{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- - -JULY 5, 2017-6:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 6:03 p.m. and Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft arrived 6:05 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(17-412) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of Litigation\nPursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of\nCases: Two (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action). One case was not heard.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced that regarding one case of Anticipated Litigation, direction was given to staff\nto bring an action and to further disclose information.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:11 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\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- - -JULY 5, 2017--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:21 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(17-413) Mayor Spencer proposed moving up the cannabis referral [paragraph no. 17-\n438] to be heard earlier.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council has already heard the general part of the\nreferral; staff has stated the item will return to Council as a report.\nMayor Spencer stated she is hopeful Council will hear the item tonight.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(17-414) Presentation by the Oakland International Airport on Anticipated Air Traffic\nduring the Closure of Runways Number 12 and 30 for Maintenance (Tentatively\nSeptember 4 to September 18, 2017) and Fleet Week (October 2 to October 9, 2017).\nHugh Johnson, Oakland International Airport, gave a Power Point presentation.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(17-415) Sharon Golden, Alameda Island Cannabis Community, urged Council to hear\nthe cannabis referral [paragraph no. 17-438 at tonight's meeting.\n(17-416) Ken Peterson, Alameda, spoke about the sound during meetings and an anti-\nbullying program.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the West Coast Arborist contract [paragraph no. 17-\n422 and assessor dwelling unit ordinance [paragraph no. 17-430 were removed from\nthe Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 3, "text": "vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*17-417) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings and Joint City\nCouncil and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting\nHeld on June 6, 2017. Approved.\n(*17-418) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,345,569.36.\n(*17-419) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period\nEnding March 31, 2017 Collected During the Period October 1, 2016 to December 31,\n2016. Accepted.\n(*17-420) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First\nAmendment to the Agreement with the Alameda County Fire Department Regarding the\nRegional Emergency Communication Center and Fire Dispatch Services Extending the\nTerm by Five Years With a Total Not to Exceed $1,976,729. Accepted.\n(*17-421) Recommendation to Approve the First Amendment to Services Provider\nAgreement with Nossaman LLP, a California Corporation, that has been Providing the\nCity with Grant-Seeking, Writing, and Active Lobbying Since 2014. Accepted.\n(17-422) Recommendation to Award a Five Year Contract for an Amount Not to Exceed\na Total Five Year Expenditure of $8,264,931.69 to West Coast Arborists, Inc. for\nCitywide Urban Forest Maintenance Services, No. P.W. 04-17-25.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the City Manager informed her the total expenditure includes\nextending the contract for an additional four years; inquired whether the golf fund is\nbeing included in the financing, how much of the funds would be used and if the\nmaintenance of the trees at the golf course would be included in the funds.\nThe City Engineer responded the funds include the trees in the golf course area, as well\nas other work.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how much of the golf funds will go towards the trees.\nThe City Engineer responded he would have to review the numbers.\nThe City Manager stated the funding will be prorated by the number of trees.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City has a contractor that is paid to maintain the\ngolf course; does the contract not include maintenance of the trees.\nThe City Engineer responded he does not have information on the contract.\nThe City Manager stated the trees are probably under the City's jurisdiction.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 4, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification; stated there have been questions in the past\nabout funds being used for items not relevant to the golf course.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter is time sensitive.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to hear more information from staff.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff will look into the inquiries by Vice Mayor Vella\nand return later in the meeting with the answers.\nStated the amount indicated in the contract is $9,600; the agreement is for the strip of\nproperty adjacent to the golf course; the contract is not for golf course maintenance, it is\nfor around the golf course: Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nThe motion FAILED due to lack of a second.\nThe City Manager inquired whether Council would like to make a motion to consider the\nitem towards the end of the meeting.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Assistant City Manager has a\npreference about when to address the item further down on the agenda.\nMayor Spencer requested the item be moved after the cannabis referral.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the item after the end of the\nregular agenda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer stated the motion is to move the item in front of the\ncannabis referral.\nCouncilmember Matarrese clarified the motion is to move the West Coast Arborists, Inc.\nitem to the end of the regular agenda, which would be after the Teleport\nCommunications of America item.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer -\n1.\n(*17-423) Recommendation to Award a Five Year Contract for an Amount not to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 5, "text": "Exceed a Total Five Year Expenditure of $1,331,693.33, Including Contingencies, to\nLandCare USA for Landscape Maintenance of Median Strips and Special Areas\n(Citywide), No. P.W. 03-17-23. Accepted.\n(*17-424) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Ray's Electric for the Park Street\nPedestrian Safety Project. Accepted.\n(*17-425) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a\nContract in the Amount of $257,203 with Systems and Space Inc. for Renovation of the\nPolice Department Locker Rooms; and\n(*17-425A) Resolution No. 15285, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Police Grants\nFund Budget.\" Adopted.\n(*17-426) Resolution No. 15286, \"Approving the Final Map and Accepting the\nDedications and Easements for Parcel Map 10600 (Building 40, Bladium, at Alameda\nPoint). Adopted.\n(*17-427) Resolution No. 15287, \"Approving Continued Participation in the Alameda\nCounty HOME Consortium and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the HOME\nConsortium Cooperative Agreement with Alameda County.' Adopted.\n(*17-428) Ordinance No. 3182, \"Amending Ordinance 3850 Approving and Authorizing\nthe City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of an\nAmended and Restated Lease with Bay Ship and Yacht Corporation to Clarify the\nParties Obligations, Modify the Leased Premises and Adjust Rent Payments for the\nTideland Property Located at 2900 Main #2100 and Surrounding Area.' Finally passed.\n(*17-429) Ordinance No. 3183, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nChapter XXX (Zoning Ordinance) to Add Shared Living to the Definitions and the\nCommercial Districts, including Approval of a Use Permit in the Neighborhood Business,\nCentral Business, and Community Commercial Districts. The Amendment Allows a\nProposed Shared Living Project at 1629 Webster Street.\" Finally passed.\n(17-430) Ordinance No. 3184, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nChapter XXX (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Regulations Pertaining to Accessory\nDwelling Units (ADU) and Related Rules to Comply with State Law (Second Units).\nFinally passed.\nStated he is not against increasing available housing, but he would like to preserve the\nstate of Alameda; he is concerned with the aesthetic appeal of Alameda and traffic;\nexpressed concern with not having a design review process: Charles Hurt, Alameda.\nExpressed concern with 1,200 square feet being excessive: Steven Aced, Alameda.\nStated there should be a design review process for ADUs; public input is needed: David\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 6, "text": "Baker, Alameda.\nUrged ADUs be limited to 600 square feet; stated that he is concerned with traffic and\ndensity in Alameda: Scott Brady, Alameda.\nStated that he is not opposed to the ADU ordinance; suggested the limit be set at 600\nsquare feet; expressed concern with the way the ordinance is written with regards to\ndesign: Erich Stiger, Alameda.\nExpressed concern for parking, traffic and open space with the addition of ADUs:\nRenata Frey, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the affordability of ADUs; requested the square footage of\nADU's be limited to allow for more affordable housing: Nancy Hird, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over parking with the addition of ADU's; requested the limit of AUDs\nbe set at 600 square feet: Nancy Gordon, Alameda.\nUrged the limit be 600 square feet for ADUs; stated eliminating design review is not an\noption: Jim Smallman, Alameda.\nUrged Council to require design review for all ADUs; stated the maximum should be 600\nsquare feet; lack of parking is a big stressor in Alameda neighborhoods: Mary Jacak,\nAlameda.\nUrged Council to keep the limit of ADUs to 600 square feet, except where the ADU is\ncontained within the existing building envelope; expressed concern over the way the\nordinance is written and not allowing for public notification and design review; stated the\nproposed language is subjective and needs to be more defined; all other local cities\nhave more restrictive ADU maximums: Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural\nPreservation Society (AAPS).\nStated that she supports the new California law, which supports incorporating more\naffordable housing in Alameda; anything beyond 600 square feet should have input\nfrom neighbors: Marianne Bartholomew, Alameda.\nUrged staff to review whether ADUs can be two stories and can be made of cinderblock:\nRosemary McNally, Alameda.\nStated the ADU maximum should be 600 square; the design review process should\napply to all ADUs: Doree Miles, Alameda.\nStated there should be a design review requirement; urged Council allow citizens to\nhave notice and input: Joe VanWinkle, Alameda.\nStated there should be a limit of 600 square feet for ADUs: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 7, "text": "Urged Council to make the design review process a requirement for ADUs; stated the\naddition of ADU's offers many benefits for the people of Alameda: Alexandra Saikley,\nSaikley Architects.\nStated the issue is lack of parking; there should be a requirement for off street parking\nfor ADUs: Donna Heagan, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the 1,200 square foot\nmaximum.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded that the State law sets the maximum of\n1,200 square feet for an ADU; stated the requirement is less than 50% of the existing\nfloor area of the main dwelling; in order to build a 1,200 square foot ADU, a house must\nbe 2,400 square feet.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the total of the first and second floor\nadd up to 2,400 square feet or if the 1,200 square foot maximum is the total footprint of\nthe lot.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the total floor area; the gross floor area, not\nthe footprint.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the percentage of lot coverage.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the footprint of the ADU and the footprint of\nthe main building, including any impervious surfaces, cannot be more than 50% of the\ntotal lot area.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an ADU has a limit to the number of\nstories.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded detached ADUs must be one story, no taller\nthan 15 feet to the peak of the roof and walls not more than 10 feet tall.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a cinder block dwelling would be\nallowed.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded under the current language if a home is\nmade of cinder block, then the ADU must be made of cinder block; the proposed\nlanguage allows more flexibility.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are cinder block homes in\nAlameda.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded there might be a few; stated under the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 8, "text": "proposed ordinance, staff would have the discretion to determine if a cinder block ADU\nwould be appropriate using the City's design review manual.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on whether or not a design review\nwould be needed for all ADUs.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded there is still an architectural review process;\nstated the difference with the design review manual review is there is public notice, but\nno appeal process.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft read an email from the Planning Services Manager\nwhich referenced the cities of Berkeley and Oakland allowing ADUs up to 75% of the\nexisting floor area; stated Alameda is limiting the ADUs to no more than 50% of the floor\narea; inquired why the language in the proposed ordinance regarding materials is\npermissive and not mandatory.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded there are different standards for different\nsituations; stated staff uses adjacent buildings to set a standard for how ADUs should\nlook.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what type of design review would be required to\nhave an ADU built in the front yard.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the proposed language states the ADU\nneeds to mimic the existing main building.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether setback requirements still apply, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff will review the design of the building behind the\nproposed ADU.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded staff will always review adjacent properties.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what the language: \"must be subordinate to the footprint\"\nmeans.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded subordinate means smaller; the maximum\nsize requirement states an ADU cannot be more than 50% of the footprint.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether a 1,200 square foot ADU could be built if the total\nsquare footage of a building is 2,400, but the ground floor is 1,200 square feet, and the\nproperty has enough permeable square footage and surfaces.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the negative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 9, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is information on how many properties in\nAlameda will be ineligible due to lack of permeable surfaces.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded that staff does not have said data; stated\nstaff did a review; in Alameda only15% of the homes are large and are on Harbor Bay\nIsland but do not have space to accommodate an ADU; some units at Bayport and\nnewer developments, like TriPointe and Marina Cove, have strict design guidelines\npertaining to the development of an ADU.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the 15% is based only on square footage, to\nwhich the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the ADU has to be subordinate, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the 15% is probably an inflated percentage.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the maximum size\nis only one item on a list of development standards.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how many of the 15% of larger homes in Alameda\ncurrently have ADUs.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded that there are currently no ADUs on the\n15% of larger homes.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether staff has an idea how many of the 15% would\nbe eligible to have a 1,200 square foot ADU based on the property size or permeable\nsurface.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated there is no data on the details of what people\nhave in their homes.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how the City can address parking under the new State\nlaw.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded State legislature provides a number of\nsituations where cities cannot require parking, one of which is if the ADU is located\nwithin a half mile from public transit.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the design manual is stricter than the proposed\nordinance; stated the City is not supposed to make the guidelines unduly burdensome.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the design guidelines are intended to\nsupport and expand on the ordinance; the ordinance broadens the language and\nflexibility.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired whether if someone could build a modular ADU on\nGrand Street.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City ordinance could require more design review\nthan is currently being proposed; and whether more homes would be allowed to build\nADUs without design review.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded design review by staff always occurs; stated\nif the proposed design meets the ordinance guidelines, there will not be the procedural\ndesign review process, which requires public notification; stated the City could insert a\ndesign review process.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City could require public notice for all proposed\nADUs 600 square feet and over and still be in compliance with State law.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that would be\nreverting back to the current ordinance.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether said requirement would still be in compliance with the\nState law.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what the cost is between a publicly noticed design review\nversus an internal staff design review.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded if the requirements are not met, a project\nwould require a use permit, which is $1,600, and design review, which is also $1,600.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff considers permeable surfaces and the setbacks\nas part of the design review process, to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the City can require an affordability restriction.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded any requirement regarding affordability\nwould be considered burdensome; stated if the City introduces requirements that are\nnot in the State legislation, there might be legal concerns.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether someone with an old dwelling behind\ntheir home could come to the City with a proposal to convert it into an ADU.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded is could be possible if there is only the main\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 11, "text": "unit and one other unit on the property; stated the proposal would need to meet all of\nthe guidelines.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated design review can occur for every ADU, which\nprovides a certain amount of protection; by right, anything up to 600 square feet\nrequires a ministerial design review; anything larger than 600 square feet should require\npublic notification and public input on the design review; anything visible from the street\nshould be subject to design review.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft read from Government Code Section 65852.150; stated\nADUs provide additional rental housing stock at a lower cost; the City Council and staff\ncare about the appearance of Alameda; not just anyone can build an ADU, there are\nrestrictions in place; she supports the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she has concerns with the 600 square foot limit; 600\nsquare feet will not allow for universal design of an ADU to make it fully accessible;\nputting a 600 square foot limit punishes people who would like to care for family\nmembers or age in place; if the ADU is in the front or side yard, she would consider a\nlimit under 1,200 square feet; she would not want to put the number too far below 1,000\nsquare feet for public notice.\nMayor Spencer asked Vice Mayor Vella to think about whether 750 square feet for\nrequiring notice is sufficient.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he feels comfortable with the City's current design\nstandards and staff's ability; the City should not interfere with people and their property;\nhe appreciates the input from AAPS; he supports the current ordinance the way it is\nwritten.\nMayor Spencer stated that she cannot support the ordinance as written; she would like\nto require public notice to the neighbors at a lower square footage.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like the limit to require notice to be around 850\nsquare feet; the architects she spoke to indicated 850 square feet would fit a universal\ndesign aspect.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the existing text of the ordinance, with\namendment to have anything greater than 600 square feet require notice, and design\nreview will be conducted regardless, if any ADU is visible from a public street; ADUs\nmust meet the design guidelines.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether said changes can be made and still qualify for a\nsecond reading.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 12, "text": "see if changes need to be made.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following voice votes: Ayes:\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft, Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of the language as is, with adding a requirement to\nreturn to Council in 6 months to provide an update on the status of applications and\nlaws being passed in neighboring jurisdictions.\nThe City Attorney requested clarification on whether the request to return to Council is\nbeing added as part of the ordinance or just as direction to Council.\nVice Mayor Vella responded the request is direction to staff.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(17-431) Resolution No. 15288, \"Reappointing Anto Aghapekian as a Member of the\nCommission on Disability Issues.\" Adopted;\n(17-431A) Resolution No. 15289, \"Appointing Jennifer Barrett as a Member of the\nCommission on Disability Issues.\" Adopted;\n(17-431B) Resolution No. 15290, \"Reappointing Lisa Hall as a Member of the\nCommission on Disability Issues.\" Adopted;\n(17-431C) Resolution No. 15291, \"Reappointing Ron Taylor as a Member of the Golf\nCommission.\" Adopted;\n(17-431D) Resolution No. 15292, \"Appointing Joseph Van Winkle as a Member of the\nGolf Commission.\" Adopted;\n(17-431E) Resolution No. 15293, \"Appointing Amber Bales as a Member of the Library\nBoard. Adopted;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 13, "text": "(17-431F) Resolution No. 15294, \"Appointing Cynthia Silva as a Member of the Library\nBoard.' Adopted;\n(17-431G) Resolution No. 15295, \"Appointing Travis Wilson as a Member of the Library\nBoard.' Adopted;\n(17-431H) Resolution No. 15296, \"Appointing Dorothy Wismar as a Member of the\nLibrary Board.\" Adopted; and\n(17-4311) Resolution No. 15297, \"Appointing Laura Palmer as a Member of the\nTransportation Commission.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nThe Assistant City Clerk administered the oath of office and presented the certificates of\nappointment to Ms. Barrett, Ms. Hall, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Van Winkle, Ms. Silva, and Ms.\nWismar.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 9:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:07 p.m.\n(17-432) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the\nDisposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between Alameda Point Partners, LLC\nand the City of Alameda for Site A at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Base Reuse Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the developer will have financing if Council\napproves the ordinance.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded as of today, the City does not have a feasible\nfinancing plan with the developer; the developer can answer questions from Council;\ncontinued presentation.\nMayor Spencer stated the developer is in default, inquired why staff is not addressing\nthe issue of finance.\nThe City Manager responded the developer has until August 9th to come up with a\nfinancial plan; stated the DDA has other options for the developer.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated the finances depend on the land uses; there is no\nfinancial plan without a land use plan; all development plan changes affect the bottom\nline; continued the presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired where the teacher housing would be located.\nThe Base Reuse Director highlighted the location of the teacher housing on the\ndiagram; stated there are 70 units for teacher housing, which are moderate income,\ndeed restricted housing for employees of Alameda Unified School District (AUSD).\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what is the difference in commercial square footage in\nthe 2015 plan versus the revised plan.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated there is no change.\nMayor Spencer inquired where the teacher housing comes from; stated she would like\nto hear from staff.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the School District would help finance the units\nwith rental income and would issue Certificate of Participation to finance debt; the\nagreement is between the School District and the developer as a way to use public\nfinancing to help finance moderate income units.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether 25% of the 800 units are below market rate.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the 25% is the 200 units.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated the first plan allowed any person in the City to be eligible for\nbelow market units; inquired whether the proposal limits the below market units to\nAUSD employees only.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded 70 units will be through the School District.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the 70 [School District] units are in addition to the 200\nunits.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the negative; stated the 70 units are a part of\nthe 200 units.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the AUSD employees need to currently live in\nAlameda to be eligible.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that she is unsure of the details; stated the deal\nhas not been finalized; details can still be worked out.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether the people on the Housing Authority list would be\ngiven priority for the 200 units or if the 70 units will be different.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded it is different than it was previously contemplated;\n70 units will be restricted to the AUSD employees.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the intent of the proposed AUSD\nhousing is to address the issue of AUSD having a hard time hiring teachers who cannot\nafford to live in Alameda.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that she cannot speak for AUSD, but her\nunderstanding is that the housing is for new teachers and all AUSD employees.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether all new teachers and AUSD employees are currently\neligible to apply to the Housing Authority.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated anyone who meets the\nqualifications for moderate income units can apply; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is a guarantee that the City will receive an\nextra $4 million.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the project will be differed to Phase 3; stated if\nPhase 3 of the project does not close, the City will not receive the money; stated there\nis a risk.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired would the City will not receive the $4 million if the City\ncloses on the deal and finds out the deal will not happen a week later,.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded if Phase 3 does not close, the City will not receive\nthe $4 million; stated the staff report explains the risk; under the previous DDA, $5\nmillion would have been received under Phase 1; under the new DDA, $4 million will not\nbe received until Phase 3; if the developer does not close, the City will not receive the\n$4 million, which is a risk.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the project does not go through after the developer\nowns the land, could the developer sell the land and bank the money without fulfilling\nthe commitment to the sports complex project.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the developer would own Phase 1 and Phase 2,\nbut would not own Phase 3 without paying the $4 million; stated there are strict\nrequirements to perform under infrastructure; the City could use remedies under the\nDDA; if the developer defaults on Phase 1, the City can call on the surety bonds and\nperform the work.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many homes would be built under Phase 1 and Phase 2.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 16, "text": "The Base Reuse Director responded 800 homes.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether all the profit for Phase 1 and Phase 2 could go to the\ndeveloper and the City could be left without Phase 3 being built.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded under the current DDA, Phase 3 does not include\nhousing.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Phase 3 is only commercial and no housing.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated there is no housing in\nPhase 3.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what is the risk to the housing plan in the event the housing\ndoes not get built.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded there will be less housing supply and affordable\nhousing; stated the changes are necessary to move the project forward.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what would happen if the housing requirement is split\nbetween Phase 1 and 2.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded Alameda Point units are not currently in the\nhousing plan.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether not going forward with the proposed\nPhase means Alameda will not receive affordable housing units.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether having the developer pay $50,000 per acre to have an\nextension includes $10 million for the ferry or is in addition to the $10 million.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the $10 million is in addition only if the developer\ndoes not complete 50% of the infrastructure; stated the amount is credited once the\ndeveloper completes 50% of infrastructure.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is no penalty as long as the developer satisfies\nthe infrastructure requirement.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated there are two ways to\ncure the developers default; the developer is paying for their cure period.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification; inquired whether the developer is not paying\nadditional money to extend, but would the money paid in advance would be credited\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 17, "text": "when the infrastructure is complete.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the money is credited when the developer finishes\n50% of the infrastructure.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City would not receive new money; and whether\nmoney would be paid early and credited when the infrastructure is done.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded $150,000 pays for the City's transaction costs.\nMayor Spencer stated the money is to offset costs that the City is bearing.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what are the cost and timing of the infrastructure.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the cost is approximately $43 million for\ninfrastructure; the total cost for Phase 1 is $80 million; the timing is the developer has to\nstart construction on infrastructure within 30 days of close.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether there are any infrastructure costs that the City will be\nresponsible for in the event that the project does not go through.\nThe Base Reuse responded in the negative; stated there are performance bonds if the\ndeveloper defaults.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the performance bonds are per phase.\nThe Base Reuse responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Phase 1 and Phase 2 could be built with the 800 units\nof housing and there is no guarantee Phase 3 would be built.\nThe Base Reuse responded in the affirmative; stated the developer could not meet the\nrequirements for Phase 3; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired if Phase 3 is not built, how would the City receive the $4\nmillion.\nThe Base Reuse responded if the developer defaults on Phase 3, the City will not\nreceive the infrastructure.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City could lose 80% of the money under the new\nproposal.\nThe Base Reuse responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired what is the total number of market rate housing units for Phase\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 18, "text": "1.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded 674.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether 674 of the 800 units are a part of Phase 1, to which\nthe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the housing is affordable housing by\ndesign.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the units are smaller and are priced\naccordingly.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the developer has stated the units fall in the\nmarket rate pricing based on size; if the market value goes up, the unit price will go up.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the development of more market rate\nhousing is due to requests by Council.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated there is also demand for\nsmaller units in the current market; continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired why the infrastructure being expedited affects the Main Street\nneighborhood and Alameda Point Collaborative projects.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded both projects depend on infrastructure; stated the\nprojects tie into the infrastructure.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how the Main Street neighborhood and Alameda Point\nCollaborative projects would be affected if the Site A project does not go through.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded without Site A, the Main Street neighborhood and\nAlameda Point Collaborative projects would have to find a way to build infrastructure,\nsuch as a sewer line.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether both projects would have to be redone.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded other options would need to be reviewed;\ncontinued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated AUSD is a separate entity than the City; the City\nhas no control over what AUSD does; inquired whether there is a Plan B if the School\nDistrict project does not go through.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 19, "text": "The Base Reuse Director responded a Plan B would require a discussion with other\nparties.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether AUSD is considering building housing on other\nproperty it owns at Alameda Point.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the current proposal would be in addition to other\nhousing for AUSD employees, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the people that are currently on the Housing Authority\nlist will be bumped because they are not AUSD employees.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated the process would\nprioritize AUSD employees and teachers.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired where AUSD currently stands on the proposal.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded AUSD is currently reviewing the Site A proposal.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether AUSD is on track to get the proposal done by\nclosing.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded an extension could be done; stated AUSD is\ncurrently working on moving forward; continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired what Phase 3 would include under the new proposal.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded Phase 3 would include 500,000 square feet of\ncommercial space.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many square feet of commercial space are in Phase 1 and\n2.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded there is almost 200,000 square feet of commercial\nspace in Phase 1 and Phase 2.\nMayor Spencer inquired what else is in Phase 3.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded a hotel is included in Phase 3.\nMayor Spencer inquired what else is part of Phase 1 and 2.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded there are promenade improvements, a park, retail\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 20, "text": "and infrastructure closer to the Enterprise District.\nMayor Spencer stated the presentation is very small; she would like the public to be\nable to see the slide; requested clarification regarding the deal with the U.S. Navy\nrequiring focus on jobs, not housing.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded there is a 1,425 housing unit cap at Alameda\nPoint.\nMayor Spencer inquired if 800 units of housing are built in Phases 1 and 2, and not\nPhase 3, would the City need to consider additional housing units in order to receive the\ncommercial and the $4 million for Phase 3.\nThe Base Reused Director responded staff received a proforma from the developer\nshowing is commercial land values will be higher from the benefits of Phase 1.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry about when commercial rates were higher, the\nBase Reuse Director stated commercial rates have gone up considerably in recent\nyears.\nMayor Spencer stated commercial rates have never been higher; inquired what is the\nrisk; stated the commercial phase only requires a stronger market than the current\nmarket.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded there will be higher value commercial uses due to\nthe housing and amenities being provided in Phase 1.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the estimates are on the conservative\nside.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the Phase 3 commercial values are more on the\naggressive side, not the conservative side; a financial consultant has reviewed the\nestimates.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Council could hear from the developer before\nthe speakers.\nBruce Dorfman, Alameda Point Partners (APP), gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the rent of the proposed apartments are guaranteed.\nMr. Dorfman responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the developer can do regarding the rent\ncosts.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 21, "text": "Mr. Dorfman responded the rents are set at levels which cover 100% of operating costs,\nprinciple interest on bonds and a reserve; the rental rates have been achieved before.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification about the developer not guaranteeing rental\nrates.\nMr. Dorfman stated there is no guarantee; rates are dependent on the market; the\ndeveloper lays a foundation that allows for success.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the developer is guaranteeing Phase 3 will be built.\nMr. Dorfman responded there is no guarantee.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the developer has built the same types\nof projects in other jurisdictions and where.\nMr. Dorfman responded in the affirmative; stated San Mateo, Redwood City and Santa\nClara.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the projects are completed and up and\nrunning.\nMr. Dorfman responded in the affirmative; stated there is a track record.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the project with AUSD is similar to the\nones built in San Mateo, Redwood City and Santa Clara.\nMr. Dorfman responded the AUSD project is better because they can control the land\nand the infrastructure through the current phasing of the project; stated the\ninfrastructure costs will be provided by the developer.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what the occupancy rate is for previous projects the\ndeveloper has done for teacher housing; what is the plan if all the units are not rented\nby teachers.\nMr. Dorfman responded the vacancy has been virtually zero because the units are very\nunder market; stated the infrastructure is important for the Main Street neighborhood to\nmove forward; the project retains the commercial square footage; if the project does not\nmove forward, the City foregoes the new ferry, 200 affordable housing units, thousands\nof local and high paying construction jobs, all the parks that are part of the plan, the\nrevitalization of Site A, a $500,000 sports complex payments and 600 units of market\nrate product.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the financing will be achieved.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 22, "text": "Mr. Dorfman responded that he is confident the developer will receive the financing.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired by what date.\nMr. Dorfman responded the developer is still in negotiations.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the financing is for all three phases.\nMr. Dorfman responded the financing is for Phase 1.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the developer can obtain financing for Phase 2.\nMr. Dorfman responded that he is confident financing for Phase 2 residential\ncomponents will be obtained; stated Mr. Ernst can speak to the commercial\ncomponents.\nMayor Spencer inquired about financing for Phase 3.\nJoe Ernst, APP, stated that he has financing partners; developing the amenities and\ncommercial will create interest.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst is confident APP will have financing for\nPhase 2, including the commercial.\nMr. Ernst responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst is willing to guarantee that they will have\nfinancing.\nMr. Ernst responded there are no guarantees in the business.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst will have financing for Phase 3.\nMr. Ernst responded that he is confident the financing will be raised.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst will bond that he can get financing.\nMr. Ernst responded there is nothing to bond.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst can assure the City that the complete project\nwill be built.\nMr. Ernst responded that his word and reputation are the assurance.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is any tool that can be offered to the City to\nguarantee that Phase 3 will be built.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 23, "text": "Mr. Ernst responded the best guarantee to get Phase 3 built is to build Phase 2.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether any type of bond can be done, to which Mr. Ernst\nresponded in the negative.\nStated that he supports the character of Mr. Ernst, his partners and the project: Mike\nGaines, San Francisco.\nStated Alameda Point Site A will revitalize the area and provide much needed housing;\nthe Carpenter's Union fully supports the project: Daniel Gregg, Carpenter's Union.\nStated Bay Ship & Yacht supports the project: Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship & Yacht.\nStated the project will employee thousands of people; the project will provide housing in\nAlameda: Jim Summers, DeSilva Gates Construction.\nStated that she supports the project; urged Council to move forward with the project:\nKari Thompson, Alameda.\nStated that he is concerned the project might not go through; the project not going\nthrough affects businesses in the area and housing; the developer has proved himself\ntime and time again; it is not fair to question his integrity; penalizing the developer for\nthings out of his control is really penalizing the businesses out at the Base and the\npeople that have waited 20 years to have development: Michael McDonough, Alameda\nChamber of Commerce.\nStated that she supports the project; urged Council to move forward: Linda Asbury,\nWest Alameda Business Association.\nStated that he voted for the project on the Planning Board; the developer should put up\na bond or letter of credit to assure Phase 3 will be done: Ron Curtis, Alameda.\nStrongly urged Council to support the project; stated the project will be a great\nemployment opportunity for Alameda workers; development is a risky and uncertain\nbusiness; if the project is not approved, the only certainty is the project will die and it will\nbe years before anything moves forward: Andreas Cluver, Building Trades Council.\nStated that he supports the project; the infrastructure will make the area better; the\ncurrent infrastructure is not first world infrastructure for the businesses and residences\nout at Alameda Point: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.\nStated AUSD is the lowest funded District in the County; there is difficulty recruiting and\nretaining teachers; 45% of AUSD employees said they cannot afford to live in Alameda;\nthe cost to place housing on the land AUSD already owns would be double the cost for\nthe Site A project; urged Council to move forward with the project: Anne McKereghan,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 24, "text": "AUSD Board of Trustees.\n(17-433) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items: the\nAnimal Shelter lease [paragraph no. 17-435], the Teleport Communications lease\n[paragraph no. 17-436], the cannabis referral [paragraph no. 17-438], and the League\ndelegate [paragraph no. 17-439].\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of hearing all remaining items.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, and Mayor Spencer - 4.\nNoes: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.\n***\nStated the developer is putting up all the risk, not the City; not going forward with the\nproject risks losing the ferry and affordable housing: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.\nStated that she supports the Site A development; if the developer succeeds, Alameda\nsucceeds; urged Council to approve the project; stated the developer is a resident of\nAlameda and is committed to the project: Karen Bay, Alameda.\nStated the project will help other businesses at Alameda Point; expressed support for\nthe project: JP Frey, Alameda Point Studios.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the City has to decide whether to move forward with the\ndeveloper or move on; the teacher housing created by the project is great; the\ncommitment to labor and the jobs that will be created are critical; the risk is will the\ndeveloper make the deadline and secure the financing; he is willing to trust the\ndeveloper and support the project.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he will support the project for following reasons:\nthe project will create a substantial amount of infrastructure; the potential for affordable\nhousing; he is willing to gamble on not receiving the $4 million for the sports complex\nbecause it is off-set by the value added to the property by the infrastructure; he would\nlike staff to ensure there is no right left to the developer if they cannot complete Phase\n3; he would like the City to finish the commercial development; he does not want to be\ntied to the developer; he would like staff to plan for the failure of Phase 3 on behalf of\nthe developer to be able to complete the commercial development.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she agrees with Mr. McDonough; questioned who\nis really being punished if the project does not go through; stated looking for a new\ndeveloper will take too long; she would like to see the World War Il infrastructure\nreplaced; Alameda is in need of housing; markets are changing and the time to act is\nnow.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 25, "text": "***\n(17-434) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n***\nVice Mayor Vella stated there are risks; if Council votes against the project, the City will\nnot receive all of the benefits, like infrastructure and the ferry; she is concerned for the\nfeasibility of Phase 3 and the sports complex payment; she would like to work with staff\nto ensure the City meets the commercial goals; she is prepared to vote in support of the\nproject.\nMayor Spencer stated the charge when the U.S. Navy gave the City the property was to\nreplace 14,000 jobs; without the guarantee that Phase 3 will happen, Phase 1 and 2 are\nhousing projects, not a job project; she will not support the project; the financing should\nbe for all three phases; Alameda needs jobs; the property is the people's property and\nAlameda needs the commercial project.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of ordinance amending the DDA\nbetween Alameda Point Partners, LLC and the City of Alameda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvoice votes: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vice Mayor\nVella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 11:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:12 p.m.\n***\nThe Assistant City Attorney requested clarified from Council that the vote is on the\nsecond amendment as amended.\nCouncil responded in the affirmative.\n(17-435) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease with Friends of Alameda Animal\nShelter. Introduced.\nThe City Manager stated the item is only an extension of the previous approval by\nCouncil; the second reading will happen in the next meeting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 26, "text": "5.\n(17-436) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a 15-Year Lease with Three Five-Year\nExtension Options with Teleport Communications of America, LLC for Conduit Space\nfor One Innerduct Containing Fiber from the Intersection of Grand Street and Fortmann\nWay Across the Oakland Estuary to Coast Guard Island [Requires Four Affirmative\nVotes]. Introduced.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested clarification for the audience.\nThe City Manager stated the conduit goes from the Island to Coast Guard Island and it\nrequires approval by Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the item is essential for Coast Guard activity.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(17- CONTINUED) Recommendation to Award a Five Year Contract for an Amount\nNot to Exceed a Total Five Year Expenditure of $8,264,931.69 to West Coast Arborists,\nInc. for Citywide Urban Forest Maintenance Services, No. P.W. 04-17-25.\nThe City Engineer responded to Vice Mayor Vella's questions regarding funding for the\ngolf course contract; stated the trees within the golf course are being managed by an\noutside entity called Greenway; the golf funds can be used to maintain the trees that are\nadjacent to the golf course; if the City Council wants to remove the funds from the\ncontract, General Fund money would be used instead.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the amount is for the trees that are adjacent to the\ngolf course.\nThe City Engineer responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the amount, the City Engineer\nstated approximately $20,000.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of adopting the contract, with clarification\nthat approximately $20,000 is allocated from golf fund to maintain trees adjacent to golf\ncourse.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 27, "text": "CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(17-437) The City Manager thanked the Coast Guard for help with 4th of July parade;\nstated Building 91, owned by Joe Ernst, is in line for becoming an organic malt\ncultivation facility, the building is being purchased for $3 million, which starts the City's\ncontribution for improving the infrastructure at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested an update on Public Utilities Board (PUB) local\nsolar and Renewable Energy Credits (RECs).\nThe City Manager stated RECs are green credits that the City can sell to other\ncompanies that are not as green; the City has used the money for additional green\nefforts; the question at the next PUB meeting will be how to spend the approximately $9\nmillion; the City's previous goals are community solar; AMP is conducting a feasibility\nstudy on Mount Trashmore as a possible site for community solar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the feasibility study is currently underway,\nto which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the REC funds will be allocated.\nThe City Manager responded direction will be given on how to allocate the funds.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what is the timeline for the feasibility study.\nThe City Manager responded that she is unaware but she will find out.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(17-438) Consider Directing Staff to Propose Regulations to Authorize Convenient and\nSafe Cannabis Businesses in Alameda. (Mayor Spencer)\nMayor Spencer made brief comments regarding the referral.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested an update from staff.\nThe City Manager stated the previous referral was medium priority due to the timeline\nfor the State regulations; staff has held an internal workshop regarding cannabis and is\ngoing to have the consultant return to share information with Council tentatively set for\nthe September 5th Council meeting; Council will address activities that should be\nregulated and policy planning; the City has until January 2018; the City's quality of life\nsurvey includes a question regarding opinions on cannabis.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to have dispensaries sooner rather than later.\nStated she is a patient and a potential business owner; she owns a topical cannabis\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 28, "text": "business; urged Council to allow cannabis in Alameda, which will allow for jobs and tax\nmoney: Melody Montgomery, Alameda.\nStated that she would like to ensure residents have access to medicine on the Island;\nshe is concerned that the timeline will not streamline the process and will go beyond\nJanuary 2018: Sharon Golden, Alameda Island Cannabis Community (AICC).\nUrged Council to allow the referral to go through; stated three benefits are: sales tax,\nemployment for community members and reducing traffic: Rich Moskowitz, Alameda.\nUrged Council to allow the referral to go through; stated Alamedans should have safe\naccess to cannabis on the Island: Amber Lopez, Alameda Safe Cannabis Access\n(ASCA).\nUrged Council to support the cannabis referral and entrepreneurs in Alameda: Abel\nHebtegeorgis, Alameda.\nUrged Council to support residency requirements or preferences for cannabis business\nowners; stated allowing onsite consumption would discourage consumption on the\nstreets: Mark Hersman, AICC.\nStated Alameda's cannabis business goes to Oakland and Berkeley; staying on the\nIsland will help the community: Tim Anderson, Alameda.\nStated that he lost his aunt to cancer and cannabis helped her quality of life; there is\ncannabis access everywhere except Alameda; urged Council to not be behind San\nLeandro: Ryan Agabao, ASCA.\nStated cannabis can have a medical benefit; he supports the referral: Andrew Huntoon,\nAlameda.\nStated cannabis can help a range of illnesses; urged Council to lift the cannabis ban in\nAlameda: Juliet Lockwood, Alameda.\nStated that she uses cannabis to heal her ailments; cannabis will give Alameda financial\nstability: Doretha McPhatter, AICC.\nStated that she has not personally used cannabis in any form; her husband is a\npancreatic cancer survivor and she attributes that to cannabis; urged Council to allow\nthe referral to go through: Terri Golden, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested clarification on the timeline regarding when the item\ncan return to Council\nThe City Manager responded the item would return to Council September 5th\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 29, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is commitment to have an analysis on\nSeptember 5th; what would the steps be if the City decides it wants an ordinance to lift\nthe ban on cannabis.\nThe City Manager responded staff envisioned bringing questions to Council at the\nSeptember 5th Council meeting to help draft an ordinance; Council needs to address\nissues regarding whether retail dispensaries will be separate from cultivation, setbacks\nfrom schools and zoning.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the ordinance could be drafted by October 3rd\nand the second reading by October 17th.\nThe City Manager responded the timing depends on Council's direction on September\n5th. stated taxation can only go on the November 5th, 2018 ballot; the City is already\ndiscussing the issue with consultants and testing the language for the November 2018\nballot; staff will have the information to Council in September.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated his preference is to get the ordinance drafted as soon as\npossible; all options should be evaluated.\nThe City Manager noted the original referral includes all the options; stated the current\nreferral is more specific to dispensaries.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the request for the type of ownership could be\npart of the analysis that returns to Council; and whether the City could incentivize local\nownership.\nThe City Manager responded said option will be discussed on September 5th; stated an\noption could be to allow two permits on the Island and have a criteria process; Council\ncan direct staff.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether staff will return with all of the questions that\nneed to be addressed.\nThe City Manager responded the questions will address future regulations.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether analysis could be done on onsite consumption.\nThe City Manager responded onsite consumption is not on the list; stated she will add it.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated revenue is an important factor.\nThe City Manager stated there are two revenue sources: a cost recovery recouped from\nthe business and a tax that would be put on the ballot.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Alameda needs to put itself in the position to benefit the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 30, "text": "City and the residents.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would like to focus on the\ndispensaries and onsite consumption; stated the list is too long; she would like to break\nit into parts to address the dispensaries and onsite consumption first.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded the matter may not require an ordinance; he does not\nwant to shut the door on any options.\nVice Mayor Vella requested clarification about whether the staff presentation in\nSeptember will include adult recreational use, not just medical use.\nThe City Manager responded staff will include both.\nVice Mayor Vella stated everything tends to be on Alameda Point; inquired whether\nCouncil would be able to review mapping and proposals for zoning for possible\nlocations; stated her concern is location and options.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff needs direction from Council\nprior to providing possible locations; selection of a location will be difficult.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what the impact will be on the work currently being done on\nCouncilmember Oddie's referral if the ban is lifted.\nThe City Manager responded the consultants are reviewing the current medical\nmarijuana ordinance and the State regulations, which will be part of the discussion in\nSeptember.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff is also reviewing labor relative to businesses of\ncertain sizes which cities can regulate further than State regulations.\nThe City Manager responded that staff is currently reviewing State regulations.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she visited Harborside, which makes\ndeliveries, the City is not cutting off patients who live in Alameda; regulations need to be\nput into place to ensure the City maintains local control; she understands the no\nsmoking ordinance is silent on medical marijuana.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated questions still need to be answered so he does not\nsee a reason not to have the referral go forward as direction; he would like to ensure the\nCity makes an informed decision using experience from other cities; he would like to\ntake into account that cannabis is still illegal federally; inquired whether the industry is\na\ncash industry, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the impacts of an all cash industry need to be\nreviewed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n29\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 31, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated when staff comes back, he would like to see options and\nexamples of what other cities are doing with regards to zoning.\nMayor Spencer stated her referral is very specific regarding including options like\npreferences for owner operators who currently live in Alameda, conditional zoning\nregulations and limiting the number of dispensaries; she would like the support of\nCouncil to give further directions and have staff provide specific options on September\n5th and return by September 19th; she would like the process to move faster and not wait\nuntil January.\nThe City Manager responded that January is when the State regulations will take effect\nand recreational use becomes legal.\nMayor Spencer stated the City should be able to do the ordinance now and be prepared\nto go forward with recreational use in January; she does not want to wait until January\nto go forward with medical use; she would like to expedite the process.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether Mayor Spencer is asking to have medical\ndispensaries before January 2018.\nMayor Spencer responded that is what the City Manager stated.\nThe City Manager responded she understood Mayor Spencer is requesting medical\ndispensaries to come in before recreational use.\nMayor Spencer stated medical dispensaries are currently legal within the State; medical\nmarijuana is available at dispensaries in other cities and not in Alameda; she does not\nwant to wait until 2018 to discuss medical dispensaries; it is important to move forward\nwith the medical portion now.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what is Mayor Spencer's timeline; stated the referral\naddresses other options; she does not see anything in the language of the referral that\nprioritizes medical dispensaries.\nMayor Spencer responded since medical use is now legal, she would like to focus on\nproceeding with the medical aspect now.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a draft ordinance would be presented\nSeptember 5th meeting; stated that he would like to have language for the Council to\nreview.\nThe City Manager responded staff could bring examples from other cities to start.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would also like direction from Council to be taken\ninto account.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n30\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 32, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not want a first reading on an ordinance\njust yet; the survey and polling are critical to understand the community's opinion; he\nwould like to understand how to gauge the revenue and other things that go along with\na cash economy.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of the referral, incorporating the comments from all\nCouncilmembers.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion as written in the referral.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has given staff a lot of\ndirection and she does not see what a vote tonight will accomplish.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmember Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember\nEzzy Ashcraft - 1.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(17-439) Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California\nCities Annual Conference.\nMayor Spencer inquired who are the current delegates.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded she is the delegate and Vice Mayor Vella is\nthe alternate.\nMayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to decide the delegates for the League of\nCalifornia Cities Annual Conference.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of designating Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft as the delegate and Vice Mayor Vella as the alternate.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(17-440) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues,\nHistorical Advisory Board (HAB), Planning Board and Public Art Commission (PAC).\nMayor Spencer nominated Thomas Mills for the Commission on Disability Issues and\nRuben Tilos and Steven Goertler for the Planning Board; stated she will make\nnominations for the HAB and PAC at a future meeting.\n(17-441) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the League of\nCalifornia Cities in Monterey; the Fourth of July parade was great; the Coast Guard has\npins for sale that show Alameda scenes, inquired whether community members could\nbuy one.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n31\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 33, "text": "The City Manager responded anyone is interested in purchasing a pin can contact the\nCity Manager's Office.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she is grateful the U.S. Coast Guard renewed\ntheir commitment to be a Coast Guard city for another 5 years.\n(17-442) Vice Mayor Vella stated that she attended the Alameda County Lead\nAbatement Joint Powers Authority (JPA) meeting as the delegate from the City of\nAlameda; East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has lead contamination in some\nof its pipes and in Lafayette; EBMUD is currently trying to remediate that the lead; the\nFood and Drug Administration (FDA) has publicized that there is lead contamination in\nbaby food; the FDA will not release names of companies; Gerber is fighting the release\nof the names; the City is partnering with food banks and other groups to request release\nof the information and for more transparency with the test results; June was lead\nprevention awareness month; she would like to have a presentation done by the Lead\nAbatement Executive Director Larry Brooks to discuss work that the JPA is doing.\n(17-443) Councilmember Oddie thanked Barbara Price and the parade committee for a\ngreat parade; stated that he attended a press conference last week; there is an effort to\nmove all arraignments to Dublin; if moved, it would make it hard for defendants and\npeople in custody in Alameda and their families; he would like Council to weigh in with a\nletter to the presiding judge.\nVice Mayor Vella stated moving the arraignments to Dublin would also affect staff's\ntravel time.\n(17-444) Mayor Spencer stated that she attended the Relay for Life and the League of\nCalifornia Cities in Monterey; one item that was raised was timing Councilmembers, not\njust the public speakers.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that a 3 minute time limit is already in the City.\nMayor Spencer stated maybe it should be implemented.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the time limit is already implemented; Council does\nnot follow it.\n(17-445) Mayor Spencer stated a delegate from the Sister City, Yeongdong-gun, visited\nand participated in the parade; Coast Guard Base Alameda/Pacific Area Ten did the\ninaugural festival which turned out really well.\n(17-446) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended a ribbon cutting for the\nCenter for Independent Living; a gift of a streamlined wheelchair was presented to\nAlameda Recreation and Parks Department.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n32\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 34, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated she toured the facility and encouraged the Center to participate\nin a run to benefit Midway Shelter.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:32 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\n33\nJuly 5, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 5, 2017\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nWednesday, July 5, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.\nPresent were:\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; Members Cambra, Friedman,\nGriffiths, Murray\nCommittee Staff:\nJennifer Kauffman, Claudia Young\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Staff informed Committee that item 7-A had resolved prior to the meeting.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff welcomed the members, Sarah Murray and incumbent, Chris Griffiths, to the\nbeginning of their term on the Committee.\nb. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting\nagenda and procedures for public comment.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. Angie Watson-Hajjem, ECHO Housing representative, spoke about ECHO's fair\nhousing and tenant- landlord counseling services.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Approval of the Minutes from the May 1, Regular Meeting.\nMotion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Griffiths). Approved Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana,\nGriffiths, Friedman, and Cambra. Murray abstained.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. CASE 876- 1835 Santa Clara Ave.\nProposed rent increase: $300.00 (14.3%).\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached\na mutually agreeable arrangement of a 200.00 (9.5%) rent increase.\n7-B. CASE 884 - 1336 Park St. Apt 217\nTenant: Patrick Donaldson\nPage 1 of 3", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 5, 2017\nLandlord: Vickie Corley\nProposed Rent Increase: $77.50 (5.0%), effective July 1, 2017\nMs. Corley stated that the rent includes water, gas, electricity and garbage/recycle\nand these expenses have increased significantly in the past year. She explained that\nthe unit was renovated before the tenant moved-in and the property anticipates costs\nwith renovations planned in common areas on the property. Ms. Corely shared that\nthis increase is partly to keep rents somewhat in balance with the market, but the\namount requested does not bring the total rent up to market rate. She also explained\nthat all tenants at the property received 5% increases this year.\nMr. Donaldson explained that he requested the rent increase review because he\nwanted to understand the rationale for the increase. He stated that he believes the\n5.0% is excessive because his tenancy began one year ago. He explained that other\nstudio units may not be comparable because it is important to factor square feet of\nthe apartment. He noted that while he feels he can afford this increase, the amount\nis substantial and he has concern if the rent will be raised to this level each year. He\nexplained he considers himself a good tenant and would like to have more information\nfrom the landlord to substantiate this increase.\nMembers asked several questions of both parties to facilitate dialogue. Discussion\nincluded tenant and landlord perspectives on market trends, increase practices, utility\ncosts, and rent review process.\nThe tenant and landlord reached a mutually agreeable arrangement of a $77.50\n(5.0%), effective July 1, 2017.\n7-C. Committee will consider and vote on Chair and Vice-Chair.\nMembers Cambra and Friedman self-nominated for the Chair. Cambra voted in as\nChair by Murray and Griffiths; Member Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana voted for Friedman as Chair.\nMember Griffiths nominated Member Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana as Vice-Chair. Committee\nmembers unanimously voted for Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana as Vice-Chair.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.\na. No public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\nPage 2 of 3", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-07-05", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 5, 2017\na. Staff announced that the upcoming RRAC meeting will be a training for Committee\nmembers and no cases will be reviewed. Staff shared a brief summary of items\nproposed for the upcoming training.\nb. Staff announced that, at present, the regulations under Ordinance no. 3148 remain\nthe same.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:24 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCommittee Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on September 6, 2017.\nPage 3 of 3", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf"}