pages
8,920 rows where body = "CityCouncil" sorted by body
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
date (date) >30 ✖
- 2021-07-06 51
- 2016-01-05 40
- 2021-09-07 40
- 2010-06-15 39
- 2010-07-27 38
- 2017-07-18 38
- 2016-02-16 37
- 2018-06-05 36
- 2018-07-10 36
- 2005-05-17 35
- 2020-07-21 35
- 2021-03-16 35
- 2021-11-16 35
- 2006-12-05 34
- 2017-07-05 34
- 2017-11-07 34
- 2019-12-18 34
- 2021-07-20 34
- 2005-07-19 33
- 2020-05-19 33
- 2007-01-02 32
- 2007-12-04 32
- 2009-10-20 32
- 2010-04-20 32
- 2016-02-02 32
- 2017-06-06 32
- 2020-03-03 32
- 2022-05-03 32
- 2006-10-17 31
- 2009-02-07 31
- …
Link | body ▼ | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2008-09-17.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2008-09-17 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 - - -6:30 P.M. (08-406 - ) A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to attend the Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda meeting. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council September 17, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-09-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2019-05-16.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2019-05-16 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY- MAY 16, 2019- -6:30 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Vice Mayor Knox White led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. AGENDA ITEM (19-295) Budget Workshop for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21 to Provide Direction on Funding Requests. Discussed the School Board's request for mental health funding and what the District is doing to address the issue: Jennifer Williams, School Board. Discussed the School District's mental health crisis, which is a community issue; urged Council to provide support: Kirsten Zazo, Alameda Unified School District. Urged Council to fund what is proposed in the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, which includes 18 projects in the first two years; listed projects; noted up to eight staff are required to fully implement the Plan: Lauren Eisele, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA). Discussed leadership being needed to address climate; stated responding to climate change is a core service for Alameda; suggested an Assistant City Manager position be added and dedicated to address climate: Ruth Abbe, CASA. Urged Council not to cut the tree budget, which would mean no more street tree planting; stated street trees already do not get enough maintenance: Christopher Buckley, Alameda. Discussed funding and staffing to implement the Climate Action Plan: Herb Behrstock, CASA. Submitted information; discussed the increase in emissions, importance of leadership and mental health in schools: Sylvia Gibson, CASA. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 1 May 16, 2019 | CityCouncil/2019-05-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2019-05-16.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2019-05-16 | 2 | Expressed concern over cutting the tree maintenance budget; discussed advantages of having trees: Corrine Lambden, Alameda. The Council discussed procedural matters. In response to public comment, the City Manager made brief comments on the tree budget. The City Engineer reviewed the Power Point slides presented at end of the previous night and responded to Council questions. The Deputy Public Works Director responded to questions. The Public Information Officer continued to track Council follow up requests and throughout the workshop. **** Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 7:36 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:51 p.m. *** The Planning, Building and Transportation Director continued the Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions. The City Manager responded to Council questions. The Council discussed the School District funding request. Ms. Williams and Ms. Zazo responded to questions regarding the request. Councilmember Daysog made comments. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:44 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:58 p.m. Each of the Councilmembers and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made additional comments regarding the funding requests. The City Manager provided a summary of the recommendations he would bring back. Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie and Daysog made additional comments. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 16, 2019 | CityCouncil/2019-05-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2019-05-16.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2019-05-16 | 3 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 3 May 16, 2019 | CityCouncil/2019-05-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY-- -JULY 20, 2021--4:00 - P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 4:01 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmember Vella arrived at 5:13 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: None. Consent Calendar Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Daysog seconded, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*21-469) Recommendation to Approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, and Lois Butler, Development Services Division Manager, as Real Property Negotiators for the Marina Village Inn located at 1151 Pacific Marina, Alameda, CA. Accepted. Public Comment on Closed Session Items Read Into the Record: Discussed increased crime near Marina Village; stated people with boats docked in the area are not happy about the City purchasing the Marina Village Inn: Marilyn Amorino, Alameda. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (21-470) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9); Case Name: Le V. City of Alameda; Court: Superior Court of California County of Alameda; Case Numbers: RG20082184 (21-471) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: Marina Village Inn, 1151 Pacific Marina, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, and Lois Butler, Economic Development Division Manager and Community Services Manager; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Shailendra (Sam) Devdhara, Sole Member/Manager of Core Hotels, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms (21-472) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursu… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 2 | Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P.; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms (21-473) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957); Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Eric Levitt Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding the Existing Litigation, the accident which forms the basis of this litigation took place on May 2, 2020, at approximately 4:37 PM on the 1800 block of Poggi Street; plaintiff Nikita Le rode his bicycle over a defective drainage grate; the front bike tire went into the grate slats, causing the bike to pitch plaintiff forward over the handlebars where plaintiff landed on his face, sustaining significant injuries, especially to his face and teeth; in order to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation, the City Council authorized the City Attorney to settle this matter in an amount not to exceed $255,000 by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4; Absent: 1; regarding Alameda Theatre, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4; Absent: 1; regarding Marina Village Inn, staff provided information and Council provided direction with no vote taken; regarding Performance Evaluation, Council conducted the evaluation and conducted a vote by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Absent; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3; Noes: 1; Absent: 1. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, L… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 3 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY--JULY 20, 2021-6:58 - P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom] Absent: None. AGENDA ITEM (21-474) Resolution No. 15796, "Reappointing Lynn Jones as a Member of the Historical Advisory Board." Adopted; (21-474 A) Resolution No. 15797, "Reappointing Norman Sanchez as a Member of the Historical Advisory Board." Adopted; (21-474 B) Resolution No. 15798, "Reappointing Xiomara Cisneros Lynn Jones as a Member of the Planning Board." Adopted; (21-474 C) Resolution No. 15799, "Reappointing Alan Teague as a Member of the Planning Board.' Adopted; and (21-474D) - Resolution No. 15800, "Appointing Christina McKenna as a Member of the Public Utilities Board." Adopted. Stated the Open Government Commission's (OGC) discussed an equity and diversity survey to review City Boards and Commissions diversity; urged new candidates be appointed every four years to ensure maximum representation and inclusivity: Carmen Reid, Alameda. Councilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Sanchez, Ms. Cisneros, Mr. Teague and Ms. McKenna, who each made brief comments. (21-475) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Public Art Commission (PAC). Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Robert Ferguson, Jennifer Hoffecker and Peter Platzgummer for appointment to the PAC. Special Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 1 | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,23 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 23 | $28 million is likely not the correct amount to allocate; the analysis of the sale will drive the funding amounts; $20 million is too high for the project; dedicating so much of the ARPA funds toward one project is not going to fly; ; the project's proximity to amenities makes the Marina Village Inn an asset; Council should not miss the opportunity; expressed concern about groundwater; stated groundwater is something that cuts across the City; expressed support for taking advantage of the storm water system. Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for spending ARPA funding as needed based off assessments for the Marina Village Inn; stated the project is a good use of funds; equity is about helping those who need the most; there will be times when significant amounts of resources will be used in order to have an impact on those who need help; Council can do something positive with the project; Council has addressed issues related to budget shortages; further cuts should not be made to services; expressed support for ensuring the budget is being taken care of; expressed concern about additional budget cuts; stated that she would like to find a way to maximize the use of ARPA funds for housing needs; questioned other ways to maximize and assist with housing needs; stated matters are being discussed at the State level, including UBI; there will be multiple layers of assistance coming to families and those in need; Council can make the greatest impact using ARPA funds for housing. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should think big; ARPA funds have been described as a once in a lifetime opportunity; outlined the staff report; stated that she agrees with using ARPA funds to purchase the Marina Village Inn; however, not using $20 million; different funding sourcs will be incorporated; in addition to federal funding, there will be money coming in from the State and County which can be used towards operating costs; outlined a meeting with Alameda Justice Alliance, Transform Alameda and Alameda Renters Coalition; expressed supp… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,24 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 24 | The Assistant City Manager stated that he has heard from four Councilmembers to focus on housing and the Marina Village Inn project; staff needs to work on the schedule and analysis of true costs; public health came up in a number of different contexts; staff can provide additional options related to public health and the investment in a mental health clinic or other local support for public health; business assistance did not come up more than once; it would be great to hear Council direction related to the General Fund and revenue loss; ARPA funding would come back and become part of a broader ability to fund different priorities; the funding is flexible in some ways; staff can continue to refine the process; the deadline to fully program the funds is the end of 2024; the funding can be looked at in future budget cycles. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the approach of a broader spending ability; stated ARPA is wonderful; however, the City is limited to the regulations put forth by the federal government; if the money goes into the General Fund, the City has much more flexibility for other projects. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is supportive of the funding being placed in the General Fund; he would like to ensure the City has some kind of spending guidelines; expressed concern about a grab bag approach; the flexibility in spending should go towards meeting goals; Council is still honing versus selecting projects; the Assistant City Manager has outlined the matter well; the goals should be: housing, mental health and public health related programs which cannot be reimbursable under the program. Vice Mayor Vella stated Council can outline the revenue loss portion; expressed concern about impacts to services relative to priorities and revenue loss; businesses are also included in impacts to loss of services; Council has done a number of things for the business districts, including outreach and services; Council has provided many grants with City funds; the City can leverage funds to provide ove… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,25 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 25 | Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been multiple proposals and categories; noted one of the proposals listed wireless hotspots at $50,000; inquired whether the matter is a stand-alone item. The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the project is one of the lower hanging fruit; however, it will be impactful. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the hotspots are important; requested clarification about $18,700 for the service wireless lending hotspot. The Assistant City Manager stated the program would be delivered by the Library; the City would have 30 hotspot devices; a household can be powered by one hotspot device at no cost; the process is similar to checking out a book; the program will fund the service. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the locations of the wireless hotspots. The Assistant City Manager stated the projects are part of the Library program; the broadband system would allow the City to create a network across the City and create a hard-wired internet system allowing an increase to internet speeds across the community; wireless hotspots can be adapted to the broadband system; there is a lending program through the Library, both hardwired and wireless infrastructure comes with the overall broadband program; all items are tied to the Smart City project whether through a lending system or physical improvements and infrastructure; the project is part of a broader effort to improve connectivity across the community. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the broadband item is listed under the $6 million Master Plan. The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the broadband Smart City program includes a fiber network across the City and WiFi within the business districts; the system will be both in and above ground to improve connectivity across the community. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the $50,000 and the $18,700 could be used without the broadband Smart City program, to which the Assistant Ci… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,26 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 26 | needs. (21-504) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items; suggested hearing the Police Policies [paragraph no. 21-505], Public Art Ordinance [paragraph no. 21-508 and Sunshine Ordinance Amendments [paragraph no. 21-509 with ending by 12:00 a.m. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Mayor's suggestion. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. The City Manager recommended staff bring back a program which contains a combination of Options 1 and 2; stated Council's focus is on housing; Option 1 has a focus on matters such as broadband and infrastructure; the revenue loss can be used towards the housing portion; staff can narrow the broadband portion to include some of the elements discussed by Council. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is supportive of the wireless hotspots; expressed concern about the broadband project being placed ahead of the Smart City Master Plan; stated that he would like to know more about the project as opposed to putting in broadband with the hopes of connecting street traffic lights; the broadband option is not what he has in mind for a big and impactful project. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is possible to obtain more information from staff related to the percentage of the population that does not have internet access; stated that she feels the matter is important and the need is great. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would prefer Council pursue the matter in the manner recommended by the City Manager; she is mindful of Councilmember Knox White's concerns about getting too far from the Smart City Master Plan; there are other ways to fund the project, including a possible upcoming infrastructure bill. Councilmember Knox White stated that he has been part of weekly meetings over the summer with AUSD; the numbers are not huge; the matter is not going to be solv… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,27 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 27 | Council figure out how to help seniors connect with the community. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of supporting the City Manager's recommendation to have staff return with a combination of Options 1 and 2 containing a housing focus, some revenue loss for flexibility and wireless hotspots with the potential for broadband support as discussed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the public and mental health are folded in, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-505) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update the Existing Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Existing Best Practices and Statutory Requirements. The Police Chief gave a presentation. (21-506) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of giving the Police Chief an additional three minutes. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. The Police Chief completed the presentation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting the Police Chief's recommendation to update the policies. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the changes all make sense; the matter can return to Council on the Consent Calendar in the future. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she can add the comments made by Councilmember Knox White as a friendly amendment to her motion. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to let staff decide when matters can be placed on the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the matter returning on the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 20 | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,28 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 28 | Consent Calendar. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Alameda Police Department having a table at the Alameda Job Fair; noted that she was pleased to hear both the City Manager and Police Chief were present. Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined a "Coffee with a Cop" event at Starbucks Coffee. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-507) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Lease with Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability Company to Extend the Term for Five Years for Building 29, Located at 1701 Monarch Street, at Alameda Point. Not heard. (21-508) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Public Art Requirements, as Recommended by the Planning Board. Introduced. The Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Development Manager stated deaccession is the removal of public art from the City's public art collection. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City has performed deaccession. The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated deaccession is generally performed in a variety of ways; the process is lengthy and governed by State and federal law. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is prepared to support staff's recommendation; he supports being able to move forward without Council approval under the City Manager's approved spending limit; however, he would like to propose requiring Council notification in the event a Call for Review is needed; Council receives calls related to negative community impacts; it is a bad look for Council to respond to calls by indicating unawareness; Calls for Review add balance. The City Attorney stated the proposed recommendation from Councilmember Knox White can be implemented in two ways: 1) Council direc… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,29 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 29 | reading of the ordinance, including the minor adjustment; stated including the direction is clearer than hoping the direction is remembered. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed change will still constitute a first reading. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the language should be captured properly; recommended modified language be included under Subsection f. of 30-98.10; the section discusses City Manager expenditures; staff can add language to reflect the Council be notified of any City Manager expenditure approvals. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the expenditure is made as soon as it is approved by the City Manager; noted that his interest is future Councilmembers have the ability to Call for Review any potentially offensive installations prior to expenditure and installation; inquired whether there is a section prior to City Manager approval where the language can be placed or whether a waiting period of five to 10 days post- approval can be added. The City Manager responded that he has included a similar structure for matters other than public art; stated that he can inform Council 10 days prior to approving the purchase; the notice will state the City Manager intends to approve a purchase; if Council wishes to appeal the approval, an appeal can be provided within the 10 day time period; if an appeal be received within the ten day period, the expenditure will not be approved and the matter will be brought to Council. Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the City Manager recommendation. The Economic Development Manager inquired whether Council would like to be informed of any minor changes or expenditures. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Councilmember Knox White's proposal; inquired whether the goal is to have Council be informed of art installations and be apprised of any concerns raised by neighbors. Councilmember Knox White responded the matter might become too complicated to compile a list of things to review; stated Council should b… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,30 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 30 | Councilmember Knox White stated the art will not be installed; the proposed process occurs prior to payment; outlined the process for Public Art Commission (PAC) and Council approvals; stated Council would not see the proposals that fall within the City Manager authorization threshold; he is proposing Council be allowed to see the artwork and have a review period; expressed support for a Call for Review process; stated the process will likely not be used often; however, it might be helpful if installation of a problematic piece is proposed. Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about the proposal appearing to be a new process; stated that he is not opposed to the proposal, but the matter causes concern; inquired whether Council can gain a sense of the amount of projects that cost under $75,000. The Development Manager responded the public art fund has expended one $100,000 grant and the remainder fell below the $75,000 threshold; the remainder includes two to three public art grants and roughly 16 smaller grants. Councilmember Daysog noted many of the funding approvals fall below the approval threshold; stated that he dislikes giving up Council prerogative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft question whether or not public art funds are always spent on a physical art installation; noted performance art can be funded; questioned whether non- physical art approvals will be presented to Council. Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the proposal to include expenditures for newly approved pieces of art; stated that he does not want to review nominal funding increase requests; all art projects, including non-physical art pieces, would be included; he does not expect the process to be used often; the proposal allows Council an opportunity to raise a hand and indicate a potential problem; the form of the art does not change the proposed review. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether any harm has occurred in the process; questioned the source for the proposal. The Economic Development Manager responded staff has returned to Cou… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,31 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 31 | Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about Council not having an ability to review proposed projects; noted the recommendation provided by the City Manager addresses the concerns. Councilmember Daysog stated staff may return in one or two years if issues with change orders and small grants persists; expressed support for the recommendation provided by the City Manager. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not bring change orders to Council; the City has a competent PAC; she has faith in staff; expressed concern about being in the weeds and causing project delays; stated art can be subjective; questioned the standards to be held and applied by Council; expressed support for staff's recommendation; stated the City Manager's proposed recommendation is reasonable. Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for the City Manager's recommended modification; expressed concern about the number of matters run by Council; stated there are many items for Council to deal with; she understands the concern posed by Councilmember Knox White related to outlier scenarios; the proposed change relates to an issue that has not necessarily arisen and that would be a rarity; expressed concern about the process being misused. Councilmember Knox White stated everything currently comes to Council; noted staff has proposed to have nothing come to Council. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is comfortable with the staff recommendation. The Economic Development Manager stated all public art matters can be appealed through the City Council; a 10 day period after approval can occur for appeals sent to City Council. Councilmember Daysog stated that he feels like Santa Claus when art projects are approved; he is helping bequeath an item which will be an artistic benefit; expressed concern about giving up Council approval; expressed concern for appeal processes. The City Attorney stated the proposed language to include in the ordinance will read: "The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from the Alameda public art fund cons… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,32 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 32 | Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the language. Councilmember Daysog stated the proposed language includes change orders; inquired whether Council still has authority over everything else, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with the amended language. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated that she understood the proposal was to include a Call for Review; inquired whether the Call for Review is for one provision. The City Manager responded his recommended change remains consistent with the terms provided by the City Attorney. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the ordinance is being amended to add the proposed language. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the language will be added in Subsection f. of Section 30-98.10. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that the motion is to remove change orders from Council approval. The City Attorney stated the motion changes the original paragraph completely; noted the language shall read: "The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from the Alameda public art fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the City Manager shall be authorized to approve change orders within the City Manager spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with approval authorizations in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The City Manager shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager on any change order. Any two Councilmembers may call the City Manager's decision for review within 10 days of the City Manager's notification. If no Call for Review is timely perfected, the City Manager's decision shall become final and effective." Councilmember Knox White stated that he is unsure whether to support the proposed language; the proposed language is the opposite of what he would like; expressed support for Council being notified of art projects, … | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,33 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 33 | shall authorize expenditures from the public art fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the City Manager shall be authorized to approve expenditures within the City Manager spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with approval authorizations in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The City Manager shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager, for any new artwork or project. Any two Councilmembers may call the City Manager's decision for review within ten days of the City Manager's notification. If no Call for Review is timely perfected, the City Manager's decision shall become final and effective.' In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the timing is 10 days after the City Manager's notification. Councilmember Knox White made a substitute motion approving introduction of the ordinance with the proposed amended language. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the substitute motion. Councilmember Daysog stated that he dislikes giving up Council prerogative in approving public art. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. (21-509) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code, Including Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) to Clarify Enforcement Provisions and Provide for Other Updates and Enhancements to the Sunshine Ordinance. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the matter to September 7, 2021 at 6:59 p.m. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 26 | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,34 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 34 | Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Not heard. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-510) Consider Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero Emission Vehicle Sales in California by 2030. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft) Not heard. (21-511) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief regarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-512) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-513) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-514) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 27 | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 4 | (21-476) Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of selecting Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft as the delegate and Vice Mayor Vella as the alternate. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-477) Councilmember Daysog announced the names of eight Troop 73 Eagle Scouts: Henry Banchieri, Brendan Cook, Johanthan Hildreth, Andrew and Eric Jarecki, Zachary Quayle, Tibor Thompson, and Vander von Stroheim. (21-478) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced the upcoming Relay for Life at Leydecker Park; stated there is an Airport Noise forum cellular phone application to report loud noise from airplanes: flyquietoak.com; discussed a community piano outside Nob Hill. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 2 | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 5 | MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED JULY 6, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -JULY 20, 2021-6:59 - P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:48 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom] Absent: None. CONTINUED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM (21-479) Resolution No. 15801, "Amending Resolution Nos. 15728 and 15739 Amending the 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Dates." Adopted. The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was not on Council when the meeting dates changed; noted correspondence has been received on the matter; stated that she is not available for the proposed September 22nd meeting date; proposed keeping the September 1st meeting date and reverting to the September 21st date; stated the proposal appears to accommodate different requests. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about changing the meeting dates due to religious holidays. Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the September 1st and 22nd meeting dates; stated the League of California Cities has programming the evening of September 22nd until 7:00 p.m.; noted the Regular City Council meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.; Council can make a good faith determination that a large portion of the City has conflicts due to meaningful cultural events; residents have requested Council honor the conflicts; he does not support moving the meeting dates back; September 21st is the first night of Sukkot and September 7th is the first night of Rosh Hashanah; expressed support for September 1st and September 22nd and for moving away from September 15th, which is the most problematic date proposed. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for Councilmember Knox White's proposed dates. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are many ways to participate in a Council meeting; there are also ways to have comments incorporated into the record; members of the public do not vote on matters; many events are held in the… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 6 | Councilmember Knox White stated missing Eid Al Adha was a mistake; he reviewed the inter-faith calendar for the year in order to avoid major conflicts; he will not support moving the dates back and creating harm; outlined an argument provided by City of Dublin related to flying a rainbow flag for Pride Month; stated Council can address the matter with the meetings identified as having a conflict within the community and send the matter to SSHRB for policy development; Council can do the right thing by a large portion of the community, allowing full engagement in the process. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the analogy of flying the rainbow flag is not applicable; inquired whether additional dates have been proposed to be moved for cultural holidays. Councilmember Knox White responded had he known Eid Al Adha was in conflict, he would have proposed the meeting date be moved; stated he has not requested any other dates be moved; the two meeting dates in September happen to be prominent. Vice Mayor Vella inquired the original meeting dates, to which the City Clerk responded the meeting dates were adopted in December 2020 and modified in January 2021 to be the first and third Wednesday in September; the meeting dates went from September 7th and 21st to September 1st and 15th Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about taking a stance in terms of policy; stated should a policy be developed and should apply to all Boards and Commissions, not just Council; expressed concern about flip-flopping on the confirmed dates due to substantial business coming before Council; stated that she has a conflict on September 1st; the original proposal created a scheduling conflict with an important high holiday; she wants to find a way to accommodate all community members; scheduling conflicts will be created; it is problematic to throw dates out at the current meeting in hopes for a date that works for all. Councilmember Daysog stated most residents have the expectation of City Hall working on the first and third Tuesday's of the month; expre… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 7 | Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes direction to staff to have the matter brought before SSHRB in the future; stated that she agrees with Vice Mayor Vella that the consideration is not solely for Council meetings but for all Boards and Commissions. Councilmember Daysog stated that he has no preference for or against bringing the matter to SSHRB in the future; he is fine with the proposal should the majority of Council desire. Vice Mayor Vella made a friendly amendment to the motion to direct the SSHRB to look into the matter; stated any recommendation from SSHRB should be brought back to Council. Councilmember Daysog accepted the friendly amendment. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Continued July 6, 2021 Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 3 | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,8 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 8 | MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY--JULY 20, 2021- -7:00 - P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:01 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom] Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES (21-480) The City Clerk announced the Dreyfuss lease [paragraph no. 21-507 would not be heard. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the legal notices referral [paragraph no. 21-500] moved as far up in the agenda as possible; time is of the essence. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to move the matter. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of moving the legal notices referral as high up in the agenda as possible. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is proposing moving the matter above the Regular Agenda items, to which Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about moving the matter above the Regular Agenda items. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated moving time sensitive matters has occurred in the past. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the item can move to the end of the Regular Agenda. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter should be heard before or after the Consent Calendar. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 1 | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 9 | PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote on the Resolution Continuing the Emergency Declaration [paragraph no. 21-498]. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*21-481) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on June 15, 2021.Approved. (*21-482) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,591,408.64. (*21-483) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Two Contract Amendments Totaling $300,000 as follows: 1) Second Amendment with Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Substantially in the Form of Exhibit 3, for Three Years in an Amount Not to Exceed $260,000 for City of Alameda Occupational Medical Services; and 2) Second Amendment with Preferred Alliance, Inc., for Three Years in an Amount Not to Exceed $40,000 for Drug Testing Services in Conjunction with Services Provided by Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. Accepted. (*21-484) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Easement Amendments for the Pathway Located Between 3227 and 3329 Fernside Boulevard and the Pathway Located Between 3267 and 3301 Fernside Boulevard, Substantially in the Form of Exhibits 1 and 2. Accepted. (*21-485) Recommendation to Approve an Updated Slate of Recreation and Parks Department Community Events. Accepted. (*21-486) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Animal Shelter Operator Agreement with the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) for an Amount Not to Exceed $997,818 in Fiscal Year 2021-… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 10 | To 10 Years. Accepted. (*21-487) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Four, Five-Year Agreements in the Amount of $150,000 Each per Fiscal Year to Bellecci & Associates, BKF Engineers, Kier + Wright, and Sandis for On-Call Land Surveyor Services for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $750,000 For Each Agreement. Accepted. (*21-488) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to Agreement with Schaaf & Wheeler for the Preparation of Engineering Documents for the Upgrade of the City of Alameda Sewer Pump Stations, Phase 5, to Extend the Term of the Agreement for Two Additional Years without Amending the Agreement Amount. Accepted. (*21-489) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Agreement with Omega Pest Control for Pest Control Services at City of Alameda Facilities for a Total Five Year Amount Not to Exceed $145,572. Accepted. (*21-490) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to Agreement with Precision Emprise, LLC, dba Precision Concrete Cutting to Increase Compensation by $175,000 for Sidewalk Trip Hazard Removal for a Total Aggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $995,000. Accepted. (*21-491) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Agreement with Civicorps Schools for Three Years, in an Amount Not to Exceed $33,600 Per Year, for a Total Five Year Amount Not to Exceed $168,000, for Shoreline Trash Removal Services. Accepted. (*21-492) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Agreement with Clean Water Fund for Targeted Zero Waste Technical Assistance for Commercial Food Vendors in an Amount Not to Exceed $289,000. Accepted. (*21-493) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Third Amendment to the Agreement with SCS Engineers for Targeted Zero Waste Technical Assistance for Commercial Businesses and Multi-Family Accounts in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,334,978. Accepted. (*21-494) Recommendation to Authorize the City… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 11 | Homeless Population in an Amount Not to Exceed $149,717 for Fiscal Year 2021-22. Accepted; and (*21-496 / A) Resolution No. 15802, "Amending the General Fund Budget to Appropriate an Additional $27,317 for Operation Dignity to Provide Mobile Outreach Services.' Adopted. (*21-497) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Approve the Purchase of Multiple Network Switches and Wi-Fi Access Points from SHI International Corp, a Reseller of the Cisco Network Switches and Meraki Access Points, to be Located at Various City Owned Buildings in the Amount of $220,334. Accepted; and (21-497A) Resolution No. 15803, "Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget by Increasing Appropriations for the Information Technology Internal Service Fund (606) by $220,334." Adopted. (*21-498) Resolution No. 15804, "Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local Emergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government Code Section 8630(c). Adopted. Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1. (*21-499) Ordinance No. 3302, "Approving a Third Amendment to the Greenway Golf Lease Agreement for Operation of the Corica Park Golf Complex." Finally passed. COUNCIL REFERRAL (21-500) Consider Reviewing the Decision to Award the Contract for Legal Notices to the Alameda Journal, including a Possible Re-Vote to Terminate the Contract and Discuss Ways to Tide Over the Alameda Sun. (Councilmember Daysog) Councilmember Daysog gave a brief presentation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she received emails from angry residents; one of the eligible uses of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds is assistance for small local business, which could include the Alameda Sun; direction to staff could include exploring allocating ARPA funds to help sustain the small local business. Councilmember Daysog stated the Referral was written to contemplate a scenario where Coun… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 12 | if possible, to allow Council to vote to have the contract go to the Alameda Sun and also explore the designation of ARPA funds to the small business. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is for both reassigning the contract and giving the funds. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded Council would vote on how to handle it when the matter returns; staff should research both. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated for a Council Referral, the decision is to ask staff to bring back an analysis and not make a final decision. The City Clerk concurred. The City Attorney stated Council should provide direction about what should be reviewed and staff would return with a matter to vote on at the next meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Clerk and City Attorney have sufficient direction, to which the City Clerk and City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Vella requested that the direction look at the price differentials and whether there is a way to lower the amount due to lower circulation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated keeping the contract with the Journal would be more prudent due to the greater circulation; she would like to review what can be done to backfill the revenue loss with ARPA funds. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated a vote is needed. The City Clerk restated the motion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an option would be to keep the contract with the Journal and use ARPA funds, to which the City Clerk responded all of the analysis would return. Councilmember Knox White stated that he does not want to waste staff's time if Councilmember Daysog is not going to reconsider awarding the contract. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would do so; he wants to accommodate Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and does not know what the City Attorney will say in his legal analysis. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council would not need to revisit the matter if it de… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 13 | Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is interested in having the contract awarded to the Alameda Sun regardless of the ARPA funds; she wants both issues to come back. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (21-501) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Constructing or Installing Temporary Shelters, Transitional Housing, and/or Permanent Supportive Housing in the City of Alameda; and Provide Direction on the Type of Homeless Housing Project to Pursue. The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Daysog inquired how the Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system works for the pallet construction; stated Alameda Point can be cold at night. The Economic Development Manager responded the pallet option has heating and air conditioning as part of each unit; the systems will need to be connected to utilities. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on the funding sources for each project; inquired the reason staff did not bring back a bigger discussion about funding sources and working with the Alameda Housing Authority (AHA). The Community Development Director responded the funding sources require further investigation; stated ARPA funding information has not yet been determined; Council may choose to allocate funding during the ARPA discussion [paragraph no. 21-503]; Project Home Key is developing; applications will not be able to be submitted until fall; staff estimates potential eligibility of $10 million for a larger project; the rules related to the fund have not yet been finalized; staff will explore all funding options and return to Council for a discussion of options; staff will be working with AHA on a potential agreement for affordable housing vouchers. Councilmember Knox White requested clarification on location choices; inquired what details create a succ… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 14 | staff has considered overall costs, long-term operating costs and utilities; staff will include pros and cons of each site when presenting to Council; staff considers equity in site placement. Expressed support over the spending plan; stated the proposals are clear; questioned the role played by the City within the larger regional approach to homelessness; expressed concern about the hotel acquisition and operations; stated hotel operation is costly and will not be reduced causing General Fund money to be spent: Nancy Shemick, Alameda. Expressed support over the proposals; stated the Marina Village Inn transformation is most viable; the proposal is a logical use; urged Council approve the necessary expenditures to convert the Marina Village Inn to a permanent facility; expressed support for the facilities including a resiliency center where both residents and members of the Alameda public have access to counseling and access to resources, including financial assistance, behavior and physical health services, transportation, legal, nutrition and food access, and shower and laundry facilities; urged Council to provide space for community gardens at proposed locations; outlined the possibility of losing a home; urged Council take the step toward eliminating homelessness in the community: Cheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives. Stated there are many well-considered options for the community; expressed support for the Marina Village Inn project; stated Project Room Key is a short-term project; she hopes the City will leverage Project Home Key and take an existing building, which is connected to plumbing, to allow for temporary, transitional housing; the need to end homelessness is both urgent and long-term; urged Council to use funds to invest in something durable; Marina Village Inn is close to grocery stores and transit: Grover Wehman-Brown, Alameda. Expressed support for comments made by speaker Wehman-Brown; stated it will be valuable to use the Marina Village Inn site: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda. Urged Council suppor… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,15 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 15 | way to get the most units online; the location will provide opportunities and access to transit; there can never be enough new housing; housing is desperately needed; expressed concern about the lack of restrooms in the pallet shelters; stated having an in-unit bathroom provides human dignity and privacy: Josh Geyer, Renewed Hope. Expressed support for the matter; stated long-term unhoused residents of Alameda deserve to have a safe and secure place to live; urged Council to consider thinking about the Marina Village Inn and modular or pre-fabricated options; stated the projects are all eligible under Project Home Key; existing facilities can have many inherent problems; pre-fabricated units can be put together off-site and brought to appropriate locations: Marguerite Bachand, Operation Dignity. Expressed support for the comments of previous speakers; stated the motel purchase is a good idea; the City needs to take permanent housing seriously; many of the unhoused are people who previously had homes; rising rents have forced many out of their homes; transitional housing works for those who have been homeless long-term; transitional housing projects always mean there is an attempt at getting long-term housing; permanent housing is a challenge; the motel is the best option; the City needs to focus on creating permanent housing for people in need: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope. Expressed support for the purchase of the Marina Village Inn; stated the location is smart; stabilizing people earlier in their crisis is far more effective; discussed her experience with housing insecurity as a senior living on a fixed-income; stated that she appreciates the plan for a mental health center at the Alameda Hospital; there is a need for a resiliency hub located in central Alameda; noted many renters do not learn about relevant resources early enough; people are being displaced without receiving aid; urged Council to consider land trust purchases of rental complexes: Catherine Pauling, Alameda Renters Coalition. Expressed support f… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 16 | cost more; however, the facility will be better than a modular house in the long run; Council should not miss the opportunity to do something bold; the environment is conducive in allowing families to make a recovery; another element which make the location ideal is the proximity to the job-rich Marina Village business park; Council should encourage staff to figure out ways to work with businesses in Marina Village to get families into jobs; outlined businesses in Marina Village; stated the area is in close proximity to transit; outlined the nearby free Alameda shuttle and Alameda County (AC) Transit bus system; stated the wealth of natural and social amenities makes the Marina Village Inn an ideal place to have the facility; Council will have to perform due diligence related to costs; expressed support for the Marina Village Inn project; stated much of the community has helped families in need; outlined a previous Alameda shelter for homeless women; stated the project should be in a place that will help transition people out of crisis. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Daysog see eye-to-eye; there is a serious shortage of appropriate housing for families; outlined modular housing in San Jose; stated transitional family housing is needed in Alameda; the Marina Village Inn project can provide many opportunities; costs for rehabilitation are needed; questioned the value of providing children and families a good, safe, and healthy place to grow up; outlined comments of Marina Village residents and Project Room Key; stated that she applauds the neighbors, City and County staff, and members of Building Futures who worked to ensure an environment respectful of everyone; outlined a Town Hall organized by Supervisor Wilma Chan; stated the response has been heartwarming; the City will need to provide communication; the project should be pursued; multiple funding sources will be coming down the pike; the City should seize the opportunity and make a difference in people's lives; she is partial to the hou… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,17 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 17 | number of opportunities for transitional housing; the Marina Village Inn project will not be enough; opportunities for permanent affordable housing or permanent transitional housing should be sought; she looks forward to the staff report related to project administration; a number of different options exist; there is a difference between permanent affordable housing and providing services needed to operate temporary or transitional housing sites; expressed support for a more fleshed out recommendation; stated that she likes the idea of modular home options; however, the option has limitations. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted there are currently at least 57 children within Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) which come from homeless families. Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed funding reports from Alameda Housing Authority (AHA); stated AHA could purchase 18 very-low and low income homes for very-low and low income families; AHA could bid competitively on a land disposition purchase from AUSD to house 30 affordable family housing apartments; AHA could use $8 million to expedite the first two phases of federal funding for the North Housing Development; AHA could buy existing units and restrict the units to at least 80% of the area-median income; AHA could generate nearly 30 units of deeply rent-restricted apartments for $10 million; it is important for City staff to work with AHA to see the viable options; expressed concern about a disregard of costs in the Marina Village Inn project; stated the focus has to be on the limited amount of funds; she prefers permanent housing versus temporary housing; she does not think it is appropriate not to have bathrooms inside housing units; some of the proposed sites have brought revenue to the City over the years; the last five years of revenues, such as the Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT), should be provided to show any potential revenue losses; she would like to see an estimate for upgrades to the facilities; the total costs must be reviewed; Council must keep options open and … | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 18 | sense. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated San Jose City staff indicated that a lot of outreach to neighbors occurred; there is a combination of security and constant outreach and communication; much of the ground work was laid with the Marina Village Inn being a Project Room Key hotel; expressed support for building upon the existing ground work; inquired whether staff has sufficient direction provided from Council. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would be interested in looking at the Carnegie Library as a viable housing site. The Community Development Director responded staff would be better assessing the Group Delphi option for transitional housing for the short-term; stated staff can conduct further financial analysis around the Marina Village Inn, bottle parcel and any other sites which lend themselves to something comparable; by the fall, staff will need to know what to apply for through the County; staff needs to be cognizant of timing. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is ready for staff to bring the matter back as soon as possible. *** Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:24 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m. *** (21-502) Recommendation to Receive Direction from City Council Regarding Uses for a Potential Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Grant Award. The Economic Development and Community Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 11 | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,19 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 19 | In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiries, the Economic Development and Community Services Manager stated staff has tried to create a stop gap measure for shelter; the City needs a way to put people in shelter temporarily; the cost is roughly $100 per night to have people in shelter temporarily; the cost allows staff to get some of the most vulnerable people off of the street and into temporary shelter; staff is working with a mental health provider; an agreement for services related to moderate to extreme mental health services can be created; flexible funding amounts are based on providing temporary shelter and mental health services. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the name of the provider for mental health services, to which the Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded staff is proposing Operation Dignity. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is the ability to provide 24 hours a day 7 days a week (24/7) on-call services and whether Operation Dignity provides outreach services and during which hours. The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated services are currently Monday through Friday. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the services hours could be extended through weekends and evenings. The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded staff can look into the recommendation instead of the mental health portion; noted Operation Dignity does not currently provide any of mental health services for the City. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City currently provides mental health services to the homeless population. The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded in the negative; stated the City currently provides case management. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she can see the need for a program to begin with services provided Monday through Friday; expressed support for the program hours being expanded if successful. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff re… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 20 | The Economic Development and Community Services Manager stated the funding could span over a couple of years; flexible funds would extend over a longer period of time. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the proposed time period. The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded the current funding will likely last one to one and a half years; stated if Council extends the funding, the program will last approximately two years. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is unsure whether Alameda Family Services (AFS) providing mental health services has been reviewed; noted AFS offers substantial counseling; inquired whether AFS would be eligible to help with the mental health services recommendation. The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded staff can create a Request for Proposals (RFP); stated the City does not have to work with the proposed entity; AFS is interested in providing services, but not of the type proposed. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated AFS has the capability to perform 24/7 service; inquired whether the allocation of funds is the best use; stated that she is unsure since she does not know the basis of the formula used; expressed support for flexible funds; inquired whether the City can reallocate any funds received based on costs and needs. The Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the proposed cost for services would be $1,250 per week based on a full weekly schedule, including weekends. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the length of the term, to which the Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded the term would span one year. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for some flexibility and for keeping people in their homes. Vice Mayor Vella stated the unhoused population has grown; there is a significant need for members of the day shelter; many people do not have a place to go at night; the recommendation is a good opportunity; the proposal will likely be substantially… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 21 | On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-503) Recommendation to Assign a Portion of the $28.68 Million of Funding from the Federal Government through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 to Assist with Recovery from the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Assistant City Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the current budget includes $8 million in revenue loss or whether the recommendation is new funding not considered in the current budget, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the recommendation is new funding not considered in the current budget; stated staff will bring the matter back as part of a mid-year or mid-cycle update depending on when Council directions and actions occur. Stated groups have met to discuss how to use ARPA funds; Transform Alameda believes the City has a once in a generation opportunity to use ARPA funds to establish comprehensive, integrated public services for a safe, healthy, and thriving community; ARPA was created in response to the public health and economic crisis which has impacted the poor and marginalized populations; the goal of ARPA is to lift up members of the community in ways which support and sustain well-being; urged the City to use ARPA funds directly to address the community's inter-connected needs and struggles, specifically around housing, mental health, economic security and climate vulnerability; expressed support for the Marina Village Inn project; urged the City to consider looking into funding a community land trust in order to preserve housing; expressed support for a mental health clinic, a resiliency hub and a UBI which fits Alameda's specific needs: Josh Geyer, Transform Alameda. Stated Renewed Hope stands in full support of the priorities submitted in a letter; expressed support for the priorities provided by speaker Geyer; stated th… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2021-07-20 | 22 | options related to cost effectiveness and for looking at the social and equity impacts, not costs: Nancy Shemick, Alameda. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the strictness of ARPA reporting requirements. The Assistant City Manager stated the reporting requirements are frequent; staff must update the federal government on the use of funds on a quarterly basis; the federal government has stressed the importance of adhering to the eligible project list and ensuring accountability for dollars spent; the funds are meant to be an investment in the community; the City must ensure good care is being taken of the public dollar; the overall intent is for local government to do their very best to be transparent with the community and invest in a way that is consistent with the interim final rule from the United States (US) Department of Treasury. The Finance Director displayed a calendar for reporting dates; stated August 31st is the first due date for an interim report; there are many strict requirements; by October 31st , staff will need to complete a second and third quarter report. Councilmember Knox White expressed support for coming back with concepts; stated that he is supportive of the housing proposal; he is open to considering some form of hybrid which includes business assistance; business assistance does not include grants; the one-time funds are meant for rebuilding the resilience of the business areas; expressed support for permanent draws to business districts in order to strengthen the local economy; stated that he will only consider the matter be placed into revenue loss, if the City has flexibility to use funding on desired projects; expressed concern for back- filling the budget; stated that he appreciates the one-time only costs; the housing proposal is the most impactful; he agrees that the funding is a one-time opportunity and should be used to have ongoing and strong future outcomes; expressed concern about squandering funds. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about dedicatin… | CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - MARCH 15, 2016--6:00 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5. [Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:01 p.m. and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 6:05 p.m.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (16-124) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code. Number of Cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiated Legal Action). Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer announced direction was given to staff. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 15, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 2 | MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2016--7: P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:09 p.m. A member of Troup 73 led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (16-125) Mayor Spencer did a reading for the Season of Non-Violence. (16-126) Mayor Spencer announced the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) would be holding a meeting at City Hall on April 7th at 7:00 p.m. (16-127) Proclamation Declaring March 2016 as Women in Military History Month. Mayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Army Veteran Julie Thelen. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (16-128) Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda commended the former Interim City Manager and welcomed the new City Manager. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Spencer announced that the Investment Policy [paragraph no. 16-131], the Annual Report on Alameda Landing [paragraph no. 16-133], the Settlement Agreement with Renewed Hope [paragraph no. 16-135], the Two Year Port Services Agreement [paragraph no. 16-136], and the Resolution Approving the Final Map [paragraph no. 16- 138 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*16-129) Minutes of the Special Meetings and Regular City Council Meeting Held on Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 March 15, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 3 | February 16, 2016. Approved. (*16-130) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,079,295.47. (16-131) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda Investment Policy. Outlined changes made to the Investment Policy: Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer. Mayor Spencer inquired what the changes are in the Section 3e. The City Treasurer responded that the section reflects the City's objectives and community desires, not just State Policy; the addition to the section is coal based industries; any coal based companies will be excluded. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the policy prohibits 51% of gross revenues from cigarettes, gambling or alcohol products, yet 0% of any coal based products, to which the City Treasurer responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City currently invests in any coal based company. The City Treasurer responded in the negative; stated the restriction will not have an adverse effect on the risk or return of the portfolio. Mayor Spencer inquired whether CalPers has the same restriction. The City Treasurer responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated the changes to the Investment Policy are a good statement for Alameda and impact climate change and global warming. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*16-132) Recommendation to Endorse the San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention, and Habitat Restoration Program June 7, 2016 Ballot Measure. Accepted. [630-30] (*16-133) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report on Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and Review the Recommendation to Expand the Transportation Management Association (TMA). Councilmember Daysog read a report on the upward trajectory of the number of people taking the shuttle; stated there has been a lot of movement with regard to Citywide transit. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 March 15, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 4 | Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*16-134) Recommendation to Approve Revision of Underground Utility District Policy to Have Four Members of the Public Appointed to the Underground Utility District Nomination Board Rather Than Three. Accepted. (16-135) Recommendation to Amend Section 4.1 of the 2001 Settlement Agreement with Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, Arc Ecology, the Former Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (now "the City"), the Alameda Housing Authority, and Catellus Corporation to Allow Site A at Alameda Point to Move Forward with Building Senior Affordable Housing Units Where It Had Previously Been Restricted. Stated there is a need for senior housing; Renewed Hope supports the addition of more senior housing: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (16-136) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Two Year Port Services Contract with Bay Ship and Yacht Company at Alameda Point. Urged acceptance of the contract with Bay Ship and Yacht; stated the company has been in Alameda for 22 years and employees 350 people: Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship and Yacht. Stated Bay Ship and Yacht is a great contributor to the Maritime industry; urged approval of the Bay Ship and Yacht contract due to the experience and relationship with the community: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce. Urged approval of the Bay Ship and Yacht contract: Chad Peddy, Bay Ship and Yacht. Urged approval of the Bay Ship and Yacht contract: David Mik, Power Engineering. Stated Bay Ship and Yacht is proactive in addressing environmental cleanup for the property they took over; they are committed to remediating the property and protecting human health and the environment: Amy Wi… | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 5 | managing the customers in the business is a part of their core structure; the company would like to continue to work in Alameda: Allen Cameron, Bay Ship and Yacht. Stated the decision making process for awarding the contract was not handled in a fair manner; there is lack of transparency; the criteria described to him significantly differs from the final analysis; additional consideration is warranted before a final decision is made: Kevin Krause, TKO Environmental and Marine Services. Stated Bay Ship and Yacht does quality work and takes care of its customers; he strongly supports the Bay Ship and Yacht contract: Robert Cullmann, Chamber of Commerce and eon Technologies. Stated Bay Ship and Yacht has a contract with College of Alameda to train people to be in the industry and create jobs upon graduation; urged approval of the Bay Ship and Yacht contract: Kari Thomson, Chamber of Commerce. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the issues raised by Mr. Krause. The Assistant City Attorney listed the criteria itemized in the RFP; stated that Mr. Krause's issues are that TKO was the lowest bidder, Bay Ship and Yacht adjusted their price before the interviews, and the price should have been weighted heavier than it was; TKO has as much, or more experience than Bay Ship and Yacht; outlined the steps in the bid dispute process; stated he is confident that staff followed the process; the Request for Proposal (RFP) listed 7 criteria that the City uses in the decision making. Mayor Spencer inquired what the 7 items in the criteria were. The Assistant City Attorney read the 7 criteria. Mayor Spencer inquired what responsiveness to the RFP means, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded completeness. The Assistant City Attorney stated that before the interviews of the bidders, the scope of the RFP changed; Bay Ship and Yacht lowered their price, while TKO and a third bidder kept the price the same. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Bay Ship and Yacht's original price was $54,000 while TKO was $36,750, whi… | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 6 | Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff took into consideration all 7 criteria, not just price, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Bay Ship and Yacht will be using a maintenance software to keep track of all the maintenance and services requested and performed; inquired whether TKO will also be using maintenance software. The Assistant Community Development Director stated TKO did not mention they would use any special software; it was compelling for the Bay Ship and Yacht proposal; the City thought the tracking device to be important. Mayor Spencer inquired if the City spoke with TKO about providing the special software if it was a deciding issue. The Assistant Community Development Director stated it was not the deciding factor, it was one of many elements. Mayor Spencer stated staff did not ask TKO if they could offer the special software. The Assistant Community Development Director stated the applicant is responsible for providing their qualifications and level of service; the City understands the sensitivity of cost; staff felt it was okay to go with the higher bidder because of the level of service; the current port manager will be paying $530,000 annually for rent. Mayor Spencer stated it does not mean that the City has an extra $200,000 to give away. The Assistant Community Development Director stated the City is not giving the money away; the City is getting a service. Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether only Bay Ship and Yacht adjusted their price when the scope of work was changed, not the other two bidders. The Assistant Community Development Director stated after interviews with the three applicants, the City decided to remove the Bilge Oily Water Treatment System (BOWTS) in the scope of work and Bay Ship and Yacht adjusted their cost. Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if Patriot kept their cost the same. The Assistant Community Development Director responded that Patriot elected not to bid on the project. Vice Mayor Matarrese i… | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 7 | bid is still higher than TKO. Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired what the total budget is for maintaining the piers and the port. The Assistant Community Development Director responded $325,000 annually for the port management services and $100,000 for maintaining the piers as a line item. Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired what is the value of the revenue that comes to the port. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the Maritime Administration (MARAD) ships pay over $2 million a year to the City. Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether Power Engineering is also present at the port. The Community Development Director responded Power Engineering will be moving their barge to Pier 1 and paying the City $11.00 per linear foot. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a two year port services contract with Bay Ship and Yacht Company at Alameda Point. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated the difference between the two bids is significant and staff should justify spending the difference prior to bringing it to Council. Councilmember Daysog stated Bay Ship and Yacht's proposal appears to be more thorough; he is confident that the City is making the right decision with Bay Ship and Yacht and the quality of service they provide; it is important to look at the quality of the proposal, not just the dollars and cents. Mayor Spencer stated what Bay Ship and Yacht does for the community needs to be separate from the contract. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. (*16-137) Recommendation to Accept the Work of MCK, Inc. for Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 34, No. P.W. 04-15-07. Accepted. (16-138) Resolution No. 15132, "Approving the Final Map and Bond, Authorizing Execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and Accepting the Dedicatio… | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,8 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 8 | Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted no on the project and would remain consistent. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. (*16-139) Resolution No. 15133, "Confirming the Terms and Conditions for Compensation for Alameda Fire Department Responses Away from their Official Duty Station and Assigned to an Emergency Incident (Mutual Aid)." Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (16-140) Resolution No. 15134, "Appointing Michaela Tsztoo as a Member of the Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; (16-140A) Resolution No. 15135, "Reappointing Arthur Kurrasch as a Member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners." Adopted; (16-140B) Resolution No. 15136, "Appointing Tina Landess Petrich as a Landlord Member of the Rent Review Advisory Committee; and (16-140C) Resolution No. 15137, "Appointing Robert Schrader as a Landlord Member of the Rent Review Advisory Committee." Adopted. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates of appointment to Ms. Tsztoo, Mr. Kurrasch and Mr. Schrader. (16-141) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Ten-Year Lease with Two Ten-Year Renewal Options and an Option to Purchase with Alameda Point Redevelopers, LLC for Building 8, Located at 2350 Saratoga Street at Alameda Point. Introduced. The Assistant Community Development Director and Ted Anderson, Cushman and Wakefield, gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the market rate calculation is market rate after the money has been put into the building during the lease. Mr. Anderson responded that the calculation assumes a shell cost. Regular Meeting Alameda City Counci… | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 9 | Mayor Spencer stated the calculation is not the money that is being put in during the lease, to which Mr. Anderson responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired why the property is not currently leased; questioned why the City is doing an option to purchase. Mr. Anderson responded the building is not leasable in its current condition. Mayor Spencer inquired whether a tenant could lease the building and make the improvements. Mr. Anderson responded it is possible, stated the building was marketed to everyone possible; a lessee's focus is typically to run their business, not to take on a renovation before they can even start their business. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City had tried to lease the building. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the building has been on the market since the Base closed without any bites because of the investment required; buildings now have the purchase options to allow tenants to get the money to make improvements; tenants want to own the buildings; ownership is used to leverage financing; in order to move difficult buildings, people want to own them to get financing; the building is in the adaptive reuse zoning area, which gives the future end user flexibility; the old buildings need a lot of money to restore them; it is imperative to offer the opportunity to own to allow people to get money and invest. Mayor Spencer inquired whether in the scenario the City currently owns the property and is now providing an option to purchase, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City has not had the money to rehabilitate the building. The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the buyer would pay into the master infrastructure program if the option to purchase was exercised. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the City set the price of the building to cover the fair share of in… | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 10 | they purchase or the money goes into the General Fund. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired on the amount of the infrastructure fund. Mr. Anderson responded the amount is $1.8 million. Councilmember Oddie inquired what is the developer's commitment for making repairs to the infrastructure of the building. The Assistant Community Development Director responded that the tenant is putting $10 million in the purchase price and $8.5 million worth of improvements into the building; the total investment in the building is $36.5 million. Councilmember Oddie inquired if the building is just leased and not purchased what would be the price. Mr. Anderson responded the lease would be $1 million as the lessee completes repairs the first year; another $1 million year 2, and another $1 million year 3. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the total would be approximately $3.4 million dollars. Councilmember Oddie inquired what it would cost the City to bring the building up to a tenantable situation. The Assistant Community Development Director responded to make the building habitable, would cost $8.5 million. Mayor Spencer inquired what the lessee has to put in as a part of the lease. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the $3.4 million is only the infrastructure burden; the lessee would have to pay rent and the Citywide Development Fee. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the money to make the building habitable is a requirement of the lease, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative. The Assistant Community Development Director responded there are benchmarks in the lease stating the lessee would have to spend $3.4 million; the aggressive rent increases are designed make the lessee make the necessary improvements. Mr. Anderson stated as time goes on, it will be more expensive for the lessee to have a building that cannot be occupied. The Assistant Community Development Director continued the presentation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 March 15, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 11 | Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if work/live spaces are currently a part of the zoning for the area, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative and continued the presentation. Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is anything to encourage the 500 employees to use public transportation or bike to work. The Assistant Community Development Director responded Alameda Point is part of a Transportation Demand District; stated there are a limit number of parking spaces available; tenants will pay into a TDM program and will be encouraged to use public transit. Mayor Spencer inquired if tenants will need to provide public transportation alternatives to their employees. Mr. Anderson responded the building resides on 3.4 acres; the employees will need to find alternate means of transportation to work. Mayor Spencer inquired how the City would know the employees will not be parking in surrounding neighborhoods. The Base Reuse Director responded that every tenant or property owner will have to prepare a TDM Plan Compliant Strategy and comply with the Alameda Point TDM; they will have to pay per square foot; tenants will be required to pay annually into the account; the fund will provide shuttles in the peak hours and provide bus passes to all employees; tenants will be required to submit a compliance strategy to the City. Mayor Spencer stated they do not have to buy a bus pass, they can bike or walk; she does not want to have 600 more cars on the road and related parking. The Base Reuse Director responded the overall TDM Plan is designed to encourage trip reduction goals and meet the requirements of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mayor Spencer inquired if anything requires the employees to not drive a car to work. The Base Reuse Director responded the TDM provides frequent and reliable transportation services so that people get out of their cars; stated the land is leased to the tenants by the City so the parking could be enforced; the TDM makes sure people have options for… | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 12 | before the new jobs; a portion of the jobs will be jobs work/live units with tenants living on the premises; a portion may take the ferry into Alameda; a portion may walk; for those coming into the Island, it will be a reverse commute. The Base Reuse Director responded the strategy is to provide more jobs and balance the housing on the Island. Mayor Spencer inquired how many work/live units will there be. The Base Reuse Director responded that the work/live housing is highly restrictive; stated the tenants would have to obtain a commercial license; the building is commercial use under the zoning. Mayor Spencer inquired whether people will be living there; requested an estimate on how many units will be work/live units. *** Councilmember Oddie left the dais at 9:00 p.m. and returned at 9:02 p.m. Jonah Hendrickson, Alameda Point Redevelopers, gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Spencer inquired how many housing units will be in the building. Mr. Hendrickson responded the current work/live zoning would allow for 100 units based on the Alameda Municipal Code and the square footage; stated the issue of use will be further discussed by the Planning Board during the master use permit process. Mayor Spencer stated it is appropriate to discuss the number of units; inquired how many people per unit. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the term work/live means that tenants would live and work in the same place and a commute would not be a part of the equation, to which Mr. Hendrickson responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired if a couple lives in the unit do both occupants need to work there or only one. Vivian Kahn, Alameda Point Redevelopers, stated the work/live ordinance was specifically crafted to ensure the units are commercial spaces; it allows a maximum of 30% of the floor area to be devoted to residential uses and be no more than 400 square feet; at least one of the people occupying the space must have a business license and be conducting business; the ordinance is very strict and explicitly … | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 13 | whether the tenants have to work in Building 8 or if they would be allowed to work in the City. Ms. Kahn responded that a business license goes with the address and cannot be carried to another address. Stated the project will benefit the Alameda Point; the developers will be putting $8 million into the building before the lights can even be turned on; selling the building is the best option for the City; the tenants would like to give back to the community with apprenticeships and internships for youth: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce. Stated Building 8 is an adaptable building; he has worked on many large buildings like Building 8 and it takes a while to rehabilitate the large buildings: Dick Rutter, Alameda. Stated that she is a banker and the option to purchase makes sense from a finance standpoint; it is creating jobs, which creates an economic engine for the City and tax revenues; urged Council to approve the project: Kari Thompson, Chamber of Commerce. Stated Epic Middle School is a stem school; all the students take engineering design and fabrication; there is a need for space in Alameda for students to work with skilled craftsmen as they prepare themselves for the workforce; read a letter from Florine Roper urging Council to support the project: Francis Abbatatatuono, Epic Middle School. Stated that he leases a space from Mr. Hendrickson why he transformed and cleaned up a once dilapidated building; Mr. Hendrickson will apply the same dedication to his work and tenants for the adaptive reuse of Building 8: Brandon Canchola, Treasure Island Woodworks. Read different statements from tenants and community members of Berkeley regarding the Berkeley Kitchen Project; urged Council to support the project; stated Mr. Hendrickson will apply the same vision at Alameda Point: Adan Martinez, City of Berkeley, Economic Development Manager. Stated that he works on behalf of landlords and tenants; he supports the project because warehouse and manufacturing space is needed; velocity and demand are present in the … | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 14 | rehabilitation Mr. Hendrickson did on the Berkeley Kitchen Project; stated the adaptive reuse of Building 8 will surpass the success he achieved with Berkeley Kitchen: Kiran Shenoy, Berkeley Landmark Preservation Commission. Stated allowing the project at Building 8 will attract more small businesses and allow them to have commercial success; urged Council approval of the project; read a letter from owner of Mission: Heirloom, Berkeley Kitchens; stated Berkeley Kitchen has allowed him to grow his business: Alain Shocron, La Noisette Sweets. Read a letter from Berkeley Councilmember Darryl Moore; stated Mr. Hendrickson transformed a once vacant, landmark designated building into Berkeley Kitchens; the adaptive reuse of Building 8 will meet or exceed the success of Berkeley Kitchens; the City of Alameda will be greatly enriched by the development genius of Mr. Hendrickson: Ryan Lau, Legislative Aide, Councilmember Darryl Moore. Stated Mr. Hendrickson's designs enliven community and are very accessible to the community; the City needs someone who can take the massive scale and bring it down to make it accessible to the community: Elisa Mikiten, Architect. Stated Mr. Hendrickson is a developer who equally prioritizes profit, people and the planet; science, technology, engineering and math are used adding arts, innovation and entrepreneurship; read a letter of support from Janet Smith-Heimer, President of Bay Urban Economics; stated Mr. Hendrickson has a strong and effective reuse entrepreneurship and will create a lively makerspace community which will foster the City's goals for reuse and economic development in creative industries: Emylene Aspilla. Stated that he is a tenant in one of Mr. Hendrickson's buildings; Mr. Hendrickson turned a rundown old machine shop into a sleek, clean hub of studios and workspaces for artists and small business owners; Mr. Hendrickson is a great developer; he strongly supports the project; Alameda providing a place for artists to go would be great so that they do not have to move to o… | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,15 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 15 | Stated that he is the owner of a makerspace in Oakland where kids and families can come and do large projects; he supports the project and hopes to be a tenant in Building 8: Parker Thomas, Steam Factory. Read two letters from tenants of Berkeley Kitchens: Christy Kovacs, Muffin Revolution owner, stated Mr. Hendrickson is a great manager and would be a great candidate for the project in Alameda; stated the Berkeley Kitchens created a collaborative working environment for all the tenants; stated Mr. Hendrickson's vision for Building 8 is unsurpassed: Leslie Jacobowitz. Read two letters from supporters of the project: Steven Camarretto and Jesse Rosalles; urging approval of the lease for Building 8 which will fit the character and needs of the community; stated the inclusion of Mr. Hendrickson and his team would only benefit the residents of Alameda; Mr. Hendrickson will be an excellent landlord and the project will work: Ira Jacobowitz. Stated his company is a diverse operation, which hosted 35,000 people in their tasting room last year alone; the Building 8 project can host food producers, artists, makers and there is room for a lot of success stories in Alameda: Chris Jordan, St. George. Read letters from tenants of Berkeley Kitchens: Shrub and Co. owner Juan Garcia stated: since moving into Berkeley Kitchens their business has grown; Mr. Hendrickson will do the same in Alameda; the City and citizens will be lucky to have him; Kathleen Frumkin stated: Mr. Hendrickson created such a positive use of space in Berkeley that is extremely rare to find; urged Council to support the project: Barbara Hendrickson. Read two letters urging Council to go forward with the project; one from a very happy tenant at Berkeley Kitchens and the secretary of the landmarks preservation committee; stated Mr. Hendrickson has a track record of rehabilitating buildings into spaces that provide local artisans and makers an opportunity to run their businesses; urged Council approval of project: Alex Orloff, Berkeley. Mayor Spencer called a … | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 16 | The Base Reuse Director responded the tenant could submit an application for a conditional use permit and say they want to do 270 work/live units; the current project states the tenant does not want to do any more than 100 work/live units. Mayor Spencer stated the 100 work/live units is not in the presentation. The Base Reuse Director responded 100 units is a land use decision that the City has not discussed yet; stated the City has left open the flexibility for the developers to do a number of commercial uses; when the developer gets into the design, there is flexibility to come up with a plan and submit an application; ultimately, the City Council will make the decision. Mayor Spencer stated there is a potential of 270 housing units; inquired if 270,000 square feet is allowed within the zoning. The Base Reuse Director responded the zoning does not give the developer the right or ability to build work/live units; a conditional use permit is required. Mayor Spencer inquired if there is the potential in Building 8. The Base Reuse Director responded only if the Planning Board approves the request and the City Council upholds the Planning Board approval. Mayor Spencer inquired if the person who arrived at the sales price valued the price at the potential of having 270 work/live units. The Base Reuse Director responded the building has been valued as commercial use because work/live is commercial use; stated the building is not financed as residential; the project is restrictive in the way that it is structured; it is priced and zoned as commercial use. Mayor Spencer stated it is zoned for work/live; the City's zoning states that every unit must be up to 1,000 square feet and Building 8 is 270,000 square feet. The Base Reuse Director responded approval of work/live units would have to go to the Planning Board and could be called for review by Council. Mayor Spencer inquired whether a sale price is being agreed upon, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the pric… | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,17 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 17 | The Base Reuse Director responded work/live is a conditionally permitted use for the adaptive reuse area. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Base Reuse Director stated the use is allowed on 1/3 of Alameda Point. Mayor Spencer stated with all the community discussions regarding housing at the Point, the potential of the buildings being flipped has not been discussed. The City Manager responded that a condition of approval could be added limiting the amount of work/live units. Mayor Spencer stated work/live should have been included in the presentation and taken into consideration in the pricing; there has not been transparency with the community; there it is a potential impact on the community. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated there is a housing parameter at the former Base; the fact that the building is being adaptively reused is an important factor to consider; the building currently has negative value and is costing the City money; he is ready to vote to support the project; one reservation is the cost to rehabilitate the building; another reservation is that Building 8 is ten times the size of Berkeley Kitchens; urged accelerating selling the building; proceeding is worth taking the risk to get the revenue stream. *** (16-142) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda item on the wetlands mitigation bank [paragraph no. 16-143]. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of considering the remaining item. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried unanimous voice vote - 5. *** Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the testimony from the people who have worked with the developer is great feedback; the project will be creating jobs; the development is needed; there are safeguards regarding the housing and work/live units; she is ready to support the project. Councilmember Oddie inquired what the Assistant Community Development Director's role is in these types of situations. The Assistant Community Development Director responded that she took an active role in investigating th… | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 18 | Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Assistant Community Development Director's job is to get the best possible deal for the City. The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated with leases at Alameda Point, the fund is very delicate and in demand. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the deal is the best possible the City could get for Building 8. The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City was able to get a deal with more infrastructure for the building. Councilmember Oddie stated the Assistant Community Development Director's job is to maximize what the City can get from any deal; any implication that the Assistant Community Development Director is not looking out for the best interest of the City is frustrating; one of the priorities of the Alameda Point Master Plan is to generate new economic development and employment opportunities; read some of the City's goals from the Master Plan; stated that he supports the project. Councilmember Daysog stated the cost for developing Building 8 is doubled; each project should contribute towards major infrastructure; Alameda values the historic character of the site and wants to reuse the sites; these are the types of businesses and industries the City wants in Alameda; he supports the project; in terms of the economics, the City has done its due diligence; the traffic generation from the work/live housing would be less than typical housing. Mayor Spencer stated according to the staff report, the work/live spaces are not considered residential and are not considered housing under the Navy's residential development cap; it is important to be transparent for the community. Vice Mayor stated the debate over the number of work/live units can be done at the use permit stage. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of staff executing the lease [introduction of the ordinance]. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, E… | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf,19 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-15 | 19 | The City Clerk stated the previous meeting went past 11:00 p.m., and the agenda for the April 5th meeting is full and the meeting might go past 11:00 p.m., which would require the Council to add meetings. Councilmember Oddie inquired if the matter could be adjourned to the next meeting. The City Attorney stated the Council is not continuing the item, it will be re-agendized. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Not heard. COUNCIL REFERRALS Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ADJOURNMENT In order to not continue past 11:00 p.m., Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 March 15, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - DECEMBER 6, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. AGENDA CHANGES (05-552) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to appropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05-556] was withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (05-553) Library Project Update. The Project Manager gave a brief update. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there were any cherry cabinets in the internal staff areas, to which the Project Manager responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson stated that cherry cabinets should be placed in areas that are visible to the public; utilizing formica countertops in other areas was a good way to save costs; inquired whether the costs for the minor redesign items need to be negotiated or whether the costs are in the contract. The Project Manager responded the Architect is responsible for construction administration; any changes are covered under construction administration; the percentage of change orders attributed to the designer would be reviewed with the City Attorney at the end of the project. Mayor Johnson inquired whether changes discussed tonight were construction administration changes and whether the changes have already been paid for, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether pushing off the masonry work would result in any impact to the schedule, to which the Project Manager responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Architect offered to pay Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 2 | for oversights. The Project Manager responded that the Architect does not voluntarily offer to pay recourse would be a claim on the insurance policy. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the first claim could be for the firewall, to which the Project Manager responded the firewall and staircase could be potential claims. Mayor Johnson stated that the project is moving along well; the public is very impressed with the process. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar with the caveat of withdrawing the recommendation to appropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05-556] ; noted major inroads have been made on the ferry service. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number ] ( * 05-554) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on November 15, 2005. Approved. (*05-555) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,504,278.52 (05-556) Recommendation to appropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds to repair public storm drainage facilities within the Bridgeside Shopping Center and reimburse Regency Centers for expenditures incurred. Withdrawn. (*05-557) Recommendation to adopt the Ferry Short Range Transit Plan. Accepted. (*05-558) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Five Police Communications Center Workstations. Accepted. (*05-559) Recommendation to accept the Affordable Housing Ordinance Annual Review. Accepted. (*05-560) - Recommendation to accept the Public Art Ordinance Annual Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 3 | Review. Accepted. (*05-561) Recommendation to accept Impact Fee Report for Police and Fire services. Accepted. (*05-562) Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year. Accepted. (*05-563) Recommendation to award Restaurant Concessionaire Contract to Tom Genanekos, Owner of Jim's Coffee Shop, for exclusive right to sell food and beverage service at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. Accepted. (*05-564) Resolution No. 13910, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase from Sungard Pentamation, Bio-Key International and Omega Group Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter in the Amount of $307,804 for Pentamation Finance Plus and Community Plus Software, Bio-Key Fire Records Management Software and Fireview Software. " Adopted. ( *05-564A) Resolution No. 13911, "Authorizing the Purchase of Storage Area Network System Using the State of California Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award. " Adopted. (*05-564B) Resolution No. 13912, "Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a Master Equipment Lease-Purchase Agreement, an Escrow Agreement and Separate Equipment Schedules with Respect to the Acquisition, Purchase, Financing and Leasing of Certain Equipment for the Public Benefit; Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of Documents Required in Connection therewith; and Authorizing the Taking of all Other Actions Necessary to the Consummation of the Transactions Contemplated by this Resolution. Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (05-565) Resolution No. 13913, "Appointing Morris H. Trevithick as a Member of the Economic Development Commission (Real Estate/Land Development Seat) " Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr. Trevithick with a certificate of appointment. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 4 | Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting at 8:03 p.m. and reconvened the Regular Meeting at 9:10 p.m. *** (05-566) Update on City's infrastructure investment and review of options to increase funding for preventative maintenance of infrastructure. The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson requested that a comprehensive report be brought back to the Council at mid-year. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the real property transfer tax was adjusted every year for inflation, to which the Finance Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Daysog stated $5.40 per thousand would be $5.69 per thousand if adjusted for inflation; the increase would equal approximately $180,000. Mayor Johnson stated that she received several calls on the matter the Board of Realtors supports an increase in the tax but would like to be involved in deciding the amount; the increase in home prices pus an increased transfer tax above inflation rates. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $27 million was needed for deferred maintenance, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated nothing in the presentation reduces the shortfall in a good orderly manner making up the shortfall through the transfer tax and lighting district assessments would be hard; inquired whether the shortfall would continue to escalate and deteriorate over time. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the recommendation tonight was to get direction on crafting a long-term strategy which would be folded into the ten-year model. Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not see any cure-all, only band-aids. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 5 | Mayor Johnson stated the shortfall needs to be handled in a more strategic manner and needs to be in context with the ten-year budget projection; the goal is to have a system in place where a certain amount of infrastructure is taken care of each year tax increases should not be considered except for the transfer tax; the public has been very generous in supporting tax increases for the library, schools and hospital; cuts [in infrastructure funding] that have been made over the past five to seven years should not happen again. Councilmember Matarrese stated spending $27 million all at once would not be possible even if the money was available; the idea of increasing taxes is a long way off; the increase could be approached through a public process; sidewalks are the most critical assets that represent the biggest risk to health and safety; the value of repairing sidewalks versus the value and necessity of having the 25% reserve should be reviewed; 25% reserve is an arbitrary figure; drawing down on the 25% reserve should be considered; the budget should be reviewed; some items are under budget because of department head vacancies; there should be an analysis for using unspent budgeted money to fix critical items. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $2.8 million of repair projects have been scheduled. The Public Works Director responded the projects are not currently scheduled because the money has not been appropriated; resurfacing could be scheduled for the beginning of the next fiscal year sidewalks could be scheduled the current fiscal year. Councilmember Matarrese requested an analysis between the criticality of resurfacing a street versus fixing sidewalks. Mayor Johnson stated that knowing how street and sidewalk priorities are set based on finances is important ; a lot of sidewalks need to be repaired throughout the City; inquired whether there should be a focus on sidewalk repair and crack sealing [ for streets] because of potential injuries and costs. The Public Works Director responded that the total p… | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 6 | Mayor Johnson stated that the new, flexible sidewalk material seems to be working well; inquired what type of feedback has been received. The Public Works Director responded the feedback has been positive; Redwood City has tried a new rubberized concrete product; he was waiting for a report back from staff on the product. Mayor Johnson stated replacing the sidewalks with the new product saves money because less on-going maintenance and repair is needed consideration should be given to drawing down on some of the reserve to catch up on sidewalk repairs. The City Manager stated that staff could project and identify whether there would be an additional percentage above the 25%. Councilmember Matarrese suggested going below 25% of the reserve, using part of the $2.8 million [identified in the staff report] for streets, and using the amount identified in the staff report for streets from the reserve for sidewalks instead. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether different species of trees are reviewed. The Public Works Director responded a Tree Master Plan was developed to address trees planted years ago which were not the most desirable for long term. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that trees fall down through natural attrition. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a plan that identifies a tree's life expectancy, to which the Public Works Director responded in the negative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a list was available which identifies trees with non-invasive roots. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative stated standards for expanded planting strips and deep watering are being reviewed. Councilmember Matarrese stated that Gibbons Drive would always have Liquid Amber trees; sidewalk maintenance was greater in Alameda than in other cities because of the value of large trees. Councilmember deHaan stated that parameters need to be set for Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 7 | drawing down on the reserves; inquired whether deferred maintenance has grown experientially over the last four years. The Public Works Director responded that unfunded estimates keep growing. Councilmember deHaan inquired how the deferred maintenance growth could be lessened by utilizing available dollars and General Fund reserves. Councilmember Daysog stated that first turning first to the reserves was critical. the reserves have been built up by not funding capital infrastructure maintenance; the build up was done for a good reason because of the Base conversion; drawing down on the reserves needs to be done prudently; half of the 25% reserve is already designated, leaving the actual amount of the reserve at 8% to 12%; suggested revisiting the Henry Gardner Plan; stated lease revenue bonds were issued at Alameda Point in 1999 and were shifted over to pay for infrastructure; there should be a way to issue redevelopment bonds and shift budgetary dollars so that the capital dollars could pay for improvements. Mayor Johnson inquired whether shifting of the budgetary dollars could be done. Councilmember Daysog responded that the matter could be explored with caution; he is not sure about raising taxes; he is willing to explore adjusting the property transfer tax for inflation; stated a report on sources and uses of funds has been presented; requested a detailed plan outlining the problems and timetables for paths, sidewalks and streets; stated he would continue to push for broader community involvement in the process; moving forward was important. Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated sidewalks are needed on the beltline side of Ralph Appezzato Parkway. Mayor Johnson stated that the Board of Realtors would like to discuss the transfer tax with staff. The City Manager stated that an election would need to be held because taxes are involved; stated that she would be happy to meet with the Board of Realtors. Councilmember deHaan stated that there is a broad range in the amount of transfer tax in other cities; the City … | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,8 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 8 | The Public Works Director stated that the average transfer tax for Charter cities is $9.47. Councilmember Daysog stated that the last two or three years could be unique; anticipated numbers might not be realized. Councilmember Matarrese stated reviewing the current budget is important; money found should be spent on [infrastructure] projects that would provide benefit. Mayor Johnson inquired how the current budget could be reviewed to make adjustments. The City Manager responded that the Council could approve the staff recommendation regarding current funds so that streets and sidewalks can be identified and the bid award process could be initiated; staff would review the impacts of drawing down on the reserves, continue to review the budget to identify any unallocated funds or savings, and identify per year costs for ten and twenty year scenarios in conjunction with the ten-year financial projection. Mayor Johnson stated that departments should not be concerned that budget cuts would be made; contingency funds would be reviewed. The City Manager stated that acknowledging and appropriating additional revenues should also be reviewed. Councilmember Matarrese stated that a six-month run may not be reflective and was not a linear spending rate; the risk of taking the money needs to be balanced against the risk of allowing further deterioration. Mayor Johnson stated that the money could always be reallocated if necessary. Councilmember deHaan stated the matter would come back at the mid- year review and decisions would be made then; there should be an on-going viable program to ensure that maintenance would not be deferred in hard times; a certain percentage of funds could be established as a standing rate in the budget processi determining how projects will be completed with existing funds and what will be done if other funds become available is an important segment. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with direction to 1) receive an analysis on the scenarios of drawing down below the … | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 9 | redirected, 3) review possible new sources of revenue, and 4) provide a report on the process of exploring an adjustment to the transfer tax. Mayor Johnson stated there has been a lot of discussion on streets, sidewalks, trees, and sewers; there is significant deferred maintenance in the parks the parks and recreation facilities are very valuable parts of the community; the parks are being addressed in the staff recommendation Councilmember deHaan requested that the motion be amended to include reviewing the other assessment districts and the establishment of landscaping and lighting districts. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like the motion to include an analysis of the Henry Gardner Plan. Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want to go into more debt unless it was necessary. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Henry Gardner Plan was a separate issue. Mayor Johnson stated that staff should not spend a lot of time exploring the matter; suggested discussing whether debt was something the Council would like to review as a solution to the deferred maintenance when the item was brought back. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether reviewing the matter in an Off-Agenda Report would be satisfactory to Councilmember Daysog. Councilmember Daysog responded an Off-Agenda Report seems to be the same as his request for analysis. Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated that determining how much time would be spent on the matter should be determined; that he does not understand the Plan completely and would not be able to vote on the matter tonight. Councilmember Daysog stated that he was requesting an analysis of the Plan. Mayor Johnson requested a brief Off-Agenda Report describing the Henry Gardner Plan. Councilmember Matarrese stated he would mend the motion to include an Off-Agenda - Report on the Plan piling debt on top of a deficit of deferred maintenance was not a priority for him. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 10 | Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want staff to spend a lot of time on the matter. Councilmember Daysog stated that staff should spend as much time as necessary to do a thorough job. Mayor Johnson stated that the starting threshold could be identifying the Henry Gardner Plan. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the City Clerk repeat the motion. The City Clerk stated that Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with direction to: 1) receive an analysis on the scenarios of drawing down below the 25% level of reserves, 2) review the current budget with regard to under budgeted areas that could be redirected, 3) review possible new sources of revenue, 4) provide a report on the process of exploring an adjustment to the transfer tax, and 5) provide an Off-Agenda Report on the Henry Gardner Plan. Councilmember deHaan requested the motion be amended to include reviewing other assessment districts and the establishment of landscaping and lighting districts as other sources of revenue. Councilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion. Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (05-567) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated a plan is before the Planning Board to expand South Shore; acknowledged the help and responsiveness of Doug Garrison, Dorene Soto and Bruce Knopf ; stated everyone involved was very concerned about receiving a comprehensive, complete report; urged the Council to support the efforts to make informed decisions. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates receiving the feedback: the Planning Department and Development Services Department staff is top notch. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05-568 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated streaming video is available on- - line; other cities have placed City Council meetings on the web Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 11 | for delayed viewing i requested investigating how the process is done. (05-569) Councilmember deHaan stated concerns over parking spaces arose recently; at a Planning Board meeting, Development Services indicated an in depth parking analysis would be completed for the Park Street and Webster Street business areas; that he would like the study to address buyout of parking space requirements; $6500 is the current price; costs are closer to $20,000 per parking space; potential owners should not be discouraged from establishing retail and being able to buy out, however the study should review costs, including ways to handle costs and defer costs; $6500 is not a good price anymore; once a lot has been established, the area should not be used for infill at a later time; recently a parking area was bought out in order to allow construction; the policy should be reviewed in the parking study. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is suggesting the in lieu fee be raised. Councilmember deHaan responded the fee may need to be higher and might need to be able to be deferred as well; further stated if an established parking lot has been used to meet requirements, the owners should not be able to buy themselves out to establish retail at the site and put the burden back on the City. Mayor Johnson inquired where said case occurred, to which Councilmember deHaan responded the Knowles property. Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be reviewed in the larger context of parking structures for the downtown areas having half of every lot dedicated to parking is not the best downtown planning; parking in the downtown areas should be reviewed more strategically. money going towards parking structures could be emphasized, rather than requiring parking on every lot. (05-570) Mayor Johnson stated that the weather was great for the tree lighting. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Dancing Trees were great. Councilmember deHaan stated that the ice skating rink was well received. Mayor Johnson inquired when the lower light… | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 12 | of the key issues at the Joint City Council and Recreation and Park Commission meeting he was glad to see some of the major elements tackled. (05-572) Councilmember Daysog stated that a resident asked him about the price of fire inspections for homes and the amount of revenue that has been generated over the last five years; requested background data on the matter. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the regular meeting at 10:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 13 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 6 , 2005 - - - 6:01 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-053) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property Fleet Industrial Supply Center Negotiating party: Community Improvement Commission and ProLogis, Inc. i Under negotiation Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission directed staff to prepare a timeline sheet and a summary of off-agenda issues. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 14 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 6, 2005 - -6:00 p.m. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-548) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators: Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney (05-549) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case : Mohlen & Skrinde V. City of Alameda. (05-550) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiator: Karen Willis; Employee Organization: Executive Management Employees. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding City Attorney, the Council discussed the matter; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council obtained a briefing from Legal Counsel ; regarding Executive Management Employees, the Council obtained a briefing and gave direction. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,15 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 15 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- - - -DECEMBER 6 , 2006- - -7:25 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:43 p.m. Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/ Commissioners/ Authority Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Transmittal of City of Alameda Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [paragraph no. 05- 551CC/056CIC] was moved to the Regular Agenda. Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ] (*05-054CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of November 15, 2005 Approved. (*05-055CIC) Recommendation to approve the Amended Contract with Komorous-Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount by $68,200 to provide additional architectural and construction administration services for the Civic Center parking garage. Accepted. *** Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint Meeting at 8:03 p.m. *** Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 1 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 16 | AGENDA ITEM (05-551CC/05-056CIC) Transmittal of City of Alameda Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2005, Auditor's report on agreed upon procedures on compliance with Vehicle Code section 40200.3 Parking Citation Processing, agreed upon Procedures Report on compliance with the Proposition 111 2004- 05 Appropriations Limit Increment, Police and Fire Retirement System Pension Plans 1079 and 1082 Audit Report for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2005, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant Programs Financial Statements for year ending June 30, 2005, Community Improvement Commission basic component unit financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2005, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority basic component unit financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2005. The City Auditor introduced the City's External Auditor, Maria Giannell, Maze & Associates. The External Auditor gave a presentation summarizing the financial statements and management recommendations Mayor/Chair Johnson requested an explanation of the Finds, Forfeits and Miscellaneous Revenues. The External Auditor stated that the items were the aggregation of ten years of data on the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in the fund balance. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that there was a small, steady increase from 1996 through 2004 and a large increase in 2005. The External Auditor stated other revenue was received in the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) fund that was not Finds and Forfeitures. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the Community Services and Capital Outlay have declined since 1996. ouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired why general expenditures dropped for Development and Public Works since 2003, to which the External Auditor responded the drop occurred because of budget cuts. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that Public Safety expenditures Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 2 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority … | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,17 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 17 | increased from over $23 million in 1996 to over $40 million in 2005. ouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the External Auditor observed similar trends in other cities, to which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Public Safety expenditures included pension costs. The External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated total expenditures in 1996 were $78 million versus $118 million in 2005; the growth was not substantial. louncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired why there was a major increase in the General Government and Payments to Other Agencies expenditure. The External Auditor responded budget reorganization occurred several years back within the general government which resulted in expenditures almost doubling from 1996 to 1999. Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Daysog inquired whether a statistical section adjusting for inflation could be prepared. The External Auditor responded that a separate report could be provided. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether more Sewer Fund revenue was collected than spent and where the total amount of the Sewer Fund was noted. The External Auditor responded the Sewer Fund is considered an Enterprise Fund and was accounted for on a full-accrual basis. the Cash Flow Statements address revenues collected and expended. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether $16 million was the total amount in the Sewer Fund, to which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired why sewer maintenance has been deferred when spending has been less than revenues collected. The External Auditor responded that sewer maintenance might have been deferred because of limited staff and not because of cash. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 3 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 18 | Mayor/Chair stated that the City's population is lower now than in 1996. Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether the 2005 debt service was lower than in 1996, to which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authorit Member Gilmore stated there have been discussions on how much bonds cost the City; everything that has been accomplished has been done without increasing the total debt service. The External Auditor stated management has been good; the last ten years have not been easy; more is being done with less. Mayor/Chair Johnson questioned the figures for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority original staff salaries versus actual salaries. The External Auditor stated Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requires the original, adopted budgeted amount be presented for major funds. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the staff fringe benefits were included in the salaries, to which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chain Johnson inquired why there was a large difference between the amount budgeted and the amount spent for office expenditures; stated the original budget for professional and administrative services was reduced significantly expenditures were almost double the original budgeted amount; more accuracy is needed. The External Auditor responded the increase in professional and administrative services was due to an unexpected EDA grant; stated budget controls and accuracy are far better in the 2004-05 year. louncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether there were other improvements or further decay from the previous audit. The External Auditor stated there has not been further decay; capital assets are very difficult to control and have improved. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 4 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,19 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 19 | Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the improvement could be attributed to the Finance Director, to which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Interim City Manager also contributed to the improvement. The External Auditor stated staff tried very hard not to have adjustments. Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember deHaan stated that the External Auditor's findings confirm the Council's beliefs. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired why there was such a fluctuation in administrative expenses in the Police and Fire Pension Plans; stated the benefits and refunds remain about the same. The External Auditor responded the 1999-2000 increase was the cost of the GASB 25 and 27 implementation; the 2004-2005 increase was the cost of actuarial studies and implementing new accounting standards. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated money cannot be transferred from fund to fund without Council approval but can be transferred within funds ; inquired whether one department charging another department was considered an inter-fund transfer. The External Auditor responded in the negative; stated one department charging another department is not considered moving budgeted resources. Mayor Johnson requested money budgeted for one department and allocated to another department be highlighted in the next budget. Vice ayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether the ten-year financial plan figures would be scarier for the Police and Fire unfunded pension benefit obligation. The External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated the obligation outpaces the funding. Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore stated the challenge would be funding the Plan without hitting other City services too much. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 5 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 20 | Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Matarrese stated there was a similar finding last year; inquired what was being done to prevent the problem from reoccurring. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City Manager could review and report back to the Council/Commissioners/Authority Members on the matter. The External Auditor stated the other recommendation was regarding the employees reporting directing to the City Council which are outside the normal reporting realm; suggested that the City's elected Auditor provide oversight to the City Clerk, City Attorney and City Manager departments to ensure checks and balances. Mayor Johnson stated spending issues were raised last year; significant changes were made under the direction of the Interim City Manager in the last six months of the fiscal year; stated that she has confidence in the new City Manager; the new Finance Director worked very closely with the City Manager on addressing previous issues; the City Manager and Finance Director should work with the City Auditor on an oversight proposal; stated having a system in place was a good idea. Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan stated the louncil/Commissioners/Authority Members have a responsibility to Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 6 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 21 | ensure that internal finances are controlled. Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Matarrese stated having the City Auditor involved would be beneficial; inquired whether there was a way to increase the City Auditor's role. Mayor/Chair Johnson noted the External Auditor does not need to be involved. The City Auditor stated that the City was in reasonably good shape and improvement was being made in controlling costs; the ten-year study would enlighten the Council on tough issues; the Finance Director was in the unenviable position of being at the same level as other department heads; suggested that he meet with the Finance Director periodically to address issues. The City Manager stated that she would be happy to work with the City Auditor; she believes that the Finance Director was comfortable with identifying issues with other departments; discussions with the City Auditor could be more routine. The City Auditor stated that there was no need for a formal policy. Mayor Johnson stated that the discussion was not out of concern; there have been considerable changes since the City Manager joined the City; thanked everyone who worked on the audits; stated that she looks forward to the ten-year projection. Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember deHaan moved approval of accepting the submitted reports. Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 9:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 7 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 22 | The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 8 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:19 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (07-021) - Proclamation expressing appreciation to Rich Teske for his twenty-six years of service on the Rent Review Advisory Committee. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Rich Teske. Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the proclamation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which passed by consensus. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Joining the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program [paragraph no. 07-030] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the December 5, 2006 minutes. ] Councilmember deHaan thanked Alameda Power & Telecom and Fire Department for the review and recommendation on the sale of emergency generators [paragraph no. *07-028]. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ] ( *07-022) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 2 | Meeting held on December 5, 2006, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on January 2, 2007. Approved. [Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the December 5, 2006 minutes. ] (*07-023) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,619,985.25. (*07-024) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment Policy. Accepted. (*07-025) Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk for the Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 26, No. P. W. 03-06-08. Accepted. (*07-026) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Crosswalk In-Pavement Lights at Various Locations in the City of Alameda, No. P. W. 07-04-07, Federal ID: STPLH-5014 (025) . Accepted. (*07-027) Recommendation to appropriate $157,000 in Sewer Enterprise Funds and award a Contract in the amount of $562,000, including contingencies, to Pacific Liners Pipeline Rehabilitation for the Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video Inspection, No. P.W. 10-06-21. Accepted. ( *07-028) - Resolution No. 14057, "Authorizing and Approving Sale of Emergency Generators and Associated Electrical Equipment to Cummins West, Inc. for $832,000. Adopted. ( *07-029) Resolution No. 14058, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase from Tiburon, Inc. Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for a Mobile Data System Upgrade in the Amount of $66,545.00." Adopted. (07-030) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14059, "Joining the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program and Authorizing the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to Accept Applications from Property Owners, Conduct Special Assessment Proceedings and Levy Assessments Within the Territory of the City of Alameda and Authorizing Related Actions. Adopted. The Business Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Program would apply to small-scale - development. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 3 | The Business Development Division Manager responded anyone could participate; stated usually, a $250,000 to $300,000 threshold is needed. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City ever carried bonds before. The Business Development Division Manager responded the City has never carried bonds for private development. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether other communities have a high participation level. The Business Development Division Manager responded the Program is new; stated there is no cost; a lot of cities have joined because the Program provides an economic tool for future development. Mayor Johnson stated the Program is a financial tool that would benefit the community. Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*07-031) Public hearing to consider approval of Tentative Map Tract 7846 (TM06-0006) for the purpose of establishing eight residential lots within four buildings located at 626 Buena Vista Avenue within the R-4-PD Neighborhood Residential Planned Development Zoning District. and (*07-031A) Resolution No. 14060, "Approving Tentative Map Tract 7846, TM06-0006, for the Purpose of Establishing Eight Residential Lots within Four Buildings Located at 626 Buena Vista Avenue. " Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (07-032) Public Hearing to consider a proposal by Warmington Homes, California for a General Plan Amendment (GP05-002), Rezoning (R05-004), Master Plan (MP05-001), Tentative Map (TM05-002), and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS05-0003) for development of forty new, detached single-family residences, and related utilities, streets, open space and visitor parking; and an appeal of certain Conditions of Approval on Development Plan and Design Review permits (PD05-02) The project site is located at the northwest corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way at 2051-2099 Grand Street; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 4 | (07-032A) Resolution No. 14061, "Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the Grand Marina Village Development Located at the Northwest Corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way (State Clearinghouse #2006-04-2145). " Adopted; (07-032B) Resolution No. 14062, "Approving General Plan Amendment (GPA-05-02) for Grand Marina Village to Amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to Change the Designation of Approximately 8.3 Acres to Specified Mixed Use and Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6 and Associated Tables of the Land Use Element to Reflect the Specified Mixed Use Designation. Adopted; (07-032C) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Property Located Adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and Grand Street from M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to MX, Mixed Use Planned Development District (MX) . Introduced: (07-032D) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan MP05-01 for a Mixed Use Development Including Single-Family Residential, Recreational Marina, Maritime Commercial, and Open Space Uses, Located Within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 8.36 Acres of Land and Water at the Intersection of Grand Street and the Oakland Estuary. Introduced (07-032E) Resolution No. 14063, "Approving Tentative Map, TM05- 0002, for Property Located Between Grand Street, Fortmann Way, and the Oakland Estuary. Adopted; and (07-032F) Resolution No. 14064, "Upholding Planning Board Approval of Planned Development PD05-02 and Design Review DR05-0126 for Grand Marina Village. Adopted. The Supervising Planner gave a brief Power Point presentation. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff recommends an asphalt path. The Supervising Planner responded staff recommends keeping the asphalt as long as adequate width and good transitions exist between the asphalt and other materials. Mayor Johnson inquired who would be responsible for the maintenance, to which the Supervising Planner responded the Grand Marina. Mayor Johnson inquired whether defined maintenance … | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 5 | The Supervising Planner responded the existing asphalt path is on the Grand Marina property; stated the Applicant would do all the landscaping and improvements. Mayor Johnson inquired who owns the Grand Marina, to which the Supervising Planner responded the Grand Marina is under lease to Peter Wang. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has the ability to require Mr. Wang to maintain the area at a certain level, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the ability is real, to which the Supervising Planner responded he was not sure. Mayor Johnson stated she could see where the Planning Board would prefer concrete if the City does not have the ability to ensure proper maintenance. The Supervising Planner stated the property is subject to a Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit. Councilmember deHaan inquired who paid for the Kaufman and Broad trail, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the Municipal Services District. The Public Works Director stated the trail is maintained by the Recreation and Park Department; funding is through the Municipal Services District. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board wanted to replicate the Kaufman and Broad development pathway. The Public Works Director responded maintenance is part of the Grand Marina lease requirement stated the Leasee would be required to maintain the area at a level that is acceptable to the City. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wang is in compliance with every lease condition, to which the Public Works Director responded that he did not know. The Supervising Planner stated concrete would be easier to maintain; the Master Plan covers the entire area; Council could make maintenance recommendations and implement the recommendation in the Grand Marina lease. Councilmember deHaan stated the Bridgeside gravel is starting to erode; material and maintenance policies should be reviewed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 6 | The Supervising Planner stated Council could impose a Master Plan condition that would require that the Grand Marina residential project be responsible for maintenance of the public triangular parks; the condition could be expanded to include that the Homeowners Association be responsible for the portions outside of the parks. Mayor Johnson stated the path is a public access and could become a safety issue if the Grand Marina was not responsible for maintenance; the path would become a problem for the City; inquired whether agreements exist between Grand Marina and the Applicant. The Supervising Planner responded agreements are between the City and Mr. Wang, Warmington Homes and Mr. Wang, and Master Plan entitlements. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant would have the ability to pass on maintenance costs to the Grand Marina, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. The Supervising Planner continued with the presentation. The Architect provided a video presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents: (In favor of project appeal) : David Day, Applicant; Dan Lachman, Alameda Development Corporation. Opponent (Not in favor of project appeal) : Richard W. Rutter, Alameda. Neutral Christopher Buckley, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Following the Applicant's comments, Mayor Johnson stated the Bayport duplexes are very good; inquired why duplexes were not considered for the proposed project. The Applicant responded an attached product costs more to build because of insurance; stated the proposed project has great architectural quality; height diversity is good. Mayor Johnson stated that she likes the garages in the back. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 7 | Councilmember deHaan stated he has heard complaints that the Bayport sidewalks are not wide enough; inquired whether the proposed sidewalks would be wide enough. The Supervising Planner responded public sidewalks have a five-foot minimum width. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Bayport's sidewalks have a five-foot minimum width, to which the Supervising Planner responded some Bayport sidewalks are less than five feet wide. Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the basic selling price for the Bayport homes. Mr. Lachman responded each phase has been different because of income; the first sixteen homes sold for $273,000 based on 110% of area medium income; the other sixteen homes sold for $236,000 based on 100% of area medium income; the new phase would be $212,00 based on 90% of area medium income. The Supervising Planner stated that the Homeowners Association would cover all maintenance, including the path. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she dislikes the third story pop- upsi she appreciates Mr. Rutter's and Mr. Buckley's research; she prefers the Murano project roofline; the Planning Board does not like slider windows in developments; windows that have dividers between two slabs of glass do not provide the detail and definition for the project's caliber; she would like to add a condition that would require windows to have dividers raised outside of the glass. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore; stated that he does not see the need for the east/west paseo that cuts from the alleyway through Hibbard Street to the parkway; every house could be considered waterfront property; the market rate and affordable houses are dispersed; the development is better than previous developments; staff could work with the Applicant on the third floor design; the existing asphalt path does not touch the Marina Cove development because of the wooden dock; the paseo condition is not needed as long as the asphalt is maintained and matches the proposed treatments in the round areas at the foot of Hibbard… | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,8 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 8 | any functionality beyond architectural diversity. The Supervising Planner responded the third story provides two additional rooms. Vice Mayor Tam stated Mr. Buckley proposed incorporating the third story into the roofline. The Supervising Planner stated staff could work with the Applicant on roof design. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Council needs to help modify the third-story condition to be more explicit in terms of what staff is directed to do. Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Gilmore suggested using Mr. Buckley's examples. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether direction needs to be explicit in the condition. Mayor Johnson responded the condition should be revised to make the changes explicit; stated the design changes are significant inquired whether the design changes should go back to the Planning Board for review. The Supervising Planner responded staff could work with the Applicant stated residential guidelines do not address new three- story buildings, only additions. Mayor Johnson stated the changes are not small. The Applicant stated Mr. Buckley referenced a Centax project where the third floors go from side to side; one side has a three-story wall and the other side has a two-story wall in the current design; the third-floor pop-up would be closer to the street. Mayor Johnson stated she likes the Murano project design better. The Applicant stated a jewel box design was used. Councilmember deHaan stated more space could be gained with the Murano project design. The Applicant stated he would prefer to work with staff and not go back to the Planning Board. Councilmember deHaan stated that he has concerns with the material Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 9 | used at Bridgeside; staff needs to review material consistency; inquired whether common areas are part of 2,000 square-foot lots, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the project is contrary to Measure A. The Supervising Planner responded the project is consistent with Measure A, the City Charter, and the General Plan; stated every parcel is at least 2,000 square feet; all forty parcels have some form of public access easement; the overall project is well within Measure A density requirements. Councilmember deHaan stated the project is breaking new ground. The Supervising Planner stated the project design is intended to maximize public open space; the tradeoff is smaller lots. Councilmember deHaan stated the paseos work because of lot configurations but is not something he would highly recommend. The Supervising Planner stated the project provides an opportunity to try a small lot subdivision; the project was completely redesigned after the Planning Board study sessions. Councilmember deHaan inquired why palm trees are planned for Hibbard Street instead of full trees. The Supervising Planner responded palm trees need to be removed; stated the plan is to reuse the trees and align Hibbard Street to eventually come through the Pennzoil site and connect with the Marina Cove development. Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the plan for the rest of the street. The Supervising Planner stated the trees can be extended down Hibbard Street; a decision would need to be made about whether or not to continue the palm trees to the Pennzoil site. Councilmember deHaan stated past Planning Board discussions have addressed palm trees not providing enough shade; he would prefer not to have palm trees. Councilmember Gilmore stated she would like to have staff review how the houses front Grand Street; staff and the Applicant should ensure the design is detailed, not bland. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 10 | The Supervising Planner stated Council could modify the condition to include the Grand Street elevations. Mayor Johnson inquired what type of landscaping would be provided on Grand Street. The Supervising Planner responded the Homeowners Association would provide new sidewalks and landscaping; big trees are not proposed because of utilities. Mr. Day stated Warmington Homes has agreed to design the third story as close to the Murano project as possible. Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not see a distinction between the market rate and affordable home designs. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he sees the potential for forty new Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) customers; inquired whether an AP&T marketing plan and hookup installation could be added to the conditions, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions and introduced ordinances with the following exceptions : 1) the Planning Director is to work with the Applicant to redesign the third floor pop-ups to look like the examples of the Murano project in Cupertino, 2) directed staff to work with the Applicant and Christopher Buckley on the Grand Street elevations, 3) eliminate slider windows, and 4) AP&T be installed and marketed similar to the Alameda Landing project. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-033) Consideration of an appeal of the Public Works Director's decision to deny a request to remove eight street trees along 2101 Shoreline Drive in accordance with City's Master Tree Plan. The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the eight trees, to which the Public Works Director responded approximately ten to twenty units. Councilmember Gilmore inquired when the trees were last pruned. The Public Works Director responded approximately seven years ago; stated the Tree Pruning Program funding was reduced. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 January 16, 2… | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 11 | Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents ( In favor of appeal) : Robert Matz, The Directly Affected Homeowners, Don Patterson, Alameda. Betty Snider, Alameda and Charles Moneder, Alameda (time yielded to Mr. Matz) . Opponent (Not in favor of appeal) : Karen Stern, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the eight trees, to which Mr. Matz responded twenty. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the units are two-story. Mr. Matz responded in the affirmative; stated the entrance is on the second story the bedrooms are downstairs. Councilmember deHaan stated Shoreline Drive has a variety of trees; some Grand Street trees have been replaced by the homeowners; inquired whether the replanted trees are proper. The Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated he has been working with the City Attorney's office on drafting a letter to the homeowners. Councilmember deHaan inquired what type of trees would be planted. The Public Works Director responded the Tree Master Plan allows for three different types; stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is the preferred tree. Councilmember deHaan stated the trees vary in height and fullness; inquired whether the Tree Trimming Program is in force. The Public Works Director responded the Tree Trimming Program allows for tree pruning every five years when funding is available; stated recently Council restored the funding; catch-up needs to be done; residents are required to get tree trimming permits; not all residents obtained permits; enforcement is difficult. Councilmember deHaan stated some of the Shoreline Drive trees have been pruned severely. The Public Works Director stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is very hardy and comes back rapidly. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 12 | Councilmember deHaan stated unauthorized tree pruning is concerning because trees are important to the City. The Public Works Director stated that he does not have the staff to police tree pruning; residents deny knowledge of tree trimming. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether tree infill plans are underway, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated the rest of Alameda would be impacted by how trees are infilled. Vice Mayor Tam stated Ms. Guthrie invited her to view the trees and visit Mr. Matz's unit; some residents have chopped the trees inquired whether the trees could be moved. The Public Works Director responded he was not sure whether the trees would remain healthy; stated the move would be very expensive. Councilmember Gilmore stated trees grow; questioned whether the same issue would come up in twenty years if the trees are replaced; she does not want to get into a cycle of replacing healthy trees periodically; the City has higher uses for money than replacing trees cyclically. The Public Works Director stated Mr. Matz's Master Tree Plan reference is not the section that addresses when trees should be removed; the section addresses how trees are selected. Councilmember Matarrese stated a trimming and pruning option has been suggested to increase the view line and preserve mature trees; the Tree Master Plan needs some updating; carbon sequesters are of greater importance; view restoration can be accomplished now is the time to take a second look at the Tree Master Plan. Councilmember deHaan stated sometimes mistakes are made when trees are planted; the intent is to add more trees down Shoreline Drive and help the eco system; street trees should be uniform; tree infilling opportunities exist throughout the City; he is not sure whether views would improve if the trees are replaced. Mayor Johnson stated many trees have died and have not been replaced; inquired whether trees are planted in existing planting areas Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 Januar… | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 13 | The Public Works Director responded sometimes planting cannot be done at the same location because of the root ball; stated the Tree Master plan has restrictions regarding planting locations. Mayor Johnson stated the goal is to plant as many trees as possible; Westline Drive and Harbor Bay waterfront areas have existing trees; Council needs to be very careful in setting a precedent regarding removing trees in areas with a view; concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding reviewing and updating the Master Tree Plan; inquired whether the City would do the pruning every year at the expense of the Homeowners Association. The Public Works Director responded the City would prune the first and fifth year; the City would prune in the intervening years at the homeowner's expense. Councilmember Matarrese stated the five-year pruning policy would be re-instituted starting this year; the City would prune the trees down to the 25% crown with an arborist's consultation and City funds; the City and arborist would be involved if the homeowners wants the trees pruned within the five year interim; the cost would be born by the homeowners. Councilmember deHaan requested than an arborist review topping the trees to bring the trees back into proportion. Mayor Johnson stated the 25% crown pruning is quite substantial. Councilmember Gilmore stated she would never vote to remove a tree unless other options were considered; the trees are behind in the normal pruning schedule; concurred that the Master Tree Plan needs updating; stated coastal areas need attention; suggested reviewing avenues for having coastal trees pruned more frequently and involving the Homeowners Association with the pruning in the intervening years. Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of upholding the Public Works Director's decision with direction for staff to work with a certified arborist to prune the trees and reduce the height and fullness without jeopardizing the trees and to work on updating the Master Tree Plan. Vice Mayor Tam stated she has lived in the area … | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 14 | direction that the Master Tree Plan be reviewed by the Climate Protection Campaign Task Force. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the Harbor Bay Trail and Marina Village waterfront homes have no trees; clustered trees are in park areas; he is concerned with the infill proposed for Shoreline Drive. Mayor Johnson stated trees are scattered throughout the Bay Trail area on Harbor Bay; questioned whether the Tree Master Plan review and update would occur before or after the proposed infill. The Public Works Director stated carbon sequester trees would be reviewed as part of tree placement. Mayor Johnson stated Council should review whether fines should be imposed if a homeowner removes a tree. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-034) ) Recommendation to approve funding request for Alameda Big - Box Study Support not to exceed $50,000 from General Fund Reserves. The Business Development Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents (In favor of staff recommendation) : David Howard, Alameda: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Denise Brady, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports spending reserve funds for infrastructure improvements he has a hard time spending reserve money on a study inquired whether the study could be funded with money budgeted elsewhere; stated that he would not support taking the money from the General Fund Reserves. In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Business Development Manager responded all outside consultant fees have been encumbered. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether money could be used from funds that are not encumbered yet, to which the Business Development Manager responded in the negative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,15 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 15 | The City Manager stated the Development Services Director is in the process of re-evaluating the budget opportunities do not exist to fund the study in the current fiscal year. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Towne Center, Alameda Landing or Alameda Point funds are available; stated said areas are relevant to the big box study. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether money could be taken from the Planning Department impact fees. The City Manager responded money was not budgeted for the study. Councilmember Matarrese stated the question is not whether money was budgeted; the question is whether $50,000 can be taken from another source. The Business Development Manager responded the issue would need to be reviewed; stated the proposed study would not be just for Alameda Point, but the whole Island; a portion might be appropriate, but not one hundred percent. Councilmember Matarrese stated funds must have been budgeted to support the projects. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the City has full cost recovery for the Alameda Landing project; all staff salaries are paid by the developer ; the developer funded a retail impact analysis as part of the entitlement process for approximately $35,000; the study led to the retail mix recommendations Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is required for proposals, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is different from a big box study; stated she is surprised by the cost. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded some goals and objections may be captured; stated the measurement would address whether the proposed project competes with or is compatible with existing retail. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail study would include other impacts, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 16 | Councilmember Matarrese stated the first question is whether there should be big box at all; a retail impact fee would help answer the question; he does not approve of using General Fund Reserves for a study. Councilmember deHaan stated alternate funding sources should be reviewed; the June 2006 study replicates retail for the Towne Center ; leakage needs to be understood and impacts analyzed; it is unknown how the proposed Borders would impact Books, Inc. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval to direct staff to identify alternate funds and bargain the price down at the same time. Councilmember Gilmore agreed that General Fund Reserves should not be used for the study stated the study should not duplicate previous studies; all studies should be pulled together for a complete picture. Mayor Johnson stated the City has a City-wide Retail Strategic Plan. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Economic Development Commission was requested to update said plan. Mayor Johnson questioned whether any additional information would come out of the study. Councilmember Gilmore questioned whether the study would provide any new information; stated that she only wants to do a new study if it is needed. Vice Mayor Tam stated she had an opportunity to review the 2004 Citywide Retail policy; the County's examination of the Community Impact analysis adds value with respect to impacts on workers, health benefits, City services, and nearby merchants; it is hard for a financially struggling City to justify spending reserve funds for the study; stated she supports Councilmember Matarrese' motion. Councilmember Matarrese amended the motion to direct staff to convene the Task Force and use existing studies to formulate conclusions and recommendations that may include an additional study if needed. Councilmember deHaan stated the City's retail leakage requirements need to be in proportion to big boxes; the public should be involved in discussions. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,17 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 17 | Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-035) Ordinance No. 2960, "Approving Development Agreement DA- 06-0003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000 Square Feet of Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; and 300,000 Square Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space and 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space. " Finally passed. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese stated the amendment is good and fair and is easily understood he appreciates the time and thought that staff put into the amendment; proper recognition has been given to funding the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether TDM measurements have been determined. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the success criteria would be developed and submitted as part of the TDM Program that would go back to the Transportation Commission and Planning Board; stated the Transportation Commission is scheduled to begin discussions on January 31. Councilmember deHaan stated different traffic patterns are set with entitlement changes most mitigations are not just for people in Alameda but for visitors; inquired whether the TDM would address the issue. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the minimum TDM Phase One components were all developed as part of the new, mixed-use project. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether certain mitigations could be resolved before developments are in place. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the developer has stated that the minimum Phase One components would cost more than what would be collected stated Condition 11 lays out the Phase One TDM components and has not changed since the project was approved on December 5. Councilmember deHaan sta… | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 18 | regarding taking care of visitors coming into Alameda or Alameda Point. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam echoed Councilmember Matarrese': commending staff. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (07-036) - David Howard, Alameda, discussed transportation and submitted a handout on a parking institute policy brief. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07-037) Vice Mayor Tam announced that she attended the League of California Cities conference and orientation for new Councilmembers; stated approximately 440 people attended. the sessions provided a good overview of best practices in City governance, the Brown Act, updates on emerging legislation, and land use policies; the Governor's newly released budget seems to be favorable for local governments ; AB 2511 compliance is an issue; encouraged Council to participate in the July conference. Mayor Johnson stated she has encouraged Councilmembers to attend the July conference every year; requested that the City Clerk try to schedule Councilmembers to attend. The City Manager stated the conference is scheduled for July 25 through 28. (07-038) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the League of California Cities East Bay Division representative. Continued to February 6, 2007. Vice Mayor Tam volunteered to serve as the League's representative. Councilmember deHaan stated he would like the opportunity to serve also. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she was interested in serving on the Environmental Quality Policy Committee, which deals with emerging regulations such as global warming. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,19 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 19 | Mayor Johnson stated former Vice Mayor Daysog also served on the Airport Operating Committee; requested that Councilmembers let her know their areas of interest before the next Council meeting. (07 -039 - ) Councilmember Matarrese stated an Alameda Power and Telcom (AP&T) consultant report was published in the newspaper requested that Council receive a briefing on decisions and recommendations after the public workshops. The City Manager stated the process would begin this week; the public is invited to attend two public forums scheduled for Thursday and Saturday a voice over Internet protocol is one of the consultant's recommendations; updates will be provided to Council. Councilmember Matarrese requested the update be provided in the first quarter. (07-040) Councilmember Matarrese stated he has heard concerns that Alameda does not have a Cultural Arts Center; he would like to have the matter reviewed by the Public Arts Commission. (07-041) Councilmember deHaan stated webcasting is available but is only utilized in the Chambers; suggested that the AP&T workshop meetings be available to the public through webcasting. (07-042) - Councilmember deHaan requested that Closed Session information be released on Alameda Point negotiations. (07-043) Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is a mechanism for requiring shopping carts to have boots; stated the boots would be helpful in limiting stray shopping cart problems at Alameda Landing, Bridgeside, and Alameda Towne Center. Mayor Johnson stated the Police Department has been requested to review the issue in the past suggested that a phone number be placed on the shopping carts for stores to pick up carts within a certain number of hours. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 19 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 20 | The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - - -7:29 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. MINUTES (07-001) Minutes of the Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting held on December 5, 2006. Approved. Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Commissioner Tam - 1. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (07-002) Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project Construction update. The Development Manager gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Gilmore inquired when the parking garage foundation would be poured. The Development Manager responded the foundation would be poured in phases, starting with the back corner of Long's and working forward; stated the first pour would be in three to four weeks. Commissioner Matarrese stated some value engineered items overlap with the list presented in July; inquired whether the parking garage exterior appearance would be altered by any of the value engineered items not presented in July. The Development Manager responded all value engineered items were on the July list with the exception of the stairs stated the top slab was eliminated and does not affect the façade. Commissioner Matarrese stated he did not see the deletion of the precast spandrel panels in the July report. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 1 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );