{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 20, 2016- -5:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:47 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nEric Gantos and Joanne Martin, Hot Rod Shop Inc., provided a handout; provided\ninformation on his business and urged Council to proceed with the lease with Hot Rod\nShop.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16-437) Conference with Legal Counsel Worker's Compensation claim (Pursuant to\nGovernment Code \u00a7 54956.95); Claimant: John Brandenburg; Agency claimed against:\nCity of Alameda.\n(16-438) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54956.8); Property: Alameda Point - Building 530 - 120 W. Oriskany Avenue, Alameda,\nCA; City Negotiator: Nanette Mocanu/Cushman & Wakefield; Organizations\nRepresented: Hot Rod Shop Inc., and NorCal Clean Tech, LLC; Issue under\nnegotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment.\n(16-439) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); Case Name: Jean Ann Heninger V City of Alameda, et al.; Court:\nSuperior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case No.: RG16806755.\n(16-440) 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.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced that regarding Worker's Compensation, Real Property, Case No.:\nRG16806755 and Case No.: RG16823346, direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:44 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\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 20, 2016- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:04 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\n(16-441) Mayor Spencer announced that the Bay Day proclamation [paragraph no. 16-\n443\nwould not be heard.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(16-442) Proclamation Declaring September 15 through October 15, 2016 as National\nHispanic Heritage Month.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Claudia Medina, Alameda\nUnified School District and Alameda Latino Community Achievement Network\nCultivating Education (ALCANCE).\nMs. Medina introduced ALCANCE members, provided a handout and made brief\ncomments.\n(16-443) Proclamation Declaring October 1, 2016 as Bay Day. Not heard.\n(16-444) Presentation by Alameda County Housing and Community Development on\nthe County Housing Bond.\nLinda Gardner, Alameda County Housing and Community Development, gave a Power\nPoint presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the allocation is based on the\npopulation of a particular city.\nMs. Gardner responded the allocation is a blend of the assessed property values and\ntotal population; stated the regional pool is a blended formula based on current poverty\nlevel and the projected regional housing needs for very low- and low-income housing.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated County Supervisor Wilma Chan has been a leader in the\neffort for affordable housing; urged voters to support the measure.\nMayor Spencer inquired if a 23 year parcel tax would be created.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Gardner responded after all the bonds are issued, the total length will be 20 years;\nthe process will take 3 and 6 years to start up.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified the measure is a bond measure not per parcel;\nthe bond is based on the assessed value of the property, not appraised.\nMayor Spencer stated the cost is a property tax, not a parcel tax.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft urged Council to support the bond measure; stated\nAlameda is in great need of more funding for affordable housing.\nUrged Council to support the proposed bond measure; stated the bond will provide the\nmeans to assist homeowners, renters and the most vulnerable; more information on the\nbond measure is available on affordablealameda.org: Patricia Young, Alameda Home\nTeam.\nUrged Council to support the bond measure: Liz Verella, Building Futures with Women\nand Children.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(16-445) Luann DeWitt, Alameda, and Nan Rideout, Alameda, urged Council to\nreconsider its September 6, 2016 decision overturning the Planning Board's decision to\nallow a senior facility at Harbor Bay.\n(16-446) John Milhar-Kyono, PEEPS SDIT, thanked the City Council for supporting the\nDrive 25 campaign.\n(16-447) Cyndy Johnsen, Bike Walk Alameda; Denysa Trepnier, Bike Walk Alameda\n(submitted information); Brian McGuire, Bike Walk Alameda; and Malia Vella, Bike Walk\nAlameda; urged Council to address creating a West End bicycle bridge, including\napplying for grants and working with the Coast Guard and federal representatives.\n(16-448) Larry Williams, Alameda, expressed his disappointment with the Council\ndecision to not allow a senior facility at Harbor Bay.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the Urban Planning Partners Agreement [paragraph no.\n16-455], the grant resolution [paragraph no. 16-460], Affordable Housing Bond Measure\nresolution [paragraph no. 16-462], AC Transit Bond Measure resolution [paragraph no.\n16-463], and the BART Bond Measure resolution [paragraph no. 16-464 were removed\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*16-449) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on August 8, 2016.\nApproved.\n(*16-450) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,250,464.75.\n(*16-451) Recommendation to Amend the Contract with Pacheco Brothers to Increase\nthe Amount by $238,300.11, Including Contingencies, for a Total Compensation of\n$1,119,949.67 for Landscape Maintenance of Median Strips and Special Areas.\nAccepted.\n(*16-452) Recommendation to: 1) Appropriate Funds for Maintenance of the Landside\nAssets up to $302,994 at the Main Street Ferry Terminal and up to $71,694 for the\nHarbor Bay Ferry Terminal, which are Both Reimbursed by the Water Transit\nEmergency Authority (WETA), and 2) Amend the Contract with ABC Security Service to\nIncrease the Amount by $77,933, for a Total Compensation of $206,389, for the Main\nStreet Ferry Terminal. Accepted.\n(*16-453) Recommendation to Amend the Contract with Rosas Brothers Construction to\nIncrease the Contract Amount by $1,162,742, Including Contingencies, for the Repair of\nConcrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal Year (FY)\n2016-17, Phase 17, for a Total of $3,488,216, for the Repair of Concrete Sidewalk,\nCurb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Phases 15, 16 and 17. Accepted.\n(*16-454) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $75,000 for Each\nYear (Total Expenditure of $375,000) to Kier & Wright; a Contract in the Amount of\n$75,000 for Each Year (Total Expenditure of $375,000) to Towill, Inc.; and a Contract in\nthe Amount of $75,000 for Each Year (Total Expenditure of $375,000) to Ruggeri-\nJensen-Azar (RJA), for On-Call Land Surveying Consulting Services. Accepted.\n(16-455) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Amend an Agreement with\nUrban Planning Partners, Inc. to Extend the Term until December 2017.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the City Council has the final review before\nthe plan is finalized.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that the plan will return to Council for approval.\nCouncilmember Daysog read the motion from the March 2015 Council meeting; stated\nthe recommendation was amended by Vice Mayor Matarrese to include an in-process\ncheck to have Council approve the plan before finalize action.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 5, "text": "The Base Reuse Director responded the plan will not go forward without Council\napproval.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council's input would be need on the\ndraft site alternatives for public and private spaces, to which the Base Reuse Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the professionals need to be guided by Councilmembers\nwho have a sense of the community needs.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated the Council is instrumental in developing the plan; the\ndraft plan will return to Council for feedback.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if the current agenda item is only to extend the contract,\nto which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the Council does not want the project to be too far without\nhaving seen the plans; Council needs to provide direction before the plan is locked; he\nsupports approving the extension.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there would be discussion\nunder the Main Street Plan at Alameda Point [paragraph no. 16-452]; the vote is to\nextend the consultants contract.\nMayor Spencer stated the clarification is important to make sure everyone is on the\nsame page.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*16-456) Recommendation to Approve a Month-to-Month Contract with AT&T Network\nIntegration Services and Equipment Resale for $108,000 Annually to Move From an\nAT&T Hosted Voice Direct Network Access (VDNA) to Voice over Internet Protocol\n(VoIP). Accepted.\n(*16-457) Recommendation to Support the League of California Cities (LCC) Resolution\nCommitting the League to Supporting Vision Zero, Toward Zero Deaths, and Other\nPrograms or Initiatives to Make Safety a Top Priority for Transportation Projects and\nPolicy Formulation, while Encouraging Cities to Pursue Similar Activities. Accepted.\n(*16-458) Recommendation to 1) Authorize the City Manager, or Her Designee, to Enter\ninto an Agreement with the Alameda Unified School District to Accept $65,351.40 for\nCrossing Guard Services; 2) Authorize the City Manager, or her Designee, to Enter into\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 6, "text": "an Agreement with All City Management Services Incorporated for Crossing Guard\nServices not to Exceed $239,015; and 3) Amend the Fiscal Year 2016-17 General Fund\nBudget by $78,000. Accepted.\n(*16-459) Recommendation to Accept Allotment of $389,741.75 in Funds from the\nCalifornia Office of Emergency Services for 9-1-1 Customer Premise Equipment.\nAccepted.\n(16-460) Resolution No. 15196, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute\na Grant Agreement Between the State of California Department of Parks and\nRecreation Division of Boating and Waterways and the City of Alameda By and Through\nthe Alameda Police Department and By Motion Amend the Fiscal Year 2016-17\nRevenue Estimate by $40,700 and Expenditures Budget by $44,770.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what great things will be done with the grant\nmoney.\nThe Police Chief responded the Grant money will allow the City to abate and remove\nprivately owned derelict vessels from the estuary or allow owners to surrender the\nvessels; the grant money will only apply to privately owned vessels, not commercial\nvessels.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution authorizing the City\nManager to negotiate and execute a Grant Agreement between the State of California\nDepartment of Parks and Recreation Division of Boating and Waterways and the City of\nAlameda by and through the Alameda Police Department and by motion amend the\nFiscal Year 2016-17 revenue estimate by $40,700 and expenditures budget by $44,770.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer thanked the Police Chief and the officers involved in\nthe project.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*16-461) Resolution No. 15197, \"Approving Supplement No. 1 to the Amended and\nRestated Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Joint Powers Agreement (JPA),\nAdding the City of Shasta Lake as a Party to the Agreement.\" Adopted.\n(16-462) Resolution No. 15198, \"Supporting the 2016 Alameda County Affordable\nHousing Bond Measure (Anticipated 23 Year Tax Measure). Adopted.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft urged Council to support the Alameda County Affordable\nHousing Bond Measure.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer stated it is critical that the measure be a County\nmeasure; the measure addresses issues across the County, not only for the City of\nAlameda; the cost is $12 to $14 estimated per $100,000 of assessed value.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the measure is a way for Alamedan's to help each\nother.\nMayor Spencer stated the measure will take two-thirds vote to pass.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(16-463) Resolution No. 15199, \"Supporting the AC Transit Parcel Tax Renewal Bond\nMeasure (20 Year Measure). Adopted.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's request, Elsa Ortiz, AC Transit Board of\nDirectors, gave a brief overview of the measure.\nMayor Spencer inquired what percentage is needed for the measure to pass, to which\nMs. Ortiz responded two-thirds.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether line 19 is coming back in December, to which\nMs. Ortiz responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what the headways will be on line 19.\nMs. Ortiz responded AC Transit needs to hire more drivers; stated there will be a 20\nminute headway; AC Transit is also working to have Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) dedicated\nlanes.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how someone would go about applying to be a bus\ndriver, to which Ms. Ortiz responded at www.actransit.org.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the AC Transit Board took special considerations for the\nBuena Vista line; AC Transit is looking into improving bus access to the ferries; he\nhopes voters support the measure.\nMs. Ortiz stated the City of Alameda and AC Transit meet once every three months to\nhear citizen concerns.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 8, "text": "(16-464) Resolution No. 15200, \"Supporting the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)\nGeneral Obligation Bond Measure to Fund BART's Safety, Reliability and Traffic Relief\nProgram (40 Year Maximum Tax Measure). Adopted.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she feels the public should hear about the BART\nGeneral Obligation Bond Measure on the November ballot.\nRobert Raburn, BART Director, gave a brief overview of the measure.\nMayor Spencer inquired how long property owners will be paying the tax.\nMr. Raburn responded 48 years for the overall length of all the bonds.\nMayor Spencer inquired how long will the money last after the bonds are issued.\nMr. Raburn responded the plan is to issue the bonds every other year for 10 issuances;\nover 20 years; State law requires deliverance of 80% of the bond measure projects,\nwhich will be scrutinized by an independent oversight body.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the bonds will be issued over 20 years, to which Mr. Raburn\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether 80% will be spent over 20 years.\nMr. Raburn responded the last bond would be issued 20 years from now; then, there\nwould be 2 years left to perform.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether property owners will be paying the tax for 48 years, to\nwhich Mr. Raburn responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is consideration of having a station in Alameda.\nMr. Raburn responded that 90% of the bond is focused on existing infrastructure, which\nis deteriorating; 10% will go towards access and planning studies.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the money will cover an engineering study, but not\nbuild any lines, to which Mr. Raburn responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated voters to knowing what they are voting for is important.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution supporting the BART\nGeneral Obligation Bond Measure to Fund BART's Safety, Reliability and Traffic Relief\nProgram.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 9, "text": "5.\n(*16-465) Resolution No. 15201, \"Supporting Proposition 67, California's Plastic Bag\nBan Veto Referendum, Instituting a Statewide Plastic Bag Ban.\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-466) Resolution No. 15202, \"Appointing Lisa Hall as a Member of the Commission\non Disability Issues.\" Adopted; and\n(16-466A) Resolution No. 15203, \"Appointing Kale Jenks as a Member of the Social\nService Human Relations Board.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Oddie 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 Ms. Hall and Mr. Jenks.\n(16-467) Presentation by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and Alameda Municipal Power\n(AMP) Assistant General Manager on AMP's Five-Year Strategic Plan, Capital\nImprovements and Operational Status.\nThe PUB President and the AMP Assistant General Manager - Engineering and\nOperations gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the brightness of the new street lights,\nthe AMP Assistant General Manager - Engineering and Operations responded that\nthere is currently an American Medical Association (AMA) study being conducted on the\nbrightness of streetlights and the effects on the body; continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired about the current status of the Underground Utility\nDistrict stopped.\nThe AMP Assistant General Manager - Engineering and Operations responded the last\nUnderground Utility District was put on hold due to public concern; stated for the last\nfew years, AMP has been working on a policy and the process has been initiated; the\nCity Council created a District Nomination Board to collect public input and make\nrecommendations; the public felt they did not have a voice, the Board gives the public a\nforum.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he attended the recent Public Utilities Board (PUB)\nmeeting advertising public concern over the net energy metering successor plan;\ninquired what is the status and when will an update be brought to Council.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 10, "text": "The AMP Assistant General Manager - Engineering and Operations responded AMP is\nlooking at the information received from the PUB meeting; staff will bring the issue to\nthe November Council meeting.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the issue is schools converting to solar and the City\nManager's remaining capacity is under 5%; inquired whether the issue has been\naddressed.\nThe AMP Assistant General Manager - Engineering and Operations responded AMP is\nnearing capacity and the issue will have to be reviewed.\nThe AMP Assistant General Manager - Energy Resource Planning stated the priority\nwith schools is improving facilities; AMP has worked with the schools to improve energy\nefficiency.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about microgrids.\nThe AMP Assistant General Manager - Engineering and Operations responded a\nmicrogrid is three components: smart devices, storage and solar generation; all are tied\nto the main grid yet they can separate and sustain themselves for a long period.\nThe PUB President stated microgrids are big throughout the nation; they are able to\nstay resilient and help communities through natural disasters.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Alameda Unified School District\n(AUSD) focusing on the energy efficiency and alternate means of generating electricity\nare separate issues and cannot be pursued simultaneously.\nThe AMP Assistant General Manager - Energy Resource Planning responded the issue\nis an AUSD funding question.\nThe PUB President stated focusing on the issues sequentially rather than\nsimultaneously is better; energy efficiency reduces the energy and solar size.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether AMP is looking to do solar on other City\nfacilities.\nThe AMP Assistant General Manager - Energy Resource Planning responded various\ndepartments would have to answer said question; stated Public Works would need to\ninitiate projects; AMP partnered with the Library for the solar system; AMP and Public\nWorks reviewed the Fire Station and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to provide\nprovisions for a future solar system; AMP is not a solar installer nor a finance agency for\nsolar installation; AMP's responsibility is to maintain a robust grid and ensure the grid is\nreliable.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether AMP supports solar in the City\nbuildings, to which the AMP Assistant General Manager - Energy Resource Planning\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired about the need for places to power electric vehicles.\nThe PUB President responded AMP would like to work with the City to figure out where\nto install charging stations.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the location of the microgrid is Site A; he would like\nanalysis and justification for the location being at Site A; AMP will be subsidizing the\npower grid; requested clarity on the value that was not contemplated when the City was\nnegotiating with the Site A developer.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested a brief response.\nThe PUB President responded the issue is complex and would have to be discussed\nlater.\nMayor Spencer inquired about the AMA study; stated that she received concerns\nregarding the 4000 watt LED lights, the previous General Manager stated AMP is no\nlonger installing 4000 watt LED lights and would now be installing the 3000 watt lights;\ninquired whether the new process is being done.\nThe AMP Assistant General Manager - Engineering and Operations responded with\ndetails of the LED phase 2; stated AMP plans to conduct a survey and hold a\ncommunity meeting.\nMayor Spencer stated the previous General Manager stated the 4000 watt LED lights\nwere being replaced with the 3000 watt LED lights; inquired whether the new lights are\nbeing installed.\nThe AMP Assistant General Manager - Engineering and Operations responded AMP\nhas not made a decision yet and is waiting to hear back from the consultant.\nMayor Spencer stated if the plan has changed since July, she would like an update for\nthe community.\nThe City Manager responded that the matter will be brought back to Council if the\nwattage is above 3000.\nExpressed concerns regarding thinking globally; stated climate change is a potential\ncatastrophe; the PUB can use resources to inform the community: Ken Peterson,\nAlameda.\n(16-468) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a First Amendment to a Lease and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 12, "text": "Authorizing 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. Introduced.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(16-469) Summary Title: Public Hearing to Consider Parcelization and Acquisition of\nOakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal From the Army Corps of Engineers and Disposition of\n94 Parcels to Individual Property Owners and Related Environmental and Zoning\nAmendment Actions.\nPublic Hearing to Consider: Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Chapter 30, Section 30-4.21 E, Estuary District; Introduced;\n(16-469A) Resolution No. 15204, \"Approving a Negative Declaration and Tentative Map\n#8337 for a 99 Lot Subdivision Located Along the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal\nfrom Approximately 1,800 Feet Northwest of the Park Street Bridge to Approximately\n2,300 Feet South of High Street; Adopted; and\n(16-469B) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to: (1) Execute a\nMemorandum of Understanding, Quitclaim Deed and All Other Necessary Documents\nBetween the City of Alameda and the United States of America Acting By and Through\nthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Acquire 94 Parcels of Semi-Submerged and\nSubmerged Land On the Alameda Side of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal (\"Tidal\nCanal\"); (2) Execute Purchase and Sale Agreements, Quitclaim Deeds and All Other\nNecessary Documents Between the City of Alameda and Various Purchasers to Sell\nApproximately 92 Parcels on the Tidal Canal at Fair Market Value. A Draft Negative\nDeclaration has been prepared for the proposed actions consistent with the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA). Introduced.\nStated that he is in favor of the project: Bill Dutra, Alameda.\nStated that she is a tenant along the waterline; her business ties up barges and is in\nsupport of the project; urged Council to support the project: Molly Jacobson, Dutra\nConstruction.\nStated that he is concerned with encroachment by the property owners; various boat\nsizes will not fit in 2 feet of open water; the illegal docks should be removed so the rest\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 13, "text": "of the residents can use the water: Al Wright, Alameda.\nThe Assistant City Attorney gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether someone could build a hotel in the area and\nwhether such a project would need to have approval, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded in the affirmative; stated every use would need approval; the\nAssistant City Attorney continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would retain the open water lot\nparcel and whether one of the parcels runs down the middle of the Tidal Canal, to which\nthe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who would be responsible for dredging the open\nwater parcel, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the responsibility of\ndredging will remain with the Army Corp; said agreement is both statutory and\ncontractual.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated residents have referred to public access points as parks;\ninquired what is the difference between a public access point and a park.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded a park is an area that has been designated as\nsuch either by zoning or open space or the space is programed as a park; stated the\npublic access point is not zoned; when the subdivisions were created, the developer\nwas asked to put in public access points.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the current City Council has ever contemplated\nselling the public access points to any private homeowner, individual or entity.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the myth is that the current City Council has tried selling\nsaid property.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the public access points are outside the project area\nand are not the subject of the actions Council is being asked to take tonight; the ask is\nfor authority to subdivide and potentially dispose of semi-submerged areas in the water.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether or not the city own the areas, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded the property is federally owned.\nThe City Attorney clarified the property is public view access, not access to the water;\nthe water itself is still owned by the Army Corp of Engineers.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the City is planning to sell the public view\naccess to anyone, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 14, "text": "In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry about a particular area on the map, the\nAssistant City Attorney responded that there are currently no lines in the water; borders\ndo not exist in the water.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether decisions being made have ramifications in\nthe area; inquired whether the area is outside the six parcels of interest.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the current proposal is to hold the six areas as\npart of the open water parcel, not subject to immediate transfers if the project is\napproved.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the parcel is beyond the 35 feet and if both complete\nparcels are inside the water.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the answer is next in the presentation; continued\nthe presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether parcels could be sold separately from the homes.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated staff recommends a 35\nfoot easement and doing something about the encroachments on the land side;\ncontinued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the structures in the water on the six\nparcels were built without permits from the federal government.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded he has no information regarding the permits;\nmost homeowners have purchased properties with docks already built; the City has to\nconduct more research on the issue; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the encroachments on dry land were permitted by the\nCity.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; he stated they are trespass;\ncontinued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney is referring to the parcels\non the land, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; continued\nthe presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry about estimates, the Assistant City\nAttorney stated the external and internal costs would break-even; excess revenues\ncome from commercial side participation; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there could be a water parcel behind one house that\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 15, "text": "could be owned by someone else, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative; stated the adjacent property owner would be given first offer; if the property\nowner declines the offer, the second offer would be to the Homeowner's Association\n(HOA); if the HOA also declined, the City would not move forward with the transaction.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the parcel would then be offered to the adjacent\nneighbors.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded said suggestion has not been contemplated.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the HOA could end up owning the parcels and selling\nthe property to someone else.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the HOA could do whatever it wants to do with\nthe parcel.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the parcel could be sold to someone else or used to\ntheir own benefit.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he would let the HOA respond should the\nparcel is only valuable to the adjacent homeowner.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the HOA could sell the parcel to the adjacent\nproperty owner or anyone else.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated there is no restriction to\nalienate the property once purchased; laws against alienation and property prevent\ndoing so.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the same person ends up owning the two parcels: the one on\nthe land and the one in the water, could they merge the two parcels, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired where the residential closing cost estimate comes from;\nwhether the fee exceeds closing costs, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the City would have issued a permit for a\ndock when the dock is not City property.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the City has jurisdiction up to the property line;\nafter 2000, the Army Corp did not allow permits; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie questioned where the HOA would get the funds to purchase\nadjacent parcels.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 16, "text": "***\n(16-470) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering only the remaining\nregular agenda items [paragraph nos. 16-472, 16-473, and 16-474].\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the Emergency Operations\nCenter, the City Manager stated the item is an update Council requested.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would have preferred to also address the\nreferrals.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\n***\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft left the dais at 10:19 p.m. and returned at 10:22 p.m.\nStated zoning and permitting issues need to be addressed; there needs to be\nregulations on the height of trees and buildings in backyards: Susan Fitzgerald,\nAlameda.\nStated there is not enough information to proceed; the City must have all the facts\nbefore decisions are made: Marc Knass.\nUrged Council to use the proceeds from the sale to improve public access: Dan Siskind,\nAlameda.\nStated homeowners have not been able to make improvements for decades; urged\npassage: Edward Payne, Waterfront Homeowners Association (WHOA).\nStated the WHOA tried to leave the City with no outparcels; WHOA has tried to gauge\nwhether they will have the financial resources to purchase any of the outparcels; in the\nevent that WHOA is stuck with the parcels, they will try to work with the adjoining\nproperty owner to take ownership of the parcel; WHOA realizes they might be stuck with\nthe parcels for an extended period of time with the hopes that subsequent owner will be\ninterested in owning the parcel; he hopes the community is not driven by fear when\nmaking decisions; opportunity to save money by putting the parcels into place; requests\nCouncil to not leave deadlocked tonight; stated the issue has gone on for over 3\ndecades; the owners desperately want to see the transaction move forward; thanked\nthe Assistant City Attorney for the work done on the project; stated no predecessors\nhave stepped up to take on the issue: Seth Hamalian, WHOA.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 17, "text": "Mayor Spencer called a recess at 10:41 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:46 p.m.\n***\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the City going to include controls regarding\nresale prices if property owners do not participate.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the sale of the parcel\ncomes with rights and responsibilities; there will be a declaration of restrictions because\nthey are water parcels.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if WHOA finds a buyer for a parcel that is holding out\nand the buyer is willing to pay $50,000 instead of $10,000 should the City get some kind\nof distribution.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that the City has appraised the properties at\n$10,000; if the value were to increase in the future, the property would be appraised and\nstill sell at Fair Market Value; he does not see the parcel as a windfall because market\nforces govern value.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the solution of having open water behind the parcels that\ncontain the viewpoints is a good; the City could have a liability if parcels behind the\nresidents are kept; he is ready to move forward with the project.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the City never contemplated selling the public viewpoints;\nthe plan is a solution to a problem that has been lingering for three decades; the City\nshould meet with the homeowners to collaborate and find a solution that works best for\neveryone; he supports the project moving forward.\n(16-471) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the wait has been long for the homeowners and\nthe project needs to move forward.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the best interest of Alameda is to move forward on the\nproject; there is concern for the six parcels having public and water access; he is\nrequesting the public access points have a minimum of 35 feet to serve as panoramic\nview corridors and public access points.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether said matter is before the Council\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 18, "text": "tonight.\nThe City Attorney responded that Councilmember Daysog's concern could be\ndiscussed; changing the plans would mean a change to the Tentative Map; stated staff\nhears the recommendation but would prefer that Council approve the project as is.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he does not want to change any substantive details;\nhe believes a statement needs to be sent to the residents.\nMayor Spencer stated the problem needs to be solved; not allowing permits creates a\nsafety issue that needs to be resolved; inquired whether there are any situations where\none property owner has built out to an adjoining water parcel.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the lines in the map were drawn straight out; the\nline moved slightly to avoid hitting obstructions; one dock extends onto the open water\nparcel on City property, which will be treated with Code Enforcement.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the goal is to hand the parcels over to the current land\nowner and modify as practical.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated there is no situation\nwhere an improvement owned by one property owner is on another property owner's\nparcel.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the six public view access point have permits.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the City is not finished receiving the permit\nhistory.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the six parcels should be a part of the maps now;\nstated a speaker is concerned there will be an additional cost in the future.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded having the six parcels as a part of the map now\nwould be more cost efficient; there is still question on the public access.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the six parcels could be designated for the City right\nnow and changed in the future.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Attorney stated the parcel lines can be drawn, but the process to figure out\nwhat makes the most sense will take time; the City might have to change the final parcel\nlines depending on the final resolution.\nMayor Spencer stated designating the 35 feet as a hard line has not been done; the\nlines have gone a little to the left or a little to the right; she would be prefer keeping the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 19, "text": "35 feet hardline with regards to the six parcels.\nThe Assistant City Attorney thanked City staff who worked on the project.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved introduction of Ordinance amending the Alameda\nMunicipal Code by amending Chapter 30, Section 30-4.21 E, Estuary District.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution approving a Negative\nDeclaration and Tentative Map #8337 for a 99 lot subdivision located along the Oakland\nInner Harbor Tidal Canal from approximately 1,800 feet northwest of the Park Street\nBridge to approximately 2,300 feet south of High Street.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance authorizing the City\nManager to: (1) execute a Memorandum of Understanding, Quitclaim Deed and all other\nnecessary documents between the City of Alameda and the United States of America\nacting by and through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to acquire 94 parcels of semi-\nsubmerged and submerged land on the Alameda side of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal\nCanal (\"Tidal Canal\"); (2) execute Purchase and Sale Agreements, Quitclaim Deeds\nand all other necessary documents between the City of Alameda and various\npurchasers to sell approximately 92 parcels on the Tidal Canal at fair market value.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog requested the motion be amended to include\npending due diligence review, the six parcels outside of tonight's decision have been\nadded to parcel 2, and will return to public access use, should have a width of 35 feet,\nto serve as panoramic view corridors and water access points.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not accept the amendment; the\nmatter is already coming back to Council.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the matter will be coming back to Council.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the matter will come back to\nCouncil after the City has done its due diligence and worked with the six property\nowners.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a goal of trying to get 18 feet or 35 feet.\nThe City Attorney responded the City will do its due diligence and come back to Council\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 20, "text": "with something that will work for both sides.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he is satisfied with the City Attorney's response and is\nwilling to move forward.\nOn the call for the question the motion, carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(16-472) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda\nMunicipal Code by Amending Section 30-4.25(d).iii.b Related to Setbacks for Side\nStreet Property Lines on Corner Parcels within the North Park Street, Gateway Zoning\nDistrict. The proposed amendments are categorically exempt from the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor\nAlterations to Land Use Limitations. Introduced.\nStated the Downtown Alameda Business Association (DABA) supports the project;\nurged approval of the zoning amendment: Robb Ratto, DABA.\nStated that he and the architect are present to answer questions: Marcel Sengul,\nApplicant.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved the amendment [introduction of the ordinance], with\ninsertion in Section 1 of \" for outdoor seating or other public spaces\" to read \" other\nnon-automotive public spaces.\"\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the next sentence clarifies that the space is non-\nautomotive.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the wording does not exclude parking spaces; the wording\ncould be interpreted to allow a parking space.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the amendment is good.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there is no harm in adding the amendment.\nMayor Spencer stated the amendment is added clarification.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the project will make the gateway into Alameda a great\nentry.\nVice Mayor Matarrese restated his motion to approve the amendment [introduction of\nthe ordinance] with the insertion of \" other non-automotive public spaces.\"\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 21, "text": "(16-473) Recommendation to Provide Direction on the Approach to Phasing and\nDisposition of Development in the Main Street Neighborhood (MSN) at Alameda Point,\nincluding Review of the Draft Phasing Chapter in the MSN Specific Plan.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager and Base Reuse Director gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nUrged Council to support the phasing plan; stated the plan will allow the Alameda Point\nCollaborative to move forward and put an end to homelessness: Doug Biggs, Alameda\nPoint Collaborative.\nStated that she supports the phasing plan because the space will provide jobs; Alameda\nPoint is a jewel; encouraged Council to support the phasing plan and create more jobs\nat Alameda Point: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the 67 units are leveraging market rate\nhousing or are the 67 units themselves the market rate housing.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the 67 units are part of the Collaborative project\nthat will be very-low units; the market-rate development is financing the units'\ninfrastructure; the adjacent units will not need to provide the low and very-low\nrequirements; the plan is a combined project.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the 67 units are being leveraged to meet the\nlow and very-low income requirements, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the 25 moderate and 67 very-low income units make 92\nout of 310 units affordable, which is about 30%; he would like any developments to\nreach the 30% mark for affordable housing; he would like a plan to auction the units off\nindividually; the zoning requirement should be clear to provide a transition between the\njob generating area.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a limit on how many houses can be built;\ninquired whether the 67 units are being subtracted from the total or if the units have to\ncome out of some future development's allocation; inquired whose housing allocation\nthe extra housing units would come from.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the City is not looking to change the housing cap,\nwhich is in the General Plan; stated the 67 units come out of the 425.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether another developer would be told the\nnumber of units remaining.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated there will be 125 housing\nunits to build out the rest of the Main Street neighborhood.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 22, "text": "In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Base Reuse Director stated\nonly 44 of the very low and low units are needed to meet the minimum low requirement;\nVice Mayor Matarrese is stating he would like all 67 units to count towards said project\nand every future project has to provide 30%.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether infrastructure costs would also be\ncovered, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the transitional commercial uses can help provide\njobs for the residents in the area; encouraged staff to ensure the Alameda Point Main\nStreet neighborhood is inviting to the public.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City needs to get a handle on the vision for Main\nStreet neighborhood; Council needs to decide about the 425 units; the ideas need to be\ndiscussed as part of the development.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he likes the phasing; the people that live at the\nAlameda Point Collaborative need to be prioritized and taken care of; urged moving\nforward with the Collaborative; he likes Vice Mayor Matarrese's suggestion to require\nfuture developments to have 30%; he supports the phasing plan.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated affordable housing provider costs come in higher\ndealing with old military base infrastructure costs are come in higher.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the 200 units count as affordable.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the units do not count because they are already\nexisting, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated the project looks like 58% or 60% affordable compared to 40%\nmarket; but 200 units do not count towards the numbers, but they are affordable; the\nunits do not count towards the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) affordable\nnumbers.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated there will always be a struggle\nto meet Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) affordable housing obligations; any\naffordable units built on the Alameda Point will help with the ABAG numbers, he is still\nresearching whether the state will consider the 200 new units as a wash or accept them\nas new.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the City could build more affordable units\nand not any market rate units.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 23, "text": "The Assistant Community Development Director responded the City cannot do so; the\nprivate sector builds a majority of the affordable housing in the State; if the private\nsector cannot build any more market rate housing, the vast majority of affordable\nhousing will be cut off.\nMayor Spencer inquired about work force housing: in between affordable and market;\nstated the project does not have work force housing.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded she considers moderate income units work force\nhousing; 80 to 100% of Annual Median Income (AMI) is considered work force housing\nand will depend on the market rate units structure in terms of size; staff has not reached\nsaid level of planning yet.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to discuss the matter at a later date; inquired\nif the entire project could be counted as one project to obtain the 125 units.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the 125 remaining units are reserve units to help\nfacilitate infrastructure north of Midway; units were left for the northern part of the site.\nMayor Spencer stated more work force housing is needed; the goal should not just be to\ndo market rate and affordable, but also work force housing; she would like pathways to\nhigher paying jobs for the commercial; she does not support retail; assisted living\nbelongs in residential, not commercial; transportation will be an issue for people living in\ncollaborative housing; she plans to support the project; inquired if someone could look\ninto the 125 units being used for work force housing.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded staff would come back with a draft plan to get early\nfeedback from Council and with the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to move forward\nwith the Phase 1 parcel; the next steps would be to tell the developer to include work\nforce housing; right now there is no plan to address the 125 units; the future phase for\nnorth of Midway might include the 125 units; the decision will be at Council's discretion.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the 125 units can be part of the current project.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the decision is up to Council.\nThe City Manager inquired if the Base Reuse Director could add in the RFQ a request\nfor the developer to do work force housing without specifying 125 units, along the lines\nof 30% affordable.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated tradeoffs can be\ndiscussed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded there are all kinds of tradeoffs; money is a\nkey factor.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 24, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if staff will come back with a plan with all the input;\nstated other decisions can be driven by the RFQ process; items can be addressed\nwhen talking to the developer.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded items can be made explicit in the RFQ.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the project needs to be thought through; the City needs\nto have a clear plan from the get go and to decide what kind of units are needed; he\ncannot support the project.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the intent of the plan is not to micromanage the\nuses; the zoning is very flexible; the plan is to weigh all the different tradeoffs.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he is not comfortable going from 300 to 425 units; he\nbelieves keeping 125 units in reserves is a good idea; he cannot support adding the 125\nunits; he only supports sticking with the 300 units.\nMayor Spencer stated her concern is the City never seems to build work force housing;\ndoing only luxury and very low housing does not address the people in the middle, who\nhave serious housing needs.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated staff would come back and show Council if work force\nhousing can be afforded within the 233 or if extra is needed; the analysis will come\nback.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned what is meant by work force housing.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated work force housing for purposes of the Alameda County\nHousing Bond Program that Council supported is above moderate income which is 120\nto 150% of the median.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the wording can be in the staff report when staff\ncomes back with the RFQ.\n(16-474) Presentation on the Emergency Operations Center and Training Update.\nThe Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-475) The City Manager noted on September 27th, neighborhood meeting would be\nheld to educate about Jean Sweeney homeless encampments and answer questions\nfrom the residents.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are encampments not just at Jean Sweeney,\nthey are in other parts of the City; inquired if all areas will be covered.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 25, "text": "The City Manager responded Operation Dignity would figure out and document the\nissue and problem Citywide, focusing first on Jean Sweeney because of the\nconstruction.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated people are concerned with High Street in Oakland also\nas you enter Alameda; inquired whether data would be collected at said location.\nThe City Manager responded the City is not doing work in Oakland; Operation Dignity is\nalready contracted to cover Oakland.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the policy questions can be discussed when the referrals\nare discussed; inquired what is going to be done Citywide.\nThe City Manager responded the plan is not relocation, the plan is to see what the City\ncan do to get them out of homelessness all together.\n(16-476) The City Manager stated the City is doing an educational comparison of the\ntwo different rent measures and will send the information to all the residents.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(16-477) 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(16-478) Consider Directing the City Manager to Schedule a Priority Setting Work\nSession. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard.\n(16-479) 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(16-480) 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\nand Additions. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) Not heard.\n(16-481) 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\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 26, "text": "Beneficial Commercial Uses within Areas Zoned for Mixed Use. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)\nNot heard.\n(16-482) Consider Directing Staff to Review Enacting a Minimum Wage Increase in\nAlameda. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard.\n(16-483) 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\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:45 a.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 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 1, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING\nTuesday, September 20, 2016\n1\nCALL TO ORDER\nChair Bev Blatt called the regular meeting to order at approximately 6:37 p.m. in\nLadies Lounge, Chuck Corica Golf Complex, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda,\nCA 94502\n1-A\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Bev Blatt, Commissioner Ron Carlson, Commissioner\nCheryl Saxton and Commissioner Ron Taylor\nAbsent:\nVice-Chair Ed Downing\nStaff:\nGreenway Golf George Kelley and Marc Logan\nAlso Present:\nNone\n1-B\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nThe minutes of the regular meeting of July 12, 2016 were approved\nunanimously.\nThe minutes of the special meeting of August 23, 2016 were approved\nunanimously\n2\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n3\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n4\nWRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS\n4-A Facility Reports by George Kelley\nGeorge Kelley stated that a correctly sized filter was replaced on the north course\npump station in the amount of $40,000 to alleviate problems with surging and proper\nflow of water. The previous filter was installed in 2011 which did not accommodate the\ncorrect gallon usage.\n1\nGolf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, September 20, 2016", "path": "GolfCommission/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 2, "text": "Marc Logan stated that the finishing process has begun on #1 of the south. The next\nstep is seeding. The game plan is to grass the first four holes over the next month.\nHoles #15, 16 and 17 are being shaped and should be done by the end of October,\nwhich would complete the shaping. Sub grading of the cart path is almost complete.\nSod has been installed on slopes that back up to the north course, and has also been\ninstalled on #10 and #18. There are 2-1/2 holes left to complete the irrigation. They\nare hoping to open up by late August of next year.\nGeorge Kelley stated that they was a Titleist fitting day which had about 40 players\ncome out and try the new equipment. They have rolled out a new junior program\nwhich is free on Saturdays, staffed by employees and also assisted by the Alameda\nHigh School golf team.\nFootgolf will be revisited and also the golf boards have been a success.\nCommissioner Carlson asked about the instructions which are provided prior to using\nthe golf boards and Mr. Kelley stated that they are required to watch a video and sign\noff prior to using, but also stated that they would make sure that staff is providing\nproper instructions.\nMr. Kelley was asked about the Footgolf and stated that avid golfers have expressed\ntheir non interest and they plan to be very sensitive and determine when the best time\nof day would be appropriate.\nMr. Kelley informed the commission that if they are concerned about occurrences, that\nthey should inform Mike Winkenbach or contact the office. They are going to improve\nthe communications between the golf course, the commission and the City in regards\nto items which include the waterways which we are not allowed to fill. Mr. Logan\nstated that since the reclaimed water is no longer being used to fill the waterways,\nnatural vegetation has begun to return.\nMr. Kelley responded to a question regarding a special golf commission meeting to\nshow the samples they are looking at. Discussion ensued regarding dates in October\nto hold a special meeting and it was determined that a possible date would be\nThursday, October 13 and it was tentatively set at 3:00 pm.\n4-B\nBeautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich\nNone\n4-C\nGolf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course\nDemetrio stated that Tom is continuing to work on the plans and will be returning soon.\n5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\n2\nGolf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, September 20, 2016", "path": "GolfCommission/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 3, "text": "Tony Corica stated that they had held their Friends of the Park golf tournament and\nwanted to thank Greenway for their generosity.\n7.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNone\n8.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n9.\nITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - November 8, 2016\n10.\nANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:37 p.m.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the\nAlameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the\nBrown Act.\n3\nGolf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, September 20, 2016", "path": "GolfCommission/2016-09-20.pdf"}