{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 18, 2017-6:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nBeverly Blatt, Golf Commission, stated the matter should be addressed in open session;\ndiscussed proposed amendments to the lease.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(17-447) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); Case Name: Bailey V. City of Alameda, et al.; Court: Superior Court of\nCalifornia, County of Alameda; Case Numbers: RG15781129.\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 6:38 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 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 18, 2017--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(17-448) Mayor Spencer announced the Sister City Guidelines resolution [paragraph\nno. 17-467 would not be heard.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(17-449) Proclamation Declaring August 2017 as Alameda World Tournament Baseball\nWeek.\nKen Gala, Alameda World Tournament Baseball Board, made brief comments.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Mr. Gala.\n(17-450) Proclamation Declaring July 18, 2017 as Peter Russell Day.\nThe Base Reuse Director made brief comments.\nMr. Russell made brief comments.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Mr. Russell.\nCouncilmember Matarrese expressed his appreciation for Mr. Russell.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(17-451) Gaylon Parsons, Alameda, suggested board and commission applications be\nincluded in the packet.\n(17-452) Al Wright, Alameda, discussed blight and health safety hazard issues at 1201\nPark Street; urged Council to direct City staff to look into the issues.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the Sister City Guidelines resolution [paragraph no. 17-\n467\nwould not be heard and the homeless case management [paragraph no. 17-460],\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 3, "text": "the Cross Alameda Trail gap [paragraph no. 17-469 and the ordinance amending the\nSite A Disposition and Development Agreement [paragraph no. 17-477 were removed\nfrom the 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\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*17-453) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on June 20, 2017.\nApproved.\n(*17-454) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,042,224.06.\n(*17-455) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending\nDecember 31, 2016. Accepted.\n(*17-456) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending\nSeptember 30, 2016. Accepted.\n(*17-457) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year\nAgreement with MuniServices, LLC in an Amount Not to Exceed a Total Five-Year\nExpenditure of $375,000 for Utility Users Tax Ordinance Implementation and Audit of\nUtility Users Tax Revenue. Accepted.\n(*17-458) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Amend an Agreement with\nCarlson Barbee & Gibson to Add the Amount of $174,000 for a Total Contract Amount\nof $652,500 for Civil Engineering and Surveying Consulting Services for Alameda Point.\nAccepted.\n(*17-459) Recommendation to Approve Allocation of Fee Credits for East Bay Municipal\nUtility District System Capacity Charges (SCC) and Wastewater Capacity Fees (WCF)\nat Alameda Point for City Facilities, Existing Tenants and Upcoming Transactions and\nProvide Direction on Criteria for Allocation of Fee Credits for Future Projects. Accepted.\n(17-460) Recommendation to Accept Status Report from Operation Dignity on Case\nManagement Services for Homeless Individuals.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has received a number of emails\nregarding the increase in the homeless population; requested an update on the status of\nOperation Dignity's cases.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director provided a handout and gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 4, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the work includes all homeless individuals, not just\nveterans.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the details of the program.\nMarguerite Bachand, Operation Dignity, provided details on the program.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of accepting the status report from\nOperation Dignity on case management services for homeless individuals.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(*17-461) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to\nan Agreement with Ninyo and Moore to Add the Amount of $22,275 for a Total\nAgreement Amount of $122,604 and to Extend the Term Six Months to September 30,\n2017 for Geotechnical Testing and Inspection Services for Estuary Park. Accepted.\n(*17-462) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First\nAmendment to an Agreement with Placeworks to Add the Amount of $98,129 for a Total\nAgreement Amount of $763,957 for the Design of the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park.\nAccepted.\n(*17-463) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement\nwith Active Network, LLC for Recreation Registration Software. Accepted.\n(*17-464) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First\nAmendment to an Agreement with Macks Craic Inc. (dba Mack5) to Add the Amount of\n$100,899 for a Total Agreement Amount of $244,734 for Construction Management\nServices for Estuary Park; and\n(*17-464 A) Resolution No. 15298, \"Amending the Capital Improvement Fund Budget\nfor Fiscal Year 2017-18.' Adopted.\n(*17-465) Recommendation to Accept Krusi Park Recreation Center Design. Accepted.\n(*17-466) Recommendation to Accept the Encinal Boat Launch Facility Design.\nAccepted.\n(17-467) Adoption of Resolution Approving Guidelines for the Sister Cities Program.\nNot heard.\n(*17-468) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $149,000 to Alta\nPlanning + Design for Bicycle Safety Education Programs. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 5, "text": "(17-469) Recommendation to Accept Additional Information and Renderings Requested\nby City Council regarding the Design Concept for the Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure\non Atlantic Avenue between Webster Street and Constitution Way.\nExpressed concern about the mid-block crossing creating traffic problems: Jim\nStrehlow, Alameda.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification on the agenda item.\nThe City Manager responded the matter was approved by Council with a request to\nbring back better drawings.\nMayor Spencer stated since the matter was already voted on and passed, Council is\nonly being asked to accept the drawings.\nThe Transportation Planner reviewed Exhibit 1.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the no right turn on red could be reviewed by staff and\nmodified if it is not working.\nThe Transportation Planner responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a car can make a left turn to go into the Housing\nAuthority.\nThe Transportation Planner responded staff is reviewing the design and trying to arrive\nat an alternative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(*17-470) Recommendation to Amend the Contract with MCK Services, Inc. to Extend\nthe Term and Increase Compensation by $5,365,739.15 Including Contingency, for a\nTotal Cumulative Contract Amount of $15,078,600.41 for Repair and Resurfacing of\nCertain Streets, Phase 36, No. P.W. 04-17-24 5-S. Accepted.\n(*17-471) Recommendation to Amend the Contract with Engineering Mapping\nSolutions, Inc. to Increase the Contract Amount by $30,000, Including Contingency, for\nContinued Geographic Information System Support Services for a Total Contract\nAmount of $179,025. Accepted.\n(*17-472) Recommendation to Award a Five-Year Contract for an Amount not to Exceed\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 6, "text": "a Total Five-Year Expenditure of $5,212,240, Subject to Budget Approval, to Rosas\nBrothers Construction for the Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb,\nGutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, FY 2017-18, Phase 18, No. P.W. 02-17-\n21. Accepted.\n(*17-473) Recommendation to Award Five Separate Five-Year Contracts for an Amount\nnot to Exceed a Total Five-Year Expenditure of $750,000 per Contract, Subject to\nBudget Approvals, to Each of the Following: Dudek, ICF, NCE, Panorama\nEnvironmental, Inc., and WRA for On-Call Environmental Consulting Services.\nAccepted.\n(*17-474) Recommendation to Amend a Contract to Extend the Term to Nute\nEngineering for Cyclic Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 14. Accepted.\n(*17-475) Recommendation to Amend a Contract to Extend the Term to Lucity, Inc. for a\nMore Comprehensive Computerized Maintenance Management System. Accepted.\n(*17-476) Recommendation to Amend a Five-Year Contract by Adding $175,000 Per\nYear for up to Three More Years for an Amount Not to Exceed a Total Five-Year\nExpenditure of $700,000, Subject to Budget Approval, to Ray's Electric for On-Call\nTraffic Signal Services. Accepted.\n(17-477) Ordinance No. 3185, \"Amending the Disposition and Development Agreement\nbetween Alameda Point Partners, LLC and the City of Alameda for Site A at Alameda\nPoint.\" Finally passed.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella -\n4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\n(*17-478) Ordinance No. 3186, \"Approving a Lease with Friends of the Alameda Animal\nShelter (FAAS). Finally passed.\n(*17-479) Ordinance No. 3187, \"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.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(17-480) Resolution No. 15299, \"Appointing Thomas Mills as a Member of the\nCommission on Disability Issues.\" Adopted;\n(17-480A) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Ruben Tilos as a Member of the Planning\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 7, "text": "Board. Not adopted; and\n(17-480B) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Steven Gortler as a Member of the\nPlanning Board. Not adopted.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of addressing the Commission on\nDisability Issues appointment separate from the Planning Board.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Matarrese - 1.\nExpressed concern over having Planning Board members who want to help Alameda\nachieve its housing goals: Philip James, Alameda.\nUrged Council to reconsider the nominees for the Planning Board; stated the Planning\nBoard members must understand the need for housing in Alameda: Cheri Johansen,\nAlameda Progressives.\nStated when new housing is opposed to solve traffic issues or prioritize views of current\nhomeowners, it is an injustice to those with the fewest resources: Angela Hockabout,\nAlameda Home Team.\nUrged Council to support the appointment of Ruben Tilos to the Planning Board:\nDorothy Freeman, Alameda.\nStated Planning Board members need to understand the need for more housing and\ntake the issues seriously; urged Council to appoint Planning Board members who\nunderstand the need for housing: Michael Goff, San Francisco.\nStated Renewed Hope is opposed to the two nominees to the Planning Board; there is a\nhousing crisis in the State and Alameda does not need obstructionists on the Planning\nBoard: Doyle Sailor, Renewed Hope.\nStated the Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC) strongly endorse the position by Renewed\nHope; the housing crisis in Alameda needs to be alleviated: Tony Grimm, ARC.\nStated a formal application process should be put into place for all Board and\nCommission nominees; made suggestions on said process: Beth Kenny, Alameda.\nStated appointees to the Planning Board should understand the need for affordable\nhousing: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.\nStated the Chamber of Commerce does not support the nominees for the Planning\nBoard; voting no on projects just to say no is not good for business: Kari Thompson,\nChamber of Commerce.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 8, "text": "Stated the Planning Board needs members who are qualified; the two candidates do not\nhave the experience needed: Patricia Young, Alameda.\nUrged Council to not support the nomination of Ruben Tilos and Steven Gortler to the\nPlanning Board; stated they do not have the experience to address the housing crisis:\nPaul Anzel, Alameda.\nUrged Council to support the nomination of Ruben Tilos and Steven Gortler; stated\nJohn Knox White does not represent the majority of Alamedans: Patricia Gannon,\nAlameda.\nUrged Council to approve the nominations of Ruben Tilos and Steven Gortler: Reyla\nGraber, Alameda.\nStated the nominees should represent the vision the City wants to set for Alameda;\nhousing affordability, homelessness and transportation are important issues; the\nPlanning Board deals with very important and complicated issues; renters interests,\nminorities and women should be represented on the Planning Board: Brian McGuire,\nAlameda.\nStated Council has the final word on all Planning Board decisions; urged Council to\nsupport the current candidates: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Vella requested clarification on the nomination process.\nMayor Spencer stated that she interviews all potential candidates; she tries to select\nnew people after someone has termed out; she believes the members are diverse; for\nthe Disability Commission, she believes it is important to have disables members.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to make the process as streamlined as\npossible; suggested including the applications with redactions.\nThe City Clerk stated the press release includes the duties of the Boards, as well as the\nmeeting times.\nMayor Spencer stated that she also reviews said information with the applicant during\nthe interview.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated interviewing all applicants is important; suggested\nMayor Spencer discuss the nominations with the Board or Commission staff; staff can\nprovide information to the applicant on the demands of the position; an\nacknowledgement email should be sent to applicants; stated civility is something\neveryone could work on.\nMayor Spencer stated that she interviewed all 14 applicants.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Spencer moved adoption of the resolution appointing Thomas Mills.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired whether additional nominations are\nlisted on the agenda because there is another vacancy on the Disability Commission.\nThe City Clerk responded nominations were listed to allow the Mayor to make a\ndifferent nomination if the current nominations are not approved.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired why there is so much turn over on the Disability\nCommission.\nThe City Manager responded there are multiple reasons why someone would not want\nto be on a committee.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with Mayor Spencer that the candidate on\nthe Disability Commission should understand the needs of the disabled community.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented a certificate of\nappointment to Mr. Mills.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of bifurcating the two Planning Board appointment,\nwhich FAILED for a lack of second.\nMayor Spencer stated that she nominated both nominees for different reasons; read the\nqualifications of Mr. Tilos; stated Mr. Tilos would bring a voice to the people of the West\nEnd.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether a vote needs to be done to make the applications\nmore transparent or if Council could just give direction.\nThe City Clerk responded the process is not before Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he spoke to both candidates and he believes both\nhave an understanding of the Housing Element.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions appointing Mr. Tilos and\nMr. Gortler.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer read the qualifications of Mr. Gortler; stated Mr.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 10, "text": "Gortler favors development; she is confident Mr. Gortler will understand the projects\nbeing brought before the Planning Board.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Planning Board is very important; the\napplication process was not done in consultation with Planning staff; people on Boards\nand Commissions should not be an advocate for their own position; they must broaden\ntheir view and represent the City; attacks on a sitting Board or Commission member do\nnot serve anyone; read an email regarding the incumbent.\nVice Mayor Vella stated no one has said what it means to be a good candidate or a bad\ncandidate; there are mandates coming down from the State; she is looking for a\ncandidate who has attended Planning Board meetings, is aware of the issues, and\nknows where projects are located; the learning curve on the Boards and Commissions\ncan be steep if applicants have not been paying attention; the Council must make sure\nthe dialogue is going to happen and there is no delay due to the learning curve.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he agrees; the Planning Board is the most critical\nBoard; if someone served on a Commission asked to be reappointed, the history has\nbeen the courtesy was extended that person; he would like to see a more consensus\ncandidate to serve on the Planning Board; he has concerns that Alameda has not met\nits housing requirement.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he believes the two nominees are good\ncandidates; based on his interviews with both candidates, he believes they would be\nfair; he is confident they understand the Housing Element and the requirements the City\nhas to meet.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will be voting no on the item; she believes\nthe Planning Board is losing two very seasoned, experienced members; some of the\nremaining applicants have deep professional experience; a finance background is not\nwhat is needed for the Planning Board.\nOn the call for the question, the motion the motion FAILED by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft, Oddie and Vella - 3.\nMayor Spencer moved adoption of the resolution appointing Mr. Tilos.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmember\nEzzy Ashcraft and Vella - 2. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\nMayor Spencer moved adoption of the resolution appointing Mr. Gortler.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmember\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 11, "text": "Ezzy Ashcraft and Vella - 2. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 8:59 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m.\n(17-481) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 15300, \"Upholding the\nPlanning Board Decision to Terminate the Use Permit for Automobile Repair at 1200\nPark Street 60 Days After Final Action by the City Council.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested information on the hearing schedule.\nThe City Attorney responded the City will give a 15 minute presentation without Council\ninterruption; Council can ask questions after the time is up; then, the Appellant will be\ngiven 15 minutes of uninterrupted time; Council can ask questions of the Appellant after\nthe time is up; next, the matter will be open to public speaking; staff recommends that\nspeakers be limited to 2 minutes; after the speakers, 5 minutes will be given to the\nAppellant and also City staff to rebut and respond; then, Council can ask any questions,\ndeliberate and make a decision.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification whether the third party that is currently in escrow\nto purchase the property could also have 15 minutes to speak; stated the third party is\nthe one who would implement the terms of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP).\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Mayor Spencer is referring to Big O\nTires as the third party.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he is fine with allowing Big O Tires to have 15 minutes.\nMayor Spencer stated City will have 15 minutes, the Appellant will have 15 minutes and\nBig O Tires will have 15 minutes.\nThe City Attorney stated questions would be asked after each 15 minute presentation.\nRichard Waxman, Attorney representing the current tenant at 1200 Park Street, stated\nthat he would also like 15 minutes to speak.\nMayor Spencer inquired what is the current tenant's role; stated the current tenant is\nvacating the premises.\nMr. Waxman stated his client was involved in a series of issues with the City; his client\nmade the decision to relocate incurring major expenses, time and energy.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether allowing Mr. Waxman's client the 15 minutes would be\nrelevant.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 12, "text": "The City Attorney responded the tenant has decided to terminate the lease.\nMayor Spencer inquired when is the last day of tenancy, to which Mr. Waxman\nresponded July 31st.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not believe Mr. Waxman's client is\nrelevant to the current situation.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Mr. Waxman can fill out a speaker slip.\nMayor Spencer stated the Council decision is that 15 minutes would not be allotted to\nthe tenant, who can fill out a speaker slip.\nCouncil concurred to limit speakers to 2 minutes each.\nMayor Spencer stated speakers will be limited to 2 minutes; if someone wants to cede\ntheir time to another person they will speak for 4 minutes.\nThe City Clerk stated the past practice has been to allow speakers to have up to 6\nminutes.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the enforcement is revocation, to which the\nAssistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council received documents from the Appellant that\noutline the applicable standards for a Use Permit (UP) amendment and revocation;\ninquired whether staff concurs that the standards under California law apply to\nrevocation.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded there is a different standard to revoke a UP as\nopposed to granting or denying a UP; the courts apply an independent judgement rule\nto the decision to revoke a UP; under said standard, a weight of evidence test would be\nconducted to determine whether the agency's decision should be upheld; staff believes\nif Council decides to revoke the UP, the weight of the evidence supports said decision.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the City has to adhere to basic standards of\ndue process, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the due process includes some type of notice.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the notice needs to include the identification\nwhat the City feels the UP holder is violating.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 13, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what condition the City is saying the Appellant violated.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the Appellant was supposed to find an additional\nlocation to park vehicles; stated said condition that was never satisfied; the permit\nholder is parking cars in residential neighborhoods; neighbors have complained.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is an actual notice that states which\nrequirement the Appellant is charged with violating; stated at the last Planning Board\nmeeting, there was confusion about whether the violation is referring to company or\ncustomer vehicles.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded there is plenty of evidence in the record\nconcerning the notice to the Appellant about what conditions are not being satisfied and\nthe consequences of the conditions not being satisfied; stated it would be disingenuous\nfor the operator to say they were not on notice about the problems.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether court cases allow for the totality of\ncircumstances to be adequate in revoking a UP, to which the Assistant City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the City Attorney could find a similar California\ncase.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded he would find a case in the next few minutes.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a UP can be conditioned based on the end\nuser.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded Council should not base the decision on the fact\nthat the current tenant is leaving; stated the real issue is the use will continue to have\nthe same problems.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the proposed site is not compatible; stated in\n2015, the Planning Board found the use was compatible; he does not understand why\nthe use is all of a sudden not compatible.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded based on the information that came to the\nPlanning Board in 2015 versus 2017, conditions have not improved; the finding is that\nthe use is not compatible; the use is nonconforming; the Planning Board decided it is\ntime to move to a use that is conforming.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether staff can speculate on what a future owner may\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 14, "text": "or may not do with the space; stated there is no evidence what a new owner would do\nwith the land.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded based on the current operator, the new operator\nwill be faced with the same circumstances.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether notice can be cured if there was a notice deficiency;\nand how staff would go about curing a deficiency.\nThe Assistant City Attorney inquired if the question is if there are new operators and\nfurther violations.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Councilmember Oddie's question pertains to due process and\nwhether the law requires a heightened level of notice to revoke the UP; inquired\nwhether there is an ability to cure the deficiency and what would be the process.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded staff is not taking the position that the notice was\ndeficient; stated if the Council concludes that adequate notice has not been given to the\nproperty owner, Council could decide the UP can continue; staff's opinion is that there\nis adequate evidence and satisfactory notice was given.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the appellant's continued violations of the UP would\nresult in revocation.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the property owner and the\noperator attended four public hearings with the Planning Board; stated the discussion\naddressed that the penalty for not meeting the conditions is revocation.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how many opportunities is the City required to offer regarding\nviolations of a UP.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded there is no magic number; stated the notice has\nto be sufficient to allow the property owner and the operator a chance to cure.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether written material accompanies the\nPlanning Board agenda and what said material includes.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nthere are letters from neighbors and a documented history.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether said items are in the staff reports.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the documents are in the\nstaff reports and attachments; stated at the last Planning Board meeting included over\n100 pages.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the documents are public record, to\nwhich the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired what are the primary operational concerns.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the three main issues are:\n1) the site is small, so a lot of cars cannot fit on the property and overflow parking\ncannot be on the streets; stated the last five years, the City has received consistent\nletters from neighbors about parking on the streets; 2) working on vehicles in the\nparking lot; and 3) the noise of the tools being used.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City's response to the first issue was to amend the\nUP to have the operator purchase an offsite lot to park cars, to which the Assistant\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many years the City has enforced the conditions of the\nUP.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded a lot of activity began in\n2013.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City did nothing to enforce the conditions of the UP\nfrom 1989 to 2013.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated neighbor complaints get the City\ninvolved.\nMayor Spencer stated the number one issue is parking; from 1989 to 2013, no one in\nthe City did anything to check compliance with the UP; inquired whether there is a way\nto amend the conditions of the UP to allow for enforcement of the parking condition.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the City can amend the UP\nto have a condition for another site to park cars; the problem is whether the condition\nwould be sufficient; the operator might still park cars on the street because it is faster\nand more convenient.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is trying to figure out why an offsite lot was considered\nbefore and now staff is saying that an offsite lot is not possible.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded that he did not say that an\noffsite lot is not possible; stated the issue is that a business is constantly shuffling cars;\nCouncil could amend the UP to allow for enforcement of the parking condition.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the condition is already a part of the current UP, to\nwhich the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 16, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City has not been enforcing the condition.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the operator already owned\nan offsite lot, yet cars were still parking on the streets because of the convenience.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the current operators are the ones who have violated\nthe UP and whose tenancy will expire at the end of the month, to which the Assistant\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the UP runs with the land, not with the tenant, to which\nthe City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a way to enforce the conditions with the new\nowner.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nstaff can enforce that the tenant has a signed lease; staff ensuring that the tenant does\nnot park on the streets in the neighborhood is difficult to enforce.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Harbor Bay Hotel is similar and how will said\nsituation be enforced.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the hotel has valet service\nand a no parking zone; stated parking in the area will result in being towed; there are\ntimes where a shared parking agreement works and times when it does not; it is not\nworking in this case; for the last year, the tenant has owned another site and is still\nparking cars in the surrounding neighborhood.\nMayor Spencer inquired who owns the current site, to which the Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director responded the current operators.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the new owners could offer a valet service similar to\nwhat is being offered at the Harbor Bay Hotel.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded Council could consider the\nidea.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff can obtain a copy of the notice to the Appellant.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded that the notice states: \"you\nwere caught parking on the streets; that is a violation of Condition 3,\" the notice should\nhave stated Condition 2; the notice was after three public hearings stating the exact\nsame violation; the Appellant is stating there was not due process because of the\ntypographical error.\nMayor Spencer stated the violations occurred against the tenant, not the owner.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 17, "text": "The Assistant Community Development Director stated the UP goes with the land; the\nproperty owner needs to enforce the conditions on their tenant.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether both the owner and the tenant received notices.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nowner has complained that the County Assessor's mailing address is incorrect; the City\nhas given notice to the property owner.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is confused; inquired why the Harbor Bay\nHotel is being referenced when the matter was not approved.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft is correct; stated there is no evidence from the Harbor Bay Hotel.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff presented an offsite overflow parking proposal to\nthe Planning Board for the hotel on Harbor Bay, that.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nrequirement is the hotel owner must have a lease with a neighboring property to park\nvehicles.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the original UP had a three year expiration date, to\nwhich the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated a UP could\nbe called for review; if the UP is extended and not revoked with a new purchaser,\nrevoking the UP in the near term would be more difficult; in response to Councilmember\nOddie's previous question, if the UP is not terminated and the sale goes through, there\nis a case on point where a property owner made substantial improvements to the\nproperty and the City attempted to revoke the UP; the matter was challenged in court;\nthe court set it aside; if the UP is not terminated and the sale goes ahead, the ability to\nrevoke the UP would be more difficult.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there would not be an issue if there is an\nagreement between the City and the new purchaser to have certain conditions and an\nexpiration date, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Assistant Community Development\nDirector stated the Planning Board addressed whether the use is not the problem or if\nthe conditions need to be revised; the Planning Board decided the use is the problem.\n***\n(17-482) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 18, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of considering the remaining items.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nJay and Ben Garfinkle, Property Owners, gave a presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council could ask questions of staff as well as the\nAppellant.\nThe City Attorney responded that Council should receive clarification from each speaker\nat the end of the 15 minutes; after the rebuttal, Council could ask questions of either\nparty.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired when the photographer took the photographs and what\nthe photographs show.\nMr. Garfinkle responded certain days and times were laid out for the photographer to\ntake photographs.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Appellant understood they were\nsupposed to acquire an offsite lot for parking but were not required to park vehicles at\nthe location.\nMr. Garfinkle responded in the affirmative; stated all local businesses park on City\nstreets.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City did any parking studies.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the City has done an entire\nparking analysis on Park Street and Webster Street; stated the Planning Board did not\nfeel a parking study was needed.\nDavid Blackwell and Rick O'Neill, Big O Tires, gave a presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Mr. O'Neill is not going to invest unless\nhe is aware of the conditions.\nMr. O'Neill responded in the affirmative; stated the UP needs to be in place.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how much is the investment.\nMr. O'Neill responded approximately $2 million.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether Mr. O'Neill has met the conditions of the current UP.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 19, "text": "Mr. O'Neill responded that he has met the requirement for employee parking, not\ncustomer parking.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether Mr. O'Neill would release information regarding work\norders for inspection to the City of Alameda.\nMr. O'Neill responded in the affirmative; stated there would need to be authorization.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the legal counsel for Mr. O'Neill stated there is no violation of\nany current condition, yet one of the UP conditions is to secure offsite parking.\nRobert Lane, Big O' Tires, responded the language reads: \"to continue to work to locate\nand secure offsite parking;\" stated the language does not read: \"you must secure offsite\nparking by a certain date.'\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether Mr. Lane believes there should be no effort due to\nthe way the language reads.\nMr. Lane stated the effort does have to be there.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether Mr. Lane's has evidence of diligently looking to\nsecure parking for customer vehicles.\nMr. Lane stated Big O' Tires is not subject to the UP since it has not purchased the\nproperty yet; if Big O' Tires purchases the property, the obligation to secure offsite\nparking runs with the land.\nMr. O'Neill clarified both customer and employee parking.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how long Mr. O' Neill has been looking at the site.\nMr. O' Neill responded that he has not signed a lease or closed on the property until he\nknow what the UP will be.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Big O' Tires is open to negotiate additional\nconditions, to which Mr. O'Neill responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether staff has indicated what conditions to expect if\nBig O' Tires moves into the property.\nMr. O'Neill responded that he would like clear conditions; stated defined rules leave no\nquestion as to whether Big O' Tires is complying.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether staff has provided clarity on the conditions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 20, "text": "Mr. O'Neill stated staff is still renegotiating; conditions will depended on Council\ndirection.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Mr. O'Neill is open to sit down with staff and\nneighbors to come to an agreement if that is Council's direction, to which Mr. O'Neill\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Mr. O'Neill is considering purchasing\nany other sites in Alameda.\nMr. O'Neill responded the site is very convenient and unique.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Mr. O'Neill would be open to another\nlocation if it fits the needs of Big O' Tires, to which Mr. O'Neill responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. O'Neill has secured parking offsite for all of the\nemployees, to which Mr. O'Neill responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. O'Neill is willing to commit to finding offsite parking\nfor customer cars, to which Mr. O'Neill responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Mr. O'Neill would agree to finding an offsite lot\nby a specific date.\nMr. O'Neill inquired whether the question is regarding finding parking before the UP is\ndecided or if there would be a certain amount of time to secure parking after the UP is\ndecided.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the question is hypothetical; inquired what type of\namendments Mr. O'Neill is willing to accept.\nMr. O'Neill responded a solution to the employee cars has been found; more time is\nneeded to address customer cars; 30 days is reasonable.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the UP language could be clarified.\n***\n(17-483) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval [of continuing the meeting].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 21, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Mr. O'Neill would be amenable to a condition which\nrequires, not just searching for, but actually securing parking for up to 35 or more\ncustomer vehicles, by a date certain, to which Mr. O'Neill responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether Mr. O'Neill would be amenable to clarifying the\ndifference between business vehicles and cars left in the care of Big O' Tires, and\nproducing work orders to City staff for audits, to which Mr. O'Neill responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. O'Neill has a solution regarding the noise\ncomplaints.\nMr. O'Neill responded inside of the building could be insulated without changing the\noutside fa\u00e7ade; stated all repair work would be done inside the building and not in the\nparking lot; things can be done with the brake resurfacing and tire repair; Big O' Tires is\nwill to do all things that will mitigate the noise level.\nUrged Council to end the UP; stated the noise levels and contamination are not suitable\nfor the area; the parking survey left out the two busiest days: Bobbie Centurion,\nAlameda.\nStated the tenants of the buildings in the area were not noticed of the meeting, only the\nowners; urged Council to pull the UP; stated parking is a terrible problem: Katherine\nTaylor, Alameda.\nSubmitted documents; stated many constituents are opposed to the business being on\nPark Street: James Manning, Alameda.\nStated the business does not belong on Park Street; the business should be at a\ndifferent site: Mary Manning, Alameda.\nStated parking is an issue; cars backing out on San Jose Avenue; he was almost hit\nseveral times; pollution is a concern; urged Council to revoke the UP: Josh Miller,\nAlameda.\nStated the conditions have never been met by Big O' Tires; the UP requires all cars\nassociated with the business to be parked onsite; parking customer cars on the streets\nis a loss of revenue to other local businesses: Art Thomas, Alameda.\nUrged Council to uphold the Planning Board's decision to terminate the UP at 1200\nPark Street; stated there are challenges to operating a tire store at the location; Big\nDiscount Tire Pros has incurred tremendous costs, time and resources to move the\nbusiness to a location where the use is allowed; to allow Big O' Tires to operate at the\nlocation would not be fair to Big Discount Tire Pros, staff or neighbors: Gregg Brandt,\nWendel Rosen and Black, Attorney for Big Discount Tire Pros.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 22, "text": "Stated establishing a different type of tenant will take time; putting a restaurant in the\nlocation would take up more parking spaces at night: Rich Krinks, Alameda.\nStated Park Street has changed and the business does not belong at the location; the\nfact that the conditions were not met for the UP should result in revocation; urged\nCouncil to deny the Big O' Tires UP: Louie Montes.\nStated that he was hired by the Garfinkle family to provide photographs of the parking\nconditions at different times over a two week period, three days a week, four times a\nday; he is available to answer questions: Al Wright, Alameda.\nStated his business was told to look for another location; the business is not in\ncompliance with the City's General Plan; it is unfair to Big Discount Tire Pros to allow\nBig O' Tires to set up shop in the location; Big Discount Tire Pros will have a franchisee\nrunning the shop and problems will continue: Guido Bertoli, Big Discount Tire Pros.\nStated the location is not viable for the tire business; Big Discount Tire Pros has been\nlooking for another location for years and has finally secured a site: Gary Voss, Big\nDiscount Tire Pros.\nStated the parking is atrocious; continuing UP is counterintuitive: Jason Tipsis,\nAlameda.\nStated the location is not appropriate for a tire store; a major corporation should not be\nsaying the UP is not clear so it is entitled to do what it wants: Alan Pryor, Alameda\nProgressives.\nRobert Lane, Attorney for Appellant, gave a presentation.\nThe City Attorney stated now is the time for Council to ask questions, deliberate and\nmake a decision.\nMayor Spencer inquired who will be operating the store on a daily basis.\nMr. O'Neill responded an experienced, existing franchisee will be operating the store.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. O'Neill has a specific franchisee in mind.\nMr. O'Neill responded in the affirmative; stated Big O' Tires would own the property and\nsublease it to the franchisee with very specific language about compliance with the UP.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the operating hours would be.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 23, "text": "Mr. O'Neill responded he cannot speak for the franchisee.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the hours are in the UP or can the franchisee change\nthe hours.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the franchisee can change\nthe hours.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. O'Neill would be amenable to not extend the\noperating hours beyond the current operating hours.\nMr. O'Neill responded he would prefer not to be limited to the hours.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. O'Neill is committing that cars would not block the\nsidewalk.\nMr. O'Neill responded Big O' Tires would do their best to not block the sidewalk.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Big O' Tires is committing to not parking in the\nmetered spaces.\nMr. O'Neill responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired why the City is not enforcing parking in the metered\nspaces and not paying, which is illegal.\nThe City Attorney responded the question is for parking enforcement.\nMayor Spencer inquired how staff encouraging the current operators to find a different\nlocation impacts the City's ability to clarify the terms of the UP for the new owners.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded staff encouraged the current operators to find\na\ndifferent location because of the success of the business which would be better suited\nin a larger location.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City telling the current operator to relocate when\nthe matter had not even appeared before Council is legal.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he would be surprised if the Planning Board\nor City staff would have told an occupant to leave.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated City staff never told the\noperators they need to leave; there were many public hearings and two and a half years\nof meetings with the operators being told that they are not complying with the UP\nconditions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 24, "text": "Mayor Spencer requested to hear from the current operator regarding what was\nrequested.\nMr. Bertoli and Mr. Voss responded that they were not specifically told to leave; stated\nthey were told the use is not in the City's General Plan.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Garfinkle ignored condition two of the UP and did\nnot feel the need to secure parking and have cars actually use the parking.\nMr. Garfinkle responded once access to an offsite parking lot was secured, the Planning\nBoard was to be notified to be considered in compliance; the current operator has been\nin compliance since 2015.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the current operator secured an offsite parking lot, to\nwhich Mr. Garfinkle responded the current operator has an offsite parking lot.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the current operator is still parking outside people's\nhomes.\nMr. Garfinkle responded that he does not know; stated that is what the City is reporting;\nthe UP does not say the business cannot park cars in the area.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Garfinkle thought the condition did not prohibit Big\nDiscount Tires from parking customer cars on the streets.\nMr. Garfinkle responded the Planning Board did not put the language in the UP to\nprohibit parking cars on the streets; the prohibition states business vehicles, meaning\nvehicles with the business logo.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Garfinkle stopped parking business vehicles on\nthe City streets.\nMr. Garfinkle responded the City notified the franchisee that they were not to park\nbusiness vehicles on the City streets.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether language could be crafted to be clear; stated if the City\ndoes not want vehicles parking on the City streets, the language must be clear.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a problem with cars from the\ncurrent occupant's customers parking in the neighborhood.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language is so confusing that the\ntire store was unaware they were not supposed to park customer cars on the streets.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 25, "text": "The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the conditions of the UP regarding not\nparking customer vehicles on the streets was explained to the franchisee and\nacknowledged in all the meetings that the City and Planning Board had with the\noperator, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded\nin\nthe\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the notice alleged a violation of condition\nnumber three.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the language was sloppy;\nstated photographs accompanied the violation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a notice needs to comply with certain\nstandards; stated the notice alleged a violation of one condition, but all the other\nevidence supports the violation of another condition.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the notice may have been\ndone hastily; stated three public hearings were held to discuss the specific problem and\neveryone involved understood the violation.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated someone could file a lawsuit arguing proper notice was\nnot given.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether there were communications from City staff after the\ninitial notice was sent out, prior to the hearing, relative to the subject matter of the\nhearing.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded said communication is reflected in the Planning\nBoard agenda material.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she did a site visit and witnessed there were\nno parking spots available; the Park Street north of Lincoln Avenue Form Based Codes\nstate active automotive uses are not to take place on the main gateway streets; she\ndoes not understand how a large, successful business could get confused with the\nterms of the UP; there are better uses for the property without the implications to the\nenvironment; there has been adequate notice and documentation; she supports the\nPlanning Board's decision.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he has not seen any evidence supporting what the\noccupant is accused of; he is concerned with the location being vacant when it could be\nproducing jobs and customers for other local merchants; any another type of business\ncould generate even more cars in the area; he is concerned due process has not been\nfollowed; he would vote to uphold the appeal; if Council agrees, he would be willing to\nadd more conditions to the property.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 26, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated there is other evidence and other notice that goes\nalong with three public hearings and the documents generated with those hearings; the\noperator admitted that it is impossible to comply with the conditions of the UP; he will\nnot support overturning the Planning Board's decision.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the conditions are in place because the use restrictions are not\nin conformity with the area; parking is an issue for the area; she does not believe the\nconditions will be met by the prospective owner due to the fact that they will not be the\nactual operators; she supports upholding the Planning Board's decision.\nMayor Spencer stated there is a lot to be learned moving forward; the conditions need\nto be clearly stated to the parties involved and staff needs to enforce the conditions\nsooner; property owners should ensure tenants following the UP conditions; requested\nthat staff allow Council to weigh in to be able to make definitive decisions in the future,\nstated that she will support the Planning Board's decision.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Vella and Mayor Spencer\n- 4. Noes: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 12:31 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:40 a.m.\n***\n(17-484) Recommendation on City Council's Direction to Create a \"Straws on Request\"\nOrdinance and Review Ordinance No. 2977 to Address that \"To Go\" Food Ware,\nIncluding Straws, be Reusable, Compostable, or Recyclable.\nStated that she supports the draft ordinance; the ordinance will provide a Citywide\nmodel for the Bay Area and the whole country: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a\nSustainable Alameda (CASA).\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(17-485) Public Hearing to Consider: 1) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the\nBayport Alameda Landing Master Plan. Introduced; 2) Approving and Authorizing the\nCity Manager to Execute a Consent to Partial Assignment and Assumption Agreement\n(Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project)\n-\nWaterfront); and 3) Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an\nOperating Memorandum for the Development Agreement Consistent with the Term\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 27, "text": "Sheet. A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Alameda\nLanding Mixed Use Development Project was Certified in Accordance with the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (State Clearinghouse #2006012091) in\n2006. An Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Actions has been Prepared.\nThe City Attorney clarified the order of the remaining items.\nThe Community Development Director and Assistant Community Development Director\ngave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the impact of traffic includes residential plus\ncommercial.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the trips include the total\nfrom morning to night.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the impact of having more homes, thus more traffic\nand parking, is taken into account.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded all trips are accounted for in\nthe EIR.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) would\nhave more money to build more schools with the school impact fees.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded AUSD will be receiving\nlarger school impact fees due to the increased housing.\nMayor Spencer inquired how AUSD will ensure they have additional classrooms for the\nadditional students.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded that AUSD receives notice\nabout all of City projects.\nThe City Manager clarified Mayor Spencer's question is whether the City can tell AUSD\nto add more classrooms; stated the City does not have any control over how AUSD\nspends its money.\nThe Community Development Director continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Catellus owns the land.\nThe Community Development Director responded the land is owned by the Successor\nAgency to the Community Improvement Commission (SACIC); stated the Disposition\nand Development Agreement (DDA) is a purchase and sale agreement between the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 28, "text": "SACIC and Catellus; Catellus has the right to purchase the land if certain agreements\nare met pursuant to the DDA.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the land is City property.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the land is\nowned by the SACIC, which is a public entity.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the land is owned by the public.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated Catellus\nowns a small piece of the property.\nMayor Spencer inquired how much of the land Catellus owns.\nThe Community Development Director responded 1.5 acres.\nUrged Council to support the project; stated Regional Measure 3 will bring desperately\nneeded support for ferry service; he supports the proposed use: Bobby Winston, Bay\nCrossings.\nStated that she supports the project, but has concerns about the amount of single family\nhomes; Alameda needs more workforce housing: Angela Hockabout, Alameda Home\nTeam.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification on the percentage of single family homes.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded 30% would be single family\nhomes.\nStated that she met with Catellus and staff regarding an alternate proposal to include\nsenior housing; Alameda is in need of senior housing: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda\nCitizens Taskforce.\nStated more discussion should occur regarding what is needed on the waterfront:\nFormer Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda.\nStated Alameda needs affordable housing: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing\nAdvocates.\nStated there is a critical need for housing; the project will create jobs: Patricia Young,\nAlameda Home Team.\nStated the project is a solution and a game changer for the maritime industry; the\nproject provides for housing and transportation on and off the Island: Michael\nMcDonough, Chamber of Commerce.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 29, "text": "Stated that he supports the proposal because it supports the maritime industry: Dan\nMorrison, Starlight Marine Services.\nStated Alameda Landing has created a lot of jobs for people in Alameda; the project will\ncreate a lot of jobs; urged Council to adopt the ordinance: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point\nCollaborative.\nStated that she is concerned with the lack of universal design in the proposal: Beth\nKenny, Alameda.\nStated the housing can be a mix for families, seniors and single residents; the site\ncreates unique opportunities for bike and pedestrian access; he would like to preserve\nsurface space to have flexibility in the future; urged Council to approve the project: Brian\nMcGuire, BikeWalk Alameda.\nUrged Council to approve the project: Rich Krinks, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he would like to ensure that the required 50%\ncommercial/industrial use actually happens; the amendment should include language to\nrequire that Bay Ship & Yacht, or a maritime commercial occupant, occupies 50% in a\nlimited period of time otherwise the amendment is void; a senior component should be\nincluded in the 400 housing units; stated affordable by design is meaningless.\nVice Mayor Vella stated there is a public benefit to constructing housing; the easements\nin the project provide a substantial benefit to alleviate traffic; requested clarification\nabout whether the easements include surface streets.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella suggested working with the Water Emergency Transportation\nAuthority (WETA) on the water taxi; stated that she has concerns about the universal\ndesign aspect; she would like the units to be 100% universal design; visit-ability issues\nshould be worked on; there should be conversations with the Committee on Disability\nIssues to ensure it is behind the project; inquired where Bay Ship & Yacht currently\nstands.\nAlan Cameron, Bay Ship & Yacht, responded they have funding, are ready to go, and\nare waiting for the property to close.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there can be an amendment to guarantee that the\nproperty can remain maritime commercial long term.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the project is maxed out\nwith maritime commercial density uses; if the property is sold, a new EIR will be\nrequired, which would prevent any other type of uses.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 30, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether a new owner could choose not build maritime\ncommercial.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the language is in the\nMaster Plan.\nThe Community Development Director stated the permitted uses are defined in the\nAmended Reuse Plan; other contemplated uses would need to return for another\nentitlement process.\nMayor Spencer requested clarification on the word commercial in the language.\nThe Community Development Director responded it means commercial manufacturing,\nnot retail.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether it is not commercial maritime.\nThe Community Development Director responded it is broader than just maritime;\nmanufacturing includes research and development and advanced manufacturing, which\nis permitted in the MX zoning.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Bay Ship & Yacht is proposing commercial maritime.\nThe Community Development Director responded Bay Ship & Yacht is proposing a\ncombination of uses.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether protecting the maritime use is not being built into the\nproposal.\nThe Community Development Director responded the use is a permitted use; stated a\nmaritime business is proposing to purchase the property; the project addresses a lot of\nissues, such as jobs.\nMayor Spencer stated the plan has many changes.\nThe City Manager stated staff is being transparent about the agreement; cautioned the\nCouncil on being so restrictive regarding the types of uses, which would makes the\nproject less financially viable for Bay Ship & Yacht; stated the economy, technology and\nwhat maritime is would all change over time.\nMayor Spencer stated that the description staff used in the report is waterfront maritime\ncommercial.\nThe Community Development Director responded the term is general; stated the\ndefinition is in the proposed amendment to the Master Plan; the language will be in the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 31, "text": "ordinance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the site will be very attractive to uses that need to\nbe on the water.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the water taxi commitment and hours,\nthe Assistant Community Development Director stated the Master Plan commitment is\nthat there will be a public water shuttle facility dock constructed; phasing needs to be\napproved before being constructed; the Transportation Management Association (TMA)\nwill ultimately make the determination.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a commitment to have a water shuttle.\nSean Whiskeman, Catellus, responded the hard work is building the infrastructure for\nthe water shuttle; stated the actual service will fall to the TMA to generate the funds to\noperate the shuttle.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City is going to have a water shuttle or only a dock.\nMr. Whiskeman responded the City will receive the dock and the vessel,; stated the\noperating funds will be generated by the TMA; additional revenue will be allocated to the\nTMA from the new housing.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Catellus has had discussions with WETA.\nMr. Whiskeman responded in the negative; stated Catellus plans on speaking with\nWETA.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the TMA will make the final decisions on the water\nshuttle.\nMr. Whiskeman responded in the affirmative; stated the TMA board is made up of a\nrepresentative of Catellus, TriPointe, the shopping center and the City.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether TMA would have public meetings; and whether the\npublic be notified of the meetings and be a part of the dialogue, to which the Assistant\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated the shuttle would need to be very accessible to be a part of the\ntraffic solution; she does not want to end up with a shuttle sitting at a dock not being\nused; inquired whether the project will be 100% visit-ability, to which the City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether every project can be required to have 100% visit-ability\nand 30% accessible housing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 32, "text": "The Community Development Director responded the proposed project has a 15%\nuniversal design requirement; Catellus has committed to adding the accessible shower\nto ensure that the 15% of the units will be universal design.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Mayor Spencer is requesting higher than 15%.\nThe Community Development Director responded 15% was negotiated with Catellus;\nCouncil can ask about increasing the universal design requirement.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council can require 30% universal design.\nThe Community Development Director responded there is an existing Development\nAgreement (DA); Catellus does not have to comply with subsequent changes.\nMayor Spencer stated Catellus is asking for an amendment.\nThe Community Development Director responded Catellus is asking for an amendment\nto the Master Plan; stated staff negotiated 15% universal design units.\nMayor Spencer inquired since whether staff could have required 30% universal design\nsince Catellus is asking for an additional 400 homes.\nThe Community Development Director responded staff negotiated and the proposal is\nthe end result.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Catellus is refusing to do the 100% visit-ability and\n30% universal design, which is what the Commission on Disability Issues is requesting.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nTom Marshall, Catellus, responded Catellus has to make the project feasible.\nMayor Spencer stated serving the disabled in the community is important.\nMr. Marshall stated the developer is aware of the question and cannot support the\nrequest.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the developer is going to set a price range on the\nunits.\nThe Community Development Director responded the 10% affordable by design would\nnot be deed restricted; stated staff is not recommending the units be deed restricted.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the developer is willing to commit to the non-single\nfamily homes being limited to 55 and over.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 33, "text": "The Community Development Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion to\nensure that the 50% of the commercial industrial actually happens within a certain\ntimeframe can be required.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nThe Community Development Director stated if Council would like to move forward with\nrequiring the project take place in a certain timeframe, the concept should be negotiated\nand included in the Operating Memorandum.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not want to see the process go forward\nwith no commercial development in the end.\nThe Community Development Director responded Catellus understands the concern\nand is prepared to do the commercial construction within a certain timeframe.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated his request is within a certain time or the amendment\nwill be void.\nThe Community Development Director responded the current Master Plan amendment\nincludes a variant for existing entitlements.\nThe City Attorney stated Council may need to take a short recess to allow staff to\ndiscuss Councilmember Matarrese's request; she is concerned with putting the request\nin an Operating Memorandum.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated his goal is to ensure the commercial construction is\ncompleted; Site A is an example where the commercial is in jeopardy because it is\nharder to do than housing.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated if there is a way to satisfy Councilmember Matarrese's\nconcern without destroying the deal, he would like staff to address the issue.\nThe City Attorney stated that she would like a chance to discuss the issue with her\ncolleagues and Catellus' attorney.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is excited about the commercial aspect of the\nproject; easements for the additional crossings are important; the project is a good step\nin improving housing needs; he plans on supporting the project.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is excited about the maritime jobs being\ncreated and the strengthening of the waterfront; she cannot support a senior\ncomponent; Alameda needs housing across the board; the universal design ordinance\nhas not passed yet; she would like to see the northern waterfront developers work\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 34, "text": "together on the water taxi service; she would like Catellus to join the Citywide TMA; she\nwill support the project.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 2:25 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:41 a.m.\nMr. Marshall stated the deal will not close until the end of the year due to some due\ndiligence items that need to be cleaned up; Catellus can commit to the maritime\ncomponent.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether part of the ordinance can read: \"there will\nbe no building permits issued for residential until the commercial component is\nconsummated.\"\nMr. Marshall responded he would like the word consummated defined.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated consummated means purchased and guaranteed.\nMr. Marshall stated there can be no guarantee after the purchase.\nThe City Manager responded the attorneys are trying to draft language for the\nordinance first reading tonight; she would like the language to be very clear before the\nvote at the second reading.\nMargo Bradish, Catellus Legal Counsel, read the language: \"No building permit for\nresidential use in the residential subarea shall be issued until the maritime commercial\nland is conveyed to a developer or user for use consistent with the permitted uses\nauthorized in the maritime commercial subarea of the maritime commercial residential\nvariant of the Master Plan.\"\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance amending the\nBayport Alameda Landing Master Plan as amended.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer\n- 1.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to\nexecute a Consent to Partial Assignment and Assumption Agreement (Development\nAgreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project) - Waterfront); and\nauthorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Operating Memorandum for\nthe Development Agreement consistent with the Term Sheet.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 35, "text": "- 1.\nMayor Spencer called a recess to hold the joint meeting at 2:48 a.m. and reconvened\nthe meeting at 2:49 a.m.\nThe City Attorney requested Council to clarify the action taken on the Public Hearing;\nstated the ordinance was adopted with the amendment; the amendment language is\nadded to the Master Plan as a condition; the ordinance adopts the Master Plan\namendment but the language should be in the Master Plan itself.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of clarifying the action taken.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer -\n1.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(17-486) The City Manager stated the results from the Registrar of Voters (ROV)\nverified 129.88% valid signatures on the referendum; Council's would have the choice\nto either rescind Ordinance No. 3180 or place the ordinance on the ballot for the voters\nto decide.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(17-487) Brian McGuire, Alameda, expressed concerns for the lengthy Council\nmeetings.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(17-488) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues,\nHistorical Advisory Board, Planning Board and Public Art Commission.\nMayor Spencer nominated Pat Lamborn and Alan Teague for appointment to the\nPlanning Board.\nADJOURNMENT\n(17-489) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at\n2:53 a.m. in memory of Florence Hoffman.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 36, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 37, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE\nCITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY-JULY 18, 2017--7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 2:48 a.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nEzzy\nAshcraft,\nMatarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -\n5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(17-490 CC/17-010SACIC) Public Hearing to Consider: 1) Approving and Authorizing\nthe City Manager to Execute a Consent to Partial Assignment and Assumption\nAgreement for the Alameda Disposition and Development Agreement for the Alameda\nLanding Mixed Use Project; and 2) Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and\nExecute an Operating Memorandum for the Disposition and Development Agreement\nConsistent with the Term Sheet. A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for\nthe Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project was Certified in Accordance with\nthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (State Clearinghouse #2006012091)\nin\n2006. An Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Actions has been Prepared.\nApproved.\nThe matter was heard under the Public Hearing regarding Alameda Landing on the\nregular City Council meeting.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor/Chair Spencer - 1.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 2:49\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 38, "text": "Lara Weisiger\nCity Clerk and Secretary SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n2\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 1, "text": "City of Alameda\nCITY OF\nTERNA\nMeeting Minutes\nTuesday, July 18, 2017\n7:00 PM\nSPECIAL MEETING\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Confrence Room 160. 1st\nFloor, Alameda, CA 94501\nMeetings held the fourth Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m.\nSocial Service Human Relations Board", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 2, "text": "Social Service Human Relations\nMeeting Minutes\nJuly 18, 2017\nBoard\n1\nCALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\n2\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\n2-A\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the Social Service Human\nRelations Board (SSHRB), April 27, 2017\n3\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A\nWELCOME OF NEW BOARD MEMBER CLAUDIA MEDINA\n3-B\nNOMINATION OF OFFICERS\n3-C\nWORK GROUP PROGRESS REPORTS - Information\n4\nBOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n5\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n6\nADJOURNMENT\nNOTES\n****\nTranslators or sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact\nCommunity Development at 747-6800 or 522-7538 (TDD number) at least 72 hours\nbefore the meeting to request a translator or interpreter. Accessible seating for persons\nwith disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. Audio tapes of the\nmeeting are available upon request. MINUTES OF THE MEETING ARE AVAILABLE IN\nENLARGED PRINT. Please contact Commnuity Development at 747-6800 or 522-7538\n(TDD number) at least 72 hours before the meeting to request agenda materials in an\nalternative format, or any other reasonable accommodations that may be necessary to\nparticipate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. Materials related to an item on this\nagenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for\npublic inspection in the Community Development office during normal business hours.\nDocuments related to this agenda are available for public inspection and copying at\nCommunity Development Division, Room 120, Alameda City Hall during normal business\nhours.\nCity of Alameda\nPage 1", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2017-07-18.pdf"}