{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--NOVEMBER 1, 2016--6:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:34 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:35 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16- 551) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure\nto litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code\nNumber of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action).\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:45 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\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 1, 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\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(16-552) Proclamation Declaring November 2, 2016 as Alameda Collaborative for\nChildren, Youth and Their Families Day.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to the Community Development\nand Resiliency Coordinator.\nThe Community Development and Resiliency Coordinator made brief comments.\n(16-553) Proclamation Declaring November 1, 2016 as Extra Mile Day.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Jennifer Williams, Social\nService Human Relations Board, and Award Recipients: Joyce Denyven, Jill Gorman,\nJuelle Ann Boyer, Ed Kofman and Mark Morales.\nMs. Denyven, Ms. Gorman and Ms. Williams made brief comments.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(16-554) Maria Dominguez, Alameda; and Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; expressed\nsupport for the decision not to approve senior housing at Harbor Bay and the\nCouncilmembers who voted against the project.\n(16-555) Dorothy Freeman, Alameda, discussed campaign flyers and fundraising;\nexpressed support for Council candidates Jennifer Roloff and Tony Daysog, Auditor\ncandidate Kevin Kearney and Treasurer candidate Kevin Kennedy; urged campaign\nreform.\n(16-556) Joseph Woodard, Alameda, expressed support for Council candidates Jennifer\nRoloff and Tony Daysog.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 3, "text": "(16-557) Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda, stated the campaign is\nreminiscent of Sun Cal; expressed concern over the campaign.\n(16-558) Janet Gibson, Alameda, and George Humphreys, Alameda, expressed support\nfor Council candidate Tony Daysog.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced the Affordable Housing Agreement [paragraph no. 16-561\nwas removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Oddie 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(*16-559) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on October 4,\n2016. Approved.\n(*16-560) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,081,401.02.\n(16-561) Recommendation to Approve an Amendment to the City Affordable Housing\nAgreement Standard Form and Amend and Record Five Previously Executed\nAgreements.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Director of Housing and\nCommunity Development responded the correction is administrative; a minor set of\nconflicts was discovered between the State governing documents and the tax credit\nallocation committee; the action is only for affordable housing rental units, not for sale\naffordable housing.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about Area Median Income (AMI) and rent and\nincome restriction as they relate to the categories of affordability.\nThe Director of Housing and Community Development responded AMI is the\nmetropolitan area standard that the Housing Authority must adhere to; rental or sale\nprice is set on the basis of median income; on the tax credit program, rents are set at\n60% to 20% of the median income; for home ownership, the City program identifies\nthree levels for home ownership: 50%, 80% and 120% of AMI; the State publishes new\nincome data once a year; the Housing Authority uses current income data to establish\nprices.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether rent standards reflect adjusted AMI.\nThe Director of Housing and Community Development responded the formula is set to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 4, "text": "one-third of a family's income; affordable rents have not increased as much as much as\nmarket rents.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the standards are assured.\nThe Director of Housing and Community Development responded some State programs\nare very restrictive; programs have different eligibility requirements and guidelines;\nsome programs allow the renter or homeowner to improve their financial situation while\nremaining in the affordable units.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of an amendment to the City Affordable\nHousing Agreement Standard Form and amend and record five previously executed\nagreements.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 5.\n(*16-562) Recommendation to Amend the Contract with Stantec Consulting Services to\nIncrease the Contract Amount by $74,000, Including Contingencies, for Transportation\nEngineering Services for a Total of $148,000. Accepted.\n(*16-563) Recommendation to Accept the Work of W. Bradley Electric, Inc. for\nInstallation of Pedestrian Push Button Upgrades Proposed for Blind or Visually-Impaired\nIndividuals, No. P.W. 12-14-17. Accepted.\n(*16-564) Recommendation to Amend the Contract with Dream Ride Elevator to\nIncrease the Contract Amount by $22,211.80, Including Contingencies, for Full Service\nElevator Maintenance, for a Total Contract Amount of $105,871.67. Accepted.\n(*16-565) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute\nAgreements for the Purchase of Remounting One Ford E-450 Leader Ambulance and\nTwo Fire Department Staff Vehicles in an Amount Not to Exceed $231,219.98 and to\nIncrease Fleet Replacement Fund Appropriations by $18,000 in Fiscal Year 2016-17.\nAccepted.\n(*16-566) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or Her Designee, to Enter\ninto Purchase Agreements Not to Exceed $225,000 for the Replacement of Five Police\nDepartment Vehicles and One Police Motorcycle. Accepted.\n(*16-567) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement\nwith Moffatt & Nichol to Provide Design and Permit Services for the Encinal Boat\nLaunch Facility Renovation in an Amount Not to Exceed $226,302, Funded by a Grant\nfrom the\nCalifornia Department of Parks and Recreation Division of Boating and Waterways.\nApproved.\n(*16-568) Ordinance No. 3167, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 5, "text": "Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10 Year Lease with One\nFive-Year Option to Renew and an Option to Purchase with St. George Spirits, Inc., a\nCalifornia Corporation, for Building 21 Located at 2601 Monarch Street at Alameda\nPoint.\" Finally passed.\n(*16-569) Ordinance No. 3168, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nChapter 30 of (Zoning Ordinance) to Streamline Improvements to Existing Residential\nProperties and Minor Administrative, Technical, and Clarifying Revisions to the Zoning\nOrdinance Regarding Chimneys, Accessory Buildings, Windows, Existing Driveways\nand Parking, Non-Conforming Setbacks, Home Occupation Signage, and Other\nMiscellaneous Amendments.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-570) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with\nPacific Pinball Museum for Three Years with No Extension Options and an Early\nTermination Right in Building 169, Suite 101 Located at 1680 Viking Street at Alameda\nPoint. [In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project\nis Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) - Existing\nFacilities.]\nThe Base Reuse Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese requested an explanation of early termination.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded either party can terminate the lease after one year\nwith a 90 day notice.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the area is 45,000 square foot; inquired if the vendor\nneeds that much space.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the building is bare bones; the tenant would be the\nhighest and best use for the short term without any investment in development of the\nbuilding.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether after a year's time, the City has the ability to\nterminate the lease, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Pacific Pinball Museum would not be entitled to\nany relocation expenses or loss of business payments if the early termination occurs;\ninquired what Pacific Pinball Museum is paying on Building 169 and what is the square\nfootage compared to Building 13.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded Pacific Pinball Museum's current location is\napproximately 12,000 square feet and they are paying $0.20 a square foot; stated the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 6, "text": "new location is $0.25 a square foot.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Pacific Pinball Museum will be\noccupying all of the 43,355 square feet.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded Pacific Pinball Museum will be utilizing all of the\nspace.\nMelissa Harmon, Pacific Pinball Museum, noted the space will be used to show the\ncollection.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Pacific Pinball Museum will be giving\ntours at Building 169.\nMs. Harmon responded in the affirmative; stated the space is large enough to show the\ncollection.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved introduction of ordinance approving a lease and\nauthorizing the City Manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms\nof a lease with Pacific Pinball Museum for three years with no extension options and an\nearly termination right in Building 169, Suite 101 Located at 1680 Viking Street at\nAlameda Point.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the lease has an escape clause\nwith the ability to terminate after one year; she likes to take staff's recommendation to\nheart, they've studied the matter more thoroughly.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the below market rate rent is versus market rate rent;\nstated the information should have been provided in the staff report for the public.\nAndrew Schmieder, Cushman and Wakefield, responded the market rate is $0.45 per\nsquare foot.\nMayor Spencer stated the difference is $0.20 per square foot; the $0.25 per square foot\nis equal to $10,838 to $11,498; inquired what the monthly rate would be at the $0.45 per\nsquare foot.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded about another $10,000 per month.\nMayor Spencer inquired if staff's proposal is to offer the property at $10,000 less per\nmonth for up to 3 years.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated the lease is up to one\nyear with early termination; stated Pacific Pinball Museum's current lease has a term\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 7, "text": "which would impede the City's ability to move forward with the Site A development; the\nCity would have to buy Pacific Pinball Museum out of the year left on their lease; staff\nbelieves the proposal is the right thing to do under the circumstances.\nCouncilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated there is not a lot of leverage when the tenant has a\nlegal right to stay in a building and the City needs them to move to facilitate\nconstruction; the project gives the City more per square foot than before for a larger\nspace; there were no users interested in the property; the lease can be terminated after\na year.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Pacific Pinball Museum has twelve months left on the\ncurrent lease, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nCity will be earning five times more than before.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City can unilaterally terminate the lease after one\nyear, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated with 90\ndays' notice.\nMayor Spencer stated the information was not in the report; in the future, including the\ninformation is important to keep the public informed.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he will support the project due to the fact that the\nlease can be terminated in one year; he understands the predicament the City is in; the\nlease is in the best interest of the City.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is any other tenant currently interested in\nthe location, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer stated that she will support the lease; the City needs to ensure people\nare aware that the lease can be terminated after one year.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to be consistent in the policies and\nnot using buildings for large displays and uses that create minimal employment\nopportunities; she is willing to support the lease.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.]\nThe item was re-opened after the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan [paragraph\nno. 16-571]. .\n(16-571) Provide Comments on the Draft Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan for\nAlameda Point.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 8, "text": "The Redevelopment Project Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is the Collaborative Partners.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded the Alameda Point Collaborative,\nBuilding Future's for Women and Children and Operation Dignity.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Collaborative Partners is for formerly\nhomeless households, to which the Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated Building Future's for Women and Children is for women and children\nthat have experienced domestic violence and Operation Dignity is for homeless\nveterans.\nMayor Spencer inquired about the map on slide 4.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded the specific plan is to consolidate the\n34-acre area that the three housing providers currently occupy; the location was\nselected to qualify for low income tax credits; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Collaborative Partners are taking a\nmuch smaller footprint than they currently have, to which the Redevelopment Project\nManager responded in the affirmative; stated the Collaborative Partners are going from\n34-acres to 10-acres.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Main Street area's perimeter is the entire area on\nthe map, to which the Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council and the public are being asked to comment on\nthe external boundary and whether the three colors on the map will be consolidated into\nthe one red color, to which the Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the\naffirmative; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Main Street area is the entire area on the map\nshown on slide 4, to which the Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the colors on the map, the\nRedevelopment Project Manager stated the green space is open space and parks; the\ngreen Central Garden area is the main gathering space and tree lined streets; the\nCollaborative partner's site is also on the map.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many homes will be in the area.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded the plan is providing the vision of how\nthe area will look; the actual numbers and types of homes will be determined later with\nthe Request for Qualification (RFQ) and Request for Proposal (RFP) process.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council could establish the details tonight, to\nwhich the Redevelopment Project Manager responded the plan is to provide framework,\nnot to provide specific housing numbers.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the matter would come back to Council to decide the\nhousing numbers of housing before going to the Planning Board.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Council\nwill decide housing matters.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Council could specify the types of housing.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded broad types of housing are already\nincluded in the plan.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated perhaps Council wants to be more specific on the types\nof housing for the area.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager stated Council could make comments regarding\nthe types of housing.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the item is not agendized; individual\nCouncilmembers can comment.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Councilmembers could also vote against the proposed\nplan.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager stated the developer would propose specific\nideas and the Council would need to make decisions on those ideas.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated perhaps Council could decide the types of housing at\ntonight's meeting.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the Council is only providing comments tonight; there is no\naction for revising or making decisions on the plan; stated he would like to hear the rest\nof the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the matter would come back to Council after the\nRFQ/RFP process and before the Planning Board; inquired what is the process.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the Planning Board has already commented on\nthe plan; stated staff will take the Council's and Planning Board's comments and put\ntogether a revised plan; the plan would go back to the Planning Board for a\nrecommendation of approval to Council; Council finally adopts the plan; Base Reuse will\nput together an outline for an RFQ to be approved by Council, which is the stage where\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 10, "text": "the decision will be made on the types of housing.\nMayor Spencer inquired what happens after the RFQ process.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the process is to see who is interested in the RFQ\nand select the developer.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the developers would be narrowed down.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded with Site A, staff narrowed the decision down to\ntwo developers and brought the matter to Council for approval, with the reasons why\nstaff picked the two developers; if Council approves, staff would negotiate with the\nchosen developers.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the maps in the presentation could have different\ncolors to make the different areas stand out.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Council is being asked to put housing in the solid\ncream areas of the map on slide 6.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded the lots have many different uses;\nstated the housing decision is a future step.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Mayor Spencer is referring to the green\nspace, called Central Gardens.\nMayor Spencer responded the green space will be a park area; inquired whether new\nhousing will be proposed in the historic area.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded the plan has infill guidelines for the\nhistoric district.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Council will be commenting whether there should\nbe housing in the dark green area.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded the dark green area would be housing;\nstated commercial and all types of uses are permitted in said area.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council will not be starting from scratch\nbecause there is a framework set up of the different uses and zoning.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the plan\nprovides the framework.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council has not yet made the decision on what goes\nwhere.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the decision is part of the RFQ process, to which the\nRedevelopment Project Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired who would make the decision on what would go where after the\nRFQ process.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded the Council would make said\ndetermination.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff would return to Council with the proposal.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded staff would come up with\nrecommendations and request approval from Council; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired what narrow streets means.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded there are a few variations in the plan;\nthe narrowest travel lane would be no narrower than 10 feet.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a 10 foot wide travel lane is comparable\nto Broadway in Alameda.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded a 10 foot wide travel lane is a standard width.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired what is the acreage of the Central Gardens.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded 3 acres; stated the whole Main Street\narea is 108 acres.\nMayor Spencer requested information on comparable parks and acreage be added to\npresentations.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there are one story buildings in the historic district, to\nwhich the Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's further inquiry regarding the historic district, the\nRedevelopment Project Manager stated the vision is to have more density to create\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 12, "text": "more housing opportunities; stated the maximum height is 2 stories.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the streets referred to as the beehive\nstreets have ranch style houses.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded the beehive streets are the Big White\nhouses.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the ranch style houses are below the beehive street.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Big Whites are staying.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded the Big Whites are proposed to stay.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the City will deal with the residents\ncurrently in the ranch style homes.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the leases are all month-to-month; stated if the\nhomes end up being demolished, staff will work with the tenants in a very respectful way\nas part of the development process.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff is contemplating how to handle the\ntenants.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff will interact with the\ntenants and integrate them in the process.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is Principle 2 on slide 16.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded a lot of infrastructure improvements\nneed to happen; stated market rate housing will pay for the infrastructure and the\nCollaborative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City can review the affordable\nhousing developers to underwrite the infrastructure improvements.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded financing affordable housing is hard;\nstaff is looking for money to come from tax credits which will not be enough to cover the\ninfrastructure and the Collaborative.\nMayor Spencer inquired what is the numbers of units for the Collaborative.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded 267 housing units are proposed for\nthe Collaborative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 13, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated the original number was 200; inquired about the extra 67 units.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded 267 units is what the Collaborative\nproposed.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether all the 267 are affordable units, with no market rate.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the units\nwould be low and very low income housing.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is any market rate to pay for the 267 affordable\nhousing units.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the Collaborative will finance the additional 67\nunits as part of the project; the Collaborative will help the City finance the 67 low and\nvery low units; the City would need to deliver improved infrastructure; a certain number\nof market rate units are needed in order to support the infrastructure of the market rate\nunits and the Collaborative site; more analysis needs to be done as part of the RFQ\nprocess.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the real cost is for the 67 units; inquired if the\nCollaborative is going from 200 to 267 units.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded 267 units would be on 10 acres.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is not ready to hand over 67 units without doing\nsome level of due diligence.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated staff is trying to create a planning and regulatory\nframework so that the Collaborative and the City can move forward with the next phase\nof development in the Main Street neighborhood.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Collaborative is responsible for delivering 200 units;\nif the Collaborative wants an additional 67 units, he would like the Collaborative to argue\nits case; he does not want to set a precedence that 67 units belongs to the Collabrative.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated said issue can be a part of the RFQ process; the\nCollaborative Partners can attend the meeting to justify why 67 units are needed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the problem is the document states the 67 units will be\ngiven to the Collaborating Partners.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated nothing in the plan mentions the 67 units; the plan says\nin order to provide the Collaborating Partners with the infrastructure to the site, market\nrate housing would need to be used for financing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 14, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if the Council could hear the rest of the presentation\nbefore going into further details.\nThe City Manager stated tonight is for Council to make comments; requested the\npresentation continue.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the plan should not be setting up a contract with the\nCollaborative Partners; there is no need to guarantee the 67 units to the Collaborative\nPartners; the economic value of giving away the 67 units to too great; he cannot support\nthe plan tonight; suggested staff go back to redo the principles; stated there is an\nopportunity for the City's to provide alternative forms of housing and affordable housing.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the primary goal should speak to providing affordable\nhousing for people who cannot qualify for the State level affordable housing criteria, but\ncannot afford market rate housing; he will not support infill housing in the historic zone;\n68 units are owned by the City: the Big Whites and the small units behind the Big\nWhites; there is an opportunity to have 68 developers; he would like to auction said\nhouses \"as is;\" affordable housing could be covered; multiplying 68 units by an average\nof $400,000 per property equals $27 million, which would cover the $1 million per acre\nto satisfy infrastructure; the City would not receive a rate of return like a developer; he\nwould like staff to consider assisted living as part of the residential community and more\ndiscussion of urban agriculture to ensure the land is not contaminated; a goal should be\nto use a green approach for as many buildings and materials as possible; truck routes\nshould be decided because of the mixed-use in the area.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft read the bullet points of the plan; stated the plan has\nincorporated many different uses and transit options; inquired when Section 1.6 states\n\"future plans will preserve and maintain Alameda Point's ample supply of large industrial\nand\nwarehouse space. staff is referring to places like Bay Ship and Yacht; stated that\nshe thought the City was trying to get away from warehouse uses and shipping\ncontainers.\nThe Redevelopment Project Manager responded the Section relates to all the\nguidelines of Alameda Point, not just the current project.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Alameda Point Collaborative development\nallows the City to provide housing for those in need; the plan involves important work for\nthe community; instead of the phasing, she would like to see a broad based approach to\ndevelopment; she appreciates how much consideration has gone into the sea level rise\nprotection measures, which is expensive; she would like to move forward with a positive\nattitude.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he does not want the historical district touched;\nmaximizing the space for Alameda Point Collaborative for the most vulnerable citizens\nis important; he is concerned about the narrow streets; he would like bike lanes to the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 15, "text": "ferry station, not away from it; bike lanes should be protected; he does not want to see a\ncookie cutter suburban development that does not make the City proud.\nMayor Spencer inquired what are the numbers of units for the Collaborative.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded any new market rate development in the Main\nStreet neighborhood has to meet a 25% requirement; stated the Collaborative units are\nexcluded; the Collaborative would like to do 267 units because the Operation Dignity\ntenants are currently in multiple bedroom units; the Collaborative wants to build more\nunits for the residents that suffer from the post-traumatic stress syndrome; Operation\nDignity gets the extra units and the City gets to meet the 16% requirement with the help\nof the Collaborative financing it.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether units over the 1,425 cost an additional $50,000 per\nunit.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated the additional units would\nrequire review of the environmental review work and an amendment to the General\nPlan.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether 600 of the 800 units at Site A are market rate.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated 200 are below market\nrate.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to see more middle income housing between\nmarket rate and affordable housing; people are being displaced from Alameda that\ncannot afford the market rate housing.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated the analysis has to be done to see how many more\nunits would be required to do middle income housing; staff is looking at creative ways to\ntry to address the issue in the current plan.\nMayor Spencer stated there are 467 affordable and 800 market rate being built; the\nmarket rate being built in Alameda is luxury.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded another 25 moderate units are being built; of the\n200 units, 70 are moderate; moderate is up to 120% of the AMI, which is a 4 person\nhousehold making approximately $100,000.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether moderate is 80% of the AMI, to which the Base Reuse\nDirector responded moderate is 80 to 100% of the AMI, stated $100,000 for a 4 person\nhousehold is the maximum income.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the price point would be for the moderate housing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 16, "text": "The Base Reuse Director stated that she does not currently have those numbers;\nCouncil seems to want more information on the trade-offs the number of units versus\nthe subsidization of some units.\nMayor Spencer stated the middle income housing should be the highest in quantity; the\nmarket rate and affordable should be lower quantity; many people who fall in the middle\nof market rate and affordable are being displaced; there is a significantly higher\npercentage of market rate, which will be luxury; she is concerned with the number of\nmarket rate, affordable and middle income housing; when the plan comes back, she\nwould like to see a 3-D model with other buildings to compare; she would like to see\nmore greenbelts weaving through; the streets on the Big Whites are curved; inquired\nwhether staff could carry through the weaved themed streets throughout the plan rather\nthan a grid neighborhood and be more creative; stated doing so would allow for more\ngreenbelts; she would prefer bike paths that are set back off the road, to better protect\nbicyclists; she would like feedback from staff on how a performing arts center can be\nimplemented; she would like mixed transit; she is concerned with the narrow streets;\npeople park on sidewalks because there is no room; she likes the blend of the one, two\nand three story homes which is what is in the historical district; she would like to see\nmore green incorporated into the design; she would like higher paying jobs so people\ncan move up, including people from the Collaborative; there should be retail that can be\nused by the neighborhood.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated staff did try to incorporate the same bee hive curvature\non the design; staff will look into doing more with the design.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the Community Reuse Plan and General Plan\namendments discussed continuing the grid plan into Alameda Point; if the current\nCouncil policy is to extend the grid, then Council needs to discuss whether to change it\nor not.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the request can be a part of the RFQ process, to have\nthings considered and have the developer come back with a vision.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated the RFQ can include exploring the potential for non-\ntraditional streets.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is concerned about having bike paths not next to cars\nand roads.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated a number of streets have protected bike paths and staff\ncan look into having more protected bike paths.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many votes would be needed to pass the issue.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded three votes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 17, "text": "The Base Reuse Director responded in the negative; stated a historic expert considered\nthe infill guidelines for the Big Whites to address how to fill the gaps; staff has no\ninterest in adding a unit where there used to be a unit; staff and the historic experts\nwant to build in the spaces in a very respectful way; she would like to be clear on the\ndirection.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the wording sounded like staff is going to replace\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 18, "text": "something different in the space that is available.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded there are different ways to fill in the space.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he heard infill, infill is where units are squeezed in.\nThe Base Reuse Director inquired whether Council is okay with putting a unit back\nwhere there was a unit initially in a respectful way consistent with historic guidelines.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated said suggestion is replacement, not infill.\nThe Base Reuse Director inquired what Council considers middle income housing.\nMayor Spencer responded work force housing is defined as 80 to 120% of the AMI.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded said category is moderate income.\nMayor Spencer stated wherever affordable housing is stopped should be where the next\ncategory should start.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated it would be 120 to 150% of AMI.\nMayor Spencer inquired what is the price point of homes currently being built across the\nstreet from Target in Alameda; inquired whether the percentage is 200% or 300%;\nstated the homes that are being built right now have a low price point of $1 million.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded staff will review the technical definitions and the\nprice points of the \"for sale\" homes and come up with a range to bring back to Council.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to make sure that the amount\nof affordable housing units is not lowered.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated there is a settlement agreement, the City has to\nprovide 25% affordable and subsidize all the infrastructure for the 200 units, plus\nsubsidize the middle income housing.\n(16-571A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with\nPacific Pinball Museum for Three Years with No Extension Options and an Early\nTermination Right in Building 169, Suite 101 Located at 1680 Viking Street at Alameda\nPoint. [In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project\nis Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) - Existing\nFacilities.]\nCouncilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 19, "text": "The City Manager stated there was a misstatement on the Pacific Pinball Museum lease\nand the City's ability to terminate the lease after one year; the lease language states\nonly the tenant may terminate the lease after one year; one option is to have Council\nreconsider the vote; if the Council wants to reconsider and add as a two-way lease\ntermination, staff would bring the matter back at the next meeting.\nThe City Attorney responded a motion to reconsider is needed to re-open the item.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how a motion to reconsider works.\nThe City Attorney responded the motion to reconsider has to be from someone on the\nprevailing side.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of reconsidering the introduction of ordinance\napproving a lease and authorizing the City Manager to execute documents necessary to\nimplement terms of a lease with Pacific Pinball Museum.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter no longer qualifies as a first\nreading of the ordinance.\nThe City Attorney responded the change would have to be negotiated with the other\nparty and brought back; stated it is not a first reading.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether direction should be given to staff.\nThe City Manager responded direction should be given to staff through a motion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to negotiate having both sides\nbe able to terminate the lease.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she believes the lease terms need to be\nnegotiated; dictating what the lease terms would look like is not appropriate.\nThe City Manager stated she is interpreting the motion to direct staff to go back and\nnegotiate a two-way early termination, otherwise staff will still come back with whatever\nis agreed to.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the two-way early termination lease is more\nappropriate.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 20, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated negotiating is not appropriate at the Council meeting without the\nother side present.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should direct staff what it wants out of the\nlease.\nThe City Manager stated if a representative from Pacific Pinball was present, the\nmodifications could have been agreed upon and the first reading would have been done\ntonight; since no one is present, the decision cannot be made tonight; staff is assuming\nthe change is the only modification Council wants, not reopening the entire lease;\ninquired whether it is acceptable for staff to come back with said commitment from\nPacific Pinball.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of calling the question.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion to call the question.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter is time\nsensitive and how quickly staff can bring the matter back to Council.\nThe City Manager responded the matter will be brought back as soon as possible.\nMayor Spencer stated there is a motion call to question; inquired whether there needs\nto be a vote.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he will withdraw his motion to call the question to hear the\nresponse from the Base Reuse Director on Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's question.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the new lease can be done immediately; the staff\nreport is ready for the November 15th meeting; Pacific Pinball needs a board action and\nif they can get that done, the matter will be brought back November 15th or if not,\nDecember 6th.\nMayor Spencer requested the motion be repeated.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion is to have both sides be able to terminate the lease at\none year.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\n[Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 10:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:08 p.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 21, "text": "CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-572) The City Manager stated the Del Monte groundbreaking would be on\nNovember 14th from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; the maker's space at Alameda Point -\nBuilding 8 is moving along as scheduled; there are currently good candidates for the\nrecruitment for the General Manager position at Alameda Municipal Power (AMP);\nreminded everyone to go out and vote.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the time is for the Alameda Collaborative Anniversary\nevent.\nThe City Manager responded 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(16-573) 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)\nThe City Manager showed a slide outlining staff activities related to all the referrals on\nthe agenda.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a study session is separate from a regularly scheduled\nCouncil meeting.\nThe City Manager responded that staff could have a special meeting on the matter\ninstead of hearing the matter at a regular Council meeting.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated two of the referrals have pending zoning or project\napplications; inquired to what extent could Council weigh in on projects in process.\nThe City Manager responded the discussion of mixed-use zoning Citywide would be\nmore global.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the City should not put itself at any legal risk by modifying\nany processes already in place.\nThe City Manager stated the Council has the discretion to determine quantity and types\nof housing units within the same zoning district; staff is not changing the zoning or the\nrules.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City affirms the vision it has in place\nthrough a contract with Catellus Development.\nThe City Manager inquired whether the Council wants two separate study sessions or to\nreview the developments all together.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like legal input because of Councilmember\nOddie's comments; she does not want to give input prematurely.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated his referral does not discuss specific projects; his referral\ndiscusses mixed-use zoning and initiates a revision of the mixed-use zoning designation\nand related implementation policies to take into account the definition of mixed use and\nprovide sufficient guidance to new development in areas previously zoned or used\nexclusively for commercial purposes; it also accommodates adjacent tidelands and\nshoreline uses to establish portions of commercial use to allow residential use to\nincrease jobs in areas zoned for mixed use; the referral is very generic, but may provide\nsome developers with guidance; he would like to make sure there is not a residential\ndevelopment on a previously commercialed zoning area and does not want to interfere\nwith an existing application.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is okay with dividing up the study\nsessions; stated there is an objective that needs to be met by putting different uses on\ndifferent lots.\nMayor Spencer stated zoning needs to be flexible.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated all that is currently being decided is whether to\naddress the matters as one big workshop or three different study sessions.\nCouncilmember Oddie suggested looking at the housing element and what the projects\nmay or may not do.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would prefer not to blend the Bayport-Alameda\nLanding Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and the mixed-use zoning\ntogether; Bayport-Alameda Landing is project specific and needs its own workshop;\nmixed-use zoning is a policy question; he wants something that addresses preserving\njobs and existing commercial, which should be in its own workshop or with another\npolicy on land use.\nThe City Manager stated that she heard Alameda Landing would be a stand-alone study\nsession and the mixed-use zoning would be a broader zoning discussion; Alameda\nMarina and Encinal will continue to go through their process with the Planning Board.\nThe Council agreed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 23, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated doing so addresses the concern about Council\ninterfering Council with a project that is going through the approval process.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council interference should be everyone's concern.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the public should be able to discuss Bayport-Alameda\nLanding in its own study session.\nMayor Spencer stated a motion is not needed to address remaining agenda items\nbecause Council already is hearing the referrals; a vote will be done at 11:00 p.m. to\nsee if Council wants to continue.\nThe City Manager continued the presentation on referrals.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to defer some of the items to\nthe priority work session; some of the referrals should be done in a priority work session\nafter the first of the year.\nMayor Spencer stated there should be a vote on whether or not to proceed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft left the dais at 10:34 p.m. and returned at 10:37 p.m.\nSpoke on Inclusionary Housing and Bayport-Alameda Landing [paragraph no. 16-576]:\nStated there is a housing problem; new workforce homes are needed; market rate\nhomes with large mortgages make it impossible for middle income workers to purchase\nhomes: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.\nSpoke on the Regulation and Taxation of Commercial Cannabis [paragraph no. 16-580]:\nEncouraged Council to explore the opportunities and options afforded to the City by\nupdating regulations and potential taxation of commercial cannabis; stated cannabis will\nbring jobs and money to the community: Alex Seville, Attorney.\nSpoke on the Mixed-Use Zoning [paragraph no. 16-578]: Stated Alameda needs to build\nbusinesses, not retail type shops that do not support the tax base needed to support the\nCity; Alameda Marina provides jobs and businesses; Alameda needs to support existing\nbusinesses: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council's preference is to go through each referral in\norder.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of following the direction of the referral and\nfollowing staff's proposal to schedule a workshop in early 2017.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 24, "text": "Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there will be discussion on\nworkforce or moderate income housing and work live housing; stated the reality is\npeople cannot afford the lowest unit at Alameda Landing; inquired what is the City going\nto do for people making workforce housing wage; 33% of the AMI is $3,000; the issue is\ncritical; the City needs to provide housing options for all levels of affordability, not just\nthe higher end.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is confused about order of the issues.\nMayor Spencer stated Council is addressing the referrals in the order they were\nsubmitted.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated inclusionary housing should be addressed at a\npriority setting work session; inquired whether that is what the City Manager had in\nmind.\nThe City Manager responded inclusionary housing will have its own meeting.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like Council to direct staff to set the\npriority setting work session and the first item the Council would tackle would be the\nconsidered most significant.\nMayor Spencer stated the priority setting workshop is separate; right now, Council\nneeds to give direction on the referrals; stated that she would like to discuss the\nwork/live, whether or not to count the units as dwellings and look at the work/live\nordinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the issue with inclusionary housing is that Alameda\nPoint needs to bring to life a revamped inclusionary housing policy; the City has to have\na discussion about a local housing bond to supplement money; how the City sells land\nat Alameda Point can influence the affordable housing set asides; Council should\ncontemplate a local housing bond.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated said points can be included in the discussion; the referral\nis to direct staff to look at changing the inclusionary ordinance and come back to\nCouncil with a report.\nThe City Manager responded the referral states to start the process with the Planning\nBoard; she prefers to start with the Council discussion to obtain policy direction.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he agrees with the City Manager's direction.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether she needs to do a separate referral if she would like to\ndiscuss work/live housing.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated work/live housing is a component of affordable housing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 25, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.\n(16-574) Consider Directing the City Manager to Schedule a Priority Setting Work\nSession. (Mayor Spencer)\nRefer to the first referral on inclusionary housing [paragraph no. 16- for City Manager\ncomments on all the referrals.\nMayor Spencer stated it is important to have the priority setting work session annually\nand have a public discussion on the work to be done throughout the year.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how the priority setting work session would be facilitated\nand whether the session will be organized.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated she is open to any facilitator\nrecommendations; staff would look at existing workload; there is a combination of staff\nthat has to do the work; priority setting replaces the need to depend on referrals.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the priority setting work session is necessary and\nurged Council support.\nThe City Manager stated a facilitator will meet with each Councilmember before the\nmeeting to go over the process.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would be concerned if constituents come to him\nin June or July with issues and the priority setting session already occurred in January.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there should be some flexibility to address items\nthat will come up throughout the year.\nThe City Manager stated the process is not iron clad; the session is in addition to the\nreferral process and is an opportunity for Council to look ahead; staff has to be flexible\nenough to respond to constituents.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of calling the question to approve referral.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question to approve the referral, the motion carried be the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor\nSpencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 26, "text": "(16-575) Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes - Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Daysog - 2.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated meetings that go past 11:00 p.m. are not doing\nserving the public.\n***\n(16-576) 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)\nRefer to the first referral on inclusionary housing [paragraph no. 16- for City Manager\ncomments on all the referrals and public comment.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the developer has not complied with the vision for\nAlameda Landing and the developer should come to Council first.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of directing the City Manager to immediately\nhold a City Council workshop on the final phase of the Bayport-Alameda Landing DDA.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion with a friendly amendment to remove the\nword immediately\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog accepted the amendment to the motion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the date is not specific.\nCouncilmember Oddie made a friendly amendment to adopt the staff's proposal for the\nnext steps.\nCouncilmember Daysog accepted the amendment to the motion.\nMayor Spencer stated there is a motion with two friendly amendment.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(16-577) 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)\nRefer to the first referral on inclusionary housing [paragraph no. 16- for City Manager\ncomments on all the referrals.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 27, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of adopting the referral as written; stated the\nSSHRB is working on a specific plan for Jean Sweeney Park; he would like to make\nsure all the policies for Police procedures and recommendations come to Council.\nThe City Manager responded the kick off will be in December.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated there should be a project specific update in December; he\nwould like the ongoing review of City policies and procedures and recommendations\nfrom the SSHRB to come to Council.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to wait to hear\nwhat SSHRB says about Operation Dignity and then make a decision.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is asking the SSHRB to help the City\nsystematically look at all the City's policies and procedures and come back with\nrecommendations.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Council makes recommendations\nwhen the SSHRB comes to Council.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded Council is not making recommendations.\nThe City Manager stated when the issue comes to Council in December, the immediate\nplan can be discussed and Council will provide input for policy matters; the SSHRB\nwants direction from Council.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 3. Abstentions:\nCouncilmembers Daysog and Ezzy Ashcraft - 2.\n(16-578) 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)\nRefer to the first referral on inclusionary housing [paragraph no. 16-573 for City\nManager comments on all the referrals.\nDorothy Freeman, Alameda, spoke before the Council referrals were heard.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing the City Manager to initiate revisions\nto the ordinances and Code sections for mixed-use zoning in the City of Alameda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese would accept a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 28, "text": "friendly amendment to include the matter in the priority setting work session.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded in the negative; stated direction should be given now.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the priority setting work session is a way to get\naway from so many Council referrals and deal with significant items.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the matter is time critical.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice votes:\nCouncilmember Daysog, Vice Mayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\n(16-579) Consider Directing Staff to Review Enacting a Minimum Wage Increase in\nAlameda. (Mayor Spencer)\nRefer to the first referral on inclusionary housing [paragraph no. 16-573\nfor\nCity\nManager comments on all the referrals.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of directing staff to review enacting a minimum wage\nincrease in Alameda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the minimum wage increase matter should be\naddressed at the priority setting work session.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned with small mom and pop shops; he\nwould like said matter included in the discussion.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the matter should be addressed at the priority setting work\nsession; there could be other models to look at from other cities.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.\n(16-580) Consider Updated Regulation and Potential Taxation of Commercial Cannabis\nActivities. (Councilmember Oddie)\nRefer to the first referral on Inclusionary Housing [paragraph no. 16-573 for City\nManager comments on all the referrals.\nAlex Zalell, spoke before the Council referrals were heard.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 29, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated the matter can be addressed at the priority setting work\nsession; the possible benefits to the community should be contemplated and discussed\nat the priority setting work session.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification on the referral process; stated the referral is done\nto decide whether staff should review the matter; the priority setting work session is to\ndetermine where within the priorities the matter will be placed; her preference would be\nto vote on whether or not Council wants to hear the matter as a referral.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he is okay with reviewing the issue at the priority setting\nwork session.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of hearing the matter.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would accept a friendly\namendment to the referral to accept controls and regulations in residential areas.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative, including the possible use of\ntaxation.\nMayor Spencer stated she assumed said matters would be included in the review.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not want the City of\nAlameda to rush into the issue; he would want to look at other cities to see how the\nissue could work in the City of Alameda.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the Council should wait to see if the proposition\npasses in the November election there could be the absence of regulation and law;\ninquired will the City be governed by what is in the State code.\nThe City Attorney responded the City of Alameda protected itself to maintain control.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the underlying principle is to look at other cities to see\nwhat Alameda can do better.\nOn the call for the question, motion carried by the following voice vote: Councilmember\nOddie, Vice Mayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft - 1. Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-581) Vice Mayor Matarrese pointed out highlights of the AC Transit/City of Alameda\nliaison meeting last week; stated the neighbors that attended the Council meeting about\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-11-01", "page": 30, "text": "the bus stop in front of their house attended; staff came up with a plan to obtain a\nhandicapped parking space in close vicinity of the house to allow the elderly owner of\nthe house to have access to a parking space.\n(16-582) Councilmember Oddie stated that he attended the community awards; Stop\nWaste.org passed the second reading of the revised plastic ban ordinance.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:23 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\nNovember 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf"}