit passes; there will be annual reporting\non the effectiveness and usage of transit; there will also be waterfront access.\nIn\nresponse to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director stated the original floor plans were not approved; the Planning\nBoard resolution limits the total number of housing units to 182.\n***\n(16-424) Mayor Spencer moved to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 6, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 13, "text": "373\nOn behalf of the Applicant, Phil Banta, Robert McGillis and Nicolet Collins gave a Power\nPoint presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding the aging in place, Mr. Banta\nstated the design can be changed.\nStated the development has not adhered to Alameda standards; the developer has\ndisregarded instructions on how to make the project acceptable for Alameda; urged\nCouncil to deny the request for another extension to the developer: Dorothy Freeman,\nAlameda.\nStated the project should follow the inclusionary housing clause: Brian McGuire,\nAlameda.\nStated the developer has submitted a tentative map that meets the requirement; an\nextension is not futile: Shona Armstrong, Applicant's Attorney.\n***\nMayor Spencer announced that the lease [paragraph no. 16-425 would not be heard\ntonight.\n***\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the parking standards used for the project were 1.5\nspaces per unit, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in\nthe affirmative\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what is requires under the zoning, to which the\nAssistant Community Development Director responded the conditional approval is 1.5\nspaces.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether zoning language specifies a range, to which\nthe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether apartments could have two cars, to which the\nAssistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether a bundle package is being pursued, to which\nthe Assistant Community Development Director responded only for the multi-family\nunits.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how many units are bundled, to which the Assistant\nCommunity Development Director responded 30% of the 180 units.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the developer has the aging in place design.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 06, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 14, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired how many of the units will be affordable housing and\nhow the plan complies with inclusionary housing requirements.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the base project of 140\nunits would require six very-low income units, six low income and ten moderate income\nunits; for a 30% density bonus project of 182 units, there needs to be 13 very-low\nincome units; the developer is requesting to waive the low income units and reduce the\nmoderate income to 8 units; the inclusionary requirements have to be met; if the\ndeveloper wants a density bonus, one of the categories can be increased, but a\ncategory cannot be wiped out; the total is 29 units, but the developer would like to do 21\nunits.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the inclusionary housing refers to rental units\nor affordable ownership housing for first time home buyers.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the Planning Board\nresolution does not get into the level detail.\nMr. Banta stated the application is based on an affordable housing application that was\napproved in 2011; in 2011, the City Council and the Planning Board approved the\naffordable housing percentages; 15% of the base units were presented as affordable\nhousing; 9% very low income and 6% moderate income.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated staff recommends that the\nCouncil uphold the Planning Board decision; the developer can follow the conditions of\napproval and turn in a tentative map that is consistent with the development plan.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of denying the extension of Tentative Map 8060\n[adoption of the resolution].\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n-\n5.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of upholding the Planning Board decision to\napprove conditions for the approval of the development plan and design review and\nopen space plan [adoption of the resolution].\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Oddie, Matarrese, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog - 1.\n(16-425) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a First Amendment to a Lease and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 6, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 15, "text": "375\nAuthorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the\nTerms of a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Pacific Automated LLC, a\nCalifornia Limited Liability Company, dba Brix Beverage (Pacific Automated, LLC) to\nInclude a Portion of Building 25 (Unit 100), a Small Outbuilding Known as Building 491,\nand Additional Parking Common Areas as Part of the Original Premises at 1951\nMonarch Street at Alameda Point. [In accordance with the California Environmental\nQuality Act (CEQA), the project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines\nSection 15301 (c) - Existing Facilities.] Not heard.\n(16-426) Recommendation to Discuss the Existing Conditions and Goals/Objectives of\nthe Citywide Transit and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-427) The City Manager stated the Finance Department was recognized for the\nComprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR); the Certificate of Excellence for the\nCAFR will come to Council for recognition; announced the Love the Island campaign\nribbon cutting would be September 15th.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where people can obtain pins for the Love the\nIsland campaign.\nThe City Manager stated there will be handouts at the ribbon cutting.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(16-428) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate and Begin the Process with the\nPlanning Board to Propose Revisions to the Ordinance and Code Sections Defining\nAlameda's Inclusionary Housing for Residential Development. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)\nNot heard.\n(16-429) Consider Directing the City Manager to Schedule a Priority Setting Work\nSession. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard.\n(16-430) Consider Directing the City Manager to Immediately Hold a City Council\nWorkshop on the Final Phase of the Bayport-Alameda Landing Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement (DDA)\\Development Plan. (Councilmember Daysog) Not\nheard.\n(16-431) Consider Directing the City Manager to Have the Social Service Human\nRelations Board (SSHRB) Review City Policies and Procedures for Aiding Alameda's\nHomeless in Order to Make Recommendations to the City Council for Policy Revisions\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 06, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 16, "text": "376\nand Additions. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) Not heard.\n(16-432) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate Revisions to the Ordinances\nand Code Sections for Mixed-Use Zoning in the City of Alameda to Aid Retention of\nBeneficial Commercial Uses within Areas Zoned for Mixed Use. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)\nNot heard.\n(16-433) Consider Directing Staff to Review Enacting a Minimum Wage Increase in\nAlameda. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard.\n(16-434) Consider Directing Staff to Renegotiate the Terms of the Friends of the\nAlameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) Lease and Relocate/Modernize the Shelter Facility,\nincluding Addressing Funding. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-435) Written Communication from the League of California Cities (LCC) regarding\nthe October 5 through 7, 2016 Annual Conference Resolution: Committing the LCC to\nSupporting the Vision Zero, Toward Zero Deaths, and Other Programs or Initiatives to\nMake Safety a Top Priority for Transportation Projects and Policy Formulation, while\nEncouraging Cities to Pursue Similar Initiatives. Not heard.\n(16-436) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Commission on\nDisability Issues and the Social Service Human Relations Board.\nMayor Spencer nominated Lisa Hall for appointment to the Commission on Disability\nIssues and Kale Jenks for appointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:33 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\nSeptember 6, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 6, 2016- -5:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 5:39 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe City Attorney made a brief announcement about the Tidal Canal [paragraph no. 16-\n401].\nPublic Comment\nIn response to the City Attorney's comments, Theresa Rudy, stated that she would\nwithdraw her request to speak.\nJohn Knox White, Alameda, expressed concerns with privatizing the access to the water\nnear the parks; stated homeowners do not have access to their docks; access to the\nCity public land has been impacted; there needs to be a plan for ownership of the\nsubmerged land.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16-402) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\n\u00a7\n54956.8); Property: Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal; City Negotiator: Jill Keimach;\nOrganizations Represented: US Army Corps of Engineers and Multiple Potential\nPurchasers; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of\nPayment.\n(16-403) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); Case Name: Boatworks V City of Alameda, et al.; Court: Superior\nCourt of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case No.: RG16823346.\n(16-404) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation\npursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of\nCases: Six (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action).\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced that regarding Existing Litigation, an update was given on litigation status;\nand regarding Anticipated Litigation, direction was given to City Attorney and City\nManager to begin the process to address encroachments/trespass on public property on\nthe public access areas between Fernside and the Tidal Canal.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 6, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-06", "page": 18, "text": "***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 6:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:36 p.m.\n***\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced that regarding Real Property, direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:29 a.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\nSeptember 6, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-06.pdf"}