{"rowid": 101, "text": "MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED JULY 6, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JULY 20, 2021-6:59 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:48 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nThe meeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONTINUED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM\n(21-479) Resolution No. 15801, \"Amending Resolution Nos. 15728 and 15739 Amending\nthe 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Dates.\" Adopted.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was not on Council when the meeting\ndates changed; noted correspondence has been received on the matter; stated that she\nis not available for the proposed September 22nd meeting date; proposed keeping the\nSeptember 1st meeting date and reverting to the September 21st date; stated the\nproposal appears to accommodate different requests.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about changing the meeting dates due to\nreligious holidays.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for the September 1st and 22nd meeting\ndates; stated the League of California Cities has programming the evening of\nSeptember 22nd until 7:00 p.m.; noted the Regular City Council meeting starts at 7:00\np.m.; Council can make a good faith determination that a large portion of the City has\nconflicts due to meaningful cultural events; residents have requested Council honor the\nconflicts; he does not support moving the meeting dates back; September 21st is the\nfirst night of Sukkot and September 7th is the first night of Rosh Hashanah; expressed\nsupport for September 1st and September 22nd and for moving away from September\n15th, which is the most problematic date proposed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for Councilmember Knox White's\nproposed dates.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are many ways to participate in a Council meeting;\nthere are also ways to have comments incorporated into the record; members of the\npublic do not vote on matters; many events are held in the evening; noted the current\nmeeting is being held on Eid Al Adha, which is a Muslim holy day; expressed support for\nconsideration of cultural observations; stated that she would prefer concerns about\nconflict be considered by the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB).\nContinued July 6, 2021 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n1", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 102, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated missing Eid Al Adha was a mistake; he reviewed the\ninter-faith calendar for the year in order to avoid major conflicts; he will not support\nmoving the dates back and creating harm; outlined an argument provided by City of\nDublin related to flying a rainbow flag for Pride Month; stated Council can address the\nmatter with the meetings identified as having a conflict within the community and send\nthe matter to SSHRB for policy development; Council can do the right thing by a large\nportion of the community, allowing full engagement in the process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the analogy of flying the rainbow flag is not applicable;\ninquired whether additional dates have been proposed to be moved for cultural\nholidays.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded had he known Eid Al Adha was in conflict, he\nwould have proposed the meeting date be moved; stated he has not requested any\nother dates be moved; the two meeting dates in September happen to be prominent.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired the original meeting dates, to which the City Clerk responded\nthe meeting dates were adopted in December 2020 and modified in January 2021 to be\nthe first and third Wednesday in September; the meeting dates went from September 7th\nand 21st to September 1st and 15th\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about taking a stance in terms of policy; stated\nshould a policy be developed and should apply to all Boards and Commissions, not just\nCouncil; expressed concern about flip-flopping on the confirmed dates due to\nsubstantial business coming before Council; stated that she has a conflict on\nSeptember 1st; the original proposal created a scheduling conflict with an important high\nholiday; she wants to find a way to accommodate all community members; scheduling\nconflicts will be created; it is problematic to throw dates out at the current meeting in\nhopes for a date that works for all.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated most residents have the expectation of City Hall working\non the first and third Tuesday's of the month; expressed support for meeting dates to\nremain the first and third Tuesday; stated that he suspects groups of people understand\nthe importance of City Hall being as religious-neutral as possible; Council has\npreviously gone through a variety of religious-based matters; he respects religious\nholidays; the business of the people must continue in a practical and religious-neutral\nmanner.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the proposed dates from Councilmember Daysog are\npart of a motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the Council meeting dates being the first\nand third Tuesday of September.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nContinued July 6, 2021 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n2", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 103, "text": "Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes direction\nto staff to have the matter brought before SSHRB in the future; stated that she agrees\nwith Vice Mayor Vella that the consideration is not solely for Council meetings but for all\nBoards and Commissions.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has no preference for or against bringing the\nmatter to SSHRB in the future; he is fine with the proposal should the majority of\nCouncil desire.\nVice Mayor Vella made a friendly amendment to the motion to direct the SSHRB to look\ninto the matter; stated any recommendation from SSHRB should be brought back to\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Daysog accepted the friendly amendment.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:01\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nContinued July 6, 2021 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n3", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 104, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 20, 2021- -7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nThe meeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(21-480) The City Clerk announced the Dreyfuss lease [paragraph no. 21-507 would\nnot be heard.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the legal notices referral\n[paragraph no. 21-500] moved as far up in the agenda as possible; time is of the\nessence.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to move the matter.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of moving the legal notices referral as\nhigh up in the agenda as possible.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is proposing\nmoving the matter above the Regular Agenda items, to which Councilmember Herrera\nSpencer responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about moving the matter above the Regular\nAgenda items.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated moving time sensitive matters has\noccurred in the past.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the item can move to the end of the Regular Agenda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter should be heard before or after the\nConsent Calendar.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n1", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 105, "text": "PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote on the Resolution Continuing the\nEmergency Declaration [paragraph no. 21-498].\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-481) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and\nSuccessor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the\nRegular City Council Meeting Held on June 15, 2021.Approved.\n(*21-482) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,591,408.64.\n(*21-483) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Two Contract\nAmendments Totaling $300,000 as follows: 1) Second Amendment with Kaiser\nPermanente Medical Center, Substantially in the Form of Exhibit 3, for Three Years in\nan Amount Not to Exceed $260,000 for City of Alameda Occupational Medical Services;\nand 2) Second Amendment with Preferred Alliance, Inc., for Three Years in an Amount\nNot to Exceed $40,000 for Drug Testing Services in Conjunction with Services Provided\nby Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. Accepted.\n(*21-484) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Easement\nAmendments for the Pathway Located Between 3227 and 3329 Fernside Boulevard and\nthe Pathway Located Between 3267 and 3301 Fernside Boulevard, Substantially in the\nForm of Exhibits 1 and 2. Accepted.\n(*21-485) Recommendation to Approve an Updated Slate of Recreation and Parks\nDepartment Community Events. Accepted.\n(*21-486) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Animal Shelter\nOperator Agreement with the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) for an\nAmount Not to Exceed $997,818 in Fiscal Year 2021-22; with an Escalator for the\nSecond Year, and an Allowance for Up To Four Two-Year Extensions, for a Total of Up\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n2", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 106, "text": "To 10 Years. Accepted.\n(*21-487) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Four, Five-Year\nAgreements in the Amount of $150,000 Each per Fiscal Year to Bellecci & Associates,\nBKF Engineers, Kier + Wright, and Sandis for On-Call Land Surveyor Services for a\nTotal Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $750,000 For Each Agreement. Accepted.\n(*21-488) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First\nAmendment to Agreement with Schaaf & Wheeler for the Preparation of Engineering\nDocuments for the Upgrade of the City of Alameda Sewer Pump Stations, Phase 5, to\nExtend the Term of the Agreement for Two Additional Years without Amending the\nAgreement Amount. Accepted.\n(*21-489) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year\nAgreement with Omega Pest Control for Pest Control Services at City of Alameda\nFacilities for a Total Five Year Amount Not to Exceed $145,572. Accepted.\n(*21-490) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First\nAmendment to Agreement with Precision Emprise, LLC, dba Precision Concrete Cutting\nto Increase Compensation by $175,000 for Sidewalk Trip Hazard Removal for a Total\nAggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $995,000. Accepted.\n(*21-491) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second\nAmendment to the Agreement with Civicorps Schools for Three Years, in an Amount\nNot to Exceed $33,600 Per Year, for a Total Five Year Amount Not to Exceed\n$168,000, for Shoreline Trash Removal Services. Accepted.\n(*21-492) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year\nAgreement with Clean Water Fund for Targeted Zero Waste Technical Assistance for\nCommercial Food Vendors in an Amount Not to Exceed $289,000. Accepted.\n(*21-493) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Third\nAmendment to the Agreement with SCS Engineers for Targeted Zero Waste Technical\nAssistance for Commercial Businesses and Multi-Family Accounts in an Amount Not to\nExceed $1,334,978. Accepted.\n(*21-494) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Award a Contract to G & G\nBuilders, Inc. for Godfrey Park Recreation Building Renovations, No. P.W. 02-21-08, in\nan Amount Not to Exceed $420,077. Accepted.\n(*21-495) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First\nAmendment to the Homeless Emergency Aid Program Grant, Increasing the Amount by\n$104,576 for a Total Amount of $861,100. Accepted.\n(*21-496) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a One-Year\nAgreement with Operation Dignity to Provide Mobile Outreach Services for Alameda's\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n3", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 107, "text": "Homeless Population in an Amount Not to Exceed $149,717 for Fiscal Year 2021-22.\nAccepted; and\n(*21-496 / A) Resolution No. 15802, \"Amending the General Fund Budget to Appropriate\nan Additional $27,317 for Operation Dignity to Provide Mobile Outreach Services.'\nAdopted.\n(*21-497) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Approve the Purchase of\nMultiple Network Switches and Wi-Fi Access Points from SHI International Corp, a\nReseller of the Cisco Network Switches and Meraki Access Points, to be Located at\nVarious City Owned Buildings in the Amount of $220,334. Accepted; and\n(21-497A) Resolution No. 15803, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget by\nIncreasing Appropriations for the Information Technology Internal Service Fund (606) by\n$220,334.\" Adopted.\n(*21-498) Resolution No. 15804, \"Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local\nEmergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government\nCode Section 8630(c). Adopted.\nNote: Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the item carried by the\nfollowing vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.\n(*21-499) Ordinance No. 3302, \"Approving a Third Amendment to the Greenway Golf\nLease Agreement for Operation of the Corica Park Golf Complex.\" Finally passed.\nCOUNCIL REFERRAL\n(21-500) Consider Reviewing the Decision to Award the Contract for Legal Notices to the\nAlameda Journal, including a Possible Re-Vote to Terminate the Contract and Discuss\nWays to Tide Over the Alameda Sun. (Councilmember Daysog)\nCouncilmember Daysog gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she received emails from angry residents; one of the\neligible uses of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds is assistance for small local\nbusiness, which could include the Alameda Sun; direction to staff could include\nexploring allocating ARPA funds to help sustain the small local business.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Referral was written to contemplate a scenario\nwhere Council could make a decision other than revoting and includes: \"discussing\nalternative ways to tide over the Alameda Sun;\" the key thing is to have staff come back\nwith both: the legal implications of a revote or pursuing tiding over the small business\nthat is a source of information for all businesses and consumers.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of staff returning at the next meeting,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n4", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 108, "text": "if possible, to allow Council to vote to have the contract go to the Alameda Sun and also\nexplore the designation of ARPA funds to the small business.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is for both reassigning the contract\nand giving the funds.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded Council would vote on how to handle it\nwhen the matter returns; staff should research both.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated for a Council\nReferral, the decision is to ask staff to bring back an analysis and not make a final\ndecision.\nThe City Clerk concurred.\nThe City Attorney stated Council should provide direction about what should be\nreviewed and staff would return with a matter to vote on at the next meeting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Clerk and City Attorney have sufficient\ndirection, to which the City Clerk and City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella requested that the direction look at the price differentials and whether\nthere is a way to lower the amount due to lower circulation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated keeping the contract with the Journal would be more\nprudent due to the greater circulation; she would like to review what can be done to\nbackfill the revenue loss with ARPA funds.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated a vote is needed.\nThe City Clerk restated the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an option would be to keep the contract with the\nJournal and use ARPA funds, to which the City Clerk responded all of the analysis\nwould return.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he does not want to waste staff's time if\nCouncilmember Daysog is not going to reconsider awarding the contract.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would do so; he wants to accommodate Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft and does not know what the City Attorney will say in his legal analysis.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council would not need to revisit the\nmatter if it decides to allocate funds to the Sun as part of the ARPA discussion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n5", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 109, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is interested in having the contract\nawarded to the Alameda Sun regardless of the ARPA funds; she wants both issues to\ncome back.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-501) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Constructing or Installing Temporary\nShelters, Transitional Housing, and/or Permanent Supportive Housing in the City of\nAlameda; and Provide Direction on the Type of Homeless Housing Project to Pursue.\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how the Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning\n(HVAC) system works for the pallet construction; stated Alameda Point can be cold at\nnight.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded the pallet option has heating and air\nconditioning as part of each unit; the systems will need to be connected to utilities.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on the funding sources for each\nproject; inquired the reason staff did not bring back a bigger discussion about funding\nsources and working with the Alameda Housing Authority (AHA).\nThe Community Development Director responded the funding sources require further\ninvestigation; stated ARPA funding information has not yet been determined; Council\nmay choose to allocate funding during the ARPA discussion [paragraph no. 21-503];\nProject Home Key is developing; applications will not be able to be submitted until fall;\nstaff estimates potential eligibility of $10 million for a larger project; the rules related to\nthe fund have not yet been finalized; staff will explore all funding options and return to\nCouncil for a discussion of options; staff will be working with AHA on a potential\nagreement for affordable housing vouchers.\nCouncilmember Knox White requested clarification on location choices; inquired what\ndetails create a successful location; noted Alameda Point does not have many transit-\nrelated options.\nThe Community Development Director responded a variety of elements and items need\nto be considered with respect to each site; stated access to services, such as grocery\nand other local amenities, are important; transit line access is considered; staff will need\nto have a robust conversation with the community and neighbors to ensure a\ncomfortable relationship exists between various uses; outlined the bottle parcel; stated\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n6", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 110, "text": "staff has considered overall costs, long-term operating costs and utilities; staff will\ninclude pros and cons of each site when presenting to Council; staff considers equity in\nsite placement.\nExpressed support over the spending plan; stated the proposals are clear; questioned\nthe role played by the City within the larger regional approach to homelessness;\nexpressed concern about the hotel acquisition and operations; stated hotel operation is\ncostly and will not be reduced causing General Fund money to be spent: Nancy\nShemick, Alameda.\nExpressed support over the proposals; stated the Marina Village Inn transformation is\nmost viable; the proposal is a logical use; urged Council approve the necessary\nexpenditures to convert the Marina Village Inn to a permanent facility; expressed\nsupport for the facilities including a resiliency center where both residents and members\nof the Alameda public have access to counseling and access to resources, including\nfinancial assistance, behavior and physical health services, transportation, legal,\nnutrition and food access, and shower and laundry facilities; urged Council to provide\nspace for community gardens at proposed locations; outlined the possibility of losing a\nhome; urged Council take the step toward eliminating homelessness in the community:\nCheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives.\nStated there are many well-considered options for the community; expressed support\nfor the Marina Village Inn project; stated Project Room Key is a short-term project; she\nhopes the City will leverage Project Home Key and take an existing building, which is\nconnected to plumbing, to allow for temporary, transitional housing; the need to end\nhomelessness is both urgent and long-term; urged Council to use funds to invest in\nsomething durable; Marina Village Inn is close to grocery stores and transit: Grover\nWehman-Brown, Alameda.\nExpressed support for comments made by speaker Wehman-Brown; stated it will be\nvaluable to use the Marina Village Inn site: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.\nUrged Council support the Marina Village Inn project site; expressed support for\ncomments provided by previous speakers: Austin Tam, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the matter; stated that she looks forward to the City making more\nof an effort to assist vulnerable neighbors; all proposed sites are a step in the right\ndirection; Marina Village Inn will be the best way to get people into shelter expediently;\nan investment must be made in safety for all: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nOutlined her experience working with Project Home Key; stated that she welcomes a\npositive opportunity for housing the homeless in Alameda in the future; urged\nconsideration of auxiliary issues within the reuse options proposed; expressed concern\nover fire hazards, safety and security: Lauren Eisele, Alameda.\nStated the best individual project is the Marina Village Inn; the project will be the fastest\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n7", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 111, "text": "way to get the most units online; the location will provide opportunities and access to\ntransit; there can never be enough new housing; housing is desperately needed;\nexpressed concern about the lack of restrooms in the pallet shelters; stated having an\nin-unit bathroom provides human dignity and privacy: Josh Geyer, Renewed Hope.\nExpressed support for the matter; stated long-term unhoused residents of Alameda\ndeserve to have a safe and secure place to live; urged Council to consider thinking\nabout the Marina Village Inn and modular or pre-fabricated options; stated the projects\nare all eligible under Project Home Key; existing facilities can have many inherent\nproblems; pre-fabricated units can be put together off-site and brought to appropriate\nlocations: Marguerite Bachand, Operation Dignity.\nExpressed support for the comments of previous speakers; stated the motel purchase is\na good idea; the City needs to take permanent housing seriously; many of the unhoused\nare people who previously had homes; rising rents have forced many out of their\nhomes; transitional housing works for those who have been homeless long-term;\ntransitional housing projects always mean there is an attempt at getting long-term\nhousing; permanent housing is a challenge; the motel is the best option; the City needs\nto focus on creating permanent housing for people in need: Laura Thomas, Renewed\nHope.\nExpressed support for the purchase of the Marina Village Inn; stated the location is\nsmart; stabilizing people earlier in their crisis is far more effective; discussed her\nexperience with housing insecurity as a senior living on a fixed-income; stated that she\nappreciates the plan for a mental health center at the Alameda Hospital; there is a need\nfor a resiliency hub located in central Alameda; noted many renters do not learn about\nrelevant resources early enough; people are being displaced without receiving aid;\nurged Council to consider land trust purchases of rental complexes: Catherine Pauling,\nAlameda Renters Coalition.\nExpressed support for the Marina Village Inn project: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated the Marina Village Inn is not new; the cost of retrofitting the space does not make\nsense; modular housing is the best solution; homeless individuals need social help and\nrehabilitation; she opposes the Marina Village Inn project; the waterfront should be used\nfor the public, shared by all Alamedans: Rosalinda Fortuna, Alameda.\nExpressed support for comments provided by speaker Fortuna; stated the Marina\nVillage Inn project costs will be too high; urged Council to consider modular housing:\nKristin Van Gompel, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there is a rare opportunity to provide something fantastic\nin the Marina Village Inn project; Council is trying to serve families, particularly single-\nwomen families with children, above all; the Marina Village Inn's proximity to the west of\nShoreline Park, east of Wind River Park, and the south to Jean Sweeney Park provides\nan environment conducive to families transitioning out of a place of crisis; the project will\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n8", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 112, "text": "cost more; however, the facility will be better than a modular house in the long run;\nCouncil should not miss the opportunity to do something bold; the environment is\nconducive in allowing families to make a recovery; another element which make the\nlocation ideal is the proximity to the job-rich Marina Village business park; Council\nshould encourage staff to figure out ways to work with businesses in Marina Village to\nget families into jobs; outlined businesses in Marina Village; stated the area is in close\nproximity to transit; outlined the nearby free Alameda shuttle and Alameda County (AC)\nTransit bus system; stated the wealth of natural and social amenities makes the Marina\nVillage Inn an ideal place to have the facility; Council will have to perform due diligence\nrelated to costs; expressed support for the Marina Village Inn project; stated much of\nthe community has helped families in need; outlined a previous Alameda shelter for\nhomeless women; stated the project should be in a place that will help transition people\nout of crisis.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Daysog see eye-to-eye; there\nis a serious shortage of appropriate housing for families; outlined modular housing in\nSan Jose; stated transitional family housing is needed in Alameda; the Marina Village\nInn project can provide many opportunities; costs for rehabilitation are needed;\nquestioned the value of providing children and families a good, safe, and healthy place\nto grow up; outlined comments of Marina Village residents and Project Room Key;\nstated that she applauds the neighbors, City and County staff, and members of Building\nFutures who worked to ensure an environment respectful of everyone; outlined a Town\nHall organized by Supervisor Wilma Chan; stated the response has been heartwarming;\nthe City will need to provide communication; the project should be pursued; multiple\nfunding sources will be coming down the pike; the City should seize the opportunity and\nmake a difference in people's lives; she is partial to the housing model presented by\nDelphi due in part to the company being at Alameda Point; she is not a fan of the\nargument that pallet homes should have community bathrooms; the community\nbathroom model is a disfavored model for health reasons and lead to unnecessary\nconflicts; the project is about human dignity; the San Jose project resulted in people\nbeing pleased and excited to live at the site; there are better places to socialize instead\nof a restroom; the projects would have laundry facilities and access to services, such as\ncounseling; the City can provide more than one option; the Marina Village Inn is an\nattractive option; expressed support for the bottle parcel near the College of Alameda;\nstated the project is about equity; all projects should not be placed at Alameda Point;\nshe is excited to see the upcoming funding opportunities.\nVice Mayor Vella stated there is a significant need for housing; the need will not away\nany time soon; she is interested in finding opportunities for permanent affordable and\npermanent transitional housing; units do not need to be transitional simply due to\nsomeone transitioning their housing status; she seconds the comments by\nCouncilmember Daysog and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; housing discussions need to lead\nwith the value of empathy and ensuring human dignity is addressed; she does not like\nthe palette recommendation; expressed support for pursuing the Marina Village Inn\nproject; stated the project is a huge opportunity; the discussion is a \"yes, and\n\"\nconversation; the Marina Village Inn project should be pursued; Council needs to find a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n9", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 113, "text": "number of opportunities for transitional housing; the Marina Village Inn project will not\nbe enough; opportunities for permanent affordable housing or permanent transitional\nhousing should be sought; she looks forward to the staff report related to project\nadministration; a number of different options exist; there is a difference between\npermanent affordable housing and providing services needed to operate temporary or\ntransitional housing sites; expressed support for a more fleshed out recommendation;\nstated that she likes the idea of modular home options; however, the option has\nlimitations.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted there are currently at least 57 children within Alameda\nUnified School District (AUSD) which come from homeless families.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer discussed funding reports from Alameda Housing\nAuthority (AHA); stated AHA could purchase 18 very-low and low income homes for\nvery-low and low income families; AHA could bid competitively on a land disposition\npurchase from AUSD to house 30 affordable family housing apartments; AHA could use\n$8 million to expedite the first two phases of federal funding for the North Housing\nDevelopment; AHA could buy existing units and restrict the units to at least 80% of the\narea-median income; AHA could generate nearly 30 units of deeply rent-restricted\napartments for $10 million; it is important for City staff to work with AHA to see the\nviable options; expressed concern about a disregard of costs in the Marina Village Inn\nproject; stated the focus has to be on the limited amount of funds; she prefers\npermanent housing versus temporary housing; she does not think it is appropriate not to\nhave bathrooms inside housing units; some of the proposed sites have brought revenue\nto the City over the years; the last five years of revenues, such as the Transit\nOccupancy Tax (TOT), should be provided to show any potential revenue losses; she\nwould like to see an estimate for upgrades to the facilities; the total costs must be\nreviewed; Council must keep options open and broad at this time; expressed concern\nabout the 55 year covenant; stated that she would like the language to be specific;\ndiscussed the 55 year covenant ownership potential; stated the covenant could lead to\nsomething that is not long-term affordable housing; it is important to draft the documents\nto include City or AHA ownership; expressed concern about the units becoming market-\nrate over time; stated that she would like the details to be vetted; she would like to look\nat other uses for funding; Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been discussed; expressed\nconcern about Council narrowing options; stated that she would like to look at support\nservices and locations; the bottle parcel is near the College of Alameda, which is a\nbenefit for proximity to services; it is important to look at site amenities; public\ntransportation at Alameda Point is not always accessible, causing the location not to be\nas viable.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff has reached out to AHA and are awaiting proposals;\nnothing is stopping the AHA from using their funding to purchase buildings to address\nhousing needs.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would like to double down in thinking about\nother sites; noted the Carnegie Library has been vacant for 20 years; housing and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n10", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 114, "text": "sense.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated San Jose City staff indicated that a lot of outreach to\nneighbors occurred; there is a combination of security and constant outreach and\ncommunication; much of the ground work was laid with the Marina Village Inn being a\nProject Room Key hotel; expressed support for building upon the existing ground work;\ninquired whether staff has sufficient direction provided from Council.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would be interested in looking at the\nCarnegie Library as a viable housing site.\nThe Community Development Director responded staff would be better assessing the\nGroup Delphi option for transitional housing for the short-term; stated staff can conduct\nfurther financial analysis around the Marina Village Inn, bottle parcel and any other sites\nwhich lend themselves to something comparable; by the fall, staff will need to know\nwhat to apply for through the County; staff needs to be cognizant of timing.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is ready for staff to bring the matter back as soon\nas possible.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:24 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:40\np.m.\n***\n(21-502) Recommendation to Receive Direction from City Council Regarding Uses for a\nPotential Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Grant Award.\nThe Economic Development and Community Services Manager gave a brief\npresentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n11", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 115, "text": "In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiries, the Economic Development\nand Community Services Manager stated staff has tried to create a stop gap measure\nfor shelter; the City needs a way to put people in shelter temporarily; the cost is roughly\n$100 per night to have people in shelter temporarily; the cost allows staff to get some of\nthe most vulnerable people off of the street and into temporary shelter; staff is working\nwith a mental health provider; an agreement for services related to moderate to extreme\nmental health services can be created; flexible funding amounts are based on providing\ntemporary shelter and mental health services.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the name of the provider for mental health\nservices, to which the Economic Development and Community Services Manager\nresponded staff is proposing Operation Dignity.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is the ability to provide 24 hours a day 7\ndays a week (24/7) on-call services and whether Operation Dignity provides outreach\nservices and during which hours.\nThe Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated services are currently Monday through Friday.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the services hours could be extended through\nweekends and evenings.\nThe Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded staff can\nlook into the recommendation instead of the mental health portion; noted Operation\nDignity does not currently provide any of mental health services for the City.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City currently provides mental health services\nto the homeless population.\nThe Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded in the\nnegative; stated the City currently provides case management.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she can see the need for a program to begin with\nservices provided Monday through Friday; expressed support for the program hours\nbeing expanded if successful.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the staff\nrecommendation; outlined the funding and financial impact portion of the staff report;\nstated that she would like to see some of the money go towards getting shelters; she\nthinks more than $14,000 in flexible funds is a good thing; expressed concern about\nincreasing the flexible funding to $100,000.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n12", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 116, "text": "The Economic Development and Community Services Manager stated the funding\ncould span over a couple of years; flexible funds would extend over a longer period of\ntime.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the proposed time period.\nThe Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded the current\nfunding will likely last one to one and a half years; stated if Council extends the funding,\nthe program will last approximately two years.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is unsure whether Alameda Family\nServices (AFS) providing mental health services has been reviewed; noted AFS offers\nsubstantial counseling; inquired whether AFS would be eligible to help with the mental\nhealth services recommendation.\nThe Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded staff can\ncreate a Request for Proposals (RFP); stated the City does not have to work with the\nproposed entity; AFS is interested in providing services, but not of the type proposed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated AFS has the capability to perform 24/7 service;\ninquired whether the allocation of funds is the best use; stated that she is unsure since\nshe does not know the basis of the formula used; expressed support for flexible funds;\ninquired whether the City can reallocate any funds received based on costs and needs.\nThe Economic Development and Community Services Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated the proposed cost for services would be $1,250 per week based on a\nfull weekly schedule, including weekends.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the length of the term, to which the Economic\nDevelopment and Community Services Manager responded the term would span one\nyear.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for some flexibility and for keeping\npeople in their homes.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the unhoused population has grown; there is a significant need\nfor members of the day shelter; many people do not have a place to go at night; the\nrecommendation is a good opportunity; the proposal will likely be substantially\ninsufficient to serve the need; expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated\nthe matter is maximizing the space at the day center, while still addressing needs with\ndignity; she is prepared to support the proposal; she would like to remain cognizant of\nstaff time; staff is working on a number of different issues; she does not support having\nstaff go back and perform work multiple times; existing providers are currently operating\nin the space; Council needs to honor the work being done; an RFP would further delay\nthe process of providing needed services.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n13", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 117, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-503) Recommendation to Assign a Portion of the $28.68 Million of Funding from the\nFederal Government through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 to Assist\nwith Recovery from the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the current budget includes $8 million in\nrevenue loss or whether the recommendation is new funding not considered in the\ncurrent budget, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the recommendation\nis\nnew funding not considered in the current budget; stated staff will bring the matter back\nas part of a mid-year or mid-cycle update depending on when Council directions and\nactions occur.\nStated groups have met to discuss how to use ARPA funds; Transform Alameda\nbelieves the City has a once in a generation opportunity to use ARPA funds to establish\ncomprehensive, integrated public services for a safe, healthy, and thriving community;\nARPA was created in response to the public health and economic crisis which has\nimpacted the poor and marginalized populations; the goal of ARPA is to lift up members\nof the community in ways which support and sustain well-being; urged the City to use\nARPA funds directly to address the community's inter-connected needs and struggles,\nspecifically around housing, mental health, economic security and climate vulnerability;\nexpressed support for the Marina Village Inn project; urged the City to consider looking\ninto funding a community land trust in order to preserve housing; expressed support for\na mental health clinic, a resiliency hub and a UBI which fits Alameda's specific needs:\nJosh Geyer, Transform Alameda.\nStated Renewed Hope stands in full support of the priorities submitted in a letter;\nexpressed support for the priorities provided by speaker Geyer; stated the notion of\ncommunity resilience is going to be important in the years to come; cities and towns\neverywhere are going to be called more and more in order to help residents survive\nnatural disaster and social upheaval; the loss of workers in the previous year has made\nthe City less resilient; the City's survival will depend on making sure everyone helps one\nanother; the proposals speak to values held by Renewed Hope; when there is\nmovement towards caring for the entire community, a safe and secure community will\nemerge: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.\nExpressed support for the matter; stated that she would like to ensure the City comes\nup with a community criteria that reflects social justice and equity values; expressed\nsupport for measuring funds using a scoring mechanism; stated the funds are a once in\na lifetime opportunity where every penny received needs to be spent to the best\npossible use for the most effect; expressed support for discussing different housing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n14", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 118, "text": "options related to cost effectiveness and for looking at the social and equity impacts, not\ncosts: Nancy Shemick, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the strictness of ARPA reporting\nrequirements.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the reporting requirements are frequent; staff must\nupdate the federal government on the use of funds on a quarterly basis; the federal\ngovernment has stressed the importance of adhering to the eligible project list and\nensuring accountability for dollars spent; the funds are meant to be an investment in the\ncommunity; the City must ensure good care is being taken of the public dollar; the\noverall intent is for local government to do their very best to be transparent with the\ncommunity and invest in a way that is consistent with the interim final rule from the\nUnited States (US) Department of Treasury.\nThe Finance Director displayed a calendar for reporting dates; stated August 31st is the\nfirst due date for an interim report; there are many strict requirements; by October 31st ,\nstaff will need to complete a second and third quarter report.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for coming back with concepts; stated\nthat he is supportive of the housing proposal; he is open to considering some form of\nhybrid which includes business assistance; business assistance does not include\ngrants; the one-time funds are meant for rebuilding the resilience of the business areas;\nexpressed support for permanent draws to business districts in order to strengthen the\nlocal economy; stated that he will only consider the matter be placed into revenue loss,\nif the City has flexibility to use funding on desired projects; expressed concern for back-\nfilling the budget; stated that he appreciates the one-time only costs; the housing\nproposal is the most impactful; he agrees that the funding is a one-time opportunity and\nshould be used to have ongoing and strong future outcomes; expressed concern about\nsquandering funds.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about dedicating funding to\npurchase the Marina Village Inn; stated that she would like to spread the funding to\nimpact as many people as possible; expressed support for prioritizing internet and\nSmart City wireless hot spots; stated the digital gap now has an opportunity to be\nclosed; some people cannot access the current meeting being held via Zoom; people\nwithout internet access have been left out of society for one and a half years; outlined\nExhibit 5 of the staff report; stated the health services recommendation is important;\npeople impacted by COVID need help; expressed support for assistance to households;\nstated services which cover low-income is a good use of the funding; expressed\nconcern about dedicating four-fifths of the funding towards a project that will impact\napproximately 50 people versus a program which can help thousands of people.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would have supported some of the funding going\ntowards Jean Sweeney Park; he accepts staff's analysis of the park being ineligible; he\nsupports one of the categories being housing and Marina Village Inn; $20 million of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n15", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 119, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF MEETING\nWednesday, September 21, 2005\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nVice Chair Tony Santare called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room\n#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.\n1-A.\nRoll Call\nRoll call was taken and members present were: Vice Chair Tony Santare,\nSecretary Betsy Gammell, Commissioner Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill\nSchmitz and Commissioner Jane Sullwold. Absent: Chair Sandr\u00e9\nSwanson and Commissioner Bob Wood. Also present were General\nManager Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional Matt Plumlee.\n1-B\nApproval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of August 17, 2005\nThe following correction was made:\nItem 1-A, line 4\nCommissioner Sullwold was present and\nCommissioner Wood was absent.\nItem 3-A, line 33\n90' should be 90\u00b0.\nItem 3-C, line 9\nCooridinator should be Coordinator.\nItem 5-D, line 15\nOmission of the word \"to\" before City Council.\nThe Commission approved the minutes unanimously with the\naforementioned changes.\n1-C\nAdoption of Agenda\nThe Commission approved the agenda unanimously.\n2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n3.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n3-A\nApproval of the Golf Complex Policy Board. (Action Item)\nThe General Manager stated that the policy board was originally slated as an\nAction Item at the last meeting and was changed to a discussion item. Decided at\nthe meeting was to have the policy board in the Pro Shop instead of on the first\ntee of the courses so that customers can read them while checking in to play golf.\nThe question was raised as to whether the Risk Manager has seen the policies and\napproves of them. The General Manager stated that he has reviewed the policies\nPage 1 of 6", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 120, "text": "with the Risk Manager and they are appropriate to post. It was mentioned that\npeople might not know what the phrase \"pace of play\" represents. The General\nManager responded that the volunteer marshals on the tee explain the pace of play\npolicy to the customers. The General Manager also mentioned that the Complex\nis\nlooking at purchasing clocks to place on the courses to help with the pace of\nplay. The clocks will be on #1, #6, #12, and #18 of the 18 hole courses and when\nthe golfer arrives at those holes the clock should read their tee time if they are\nplaying at the correct pace. The suggestion was made to have a prize for golfers\nwho play in less than 4 hours, possibly a ball marker. Also suggested was to\ninclude the phrase \"keep up with the group in front of you\" in the golf carts.\nAfter discussion the following changes were made to the policy board:\nTo make your experience enjoyable the following rules apply:\n1.\nAll players and spectators must check in at the Pro Shop before\nstarting play.\n2.\nDo not enter water hazards or sloughs.\n3.\nAED Medical Response units are located at EF #9, JC #5, Pro Shop\nand Driving Range buildings.\n4.\nPlease cooperate with golf course marshals at all times.\n5.\nObserve all pace of play policies. Please play \"ready\" golf.\n6.\n90-degree cart rule in effect at all times, unless otherwise specified.\n7. No spectators allowed unless approved by professional staff.\n8. Players under the age of 10 years must be accompanied by an adult or\nhave approval of professional staff.\n9. Golf or tennis shoes only. No multi-purpose athletic cleats allowed.\n10. Proper golf attire required.\n11. Please observe appropriate cell phone etiquette.\n12. No coolers. Outside alcoholic beverages are prohibited.\n13. Players and spectators use golf facilities at their own risk.\n14. Failure to follow all the rules of this Golf Complex may result in your\nremoval from the facilities.\nThe Commission approved the amended Policy Board unanimously.\n3-B\nApproval of the Revised Golf Course Management Practice Regarding a Policy\nAllowing Handicap Golfers Access to Fairways in Golf Carts. (Action Item)\nThe General Manager reported that the original Management Practice #2\nregarding the Medical/Disability Flag Access was put in place on\nNovember 9, 2004. The revision is to reflect the addition of the blue flag\nto identify the handicap golfers. The revised Management Practice #2 is\nas follows:\nPurpose\nPage 2 of 6", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 121, "text": "The purpose of this management practice is to establish and clarify\nprocedures regarding the use of a medical/disability flag for golf car\naccess to the Golf Complex courses (excludes Mif Albright).\nPolicy\nIt is required that the Golf Complex provide to customers with a valid\nmedical disabilities card a rental golf car to reasonably access the golf\ncourses.\nProcedures\nUnrestricted access when weather and/or maintenance conditions\npermit.\nWhen maintenance conditions restrict golf car access to cart paths\nonly, customers with valid disability cards may access the golf course\nunder the 90-degree restriction. (Drive parallel to fairways from cart\npaths and rough, then perpendicular across fairway to ball.)\nRecipients of Medical/Disability flags will be identified by staff\nwriting the word \"medical\" on the golf car liability acceptance form\nand the golf car windshield. Recipients will also be issued a blue flag\nto be attached to the golf car.\nWhen it is no longer safe to traverse fairways, areas near sloughs,\nlakes, tees, and green banks due to inclement weather conditions, no\naccess to fairways will be permitted.\nThe Commission approved the amended the Management Practice #2\nunanimously.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A\nGolf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional\nMatt Plumlee.\nThe Head Golf Professional reported that the Complex recently hosted a\nTaylor Made Demo Day at the Driving Range that went very well. Ken\nJones is conducting free instruction clinics every Thursday morning for\nthe Alameda Women's Golf Club. Also reported was that on Sunday,\nSeptember 26, 2005 the range balls will be replaced with new ones.\n4-B\nGeneral Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and\noperational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.\nPage 3 of 6", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 122, "text": "The General Manager reported that he has been given authorization to hire\nemployees that are 16 years old. Employees previously had to be 18 years\nold. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Restaurant Services was\ncompleted and 19 RFPs were sent out. The General Manager has spoken\nto many of the recipients. The team consisting of Chair Swanson,\nCommissioner Gammell and Commissioner Sullwold will review the\nproposals along with the General Manager to decide which one is best for\nthe facility taking into consideration various criteria. Once the proposals\nhave been reviewed and ranked the General Manager will meet with the\nCity Attorney to negotiate with the concessionaire. The General Manager\nmet with the General Manager of Alameda Power and Telecom, Val Fong\nto discuss producing and running some commercials on various cable\nchannels. The General Manager will be meeting with Dan Bieber of\nSports Restaurant, Inc. to go over the particulars of winding down their\ncontract and vacating the premises.\n4-D\nBeautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.\nNo report given.\n5.\nCOMMISSIONERS' REPORTS\n5-A\nMarketing and Promotions, Secretary Gammell.\nCommissioner Gammell reported that Ken Jones started the Ladies Clinics\non Thursday mornings before the weekly tournament. Although the\nparticipation is low it should pick up. The ladies are very happy about the\ntwo for one coupon that was sent to the membership recently. New\npromotions being considered for the winter months include offering\nmonthly ticket holders the option to hit a bucket of balls instead of golfing\nduring inclement weather.\n5-B\nGolf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Gaul\nCommissioner Gaul reported that the rounds on the Mif Albright Course\nwere down 22% from last month. Commissioner Gaul thanked the\nMaintenance Crew for fixing the rubber on the bridge on #5 of the Earl\nFry Course. The suggestion was made to contact past tournament groups\nto encourage them to reserve times for next year. Also mentioned was the\npossibility of renting a corporate tent to set up for large events to\naccommodate their banquet on site.\n5-C\nMen's and Senior Club Liaison, Vice Chair Santare.\nVice Chair Santare reported that he attended the Chuck Corica Senior Golf\nPage 4 of 6", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 123, "text": "Club Board of Directors meeting on August 18, 2005. The meeting\nconsisted of the nominations for 2006. The nominees were President-\nGeorge Humphreys, Secretary/Handicap Chairman-Marty Martinez,\nTreasurer-Ralph Bertelsen and Director of Weekly and Tournament play-\nGeorge Newkirk. The ballots were sent to the membership on August 28,\n2005. Other items discussed were the tournament format and revisions to\nthe by laws. Commissioner Santare also attended the Alameda Golf Club\ngeneral meeting on August 30, 2005 at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.\nThe meeting included the results of the putting tournament and club news.\nAlso discussed were the Alameda Point Golf Project and the Front\nEntry/Tower Project. A representative from the Golden State Warriors\nstating that the Men's Club could qualify for group discount tickets to the\nbasketball games.\n5-D\nNew Clubhouse Project, Commissioner Schmitz.\nCommissioner Schmitz reported that the next step in the project is the\ncompletion of the Financial Projection Report from John Ritchie, CPA.\nThe report will not be distributed in DRAFT form and will not be\npresented until it is completed. The General Manager reported that he is\nlooking at ways to increase revenue while cutting expenditures to pay the\ndebt service. Some of the ideas being considered are increasing fees and\nreducing the amount contributed to the General Fund yearly. Should the\nreport show no changes in the revenue and expenditures over the next 5\nyears it would show no way to repay the debt. The final report will\ninclude suggestions and projections with changes to the fee structure and\nexpenditures. Also reported, the proposals for the Phase I and Phase II\nEnvironmental Report have been received and work on that should start\nsoon.\n5-E\nMaintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,\nCommissioner Sullwold.\nCommissioner Sullwold complimented the Maintenance Crew for the\nrepair on the bridge on #5 of the Earl Fry Course. She inquired on the\nstatus of the men's restroom on #9 of the Earl Fry Course. The restroom\nis tied into a clogged sewer pipe and numerous attempts to clear it have\nbeen made but it continues to clog.\n5-F\nCity Council and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.\nNo report given.\n5-G\nFront Entrance Beautification Project, Commissioner Wood.\nCommissioner Wood reported that he is moving forward with plans for the\nPage 5 of 6", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 124, "text": "Fire Tower. He toured the building recently and found it structurally\nsound, although there are windows stuck open that need to be closed due\nto potential moisture damage.\n5-H\nGolf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.\nNo report given.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNo report given.\n7.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNone to report.\n8.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nIncluded in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance\nDepartment showing the surcharge payment for August 2005 of $16,219.\nThe year-to-date total to the General Fund is $36,637 for the fiscal year\n2005/2006.\n9.\nANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the\nBrown Act.\nPage 6 of 6", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 125, "text": "Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes\nWednesday November 18, 2015\nCommissioner Michele Bellows called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nMichele Bellows (Chair)\nEric Schatmeier (Vice Chair)\nJesus Vargas\nChristopher Miley\nMichael Hans\nGregory Morgado\nMembers Absent:\nThomas G. Bertken\nStaff Present:\nStaff Patel, Transportation Engineer\nStaff Payne, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\n3.A. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 7 pm\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that AC Transit has been actively compiling a service\nenhancement plan that impacts the City. Commissioner Schatmeier provided a memo\nsummarizing the items that were discussed. He explained three priorities came about from the\ndiscussion: 1. funding should stay local; 2. maintain existing AC Transit Line O on Santa Clara\nAvenue and if they shorten the route as originally proposed by AC Transit then savings should\nstay local; and 3. in the absence of transfers, AC Transit should maintain direct service to\nFruitvale BART Station on the current lines despite the additional cost of doing SO. He\nrecommended that the topic be agendized for the January 2016 meeting so the Commission can\ndiscuss the priorities.\nStaff Payne stated that the City has been working with AC Transit and the City supports their\nexpansion plan. She further explained that the biggest priority is the restoration of the Line 19,\nPage 1 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 126, "text": "which is in the northern waterfront area and a new development will be built in the area. She said\nlast week she went to an AC Transit hearing and summarized the need for restoration of the Line\n19.\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27, 2015\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated he had a change to Item 5b discussion of the Central Avenue\nComplete Streets proposal. He said that the minutes state Webster Street and Central Avenue\neastbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large amount of vehicles turning right onto Webster\nStreet. He explained that he meant to say was westbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large\nnumber of vehicles turning right onto Webster Street and he was concerned about how that\nwould be treated.\n4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - July 22, 2015\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes of May 27, 2015 with the corrections\nprovided by Commissioner Schatmeier and approve the minutes of July 22, 2015. Commissioner\nSchatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5.\nNew Business\n5.A. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans\nStaff Patel presented the quarterly report and introduced Rochelle Wheeler, Alameda Public\nWorks, to present an update on the Cross Alameda Trail.\n5.B. Recommend City Council Approval of the Central Avenue Concept Including Safety and\nOther Street Improvements\nJennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, presented the report and introduced\nStaff Payne to discuss the public outreach, staff recommendations and next steps. Jennifer Ott\nalso presented Jean Finney, Deputy District Director of Caltrans District 4, who spoke at the end\nof the presentation.\nCommissioner Vargas said having worked with Caltrans there are design manuals and guidelines\nand there are design exceptions for similar facilities that Caltrans has granted with lane widths of\n10.5 feet.\nJean Finney replied yes and the standard width for this type of roadway is 11 feet, so there will\nbe a design exception for the 10.5 feet lane widths. She also reiterated the fact that traffic\nengineers looked at the conceptual plans and gave conceptual approval for the 10.5 feet width.\nSean McPhetridge, Superintendent of Alameda Unified School District (AUSD), stated that he\nwas glad that the City and staff worked with the District. He explained that school leaders\nPage 2 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 127, "text": "support a walk and roll event every year to show and emphasize the need to be healthy and safe.\nHe also said the City of Alameda has worked hard to partner with them on numerous fronts and\nhe along with his colleagues support the plan.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that he thought staff did a good job on outreach and the\npresentation was conducted well. He said Jennifer Ott talked about safety improvements and the\ndisproportionate number of collisions the corridor is responsible for and he felt that was an\ninteresting case. He wanted to know if there will be a report on the before and after statistics as a\nresult of the project.\nStaff Payne replied she would like to report back about the impacts after construction.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that the presentation commented on the delays in traffic in the\nyear 2035 and he wondered how much of the delays and growth attribute to traffic growth that\nwould take place if the City did nothing. He wondered if that would be a similar level of delay\nand growth. He also wanted to know if staff attributes the delay growth to the project or the fact\nthat the City will get bigger and there will be more traffic in the year 2035.\nStaff Payne replied the numbers for the year 2035 do assume that all the planned development is\nwithin the estimate including no mode shift and the project is built.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied the data reflects the assumption that the project is built, but\ndoes the data also assume growth delays in the corridor if the project was not built so there\nwould be no net impact on delays.\nLaurence Lewis, Associate Planner Kittelson and Associates, said the comparison that Staff\nPayne mentioned was in addition to the growth that would happen from upcoming development.\nHe explained there was a comparison with the same level of traffic in the year 2035 meaning\nexisting conditions and with what was proposed without mode shifts.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said the benefits listed included the improvements to bus access and\nhe wanted more detail regarding this.\nStaff Payne replied the west end of the island where there is the two-way bikeway on the west\nside of the street would have bus islands on the west end of the street to accommodate the\nexisting bus stop and staff would move the island a little bit north to the far side of that\nintersection. She also mentioned that on 8th Street there would be a bus bulb-out for the\nwestbound bus stop with benches and shelters and that type of improvement along the corridor.\nCommissioner Miley stated that looking at the Encinal High School side, he was happy to see\nstaff partnering with the school. He confirmed with staff that the reconfiguration of the school's\nparking lot, which is the staff parking lot, will have no loss to parking spaces.\nStaff Payne replied there is no parking loss.\nCommissioner Miley replied since the parking lot is the staff's parking lot, where would the rest\nof the encroachment of the existing school's facilities take place.\nPage 3 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 128, "text": "Commissioner Miley said to follow up on Commissioner Schatmeier's comments about 8th Street\nand Central Avenue the intersection is tricky and he lived on 8th Street growing up. Overall, he\nfelt the project improves safety throughout the corridor, but staff could look to do more. He\nwondered if staff could look at having the bike lane encroach into the park because it is\nconcerning what driver behavior would be like at the intersection, especially making that right or\nleft turn onto 8th Street going northwest.\nStaff Payne replied staff looked at this option. She said the advantage is a more protected space,\nbut the disadvantages are conflicts with bicyclists getting into the park because there is a park\nfacility with a preschool and after care with a lot of parking activity at that intersection.\nCommissioner Bellows replied staff could move the right turn lane over further and keep the\norientation the way it is and that could provide more room for the westbound traffic to not\nmerge.\nStaff Payne replied there is also a concern when you get to the 8th Street intersection as a cyclist\nhow would you get across since you would not be orientated to go eastbound again.\nCommissioner Miley said the lineup would not be ideal.\nCommissioner Miley made a motion to accept staff recommendations with additional requests\nand move the plan to City Council for review. He requested that staff conduct additional analysis\nat the 8th Street intersection and to further review the short merge or if there is any way to extend\nthat. He also requested that staff provide the City Council with some analysis that shows what\nencroaching into the park would look like, so they have some options in front of them.\nAdditionally, he asked that when the project is eventually implemented staff would present an\nannual review to the Commission. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion.\nCommissioner Vargas made an amendment to the motion that included having the engineering\ndepartment review the concept as it evolves, so they are officially in the loop. The motion was\napproved 6-0.\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n-\nCross Alameda Trail - Atlantic Segment\n-\nMain Street Ferry Terminal Improvements\n7.\nAnnouncements/Public Comments\nNone.\n8.\nAdjournment\n10:21 pm\nPage 17 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 129, "text": "Staff Payne replied that would be the lawn space and they would be moving to the two kiosks\nfurther south out of the path of the bikeway.\nCommissioner Miley asked about the Webster and 8th Street intersection. He explained the\nintersection is where the highest pedestrian incidents were observed. He wondered if there were\nany treatments or improvements made within the 10 years.\nStaff Payne replied there were four pedestrian injuries at Webster Street and Central Avenue over\nthe past 10 years and since that time staff has improved that intersection. She said staff created a\nnew marked crosswalk on the east side and they felt that would improve the intersection moving\nforward. She went on to say that half of the injuries occurred before the intersection\nimprovement and half occurred afterwards, but she felt that did not occur on the eastern side.\nCommissioner Miley inquired about Washington Park from Page Street to 8th Street, where the\nbike lane would discontinue. He wondered if staff looked at going into the park to accommodate\na lane there.\nStaff Payne replied staff reviewed the option and decided not to pursue that because park space is\nvery limited and they weighed that as a higher concern.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comments.\nKyle Long, Alameda west end student and east end resident, said he took a bicycle safety class\nand obeys all traffic laws. He said he feels unsafe when bicycling and feels safer when there is a\ndedicated bike lane.\nJay Katter, Alameda Community Learning Center (ACLC) student, said his friend who also\nbicycles was hit by a car when riding to school. He felt having bike lanes on Encinal Avenue\nwould be very nice.\nJay Lucy stated that he does not support the project. He felt the elimination of the parking spots\nand road access at the intersection of Central Avenue and Webster Street will be a business\nnegative and poor use of City funds. He asked for a loading and unloading study to be conducted\nand he said West Alameda Business Association (WABA) does not support this project. He\npointed out that at the public meeting when the new cross walks were installed at the intersection\nof Central Avenue and Webster Street staff stated that over 20,000 vehicles were crossing daily\nand now the numbers have mysteriously dropped due to a different agenda even with the growth\npattern being 2.9 percent from 2009. He said with population density growing, limiting a major\narterial makes no sense when a back path exists on Santa Clara Avenue. He requested that an\nEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) be considered on such a significant proposal. He also\nrequested that a Shore Line Drive usage survey be considered to see how the people living along\nShore Line Drive feel about the change. Having been to every meeting on this topic, he felt\ndisappointed by the changes that were made since the last meeting. He heard that the schools are\ndrawing from outside the area like the city of Oakland. He asked that the bulb-outs not be used\nbecause they are a hazard and are not maintained.\nPage 4 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 130, "text": "Kathy Neilson, Central Avenue resident and parent to an Encinal High School student, said she\nwas surprised by the low collision incidents reported at the corner of Encinal Avenue and St.\nCharles Street because she felt there are more collisions that took place than was actually\nreported. She was happy to hear about the inclusion of curb extensions and crosswalks because\nthey will be effective. She felt that the loss of one parking spot in front of her home makes up for\nincreasing community safety. She was also happy to see the Sycamore trees would stay and\nbeautify the street. She wondered if the plan includes redirecting activity to go from Santa Clara\nto Central Avenue. She also wondered if the school district considered changing the school\nhours. She thought potentially staggering school start hours would reduce the traffic.\nColin Wainmain, Academy of Alameda student, said he rides his bike to school 3.5 miles each\nway. He said he likes to ride in the bike lanes because they do not honk at him and the bike lanes\nallow him to focus on riding safely and follow the laws. He explained that after school, he often\nrides down to Webster Street to get a snack and then rides over to soccer practice at Alameda\nPoint. He said he would ride along Shore Line Drive after soccer practice, but his coach would\nnot let him ride in the dark because it is too dangerous.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that plans have changed from initial presentation from\nworkshop to workshop to tonight. He said what was shown tonight was new material not\npreviously shown to the public so #1, 2, 3 and 4 became 1, 2a, 2b and 3 from sections A-K. He\nfelt there should be more meetings on the project now that there are new revisions and the\ncommunity should review and have the opportunity to present questions and receive answers. He\nasked staff how many citizens along sections A-F have stated that they want a cycle track in\nfront of their house or business, especially since it will be more difficult for them to enter and\nexit their home or business. He also said, the parking widths on sections F, G, H, I, and K are 7\nfeet wide, not 8 feet wide and he wondered if staff would move the disabled off the street. He\nnoted that Section J, slide 48 on the presentation packet is something the community has not seen\nbefore and public input was not received. He believed that was a bait and switch. He asked the\nCommission about Commissioner Schatmeier's ideas and why they were not included in the plan\nother than 8th Street. He said he bikes along 19th Avenue near Stern Grove in San Francisco and\nSan Francisco would never suggest taking away one traffic lane because that would make it\ndifficult for vehicles and emergency access vehicles to maneuver. Overall, he said some portions\nof the plan he agreed with, but he did not approve this vastly changed project.\nTodd Waimain, Central Avenue resident on the east end, said he and his children bicycle to the\nwest side of the island. He felt the City needs to have a safe way to get across the island and his\nchildren have told him about unsafe drivers and how they are following the rules of the road. He\nwent on to say that he lives on a portion of Central Avenue that contains sharrows and the drivers\ndo not understand exactly what they are. He asked that staff construct dedicated bike lanes\nbecause most drivers understand what that is and it is safer for cyclists. He explained that he\nwould cycle more frequently to the west end to Alameda Point for soccer games and Spirits\nAlley if there were safer options to do SO. He noted that when coming out of Crab Cove cyclists\nare spit out on a sidewalk and there is signage saying \"Do not bike on the sidewalk.\" He also\npointed out that the plan has no loss of parking, so he does not understand why this plan cannot\nbe approved as it stands because the presentation was quite thorough.\nPage 5 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 131, "text": "Susan Sperry, Alameda resident, asked the Commission to reconsider the plan and carefully look\nat the issues of the street. She came before the Commission because she was devastated to see\nwhat happened to Shore Line Drive. She carefully gathered newspaper editorials about Shore\nLine Drive and she is a property owner on Shore Line Drive as well. She said in the past she was\nable to see the ocean from her window and now there is parking lot.\nBruce Kibbe, Santa Clara Avenue resident, felt the plan is excellent and to go ahead with it\nbecause this plan is looking towards the future. He said every bicycle equals one less car and one\nless parking space that needs to be provided by merchants.\nCommissioner Miley said it was great to see so many young kids out tonight to speak and attend\nthe meeting and he said they were brave to bike to school.\nCommissioner Bellows replied it was great to see the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD)\nproduce such articulate children.\nMatt Winn, Central Avenue resident, said one of his kids attends Franklin Elementary School and\nhe does not see the school on the study. He went on to say that there is a whole subset of parents\nwho live on the north side and have kids who attend Franklin Elementary School. He stated that\nthere are four traffic lanes and when crossing the intersection you have to wait 30 seconds or so\nuntil one of the lanes notice and stop. However, by that time motorists start getting impatient\nbecause there are three other lanes that need to stop and you must wait for all four lanes to stop\nin order to go. He explained that he uses Central Avenue to get across the City as a motorist and\nhe would gladly give up a lane to see this plan go through, so he recommended the plan.\nScott Mace, Central Avenue resident between Webster Street and 8th Street, said he bicycles a lot\nthroughout the island. He felt bikes belong on the street because they are traffic too and motorists\nneed to respect that and most motorists do. He explained that some of the proposed bike lanes are\ntoo narrow on Santa Clara Avenue because there is a 7 foot parking lane and a 6 foot bike lane\nand this gives cyclists a foot or more to avoid the door zone. He pointed out that on Central\nAvenue staff proposed a 7 foot parking lane and a 5 foot bike lane and that is a legal engineering\nminimum. However, the bike lane is a door zone bike lane. He requested that staff either widen\nthe bike lane or revert to sharrows. He noted that some statistics are lacking in this presentation\nsuch as staff say conflicts occur at intersections, but separated facilities do not make it safer. He\nstated that they do not know what the cyclists were doing when they were injured. He felt road\ndiets are good for pedestrians, but signage must state that cyclists are not mandatory, and then\nperhaps sharrows could be painted next to the separated bike lanes. He wanted to see new\nresources devoted to pedestrian, cyclist and driver education. Ultimately, he was not in favor of\nthe plan as currently proposed because of door zone issue.\nGerald Bryan, Alameda resident, stated that the concerns are at the intersection of 6th Street and\nCentral Avenue because it is a choke point across the entire island. He said if you have an\naccident at the intersection, you will stop traffic going in each direction and that was proven last\nweek at the busiest time of the day. He felt if you cut off that line 6th Street does not go around\nthe corner except for Palace Court and that does not go anywhere. He said realistically staff\nshould look at the area a little differently such as reviewing the crosswalks on the corner and the\nlack of proper driving and poor riding on the part of cyclists. He recommended erecting\nPage 6 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 132, "text": "stoplights especially by the school to regulate traffic. He said currently, there are two poles with\nbright orange flags and that is the only way to get across the street safely. He exclaimed that\nsafety is the most important thing.\nCommissioner Bellows asked that the speakers with children line up so she can pull their speaker\nslips in light of the current time.\nCosma Hatragi, Maya Lin School student, said he bikes to school every day. He said he\nsometimes ride his bike after school to Franklin Park Pool to his sister's swim lessons. He\nexplained during his ride there are many fast moving cars and he rides on the sidewalk, which is\nnot safe for pedestrians. He thinks there should be bike lanes on Central Avenue.\nDeena Hatragin, mother, cyclist and Alameda resident, said she moved to Alameda because it is\na bike able town and she uses her bicycle for everyday transportation. She felt very strongly to\nhave her children ride bicycles as well and she hopes that more people will get out of their cars\nand onto bicycles. She heard over and over again that the City needs to make the island safe\nenough for everyone to ride, SO she approved the plan.\nMarissa Wood, Alameda Community Learning Center student, said she regularly shops at the\nfarmer's market and Webster Street businesses. She explained when coming from the west end\nand approaching onto Webster Street she attempts to bike onto Santa Clara Avenue, but the part\nof Santa Clara Avenue west of Webster Street has many stop signs and the road is hard to share\nwith cars. So, she stated that when she does not bike down Santa Clara Avenue, she will bike\ndown Central Avenue which is very dangerous. She felt the project would help all members of\nthe community because there will be parking spaces for motorists and the plan will reduce speed\nlimits benefitting pedestrians.\nJerry Cevente, 5th Street resident, thanked the Commission and staff for embarking on the study.\nHe said he and his wife have been to all of the public workshops and he has lived on 5th Street\nfor 25 years. He went on to say that he drives, walks, and bicycles on Central Avenue and it is\nharder to walk across and along Central Avenue. He said he likes seeing the amount of cyclists\nincreasing, but on Central Avenue the cyclists end up on the sidewalk. He noticed the vehicle\nspeeds along Central Avenue are a lot faster than the speed limit sign. He believed the bulb-outs\nand the flashing beacons at the crosswalks will create an advantage for pedestrians and make\ntraffic flow better. He noted that the traffic signal installed at 3rd street is good, but that will\nbend the end of Taylor Avenue and eliminate the right turn lane with the ability to turn right onto\n3rd Street. He explained that the report stated that a traffic signal on 5th Street may be erected\nand he felt it would be advantageous to have the signal sooner than later and possibly not run it\nas a true traffic signal all day, but during peak hours and then have it as a flashing red the rest of\nthe day. He brought up the fact that Webster Street and the way that you see the traffic signals\nwork on Central Avenue one light is available and then there is a turn coming up Webster Street\ngoing south has its own signal and coming up Webster north it has its own signal. Thus, each\ndirection should have its own signal. He requested that the City work with the merchants on the\nnorthwest corner of Webster Street and Central Avenue about the impact to deliveries in the\nmorning. Overall, he felt the plan is a real benefit because of the bicycle lane and narrow streets\nto have complete streets.\nPage 7 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 133, "text": "impacts on traffic going into the tube even with the development of the adjacent housing project.\nHe wondered how the planners figured there would not be a problem going into the tube. He\nrecommended that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be conducted in order to look at the\nnumber of items that have not been pushed here. He also said that a study of the changes to\nShore Line Drive has not been published.\nJerry Harrison, Alameda resident, stated that he supports the proposal. He also explained that he\nhas cycled from coast to coast and the one place that makes him uncomfortable is riding on\nCentral Avenue between Sherman and Webster Streets.\nDiane Brock, west end resident, said she is concerned about recommending the plan without the\nresearch data. She explained that staff at the last public workshop said the Planning Department\nwould conduct a traffic study on what is happening at Southshore. She asked that the study be\ndone before moving forward with this plan because the public does not need vague statistics. She\nalso felt a project of this size should have an EIS and she needed data before any\nrecommendation should be considered.\nDave Maxi, Bay Street resident, said he is not against cyclists, but he is wary of the narrow\ntraffic lanes and the behavior of cyclists. He went on to say that cyclists would arrive at the\nChestnut Street and Central Avenue stop sign and not stop. The cyclists would then go off to the\nsidewalk or crosswalk and then back onto the bicycle lane. He questioned whether the narrow\nlanes would create congestion for truck, delivery and vehicular traffic because many delivery\ntrucks double park. He also stated that it is illegal to enter the center lane to pass cars and the\nextra street trees will take up the car space and create more maintenance issues.\nDan Wood, Alameda resident, said he is in favor of the project and he heard a lot of people who\nare in support of the project. He also heard the community speak about issues which are relevant\nas well. However, he felt that the City should start with what they have proposed and they can\ntweak it to make it even better.\nGriff Neal, Alameda resident, stated that 450 homeowners who live on the south side of Central\nAvenue between Burbank and Sherman Streets are fiercely opposed to the plan. He said he does\nnot drive much, but he has to leave the island for work and family obligations. He went on to say\nthat during rush hour it will be difficult to get onto Central Avenue and the plan does not\nconsider the south side residents. He brought up the fact that there is little support from people\nattending Franklin Elementary and Saint Joseph Elementary Schools; many of whom ride their\nbicycles on San Antonio Avenue and go over to Grand Street.\nKlose Slidernagers, Shore Line Drive resident, stated that tonight's meeting addressed similar\nissues made during the Shore Line Drive proposal. He stated that the Shore Line Drive project\nwas a godsend for people bicycling or walking to the beach. He explained that before the project\nwas implemented pedestrians had to cross four traffic lanes and now speeds are much lower and\ncars are not overtaking an already stopped car. He said the outcome of the project created a huge\nimpact on bicycle and pedestrian safety. However, he was surprised by the number of cyclists\nPage 8 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 134, "text": "riding on Fernside Boulevard after including the cycle track there and he felt Central Avenue\nwill have the same outcome.\nBernie Matthews, west end resident, gave a shout out to Jennifer Ott because she's a true\nprofessional. However, he felt there are many similar issues to Shore Line Drive where parts of\nthe community, especially renters, feel the plan is ugly and inefficient. He felt Appazatto Way is\na freight train coming down the track and the project is like my way or the highway. He said he\nhas been a resident of the west end for 18 years and cycles often. He encouraged the Commission\nand staff to take a look at the traffic on Central Avenue because he does not trust the data. He\nalso pointed out that the bike group must have partnered with this project, which felt like a\nconflict of interest.\nKelly Jackson, Central Avenue and 8th Street resident, stated that she generally supports the\nproject, but she has a problem with the plan along the Central Avenue and 8th Street segment.\nLast year, she wrote the City about the intersection and she was surprised with the relatively low\nnumber of reported accidents. She felt it was a step backward for this intersection and people\nwill speed to jockey past each other to get ahead because there is a quick merge ahead of the\nintersection. She also felt this is an effort to compromise, but this is putting everyone at risk\nincluding residents and visitors.\nJulie Connor, Bay Street resident, said she understood the variety of interests and circumstances\nthat come into play. Were it not for the road diet proposed at 4th and Sherman Streets, she would\nbe in support and she felt the Commission should have more information about this intersection.\nShe referred to slide 7 of the presentation and noted there were three injuries on Sherman Street\nwithin a 10 year span and one accident within the 10 year span. She said only Lincoln and\nCentral are thoroughfares and to cross Central Avenue is already difficult. She brought up the\nsurvey data and noted that 25 percent of 4th and Sherman residents were not in favor. Also, she\nstated that the streets along San Antonio Avenue and Sherman Street will have unintended\nconsequences of extra traffic.\nBonnie Waimain, bike safety instructor, thanked staff for their work and explained that the\nbenefits of bike riding connects to better health and reduces the need for parking spaces. She\nexplained that more people would bike if they felt safe. She said the separated bike lane creates\nvisibility and predictability for cyclists and motorists. Overall, she supported the plan.\nScott Milston, Bay and San Antonio resident, said he is pro bike, pedestrian and kids on bikes,\nbut he opposed the plan because he needs good data. When he read the literature he was\ndisheartened by what he saw was one minute increases to traffic time and that memo did not\nsupport the statistic at all. He also explained that the memo readily admitted that no study was\ndone on the spillover affects to the side streets. He pointed out that the majority of tonight's\nmeeting was very pro and at the November meeting there were plenty of dissenters in the crowd.\nHe felt it was the responsibility of the Commission and staff to think of the macro effects of the\npro-growth initiative occurring within the island. Yet, the City is restricting one of the main\narteries on the island.\nRein Clostenter, Bay Street and Central resident, said he rides his bicycle to work daily to go to\nwork and supports the road diet. He explained that his mother-in-law lives on Shore Line Drive\nPage 9 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 135, "text": "and he can now ride his bicycle with his family. He stated that his children will start Franklin\nElementary and crossing Central Avenue is a barrier to get to the school. He also explained that\nhe would patronize the businesses on Webster Street more, but he does not want to take the car.\nOverall, he supported the plan.\nKaren Ratto, Caroline Street near Central Avenue resident, said she rides her bike around and\nfelt the grant money could cover the EIS. She also feared that San Antonio Avenue will take on\nmore traffic and she didn't hear much about the viability of using Santa Clara Avenue as a\nbicycle route.\nDave Kimball, Advocacy Director for Bike East Bay, said safety is a huge reason to support this\nproject and the community receives a net gain of parking which is a first. He explained if the\nCity received an endorsement from Caltrans then that says something, so they need more\npartnerships like that including working with the schools. He said his organization conducted\nshopper intercept surveys to see how modes of travel relate to consumer spending when\nconsumers walk, bike or take public transit. There were two studies conducted locally in\ndowntown Berkeley and Oakland's Temescal neighborhood in order to have local shopper data\nwhich support projects like this.\nJeffrey Berneford stated that two lanes in both directions offer a lot of flexibility for garbage and\ndelivery trucks to move around vehicles. He felt once the project is in place, a 1.6 minute delay\nwill produce a domino effect because there are three 20-second traffic signal cycles. He\nsuspected that the plan will be very unusable and he did not support the plan.\nBenty Peterson, Burbank Street resident, said she has two children and she enjoys living in\nAlameda because they can bicycle. Therefore, she supported the plan, but she had concerns with\nthe gap.\nCarol Gottstein, disabled Alameda resident, said she was struck by staff's lack of outreach\ntowards the disabled community. She explained that the disabled rely heavily on vehicles and\nshe had concerns about the 7 foot wide parking strips. She wondered what the City would do if a\ndisabled resident requests a blue curb in front of their residence. She explained the City would\nhave to construct a bulb-out of their parking space into the bicycle lane because that is what the\nresident is legally entitled to have. She also agreed with the other speakers who said the data and\nreference to the data were vague.\nMichele Elson, Bike Walk Alameda Board Member and south side of Central Avenue resident,\nsaid she is the parent of Franklin Elementary and Academy of Alameda students. She said she\nsupports the plan and felt staff did the work to show the plan is needed. She felt the plan should\nbe focused on safety because where Central Avenue comes into Sherman Street she observed\nmotorists flying through the traffic signal as soon as the light turns green. She stated if motorists\ncould slow down and drive the speed limit that may be easier to get off Bay Street or St. Charles\nand get on to Central Avenue or Sherman Street. Also, the plan will help young and older\npedestrians cross the street easier. Additionally, she said having dedicated bike lanes will provide\na continuous route on an arterial that is best equipped to handle it. Overall, she supported the\nplan.\nPage 10 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 136, "text": "Lisa Foster stated that she does not live far from tonight's meeting location and she bikes with\nher 1 and 5 year olds frequently. She said she regularly goes west towards Washington Park, the\nlibrary and other establishments. However, when she hits Sherman Street they have to go over to\nSanta Clara Avenue, a busy street with buses, so she would love to stay on Central Avenue. She\nalso said when going past Webster Street and staying on Central Avenue she is okay with that,\nbut the cars that are stuck behind her are probably not okay because they have to negotiate\naround her. Overall, she felt the proposal is a step in the right direction.\nJohn Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated that he\nrides his bicycle, drives, walks and takes public transit. He explained that he lived on San\nAntonio and Encinal Avenues so he understood the different perspectives. He said Monday\nthrough Friday from 6-7 am and 6:53 pm he has been stuck in the tube going to the Capital\nCorridor Station in Oakland. He said the intersection of 8th Street and Central Avenue is the\nchokepoint, but if they can save 16 people from being killed or injured over the next few years,\nthen 96 seconds is not a big price to pay. He was disheartened to hear former chief of police\nBernie Matthews say that traffic was more important to him because he was sure his heart bled\nevery time someone was in a collision or victim of a crime. He felt there are too many\npreventable collisions and injuries and he supported the project. Yet, if the plan had to be revised\nand there are no bikes lanes created the safest thing is to take the curb side lane, which is the\nsame thing as having a bike lane.\nLucy Gigli, Director of Advocacy for Bike Walk Alameda, stated that Central Avenue is not\nAlameda's main highway it is a neighborhood because the corridor contains housing, schools,\nparks and businesses. She said currently it is a four lane roadway with an average of seven\ncollisions per year. Staff has done an incredible job composing a detailed packet addressing the\ndiverse community and their needs. She felt it was an iterative process with many people\ninvolved. She pointed out that the result and package seen before the Commission does not\nmatch Shore Line Drive, but instead matches Atlantic Avenue, Broadway and Fernside\nBoulevard. As the report showed, the middle turn lane will make it easier for people to turn onto\nCentral Avenue from San Antonio Avenue and Bay Street. She explained that the Commission\nreceived over 200 letters and postcards of support and 72 people came that night from Franklin\nElementary and other schools, so let's support this project.\nJohn Knox White stated that a previous resident spoke about how the flags were put up on the\ncorner of Central Avenue and if that intersection is broken and not working than there it is. He\nexclaimed the question that should be asked is how many people are acceptable to hit on this\nstreet because if the answer is greater than 0 feel free to shoot it down. He said the City must\ncreate a safe environment and this is a best compromise plan. He went on to say that the City has\na 20-year experiment happening, which is Broadway. The corridor carries more vehicular traffic\nand has neighborhood streets that cross into it including driveways that enter on to the street. He\nsaid they don't have to wait for Shore Line Drive to be evaluated when they know there have not\nbeen major accidents or backups. He brought up the fact that this will be the first bike lanes west\nof Webster Street and if that is not a call for equity on the west end then that is it. He asked the\nCommission to please move forward with the project.\nBrian McGuire stated that there was a well-publicized article within the last couple of weeks\nabout two kids walking in the San Francisco Marina District with an almost identical road setup\nPage 11 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 137, "text": "(four lanes of traffic and uncontrolled crosswalks) as the area around Maya Lin School. He said\nkids think it is safe to go and someone driving 35 mph can take them out. He felt two lanes with\na center turn lane is a big difference than a two lane road. He explained that he use to live south\nof Central Avenue and motorists only have to go across one lane to get into the center lane and\nmerge. He went on to say if Caltrans approved a project it is not a takeover of the bicycle groups.\nUltimately, he supported the project.\nKaren Bay, 5th Street and Taylor Avenue resident, said she is a 15-year ferry rider. She explained\nthat she attended a transportation meeting on November 16 and was told that the ferry\nexperienced a 30 percent increase in the last two years and she has seen it. She has also seen a lot\nof people riding their bikes to the ferry and a lot of children riding their bikes to school. She said\nthe problem with Santa Clara Avenue is that it is not safe infrastructure for cyclists. So, she\napproved the project because it is important for students and commuters going to the ferry and\nfor Alameda Point as whole.\nPeter Baron stated that he organized the first bicycle symposium in Cambridge Massachusetts in\nthe 1970s and he spent his career doing waterfront redevelopment and restoration. He said he has\nnever seen a town with more bikeway and pedestrian potential unrealized than Alameda. He felt\nthe potential for the Alameda Point circumference trail is extraordinary and people will be\ncoming across the island and around the state to go there.\nLee Huo, Bay Trail Project Planner, said he supports completing the trail along Central Avenue.\nHe explained that the idea of the trail is to get along the shoreline on a Class I separated trail as\noften as possible. He pointed out that you do see alignments such as Central Avenue where the\nproject essentially completes the trail between Pacific Avenue and Crown Drive. He thanked\nCity staff and the consultants who worked diligently with the concept. Furthermore, he said the\ntrail is a regional recreation trail and significant commute alignment adopted in the Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission (MTC) regional bicycle plan and Alameda County Transportation\nCommission (ACTC) bicycle and pedestrian plan.\nJohn McKeenan stated that the Commission studiously paid attention to all the speakers and he\ndoes not see that often. He said Indianapolis, Indiana known for motor cars and racing has put\ntogether a tremendous complete street program in the last five years and has gone from\ncompletely no infrastructure to trend setting infrastructure. He cited cities such as Copenhagen in\nDenmark having 55 percent of its commuters bicycling and the rest commuting by public transit\nor private vehicles. He felt bicycling and public transit is the way the community can survive on\nthis planet. He ultimately supported the project.\nCommissioner Miley stated that he would like staff to respond to a few statements made by the\nspeakers. He explained that the last speaker hit the nail on the head about the fact that\nmultimodal communities are the future. He said he heard the concerns about loading zones\nwithin the business district and the loss of travel lanes on Central Avenue. He understood that\npeople may double park on Webster Street more often when loading, SO he asked staff to address\nand explain the plan moving forward.\nStaff Payne replied the area of concern is along Webster and Page Streets and the northwest\ncorner, which was mentioned. She referred to page 4, cross-section I, which is right next to the\nPage 12 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 138, "text": "establishment that needs the loading zone or has a lot of loading. She explained that the merchant\nis not interested in having a loading zone because that would restrict parking. So, she said double\nparking occurs and that can still happen with this cross-section. She went on to say that\nloading/unloading would occur in the bike lane in the painted buffer and motorists could go\naround. She understood that this configuration is not ideal, but it happens all the time and staff\nfelt having the bike lane blocked every now and then to load and unload was the tradeoff for\nhaving a bike lane. She also mentioned that this is a corner establishment so they could still have\nloading and unloading occur southbound on Webster Street.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff if the bulb-outs at the corner of Webster Street and Central\nAvenue will impact delivery vehicles from being able to turn whether they are going north or\nsouth on Central Avenue from Webster Street.\nStaff Payne replied staff does not believe SO and the plan was designed to accommodate trucks.\nCommissioner Miley recommended that staff work with the business district in order for the\nstreetscape to be designed appropriately for that intersection.\nStaff Payne replied staff can do that, but they are not at that level of design. Additionally, from\nwhat she has heard the area was designed a little tight so it is hard to get in and out when trying\nto park on Webster Street.\nCommissioner Miley said people shop online a lot and as a result FedEx and UPS double park\nand take the travel lane. He asked Alameda Police Department if a car double parked is in the\ntravel lane is it against the law to go around using the center lane.\nCommissioner Bellows repeated the police officer's answer and said a vehicle cannot drive into\nthe center lane just to pass a double parked vehicle, the vehicle must wait.\nCommissioner Miley asked Staff Payne what is the cost of conducting an EIR for the project. He\nalso explained that this plan is talking about paint and curb extensions. So, he wondered if an\nEIR was required and has an EIR been done for other projects similar to this plan.\nFarima Brown, Alameda Attorney's office, stated that there will not be an EIR for this project\nbecause after a lot of due diligence by staff including City Planner Andrew Thomas and herself\nthe plan is the poster child for a CEQA exempt bicycle project. She explained there are several\ngrounds for its exemption outlined in the staff report, but the strongest one is public resources\ncode 21080.20.5, which was specifically designed for this type of project in urbanized areas. She\nwent on to say the plan is statutorily exempt, which is a contrast to projects that are categorically\nexempt. Furthermore, the project is also exempt from a variety of categorical exemptions, which\nare outlined in page 15 of the staff report under Environmental Review, 15301C and section\n15304H.\nCommissioner Miley stated that other speakers compared Central Avenue to other roads such as\nShore Line Drive and Broadway. However, he felt this project is similar to Fernside Boulevard\nand Broadway, which he drives on every day. He asked staff to talk about the door zone within\nthe bicycle lanes and how they reviewed that and came up with the width.\nPage 13 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 139, "text": "Staff Payne replied they are under constrained situations and curb to curb it is 56 feet in width for\nmost of the corridor. She explained that was the best they could do and this is not a best practice\nbike way due to the door zone. Therefore, staff will have to implement public education around\nthis issue. Additionally, she felt having a separate bike space is much better than what is\navailable today.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff about the 7 foot parking spaces and the Americans with\nDisabilities Act (ADA) concern raised by Carol Gottstein. He said when he viewed the map he\nsaw some blocks with 7 foot and 8 foot spaces and he understood that some portions along\nCentral Avenue are constrained. He wondered if there will be ADA parking spaces added to the\nplan.\nStaff Payne replied there would be six ADA parking spaces added and staff has looked at the\ncorridor and they believe six would be most appropriate. The parking spaces would be located\nwest to east in front of Encinal High School, Patton Elementary, two parking spaces near the\nWebster Business District, one parking space by Washington Park and one by the Weber\nCommercial District.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff how many ADA parking spaces are currently present within the\ncorridor.\nStaff Payne replied none.\nCommissioner Miley replied so this is an addition and they would be 8 feet.\nStaff Payne replied when the area is 7 feet they would encroach into the landscape strip.\nCommissioner Miley replied so staff would not encroach into the bike lane or into traffic it would\nbe into the landscaping.\nStaff Payne said she met with WABA and they liked the two ADA parking spaces at the foot of\nWebster Street on the east and west sides. She explained that would be accommodated without\nany change and staff has not produced an exact placement, but that is the direction and their\nhighest priority is to place the spaces at the foot of Webster Street.\nCommissioner Bellows made a motion to continue the meeting since the time was now 10 pm.\nCommissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the disabled parking space issue was done in\nconsultation with disabled advocacy groups.\nStaff Payne replied no.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that the comments raised by Jean Finney (Deputy District Director\nof Caltrans District 4) as part of her comments explained the need for additional traffic analysis\nthat was also brought up by a few community members. He asked staff if it is possible to find out\nPage 14 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 140, "text": "what studies are needed and he wanted to hear from Staff Patel about his perspective on some of\nthe technical issues that are involved.\nJennifer Ott replied that they hired Kittelson and Associates who performed the traffic analysis.\nSo, Staff Patel could talk about what Caltrans might inquire about, but she would like Kittelson\nand Associates to talk about what analysis was performed.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that Caltrans was looking for additional traffic studies in order to\ngrant the City design exceptions. He explained they only cover the part between Webster and\nSherman Streets, which is a state route, and the rest does not need approval but falls on the City.\nHowever, for continuity sake he asked staff to talk about the studies Caltrans is inquiring about\nand the studies that have been done so far, including what are the challenges this project has\nfrom an engineer's perspective.\nStaff Patel replied since this project is only a study they have not done detailed traffic operation\nanalysis. However, from Caltrans' or the City's standpoint staff is conducting analysis on each\nand every traffic signal along the route and the proposed signals along the route. Yet, that level\nof detail Kittelson and Associates may have done as an overview. He explained that design\nexceptions usually go to the headquarters, which is why staff ended up having this route under\nthe City because they were asking for a standard shoulder width and the City did not have the\nstandard width.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff if the traffic and operational analysis include a review of shifts\nin vehicle traffic or only show the Central Avenue traffic or also movements to other streets.\nStaff Patel replied that staff would look into the shifts in vehicle traffic.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff when the plan would go over to engineering for detail design.\nStaff Patel replied staff reviewed the conceptual plan and made comments, but the plan is turned\nover to engineering for detail design when the final plan is approved by the Transportation\nCommission and City Council.\nCommissioner Bellows said what was happening tonight was reviewing and making a motion for\nthe conceptual plan and that was all that was funded. She said until additional funding is\nidentified they are not going forward with the design.\nJennifer Ott stated that staff has reviewed the conceptual plan with City and Coastal engineers,\nStantec Engineering, Staff Patel, Kittelson and Associates and Caltrans engineers. She also said\nthere will be additional analysis and engineering when they get into the design phase.\nLaurence Lewis, Kittelson and Associates, stated that an overview of the analysis looked at seven\nkey intersections on Central Avenue and one limitation that would be addressed is looking at the\nminor intersections as well. He said they looked at locations that have traffic signals with the\nhighest traffic volumes going west to east and during the design phase all the side streets would\nbe analyzed. Additionally, they looked at AM and PM peak hours to understand the existing\ntraffic volumes level of service and existing conditions to understand the impact. Overall, they\nPage 15 of 17", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 141, "text": "discovered there was a 1.2 minute increase in travel time going 25 mph from one end of the\ncorridor to the other stopping at all the traffic signals and experiencing delays there. He pointed\nout that the limitations did not account for people shifting to cycling or walking or account for\npeople diverting to other routes. He heard several comments about the 8th and Webster Street\nintersection and some of the compromises made for the bike lanes were for vehicular operations\nand level of service. When he met with the Commission earlier in the year there was a level of\nservice identified at the location. He said they reviewed the intersection in consultation with the\ncommunity and the City and revised the concept so the intersection could operate at the level of\nservice.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that several intersections were called out as needing attention.\nHe wondered how staff analyzed those intersections, specifically whether traffic signals or new\ntreatments were necessary. He said one speaker stated there should be a light at 6th Street and\nCentral Avenue another speaker stated a traffic signal is needed at 5th Street and yet another", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 142, "text": "Apd\nALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nMINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING\nDATE:\nThursday, October 11, 2012\nTIME:\n7:02 p.m. Called to Order\nPLACE:\nCity Hall Council Chambers\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nVice Chair Delaney, Commissioners Lola Brown and Ann Cooke\nAbsent:\nChair Restagno and Commissioner Sonneman\nStaff:\nAmy Wooldridge, Recreation & Parks Director\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nApprove the Minutes of September 13, 2012 Recreation & Park Commission Regular Meeting\nM/S/C\nBrown, Cooke (unanimously approved)\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA\nSpeaker - Robert \"Bob\" Ploss, of the Aquatic Task Force, an Ad Hoc Volunteer group,\naddressed the Commission as an individual by stating he would like to see an aquatic center\nas part of the Beltline project. He would like to be involved in the process.\nSpeaker - Dorothy Freeman, of the Jean Sweeney Open Space Committee (JSOSC), is very\ninterested in being involved with this project and being part of the process. She provided a\nbrief on how dedicated Ms. Sweeney was to acquiring the land and keeping it open space.\nSpeaker - Helena Lengel, Biology Department of the College of Alameda, stated she also\nworked with the JSOSC on the ballot measure to acquire the property. She would like to stay\ninvolved with the development of the land. She would like to see the students of the College be\ninvolved from a scientific study standpoint and learning environment, such as sample testing\nand measurements.\nSpeaker - Jim Sweeney, husband of Jean Sweeney, delighted this project coming to fruition.\nJean never gave up on this, which started in 1998 at a meeting at Mastick Senior Center. The\nresult was that everyone wanted open space for walking, and bike paths and she was able to\nget 1,000 signatures and the initiative passed. Jean was lucky enough to find the original\ncontact for the buy-back and she was there every step of the way.\n4.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n5.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nBeltline Property - Staff Wooldridge provided a map handout of the Beltline project\n[Attachment A] and the land to be developed, which has become part of the City of\nAlameda, although Union Pacific still owns a section along the southern portion. She\nexplained the details of the Rail Banking Agreement and its restrictions, specifically a\n30-40' path that must remain dedicated to a rail line for future use.", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 143, "text": "Recreation Commission\nMeeting Minutes - October 11, 2012\nPage 2\nThis is the very start of the community input process for the project, and the\nCommission's task is to determine what the input process will entail. Commission will\nlead the process with Wooldridge. Staff suggested the following potential process:\nInitial community meetings in January or February with outreach including\nmailing to residents, press releases, posting on web and email, flyers onsite\nand contacting potentially interested user groups. This initial community\nbrainstorm process would help determine the uses at the Beltline.\nThe second step Council approval of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a\nconceptual landscape design, paid by the City's available dedicated Open\nSpace Funds.\nThe next step would be additional community meetings to review the\nconceptual design.\nOnce the conceptual design and cost estimate are complete, then Staff can apply for\nState Funds such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Prop 84. The LWCF\napplications are due by Nov. 1, 2013 so that goal is to complete the process prior to\nthat. Both of these funding sources are geared toward open space, which could include\nactive elements such as community gardens, bike and walking trails, playgrounds, etc.\nIt\ndoes not include funding for athletic facilities such as a swim center or fields. These\nare harder to fund and would require other funding sources.\nVice Chair Delaney - Are there limitations to lean one way or the other?\nDirector Wooldridge - The only limitation is the Rail Banking Agreement which requires\nthat the 30'-40' area along the length of the Beltline remain available, but there is\nnothing specific as to where that path is to be. Funding sources are also a factor.\nMember Brown - Due to the amount of time Ms. Jean Sweeney dedicated to this project\nwe should be conscious about taking our time with the process and getting it right. By\nlooking at the map it looks like a smaller amount of property than the full Beltline.\nMember Cooke - When will the project be accepting proposals and will those proposals\nbe for mixed-use, a combo of uses?\nWooldridge - The community can provide input at the meetings. As we move forward\nwith input, we will have a better idea on timelines. This group should think about mixed-\nuse, an active recreation, parking issues (i.e., open space requires less parking), and\nfunding.\nDirector Wooldridge - Asked for feedback on community meeting.\nMember Brown - January is a good idea, after the holiday, and location should be\ndiscussed, along with whether to have meeting on a Saturday or week day.\nVice Chair Delaney - Evening meetings are good, weekends could work for some\npeople who travel for work. It would be best to have community leaders, membership\ngroups to provide outreach.\nMember Cooke - Many in the community have little knowledge of this Beltline area.", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 144, "text": "Elks Hoop Shoot event won an Elks National Award. Local youth groups and at our\nafter school sites, will send kids who shot the most free throws out of 25 throws.\nThese finalists will then compete in the finals in January 2013.\nTeens are working hard on their Haunted House at South Shore.\nMastick Open House had 17 vendors and approx. 265 participants. Everyone\nenjoyed themselves and were encouraged to visit the vendors through a bingo\ngame. Staff plans to increase the number of vendors next year. Good revenue and\nhelpful information for the seniors.\nReceiving good feedback on the tennis courts resurfacing. Leydecker, Longfellow\nand Franklin have been done, with Washington underway. This is a Measure WW\nfunded project.\nRitler Park lawn is almost fully restored. Became brown due to an adjacent pump\nstation project that cut the water and electrical lines for irrigation.\nKrusi Park is out to bid, information is available online.", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 145, "text": "Recreation Commission\nMeeting Minutes - October 11, 2012\nPage 4\nEncinal Boat Ramp - Wooldridge met with the California Dept. of Boat and\nWaterways for potential funding of a full renovation. If chosen, they will provide\nengineers to create a conceptual design and cost estimates which are then used to\napply for funding in April 2013. Typically the boat ramp is non-operational in winter\nbut these improvements would make it available year-round and potential add\nanother dock for non-motorized craft. Also was approached by the O'kalani Canoe\nClub who is interested in coming back to Alameda and making their home at the\nEncinal Boat Ramp.\nCity Council November 20 - Lease Agreement with Alameda Soccer Club will be\ndiscussed. These are the fields currently leased to Piedmont Soccer.\nMiracle League of the East Bay - Previous agreement with ARRA needs to be\nrevisited. Waiting to hear back from Miracle League to see if they are interested.\nMeyers House - looking at transferring the House to the Alameda Museum. On the\nHistorical Advisory Board agenda on 11/1/12 then going to City Council for\ndiscussion in January or February. Museum has a 5-year capital improvement plan\nfor the house.\nCurrently negotiating with the Ala Costa Centers to provide space for an afterschool\nprogram for developmentally disabled children.\nWoodstock Park baseball field renovation was funded by a 2004 State Grant and is\nmoving forward with a community meeting scheduled for October 24th\nMayor's Tree Lighting is December 1st.\nCity website is being revamped\nAlameda won American's Promise Alliance 100 Best Cities for the 3rd year in a row.\nThe second round of Recreation Specialist interviews have been completed and\nstaff are confirmed: Dennis McDaniels, Christina Bailey and Mariel Thomas.\nARPD will host an Open House for staff, Commission and Council on Halloween,\n10am-Noon. Please join us if you are available.\nC. Other Reports and Announcements - None\n8.\nSTATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS - None\n9.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL - None\n10.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA\nUpdate on Beltline next steps\n11.\nSET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, November 8, 2012.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT\nM/S/C Cooke, Brown and unanimous\nAW:sb", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 146, "text": "LINCOU AVENUE\n0\n00\n200\n300\n400\n500\nGOO 700 800 900 1000\n2000\nSCALE IN FEET\nAPN: 74-905-20-03\nAPN: 74-905-20-03\nAREA: 4, 91.07 : S.F\nAREA: 4,323.04 S.F.\nABL PARCELS\nOR 0.096 ACRES\nOR 0.010 ACRES\nPARCEL 2\nPARCEL 4\nPARDEL 26\nATLANTIC AVE.\nABL TRACK\nATLAN\nSTA.12\nSTEWART\nPARCEL 3\nAPN:.74-906-32-05\nSTA.|\nAREA: I 4,809.23 S.F.\nA. U. SCHOOL DISTRICT\nAPN:\n74-905-20-03\nOR 0.340 ACRES\nAREA\n11,527.55 S.F.\nP'ARCEL 26\nALASKA PACKERS\nOR 0.265 ACRES\nPARCEL\n|\nSHEET I OF 3", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 147, "text": "AM\nP.M. 2938\nE\nCOAST\nLOT\nLOT 2\nDIVISION OF THE LANDS\nis\nALASKA BASIN AND\nENCINAL INDUSTRIES INC OF\nLOT 3\nFORTM\u00c1N BASIN\nA\nR\nCLISTOD SLAND\nP.M. 5435\nS\nLOT\n8,\nP.M. 4564\n-\n\u00a7\nP.M.5158\nATLANTIC AVENUE\nLOT 4\nLOT 3\nP.M.-5852\nn\nLOT-5\nLOT /\nLOT |\nLOT 2\nP.M. 5158\nP.M.5158\nAPN:74-906-32-12SAREA\nAPN: 74-906-32\nALAMEDA BELT LINE YARD\nRak\nAREA: 696,2\nOR 15.983 AERES\nPARCEL 23\nen\nMORITY\n||\nSTALL\nSTALE\nSTAT\nis\n15\nSTAJO\nS AUTHORITY\nis\n51\nM 2996\nALAMCOA HOUS/NG AUTHORMY\n15\nEVENCE\nEAGLE AVENUE\nEAGLE AVENUE\nEAGLE AVENUE\nDEL MONTE\nto\nis\nis\nI\nDEL/MONTE\nBUENA VISTA AVENUE\nV\nBUENA VISTA AVENUE\nBUENA VISTAjAVENUE\n(BUENA VISTA AVENUE\nune\nOF\nPACIFIC AVENUS\nPACIFIC AVENUE\nACIFIC AVENUE\nOR O.518 ACRES\nLINCOUN AVENUE\nUNCOLN AVENUE\nLINCOUN AVENUE\n\u00e0\nSCALE: 1\" = 150'\nO\n100\n200\n300\n400\n600\n700\n800\n900\n1000\n2000\n500\nSCALE IN FEET\nH\nDEL N\nis\nEAGLE AVENUE\nCLEMENT AVENUE\nIIAPN: 72-364-14\n73.54 S.F.\nOR_0.0017 ACRES\n/PARCEL 27\n(BUENA VISTA AVENI\nAPN: 72-383-\nAREA: 197,33.72 5.F\nEAGLE AVENUE\nOR .453 ACRES\nLITT\nBUENA\nXING N 18.1.25\nPARCEL S\nSHEET 2 OF 3", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 148, "text": "E IO W 133HS\n1331 NI JIVOS\n000Z\n0001 006 009 00Z 009 009 00\u20ac 007 00\n0\n,09 I DIVOS\nNI/NMOHS\nMOVEL NOIN\nIVM\nN30711\n9661 'ON\nSV\n00+0 ngv IV\nGIHOIS asvord NOINO\n&\nN\nt\n0\n7\nto\n1261\nto\nSt\nabod\nS\n&\nM\nw\n]\nby\nN", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 149, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, January 7, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 7:25 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 5, 2008.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of November 18, 2008.\n2-C. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 2, 2008.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Mariusz Lewandowski dba\nWoodmasters at Alameda Point.\n2-E. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Alameda Soccer Club at\nAlameda Point.\n2-F. Authorize the Sale of Four Boston Whalers to NRC for $44,500.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions:\n0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of SunCal's Draft Redevelopment Master Plan.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, addressed several topics\nactively discussed in the community and clarified that tonight's update is for information only,\nneither staff nor SunCal has requested formal action on the Master Plan. It is an opportunity for\nthe community to comment on the draft Master Plan and for the ARRA Board to provide\nfeedback to SunCal. Because SunCal's plan is not consistent with the City's charter, as it\nproposes a mix of residential structures that include multi-family rental and condo projects, this\nmaster plan can only be approved by a vote of the people. SunCal anticipates placing its plan\non the ballot for the communities' consideration in November of this year, and the ENA requires\nSunCal to notify the City no later than April 30 if it plans to proceed with the ballot initiative.\nTonight's presentation is part of the ongoing community dialogue that will continue over the next\n18 months, as the City and SunCal negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)\nfor the long term redevelopment of Alameda Point. Two key issues have been the focus of\ndiscussion: 1) the concept of a public trust modeled on the Presidio trust for Alameda Point, and", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 150, "text": "2) the amount of the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) investment in the Alameda\nPoint project and whether or not that investment of redevelopment dollars adversely impacts the\nCity's general fund which is responsible for financing critical city services.\nMs. Potter discussed the Presidio conveyance model - a transfer from military ownership via\nspecial legislation to the National Park Service and was not subject to BRAC requirements - it\nwas determined that the same conveyance model is not feasible for Alameda Point. Alameda\nPoint is subject to BRAC, was previously screened for other federal agency uses, was screened\npursuant to the McKinney-Vento act for homeless uses, and is required to be conveyed at fair\nmarket value for private ownership and reuse. The ARRA is working with the Navy to negotiate\na conveyance term sheet to transfer the property and provide for its ultimate reuse as a mixed-\nuse community that generates jobs, provides housing for all incomes, and opens up the\nwaterfront and creates new recreational opportunities for Alameda and the region. To achieve\nthat goal, the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SunCal.\nMs. Potter addressed the issue of tax increment funds, clarifying that there cannot be a pledge\nof tax increment funds without a DDA, approved by the City Council and CIC in public following\na public hearing, therefore, any approval of tax increment funding will only happen after input\nand participation from the community. If tax increment funds are raised through the sale of tax\nincrement bonds, those bonds are secured and repaid solely by tax increment funds generated\nin the Alameda Point Redevelopment Project Area (APIP), and in no way obligate the City's\ngeneral fund. Based on current projections of the property value to be created by the build-out\nof the master plan, staff anticipates that a maximum of $184 million of tax increment will be\ncreated over the life of the project. This number is well short of the $700 million being\nreferenced in the community. It should also be noted that large portion of the $184 million is\nrestricted to the production of affordable housing.\nFurthermore, several years ago, the City Council adopted a resolution stating that all base reuse\nactivities must pay for themselves and be fiscally neutral to the City's general Fund. The\nCouncil recognized the task of integrating former military property into the larger Alameda\ncommunity would have a cost in terms of a need for the increase police and fire services, more\ndemand on Parks and public libraries, and increased maintenance of new roads and\ninfrastructure, and that cost should be borne by the new development. SunCal's draft Master\nPlan is supported by a Business Plan that provides for fiscal neutrality.\nMs. Potter introduced Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point Project Manager, who presented the\ndraft Master Plan via Powerpoint presentation. Following the presentation, there were several\nspeakers who discussed various issues about the draft Master Plan.\nMember deHaan is concerned about some issues in the draft Master Plan, specifically regarding\nthe plans for residential development, the sea level rising, and transportation issues. He also\ndiscussed the plans for the Sports Complex and that the plan has not changed, except for the\nprice. He continues to have strong reservations.\nIn response to public comment, Member Gilmore asked SunCal to explain its financial viability,\nthe effect of the bankruptcies of other projects, predevelopment funding and where that money\ncomes from, what happens during the predevelopment period if SunCal doesn't come up with\nthe money, and how SunCal sees the financing unfolding once we get to a DDA.\nMr. Keliher explained that throughout ENA period, SunCal is required to reimburse the City for\nany expenditures, and deposit money to spend on predevelopment dollars. This is done every\nquarter and is audited. Once we get through the ENA period, and the DDA period, and", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 151, "text": "determine how to actually finance the project, once the land is conveyed, there are several\ndifferent mechanisms, including debt & equity. With regard to the bankruptcies on the other\nprojects that SunCal was the operator on, not necessarily the owner of, most all of those were\nLehman projects. When Lehman filed bankruptcy and decided to not fund SunCal, SunCal\ndecided, involuntarily, to throw each of those projects into bankruptcy in hopes of forcing\nLehman to start to fund those. These projects are independently financed and structured and\nhave absolutely nothing to do with the Alameda Point project.\nMember Gilmore reiterated the concern regarding SunCall's ability to fund predevelopment\nexpenses. Mr. Keliher explained that if SunCal defaults under the ENA and doesn't perform, it\nis simply over. He further stated that, to date, SunCal has deposited all the funds. Both\nMember Gilmore and Mr. Keliher clarified and confirmed that the ARRA is not obligated in any\nway to reimburse SunCal for the predevelopment funds that have been spent.\nThere was discussion about the historic structures. Mr. Keliher is in agreement with the Board\nthat it's not the wisest move to proactively rip down the structures, and that SunCal will work\nwith staff on working out a process of evaluating the best direction.\nMember Matarrese offered comments for consideration, including requesting detail of\ncommercial space, and what impact of those spaces would be with regard to traffic and truck\nroutes, and the industrial-type uses. Member Tam also asked about industrial uses, mixed-use\nand residential. Peter Calthorpe described another similar project in San Jose where there was\na\nbalance of use in the commercial, civic, and retail areas. He stated that industrial\ndevelopment needs to be treated in special way, explaining that it has not yet been determined\nwhether there are industrial users that are appropriate for this site and that should be part of the\nmix.\nMember Tam asked about the BCDC sea level rise, and the 24\" that one speaker mentioned.\nMr. Keliher responded that he has heard various levels, but that no one has come out with\nspecific number to design to, an issue that SunCal does not want to ignore. Member Tam\nstated that we are at the point of our best and last opportunity to provide an economic stimulus\npackage without public subsidies or a tax on our general fund. This draft Master Plan produces\neconomic growth, a realistic transit system, and that the phasing will make it flexible enough to\nrespond to varying economic conditions, whether it's 15 years, or the next 20-30 yrs. Member\nTam stated her appreciation to staff and SunCal that the plan has been vetted very thoroughly\nwith the community.\nMember Gilmore asked what would happen if the City breached its obligations under the ENA.\nDonna Mooney, Asst. General Counsel, replied that the ENA is a contract and if the City doesn't\nfulfill an obligation to it, it would be considered a breach of contract. SunCal would have a legal\nremedy to this breach, which could include asking a court to make us come back and continue\nnegotiating, or it could be that the contract is terminated and we give back the $1 million\ndeposit.\nMember Matarrese clarified that tax increment bonds are sold based on tax increment at the\ntime the bond is sold, not based on the development for which those bonds will spur. Ms. Potter\nconfirmed and explained that, typically, when you go to the market with debt and desire to raise\nmoney through the sale of bonds, the project has to be at least three years into its development\nso that the underwriters and folks interested in purchasing the bonds have an expectation of the\ntrack record and then projections about the increment that will be generated over the life of the\nproject.", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 152, "text": "At Chair Johnson's request, Ms. Potter summarized the process and milestones of the ENA so\nthat the public understands that this is not the end of the process.\nThis report was for information only and no action was taken by the Board.\n3-B. VA/Navy Presentation Regarding the Navy/VA Federal-to-Federal Transfer at Former\nNAS Alameda.\nMs. Potter gave a brief overview about the 600 acres on western portion of Alameda Point\nproperty. The Navy and VA have been in discussion for many years about its plans for the\ndevelopment of the portion of the wildlife refuge property. She introduced Claude Hutchinson of\nthe VA. Mr. Hutchinson gave his presentation via Powerpoint to the Board and community,\nsummarizing the status of the fed-to-fed transfer The plans include a 50-acre above-ground\ncolumbarium, a site for a VA outpatient clinic, and a non VA-owned hospital. Other presenters\nincluded Patrick McKay of the Navy BRAC office; Dr. Ron Chun, VA outpatient clinic site\nmanager; Don Reiker, National Cemetary Assoc. regional director; Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset\nManager of the VA; and Jayni Alsep, the VA's environmental consultant from EDAW.\nChair Johnson clarified for the public that the ARRA is not a part of the transaction between the\nNavy and the VA, and has no decision-making power in this transaction. She stated her\nappreciation to the VA on its presentation and all its efforts for community involvement. Chair\nJohnson also stated that although the ARRA has no control over this issue, we might be able to\ncooperate if the VA was willing to look at other areas of the base.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of December 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese stated that the Dec. 4 RAB meeting was 1/2 Christmas party and 1/2 highlights\nof the coming year's projects.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 153, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - MARCH 15, 2016--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:01 p.m. and Councilmember\nEzzy Ashcraft arrived at 6:05 p.m.]\nAbsent: None.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16-124) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of Litigation\nPursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code. Number of\nCases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiated Legal Action).\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:02 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 154, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2016--7: P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:09 p.m. A member of Troup 73 led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(16-125) Mayor Spencer did a reading for the Season of Non-Violence.\n(16-126) Mayor Spencer announced the Water Emergency Transportation Authority\n(WETA) would be holding a meeting at City Hall on April 7th at 7:00 p.m.\n(16-127) Proclamation Declaring March 2016 as Women in Military History Month.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Army Veteran Julie Thelen.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(16-128) Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda commended the former Interim\nCity Manager and welcomed the new City Manager.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the Investment Policy [paragraph no. 16-131], the\nAnnual Report on Alameda Landing [paragraph no. 16-133], the Settlement Agreement\nwith Renewed Hope [paragraph no. 16-135], the Two Year Port Services Agreement\n[paragraph no. 16-136], and the Resolution Approving the Final Map [paragraph no. 16-\n138 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*16-129) Minutes of the Special Meetings and Regular City Council Meeting Held on\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 155, "text": "February 16, 2016. Approved.\n(*16-130) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,079,295.47.\n(16-131) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda Investment Policy.\nOutlined changes made to the Investment Policy: Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the changes are in the Section 3e.\nThe City Treasurer responded that the section reflects the City's objectives and\ncommunity desires, not just State Policy; the addition to the section is coal based\nindustries; any coal based companies will be excluded.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the policy prohibits 51% of gross revenues from\ncigarettes, gambling or alcohol products, yet 0% of any coal based products, to which\nthe City Treasurer responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City currently invests in any coal based company.\nThe City Treasurer responded in the negative; stated the restriction will not have an\nadverse effect on the risk or return of the portfolio.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether CalPers has the same restriction.\nThe City Treasurer responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the changes to the Investment Policy are a good\nstatement for Alameda and impact climate change and global warming.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(*16-132) Recommendation to Endorse the San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution\nPrevention, and Habitat Restoration Program June 7, 2016 Ballot Measure. Accepted.\n[630-30]\n(*16-133) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report on Alameda Landing\nTransportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and Review the\nRecommendation to Expand the Transportation Management Association (TMA).\nCouncilmember Daysog read a report on the upward trajectory of the number of people\ntaking the shuttle; stated there has been a lot of movement with regard to Citywide\ntransit.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 156, "text": "Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(*16-134) Recommendation to Approve Revision of Underground Utility District Policy to\nHave Four Members of the Public Appointed to the Underground Utility District\nNomination Board Rather Than Three. Accepted.\n(16-135) Recommendation to Amend Section 4.1 of the 2001 Settlement Agreement\nwith Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, Arc Ecology, the Former Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (now \"the\nCity\"), the Alameda Housing Authority, and Catellus Corporation to Allow Site A at\nAlameda Point to Move Forward with Building Senior Affordable Housing Units Where It\nHad Previously Been Restricted.\nStated there is a need for senior housing; Renewed Hope supports the addition of more\nsenior housing: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(16-136) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Documents\nNecessary to Implement the Terms of a Two Year Port Services Contract with Bay Ship\nand Yacht Company at Alameda Point.\nUrged acceptance of the contract with Bay Ship and Yacht; stated the company has\nbeen in Alameda for 22 years and employees 350 people: Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship\nand Yacht.\nStated Bay Ship and Yacht is a great contributor to the Maritime industry; urged\napproval of the Bay Ship and Yacht contract due to the experience and relationship with\nthe community: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce.\nUrged approval of the Bay Ship and Yacht contract: Chad Peddy, Bay Ship and Yacht.\nUrged approval of the Bay Ship and Yacht contract: David Mik, Power Engineering.\nStated Bay Ship and Yacht is proactive in addressing environmental cleanup for the\nproperty they took over; they are committed to remediating the property and protecting\nhuman health and the environment: Amy Wilson, TRC Company.\nStated Bay Ship and Yacht has invested over $20,000,000 in the infrastructure;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 157, "text": "managing the customers in the business is a part of their core structure; the company\nwould like to continue to work in Alameda: Allen Cameron, Bay Ship and Yacht.\nStated the decision making process for awarding the contract was not handled in a fair\nmanner; there is lack of transparency; the criteria described to him significantly differs\nfrom the final analysis; additional consideration is warranted before a final decision is\nmade: Kevin Krause, TKO Environmental and Marine Services.\nStated Bay Ship and Yacht does quality work and takes care of its customers; he\nstrongly supports the Bay Ship and Yacht contract: Robert Cullmann, Chamber of\nCommerce and eon Technologies.\nStated Bay Ship and Yacht has a contract with College of Alameda to train people to be\nin the industry and create jobs upon graduation; urged approval of the Bay Ship and\nYacht contract: Kari Thomson, Chamber of Commerce.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the issues raised by Mr.\nKrause.\nThe Assistant City Attorney listed the criteria itemized in the RFP; stated that Mr.\nKrause's issues are that TKO was the lowest bidder, Bay Ship and Yacht adjusted their\nprice before the interviews, and the price should have been weighted heavier than it\nwas; TKO has as much, or more experience than Bay Ship and Yacht; outlined the\nsteps in the bid dispute process; stated he is confident that staff followed the process;\nthe Request for Proposal (RFP) listed 7 criteria that the City uses in the decision\nmaking.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the 7 items in the criteria were.\nThe Assistant City Attorney read the 7 criteria.\nMayor Spencer inquired what responsiveness to the RFP means, to which the Assistant\nCity Attorney responded completeness.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that before the interviews of the bidders, the scope of\nthe RFP changed; Bay Ship and Yacht lowered their price, while TKO and a third bidder\nkept the price the same.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Bay Ship and Yacht's original price was $54,000 while\nTKO was $36,750, which is a $17,250 difference per month, 30% more, on a two year\ncontract, which equates to over $200,000 per year, to which the Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the affirmative.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the price was not the determining factor in\nselecting Bay Ship and Yacht.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 158, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff took into consideration all 7\ncriteria, not just price, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Bay Ship and Yacht will be using a maintenance\nsoftware to keep track of all the maintenance and services requested and performed;\ninquired whether TKO will also be using maintenance software.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated TKO did not mention they would\nuse any special software; it was compelling for the Bay Ship and Yacht proposal; the\nCity thought the tracking device to be important.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the City spoke with TKO about providing the special software\nif it was a deciding issue.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated it was not the deciding factor, it\nwas one of many elements.\nMayor Spencer stated staff did not ask TKO if they could offer the special software.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated the applicant is responsible for\nproviding their qualifications and level of service; the City understands the sensitivity of\ncost; staff felt it was okay to go with the higher bidder because of the level of service;\nthe current port manager will be paying $530,000 annually for rent.\nMayor Spencer stated it does not mean that the City has an extra $200,000 to give\naway.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated the City is not giving the money\naway; the City is getting a service.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether only Bay Ship and Yacht adjusted their price\nwhen the scope of work was changed, not the other two bidders.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated after interviews with the three\napplicants, the City decided to remove the Bilge Oily Water Treatment System\n(BOWTS) in the scope of work and Bay Ship and Yacht adjusted their cost.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if Patriot kept their cost the same.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded that Patriot elected not to\nbid on the project.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the $36,750 was the same price that was bid\nprior.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded that Bay Ship and Yacht's\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 159, "text": "bid is still higher than TKO.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired what the total budget is for maintaining the piers and the\nport.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded $325,000 annually for the\nport management services and $100,000 for maintaining the piers as a line item.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired what is the value of the revenue that comes to the port.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the Maritime Administration\n(MARAD) ships pay over $2 million a year to the City.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether Power Engineering is also present at the port.\nThe Community Development Director responded Power Engineering will be moving\ntheir barge to Pier 1 and paying the City $11.00 per linear foot.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to\nexecute documents necessary to implement the terms of a two year port services\ncontract with Bay Ship and Yacht Company at Alameda Point.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer stated the difference between the two bids is\nsignificant and staff should justify spending the difference prior to bringing it to Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Bay Ship and Yacht's proposal appears to be more\nthorough; he is confident that the City is making the right decision with Bay Ship and\nYacht and the quality of service they provide; it is important to look at the quality of the\nproposal, not just the dollars and cents.\nMayor Spencer stated what Bay Ship and Yacht does for the community needs to be\nseparate from the contract.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\n(*16-137) Recommendation to Accept the Work of MCK, Inc. for Repair and\nResurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 34, No. P.W. 04-15-07. Accepted.\n(16-138) Resolution No. 15132, \"Approving the Final Map and Bond, Authorizing\nExecution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and Accepting the Dedications\nand Easements for Tract 10305 (2100 Clement Avenue). Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 160, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted no on the project and would remain\nconsistent.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\n(*16-139) Resolution No. 15133, \"Confirming the Terms and Conditions for\nCompensation for Alameda Fire Department Responses Away from their Official Duty\nStation and Assigned to an Emergency Incident (Mutual Aid).\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-140) Resolution No. 15134, \"Appointing Michaela Tsztoo as a Member of the\nCommission on Disability Issues.\" Adopted;\n(16-140A) Resolution No. 15135, \"Reappointing Arthur Kurrasch as a Member of the\nHousing Authority Board of Commissioners.\" Adopted;\n(16-140B) Resolution No. 15136, \"Appointing Tina Landess Petrich as a Landlord\nMember of the Rent Review Advisory Committee; and\n(16-140C) Resolution No. 15137, \"Appointing Robert Schrader as a Landlord Member\nof the Rent Review Advisory Committee.\" Adopted.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates of\nappointment to Ms. Tsztoo, Mr. Kurrasch and Mr. Schrader.\n(16-141) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents\nNecessary to Implement the Terms of a Ten-Year Lease with Two Ten-Year Renewal\nOptions and an Option to Purchase with Alameda Point Redevelopers, LLC for Building\n8, Located at 2350 Saratoga Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director and Ted Anderson, Cushman and\nWakefield, gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the market rate calculation is market rate after the\nmoney has been put into the building during the lease.\nMr. Anderson responded that the calculation assumes a shell cost.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 161, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated the calculation is not the money that is being put in during the\nlease, to which Mr. Anderson responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired why the property is not currently leased; questioned why the\nCity is doing an option to purchase.\nMr. Anderson responded the building is not leasable in its current condition.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a tenant could lease the building and make the\nimprovements.\nMr. Anderson responded it is possible, stated the building was marketed to everyone\npossible; a lessee's focus is typically to run their business, not to take on a renovation\nbefore they can even start their business.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City had tried to lease the building.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the building has been on\nthe market since the Base closed without any bites because of the investment required;\nbuildings now have the purchase options to allow tenants to get the money to make\nimprovements; tenants want to own the buildings; ownership is used to leverage\nfinancing; in order to move difficult buildings, people want to own them to get financing;\nthe building is in the adaptive reuse zoning area, which gives the future end user\nflexibility; the old buildings need a lot of money to restore them; it is imperative to offer\nthe opportunity to own to allow people to get money and invest.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether in the scenario the City currently owns the property\nand is now providing an option to purchase, to which the Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City has not had the money to\nrehabilitate the building.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the buyer would pay into the master\ninfrastructure program if the option to purchase was exercised.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the City set the price of the\nbuilding to cover the fair share of infrastructure cost; the price has gone up to capture\nthe infrastructure investment on waterfront properties and buildings that are desirable;\nthe money goes into an infrastructure fund; the owner can use the money to make\noffsite improvements that the City would have to make anyway.\nMr. Anderson responded the owner needs to use the money in the first 24 months after\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 162, "text": "they purchase or the money goes into the General Fund.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired on the amount of the infrastructure fund.\nMr. Anderson responded the amount is $1.8 million.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what is the developer's commitment for making repairs\nto the infrastructure of the building.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded that the tenant is putting\n$10 million in the purchase price and $8.5 million worth of improvements into the\nbuilding; the total investment in the building is $36.5 million.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the building is just leased and not purchased what\nwould be the price.\nMr. Anderson responded the lease would be $1 million as the lessee completes repairs\nthe first year; another $1 million year 2, and another $1 million year 3.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the total would be\napproximately $3.4 million dollars.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what it would cost the City to bring the building up to a\ntenantable situation.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded to make the building\nhabitable, would cost $8.5 million.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the lessee has to put in as a part of the lease.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the $3.4 million is only the\ninfrastructure burden; the lessee would have to pay rent and the Citywide Development\nFee.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the money to make the building habitable is a\nrequirement of the lease, to which the Assistant Community Development Director\nresponded in the negative.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded there are benchmarks in\nthe lease stating the lessee would have to spend $3.4 million; the aggressive rent\nincreases are designed make the lessee make the necessary improvements.\nMr. Anderson stated as time goes on, it will be more expensive for the lessee to have a\nbuilding that cannot be occupied.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director continued the presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 163, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if work/live spaces are currently a part of the\nzoning for the area, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded\nin the affirmative and continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is anything to encourage the 500 employees to\nuse public transportation or bike to work.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded Alameda Point is part of a\nTransportation Demand District; stated there are a limit number of parking spaces\navailable; tenants will pay into a TDM program and will be encouraged to use public\ntransit.\nMayor Spencer inquired if tenants will need to provide public transportation alternatives\nto their employees.\nMr. Anderson responded the building resides on 3.4 acres; the employees will need to\nfind alternate means of transportation to work.\nMayor Spencer inquired how the City would know the employees will not be parking in\nsurrounding neighborhoods.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that every tenant or property owner will have to\nprepare a TDM Plan Compliant Strategy and comply with the Alameda Point TDM; they\nwill have to pay per square foot; tenants will be required to pay annually into the\naccount; the fund will provide shuttles in the peak hours and provide bus passes to all\nemployees; tenants will be required to submit a compliance strategy to the City.\nMayor Spencer stated they do not have to buy a bus pass, they can bike or walk; she\ndoes not want to have 600 more cars on the road and related parking.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the overall TDM Plan is designed to encourage trip\nreduction goals and meet the requirements of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).\nMayor Spencer inquired if anything requires the employees to not drive a car to work.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the TDM provides frequent and reliable\ntransportation services so that people get out of their cars; stated the land is leased to\nthe tenants by the City so the parking could be enforced; the TDM makes sure people\nhave options for transportation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there is good evidence that the shuttle system is\nworking; the 15 minute headway turnaround will be good for commuters.\nCouncilmember Oddie questioned where the 600 new cars figure came from; stated\nthere would be only be 480 new jobs and 110 temporary; the temporary jobs will expire\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 164, "text": "before the new jobs; a portion of the jobs will be jobs work/live units with tenants living\non the premises; a portion may take the ferry into Alameda; a portion may walk; for\nthose coming into the Island, it will be a reverse commute.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the strategy is to provide more jobs and balance\nthe housing on the Island.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many work/live units will there be.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded that the work/live housing is highly restrictive;\nstated the tenants would have to obtain a commercial license; the building is\ncommercial use under the zoning.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether people will be living there; requested an estimate on\nhow many units will be work/live units.\n***\nCouncilmember Oddie left the dais at 9:00 p.m. and returned at 9:02 p.m.\nJonah Hendrickson, Alameda Point Redevelopers, gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many housing units will be in the building.\nMr. Hendrickson responded the current work/live zoning would allow for 100 units based\non the Alameda Municipal Code and the square footage; stated the issue of use will be\nfurther discussed by the Planning Board during the master use permit process.\nMayor Spencer stated it is appropriate to discuss the number of units; inquired how\nmany people per unit.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the term work/live means that tenants\nwould live and work in the same place and a commute would not be a part of the\nequation, to which Mr. Hendrickson responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired if a couple lives in the unit do both occupants need to work\nthere or only one.\nVivian Kahn, Alameda Point Redevelopers, stated the work/live ordinance was\nspecifically crafted to ensure the units are commercial spaces; it allows a maximum of\n30% of the floor area to be devoted to residential uses and be no more than 400 square\nfeet; at least one of the people occupying the space must have a business license and\nbe conducting business; the ordinance is very strict and explicitly states the work/live\nunits are for commercial use.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the tenants would be working in Building 8; inquired\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 165, "text": "whether the tenants have to work in Building 8 or if they would be allowed to work in the\nCity.\nMs. Kahn responded that a business license goes with the address and cannot be\ncarried to another address.\nStated the project will benefit the Alameda Point; the developers will be putting $8\nmillion into the building before the lights can even be turned on; selling the building is\nthe best option for the City; the tenants would like to give back to the community with\napprenticeships and internships for youth: Michael McDonough, Chamber of\nCommerce.\nStated Building 8 is an adaptable building; he has worked on many large buildings like\nBuilding 8 and it takes a while to rehabilitate the large buildings: Dick Rutter, Alameda.\nStated that she is a banker and the option to purchase makes sense from a finance\nstandpoint; it is creating jobs, which creates an economic engine for the City and tax\nrevenues; urged Council to approve the project: Kari Thompson, Chamber of\nCommerce.\nStated Epic Middle School is a stem school; all the students take engineering design\nand fabrication; there is a need for space in Alameda for students to work with skilled\ncraftsmen as they prepare themselves for the workforce; read a letter from Florine\nRoper urging Council to support the project: Francis Abbatatatuono, Epic Middle\nSchool.\nStated that he leases a space from Mr. Hendrickson why he transformed and cleaned\nup a once dilapidated building; Mr. Hendrickson will apply the same dedication to his\nwork and tenants for the adaptive reuse of Building 8: Brandon Canchola, Treasure\nIsland Woodworks.\nRead different statements from tenants and community members of Berkeley regarding\nthe Berkeley Kitchen Project; urged Council to support the project; stated Mr.\nHendrickson will apply the same vision at Alameda Point: Adan Martinez, City of\nBerkeley, Economic Development Manager.\nStated that he works on behalf of landlords and tenants; he supports the project\nbecause warehouse and manufacturing space is needed; velocity and demand are\npresent in the marketplace, the product is absent: Jeff Starkovich, Cushman and\nWakefield.\nRead a letter from Greg Harper with AC Transit Board who supports the project; stated\nthe adaptive reuse of Building 8 will be a greatly designed makerspace; strongly urged\nsupport of the project: Vivian Kahn, Alameda Point Redevelopers.\nRead a letter from Mayor Tom Bates of Berkeley in support of the project; discussed the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 166, "text": "rehabilitation Mr. Hendrickson did on the Berkeley Kitchen Project; stated the adaptive\nreuse of Building 8 will surpass the success he achieved with Berkeley Kitchen: Kiran\nShenoy, Berkeley Landmark Preservation Commission.\nStated allowing the project at Building 8 will attract more small businesses and allow\nthem to have commercial success; urged Council approval of the project; read a letter\nfrom owner of Mission: Heirloom, Berkeley Kitchens; stated Berkeley Kitchen has\nallowed him to grow his business: Alain Shocron, La Noisette Sweets.\nRead a letter from Berkeley Councilmember Darryl Moore; stated Mr. Hendrickson\ntransformed a once vacant, landmark designated building into Berkeley Kitchens; the\nadaptive reuse of Building 8 will meet or exceed the success of Berkeley Kitchens; the\nCity of Alameda will be greatly enriched by the development genius of Mr. Hendrickson:\nRyan Lau, Legislative Aide, Councilmember Darryl Moore.\nStated Mr. Hendrickson's designs enliven community and are very accessible to the\ncommunity; the City needs someone who can take the massive scale and bring it down\nto make it accessible to the community: Elisa Mikiten, Architect.\nStated Mr. Hendrickson is a developer who equally prioritizes profit, people and the\nplanet; science, technology, engineering and math are used adding arts, innovation and\nentrepreneurship; read a letter of support from Janet Smith-Heimer, President of Bay\nUrban Economics; stated Mr. Hendrickson has a strong and effective reuse\nentrepreneurship and will create a lively makerspace community which will foster the\nCity's goals for reuse and economic development in creative industries: Emylene\nAspilla.\nStated that he is a tenant in one of Mr. Hendrickson's buildings; Mr. Hendrickson turned\na\nrundown old machine shop into a sleek, clean hub of studios and workspaces for\nartists and small business owners; Mr. Hendrickson is a great developer; he strongly\nsupports the project; Alameda providing a place for artists to go would be great so that\nthey do not have to move to other places in the country: Patrick Dooley, Shotgun\nPlayers Theater.\nStated Mr. Hendrickson is a developer that follows through on projects; Mr. Hendrickson\ndid a great job on Berkeley Kitchens; urged support of the project: Carrie Olson,\nBerkeley.\nSpoke in support of Mr. Hendrickson and the work he did on Berkeley Kitchens; stated\nhe will do the same for the Alameda project and the tenants will be happy because the\nproject fills a need: Craig Boon, Nuthouse Granola.\nRead a letter from Wendy Ross; urged support of Alameda Point Redevelopers creating\nan environment that supports the needs for small businesses in the community; stated\nthat she has the upmost confidence they will do an extraordinary job on the project:\nDalia Juskys, President of the Bank of San Francisco, Wendy Ross.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 167, "text": "Stated that he is the owner of a makerspace in Oakland where kids and families can\ncome and do large projects; he supports the project and hopes to be a tenant in\nBuilding 8: Parker Thomas, Steam Factory.\nRead two letters from tenants of Berkeley Kitchens: Christy Kovacs, Muffin Revolution\nowner, stated Mr. Hendrickson is a great manager and would be a great candidate for\nthe project in Alameda; stated the Berkeley Kitchens created a collaborative working\nenvironment for all the tenants; stated Mr. Hendrickson's vision for Building 8 is\nunsurpassed: Leslie Jacobowitz.\nRead two letters from supporters of the project: Steven Camarretto and Jesse Rosalles;\nurging approval of the lease for Building 8 which will fit the character and needs of the\ncommunity; stated the inclusion of Mr. Hendrickson and his team would only benefit the\nresidents of Alameda; Mr. Hendrickson will be an excellent landlord and the project will\nwork: Ira Jacobowitz.\nStated his company is a diverse operation, which hosted 35,000 people in their tasting\nroom last year alone; the Building 8 project can host food producers, artists, makers and\nthere is room for a lot of success stories in Alameda: Chris Jordan, St. George.\nRead letters from tenants of Berkeley Kitchens: Shrub and Co. owner Juan Garcia\nstated: since moving into Berkeley Kitchens their business has grown; Mr. Hendrickson\nwill do the same in Alameda; the City and citizens will be lucky to have him; Kathleen\nFrumkin stated: Mr. Hendrickson created such a positive use of space in Berkeley that\nis extremely rare to find; urged Council to support the project: Barbara Hendrickson.\nRead two letters urging Council to go forward with the project; one from a very happy\ntenant at Berkeley Kitchens and the secretary of the landmarks preservation committee;\nstated Mr. Hendrickson has a track record of rehabilitating buildings into spaces that\nprovide local artisans and makers an opportunity to run their businesses; urged Council\napproval of project: Alex Orloff, Berkeley.\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:16 p.m.\n***\nMayor Spencer inquired where the presentation speaks of the work/live discussion.\nThe Community Development Director responded that the work/live discussion is not in\nthe presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a potential of 270 work/live units; inquired\nwhat is allowed in the building; stated the building can be sold for anything within the\nzoning.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 168, "text": "The Base Reuse Director responded the tenant could submit an application for a\nconditional use permit and say they want to do 270 work/live units; the current project\nstates the tenant does not want to do any more than 100 work/live units.\nMayor Spencer stated the 100 work/live units is not in the presentation.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded 100 units is a land use decision that the City has\nnot discussed yet; stated the City has left open the flexibility for the developers to do a\nnumber of commercial uses; when the developer gets into the design, there is flexibility\nto come up with a plan and submit an application; ultimately, the City Council will make\nthe decision.\nMayor Spencer stated there is a potential of 270 housing units; inquired if 270,000\nsquare feet is allowed within the zoning.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the zoning does not give the developer the right or\nability to build work/live units; a conditional use permit is required.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there is the potential in Building 8.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded only if the Planning Board approves the request\nand the City Council upholds the Planning Board approval.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the person who arrived at the sales price valued the price at\nthe potential of having 270 work/live units.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded the building has been valued as commercial use\nbecause work/live is commercial use; stated the building is not financed as residential;\nthe project is restrictive in the way that it is structured; it is priced and zoned as\ncommercial use.\nMayor Spencer stated it is zoned for work/live; the City's zoning states that every unit\nmust be up to 1,000 square feet and Building 8 is 270,000 square feet.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded approval of work/live units would have to go to the\nPlanning Board and could be called for review by Council.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a sale price is being agreed upon, to which the Base\nReuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the price includes the value of work/live units, to which\nMr. Anderson responded in the negative; stated basing the value on work/live is not\nappropriate.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many buildings in the area allow work/live.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 169, "text": "The Base Reuse Director responded work/live is a conditionally permitted use for the\nadaptive reuse area.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Base Reuse Director stated the use is\nallowed on 1/3 of Alameda Point.\nMayor Spencer stated with all the community discussions regarding housing at the\nPoint, the potential of the buildings being flipped has not been discussed.\nThe City Manager responded that a condition of approval could be added limiting the\namount of work/live units.\nMayor Spencer stated work/live should have been included in the presentation and\ntaken into consideration in the pricing; there has not been transparency with the\ncommunity; there it is a potential impact on the community.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated there is a housing parameter at the former Base; the fact\nthat the building is being adaptively reused is an important factor to consider; the\nbuilding currently has negative value and is costing the City money; he is ready to vote\nto support the project; one reservation is the cost to rehabilitate the building; another\nreservation is that Building 8 is ten times the size of Berkeley Kitchens; urged\naccelerating selling the building; proceeding is worth taking the risk to get the revenue\nstream.\n***\n(16-142) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda\nitem on the wetlands mitigation bank [paragraph no. 16-143].\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of considering the remaining item.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the testimony from the people who have worked\nwith the developer is great feedback; the project will be creating jobs; the development\nis needed; there are safeguards regarding the housing and work/live units; she is ready\nto support the project.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what the Assistant Community Development Director's\nrole is in these types of situations.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded that she took an active role\nin investigating the financials of the applicant, going on site visits, and looking at other\nprojects done by the applicant; stated she wants to ensure the City would get something\nout of the deal if it fails.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 170, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Assistant Community Development\nDirector's job is to get the best possible deal for the City.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nwith leases at Alameda Point, the fund is very delicate and in demand.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the deal is the best possible the City could get\nfor Building 8.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nCity was able to get a deal with more infrastructure for the building.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the Assistant Community Development Director's job is to\nmaximize what the City can get from any deal; any implication that the Assistant\nCommunity Development Director is not looking out for the best interest of the City is\nfrustrating; one of the priorities of the Alameda Point Master Plan is to generate new\neconomic development and employment opportunities; read some of the City's goals\nfrom the Master Plan; stated that he supports the project.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the cost for developing Building 8 is doubled; each\nproject should contribute towards major infrastructure; Alameda values the historic\ncharacter of the site and wants to reuse the sites; these are the types of businesses and\nindustries the City wants in Alameda; he supports the project; in terms of the\neconomics, the City has done its due diligence; the traffic generation from the work/live\nhousing would be less than typical housing.\nMayor Spencer stated according to the staff report, the work/live spaces are not\nconsidered residential and are not considered housing under the Navy's residential\ndevelopment cap; it is important to be transparent for the community.\nVice Mayor stated the debate over the number of work/live units can be done at the use\npermit stage.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of staff executing the lease [introduction of the\nordinance].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4.\nNoes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\n(16-143) Response to City Council Referral Regarding a Possible Wetlands Mitigation\nBank at Alameda Point.\nThe Base Reuse Director began her presentation.\nMayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 171, "text": "The City Clerk stated the previous meeting went past 11:00 p.m., and the agenda for\nthe April 5th meeting is full and the meeting might go past 11:00 p.m., which would\nrequire the Council to add meetings.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the matter could be adjourned to the next meeting.\nThe City Attorney stated the Council is not continuing the item, it will be re-agendized.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNot heard.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNot heard.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNot heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNot heard.\nADJOURNMENT\nIn order to not continue past 11:00 p.m., Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:59\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nMarch 15, 2016", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 172, "text": "OF\nTERKA\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2006\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL: Members Avonnet Peeler, Michael Rich, Michael Robles-Wong, and Executive Secretary\nKaren Willis.\nABSENT:\nMember Roberto Rocha.\nSTAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Senior Management Analyst, and Stacey Meier, Administrative Assistant,\nHuman Resources.\nOTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the regular meeting of July 12, 2006 were presented for Board\napproval. Member Peeler moved to accept, Member Rich seconded, and carried by\na\n3-0 vote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR: Member Rich moved to accept the consent calendar with the exception of 4-D,\nwhich he asked to pull for discussion. Member Peeler seconded, and carried by a 3-0 vote.\nSUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE\nMONTHS OF JULY, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2006:\n4-A ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAdministrative Management Analyst\n9/12/2006\n206-44PR\nAdministrative Tech Il\n8/23/2006\n206-41PR\nAssistant Engineer\n8/15/2006\n206-36\nCustomer Service Representative\n7/20/2006\n206-09\nElectrical Helper\n9/13/2006\n206-47\nFire Apparatus Operator\n9/19/2006\n206-08PR\nIntermediate Clerk\n7/20/2006\n206-34\nJourney Lineworker\n8/7/2006\n206-26\nPermit Technician I\n7/3/2006\n206-25PR\nPermit Technician III\n7/3/2006\n206-24PR\nPermit Technician III\n8/28/2006\n206-43\nPlanner I\n7/18/2006\n206-38\nPrincipal Executive Assistant\n9/20/2006\n206-59PR\nSupervising Planner\n7/27/2006\n206-29", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 173, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 2\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 4, 2006\n4-B\nELIGIBLE LISTS EXTENDED:\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nEMS Education Coordinator\n4/13/2005\n205-10\nFire Captain\n10/12/2005\n205-46PR\nJailer\n10/20/2005\n205-48\nMaintenance Worker I\n3/1/2006\n205-58\nMaintenance Worker Il\n3/23/2006\n205-65\nPlanner III\n4/5/2006\n206-15\nPublic Safety Dispatcher\n3/10/2006\n205-25/26\n4-C\nELIGIBLE LISTS EXPIRED/\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nCANCELLED/EXHAUSTED\nACE (Land Dev & Trans)\n3/3/2006\n205-24\nAdministrative Technician\nI\n8/12/2005\n205-45PR\nAssistant City Attorney I-II\n2/2/2006\n206-12PR\nCATV Technical Operations Superintendent 4/11/2006\n206-061\nEngineering Supervisor\n3/28/2006\n206-17PR\nExecutive Assistant\n10/22/2004\n204-54\nFacilities Maintenance Worker\n2/15/2006\n206-06\nPlan Check Engineer\n3/28/2006\n206-05\nPlanning Services Manager\n4/21/2006\n206-21\nPolice Sergeant\n9/15/2004\n204-38PR\nProgram Specialist I/II\n2/23/2006\n205-64\n(Community Programs)\nPublic Works Maintenance Team Leader\n3/16/2006\n205-59\n(Concrete)\nPublic Works Supervisor\n8/17/2004\n204-37\nSales and Service Supervisor\n2/23/2006\n205-52\nSupervising Civil Engineer\n3/23/2006\n205-55\nSystem Dispatcher\n3/17/2006\n206-07\nTransportation Planner\n3/3/2006\n205-63\nUtility Construction Compliance Specialist\n3/15/2006\n205-66\n4-D\nLIST OF SPECIFICATIONS:\nAssistant Line Superintendent (Revised)\nComputer Services Coordinator (Revised)\nJailer (New)\nPrincipal Executive Assistant (New)\nPublic Safety Dispatcher (New)\nRedevelopment Manager (Revised)\nSenior Public Safety Dispatcher (New)\nTransportation Coordinator (New)\nDiscussion: Executive Secretary Willis explained that the reason there are a high number of new\nspecifications listed on the agenda is due to the fact that many positions were re-assigned from a\nbroad classification to more specific classifications with new titles as part of the PANS contract", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 174, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 3\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 4, 2006\nagreement. Board President Robles-Wong asked whether the new classifications created a\ncompetitive situation for the individuals who were re-assigned into a new job title, and questioned\nwhether or not those individuals were required to re- test. Executive Secretary Willis stated that\nnone of the individuals involved were required to re-test for their positions. Board President Robles-\nWong expressed concern that if the Civil Service Rules were not followed, the employees who were\nre-assigned were not being protected by the system that was designed to do just that.\nHe\nsuggested that there should be a special meeting called in cases when individuals are involved.\nMember Rich also requested a special meeting to discuss personnel actions and procedures, and\nMember Peeler agreed. The Board agreed that a special meeting would be scheduled for mid-\nNovember. Member Rich moved to approve item 4-D with the understanding that staff will agendize\na separate item on the next agenda to provide procedural background on the reclassification\nprocess. Member Peeler seconded the motion and was carried by a 3-0 vote.\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A\nActivity Report - June 1, 2006 through August 31, 2006.\nExecutive Secretary Willis presented the Board with Turnover Statistics as requested by Board\nMember Rich at the July 12, 2006 meeting. She stated that the report showed percentages of\nresignations, retirements and other separations for Miscellaneous and Safety employee groups\nback to the year 2001. She explained that resignations had risen significantly in the last two years.\nMember Rich asked if there was any idea why. Executive Secretary Willis stated that some\nemployees obtained jobs in other cities for better retirement or due to the fact that they had not\ngotten a pay increase with the City, and others had resigned for personal reasons.\n5-B\nProposed Change to Civil Service Ordinance, Section 2, Merit Principal 3.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that she had spoken with the City Manager regarding the\nproposed change to the Civil Service Ordinance. She explained to the Board that the City Manager\nwould like the Board to review the entire Ordinance and make any and all changes all at once due\nto the fact that it must go before Council before any changes are adopted. Board President\nRobles-Wong stated that he had spoken briefly with the City Manager as well, and he does not\nhave any issues with changing the entire Ordinance at once.\n5-C\nReview of Civil Service Ordinance No. 2130\nDiscussion: Regarding staff suggested changes, Executive Secretary Willis explained that\ndepartment head titles have changed over time and thus, Section 4 (c) needs to be changed, as\nsome of the listed position titles no longer exist. She stated that Human Resources staff will put\ntogether recommended changes and suggested language before the next Civil Service Board\nmeeting. Board President Robles-Wong asked if there is another term that can be used besides\n\"permanent\" as stated in Section 8, since there is no such thing as a \"permanent\" employee.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that the usual term is \"regular\". Board Member Rich stated that\nsome wording was either too broad or too narrow. Executive Secretary Willis stated that she will\nagendize the Ordinance and Rules review for the special meeting in November.\n5-D\nRule Change- Article VIII. Appointment, Section 1. Certification of Eligibles and Section 2. Method\nof Appointment.\nExecutive Secretary Willis explained that Human Resources had failed to send the Rule Change\nnotification to the Bargaining Units as required. These have been sent and it is anticipated that the\nBoard will be able to approve as its next meeting.", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 175, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 4\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 4, 2006\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nReferring to the Turnover Statistics presented with the Activity Report under 5-A, Board Member Rich\nshared his concerns regarding the rising number of resignations from Miscellaneous Employees as\ncompared to the low number of Safety employee resignations. He encouraged the City to resolve this\nmatter as quickly as possible. Executive Secretary Willis stated that they are working on it and are getting\nmuch closer.\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nExecutive Secretary Willis explained that Mr. Michael Soderberg, who was supposed to have been the new\nBoard Member, moved to Southern California between submitting his application and being notified of his\nappointment and that consequently, he would not be appointed. She stated that the City is soliciting\napplications for Civil Service Board Members.\n9.\nThere being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis\nHuman Resources Director &\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 176, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, June 24, 2010\n1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL President Wasko called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.\nPresent were: Vice President Villareal, Soglin, James, Dailey, and Biggs. Absent was: Nielsen\nStaff: Franz\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nThe Minutes of the Regular March 25, 2010 meeting were\napproved as corrected (Biggs/Soglin) and the Minutes of the Regular April 15, 2010 were approved\nas presented (Dailey/Soglin)\n3.\n3-A. RESOLUTION COMMENDING OUTGOING MEMBER JONATHAN SOGLIN\nA Resolution commending member Soglin's service to the community as a SSHRB member was\nread by President Wasko and approved by the Board -M/S (Villareal/Dailey) Unanimous (Soglin\nabstained). The Resolution was presented to member Soglin, and Vice President Villareal expressed\nhis pleasure working on ATAH with member Soglin. President Wasko thanked him for his help with\nthe Dental Clinic.\nThe Board suspended business and held a brief reception in member Soglin's honor.\n3-B.\nA REQUEST FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE A LETTER\nOF SUPPORT FOR THEIR SUBMITTAL OF A SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL\n(SRTS) GRANT\nStaff distributed sample letters of support for a SRTS Grant being applied for by City of Alameda\nPublic Works, and explained that they are requesting that the board provide a letter in support of their\neffort to secure the grant. The funds would be used for capital improvements in targeting Franklin\nand Wood. Some of the grant would be used to provide safety education.\nWhile the Youth Collaborative has already voted to provide a letter of support, they voiced concern\nthat similar improvements were needed at schools on the West End and that Public Works should be\nencouraged to apply for additional funds for these schools. They also hoped that the funds to provide\nsafety education from the current grant could be used for West End schools.\nThe Board voiced support for the current grant, but also had interest in a second letter regarding\nSRTS improvements for West End schools, after more information could be collected. Board\ndiscussion included a 2004 grant to create a study related to needs on the West End. Traffic issues at\nChipman were also discussed a should be considered in drafting a second letter.\nIt was agreed that the Board letter should include explanation of the Board's purpose/mission, and\nthat the educational component of the grant should be highlighted. Member Biggs noted that it might\nbe best to support this grant proposal as written rather than suggest changes that might adversely\nimpact the success of the grant.\nM/S (James/Soglin) to write a Letter of Support for the SRTS grant being submitted by Public\nWorks. Unanimous", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 177, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinutes of the Special Meeting, June 24, 2010\nPage 2\nIt was agreed to have staff gather additional information before a second letter is drafted.\nM/S (James/Villareal) to write a letter to Public Works (Ccing other departments as appropriate)\nencouraging them to use the current grant request as a model for improvements in other\nneighborhoods, and to add relevant information gathered from the 2004 Survey and any information\navailable regarding traffic surveys. Unanimous\n3-C.\nPARTICIPATION IN THE MAYOR'S 4TH OF JULY PARADE\nDiscussion regarding the Board's participation in the Parade included our need for a \"single drop\"\ntrailer to make it easier to get off and on, the need for people to help build the float, and people to\nride on the float.\nM/S (Villareal/James) for the Board to support and participate in the parade, and to authorize up to\n$250 for supplies. Unanimous\n3-D.\nNOMINATIONS OF OFFICERS\nStaff explained that while the Board can make nominations at this meeting, they will need to wait\nuntil there is a fully constituted Board before they can vote.\nMember Villareal nominated President Wasko for President and Member Biggs nominated Vice\nPresident Villareal for Vice President.\nM/S (James/Soglin) that nominations be closed. Unanimous\n3-E. WORK GROUP PROGRESS REPORTS\nAlamedans Together Against Hate Workgroup - Villareal\nIt was suggested to write a letter to former Police Chief Tibbett thanking him for working with the\nBoard. ATAH can write a letter themselves rather than waiting for it to be agendized.\nSister City Workgroup - Wasko\nThere will be an Exhibit of sister City Photographs at the Free Library the entire month of August,\nwith a reception on August 12th. The group is still seeking a pro-bono / reasonable lawyer to apply\nfor tax exempt status.\nResource Sharing Workgroup - Biggs\nThe workgroup (Biggs & Dailey) met with member Nielsen to discuss how they could work in\npartnership with the A&AW. Ideas", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 178, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinutes of the Special Meeting, June 24, 2010\nPage 3\n4. BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n-\nStaff suggested: taking off either July or August, waiting until after the elections to meet with the\nnew Mayor and City Council, and having a \"meeting of the whole\" work session to discuss Board /\nWorkgroup plans for next year. The work session would include discussing the upcoming needs\nassessment.\nMember Biggs announced that a book vending machine in front of the APC offices would have its\nGrand Opening on June 30th It holds 900 books, and 300 new library cards have been issued on the\nWest End. This machine is the 1st of its kind in the country. He also mentioned that it would be good\nto encourage positive discourse during the upcoming election.\nPresident Wasko echoed Member Biggs concern.\nMember James announced that he and Member Biggs were present at the city council meeting\nrepresenting the Board's CDBG recommendations.\nMember Villareal voiced concern regarding the West End taking the brunt of cuts resulting from\nMeasure E not passing.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Information - 3 minutes per speaker\n6. ADJOURNMENT\nM/S (James/Soglin) to adjourn. 8:50\nRespectfully submitted,\nJim Franz\nCommunity Development Coordinator", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 179, "text": "of\nof\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., JULY 29, 2019\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:32 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Secretary Nancy Bronstein, Nancy Elzig via teleconference, Bill\nSoderlund. Absent: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft\nStaff: Elliott Otto, Finance Representative, Chad Barr, Human Resources\nTechnician.\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 28, 2019 were moved for\nacceptance by Trustee Soderlund and seconded by Nancy Elzig. Passed 2-0\n(Soderlund abstained due to absence from January meeting). The minutes of\nthe Regular Meeting of April 29, 2019 were moved for acceptance by Trustee\nElzig and seconded by Trustee Soderlund. Passed 3-0.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending June 30, 2019\nand City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the\nPeriod Ending June 30, 2019.\nFinance Representative Otto explained the quarterly reports. There was\na\ndecrease from the prior month due to Lucymay Schrieber, 1079 Pensioner,\npassing away. Offsetting the decrease was the uniform allowance being paid\nout. Representative Otto further explained the quarterly financial report showing", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 180, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, July 29, 2019\nPage 2\nthat $732,657 would be moved to pay down unfunded liability. This will be\nreflected in the September 2019 statement.\nTrustee Elzig asked what are the contractual services listed. Representative\nOtto replied those are actuarial costs. Trustee Soderlund asked how often than\nhappens and Representative Otto replied he thought it was every 2 years, but\ncould check.\nTrustee Elzig moved to accept the financial statement as presented and Trustee\nSoderlund seconded. Passed 3-0.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):\nThere were no oral communications from the public.\n6.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):\nThere were no oral communications from the Board.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:41 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nme\nNancy Bronstein\nHuman Resources Director", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 181, "text": "APPROVED PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES\nMONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2012\n1. CONVENE:\n7:04 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nVice-President Burton\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent:\nPresident Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board\nmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, and Knox White.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster arrived for item 7-A\nBoard Member Henneberry Arrived during item 7-A\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR:\n6-A.\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Pending and Recent Actions and\nDecisions.\n6-B.\n2013 Meeting Calendar\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to approve the consent calendar.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nMotion carried 4-0; no abstentions.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n7-A.\nEconomic Development Strategy for Alameda Point - Presentation by Keyser\nMarston Associates of a proposed economic development strategy for Alameda\nPoint.\nDevelopment Manager Eric Fonstein gave a brief introduction of the job-based Strategy and\nintroduced Keyser Marston Associates' consultants Tim Kelly and Ernesto Vilchis who\nprovided a summary of findings via PowerPoint presentation.\nConsultant clarified for Board Member Knox White that the vision for Alameda Point is to\nbuild upon existing businesses and uses, i.e., food, maritime, recreation and breaking\nAlameda Point into smaller pieces.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 6\nNovember 26, 2012", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 182, "text": "Board Member K\u00f6ster clarified with the Consultant that current businesses such as St.\nGeorge got started on existing infrastructure by breaking larger building into smaller spaces\nand are models for future businesses. The five prototypes selected for study represented a\nbroad spectrum of criteria.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with the Consultant their role in commercial\ndevelopment at other bases. KMA's services included developing business terms and they\nwere very much involved in the implementation of the economic development strategy,\nespecially developer selection. Consultant helped identify which developer entity/team had\nthe financing, the vision to realistically put tenants into the buildings. Board Member Ezzy\nAshcraft asked for examples of having tenants as ambassadors. Consultant clarified that\nMcClellan Air Force Base actually created a marketing opportunity for existing businesses.\nIn response to her inquiry as to where lease revenues go, Alameda Point Chief Operating\nOfficer Jennifer Ott responded that funds primarily go into the maintenance of City services\nat the base and property management, also into a \"rainy day\" fund. Ms. Ott confirmed that\nBuilding 5 is one of the most contaminated buildings at the Point and will not be controlled\nby City until 2019.\nPresident Zuppan asked the Consultant to clarify whether there were any parallels with\nother bases with main gate entrances for both commercial and residential uses. Consultant\nresponded that there are multiple entrances to Alameda Point that can be primarily for\nresidential but residential was not a part of this analysis. In response to infrastructure\nneeds, Consultant responded that telecommunications are important. Infrastructure will be a\nchallenging exercise and stressed the need to be flexible and able to accomplish\nincrementally.\nPresident Zuppan opened public comment.\nCheryl and Byron Zook, Alameda Point Studios, spoke in favor of the Strategy and\ncommented on the success of their business and desire for expansion and long-term lease\nto take advantage of their improvements.\nDavid Mik, Power Engineering and Construction, spoke in favor of the Strategy and\ncommented on their desire for long-term lease.\nRichard Bangert, resident, commented on desire for improvements at Enterprise Park,\ncreating amenities to attract businesses.\nDoug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC), expressed disappointment in their lack of\ninvolvement in this Strategy and that the Standards of Reasonableness were ignored in the\nanalysis. APC brings in jobs and sales tax revenue and is worth noting.\nWilliam Smith, resident, concurred with Doug Biggs' comments and spoke in favor of\nStrategy, noting concern about amenities and infrastructure.\nKaren Bey, resident, spoke in support of Strategy, noting concern about housing and how it\nhelps pay for infrastructure. City is challenged by lack of funds for branding and marketing.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 6\nNovember 26, 2012", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 183, "text": "Need to make Alameda Point a high-profile project.\nJon Spangler, resident, spoke against Strategy but in support of comments made by\nprevious speakers Bangert, Biggs, Smith and Bey. No clear vision at Alameda Point after\nseveral plans completed. Issues still needing to be addressed include open space, Measure\nB and transportation. Piecemeal approach to infrastructure will be more costly than a\nmaster development.\nHelen Sause, HOMES, urged Board not to call a good marketing analysis a strategy. Not\nsure how mix-use dream can be achieved without integrating residential. Urged Board not to\nlose vision of walk to work.\nIrene Dieter, resident, commented on actual branding missing from the Strategy. Need to\nclarify what it is we want people to think of when they think of Alameda Point.\nPresident Zuppan closed public comment.\nMs. Ott stated the City is willing to discuss long-term leases with tenants but must also\nconsider future development plans. She stated Standard of Reasonableness was an\noversight in the Strategy and should be incorporated.\nIn response to Board Member K\u00f6ster's inquiry as to the process of incorporating the\ncomments from tonight's meeting, Lori Taylor, Community Development Director, noted that\ncomments/changes would orally be presented to Council on Dec 5. Board Member K\u00f6ster\nreiterated that housing and transportation are very important issues in Alameda.\nBoard Member Knox White commented that Strategy reads more like a marketing proposal\nand concurred with others that there is no real clear vision. Ms. Taylor clarified that since\nthe time the Planning Board packets were distributed; KMA completed the narrative that\nwent out in the Council packets. President Zuppan recommended that the presentation to\nCouncil state that the Planning Board did not see the narrative.\nBoard Member Knox White questioned when City is going to prioritize efforts. Current\nservices of property management company should be addressed. He questioned why\nStrategy recommends targeting specialty foods when Harbor Bay has land and already\ncarved out this niche. He commented on the need to better streamline leases and signage.\nAlso a need to have long term discussion about zoning and vision. A timeline needs to be\ndeveloped. New market tax credit should be part of Planning Board's recommendations.\nVice-President Burton endorsed the comments made by Board Member Knox White. He\ncommented that vision should be broader than Alameda Point and should be a vision for all\nof Alameda. He noted the need for short, medium and long term strategies/goals which\nwould include the need to have a road map for development and permitting, creating a\nsense of place/town center, building upon our strengths and understand the reasons why\nthese companies are located at Alameda Point, and the idea of some sort of annual festival\nat the Point.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 6\nNovember 26, 2012", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 184, "text": "Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted this was a good report. She suggested trying to find a\nway to market the Point to Alameda residents so they could become familiar with the type of\nuses out there. She noted the need to pursue the film industry and position ourselves to\ntake advantage of opportunities. She emphasized the community's desire for a mixed use\ndevelopment.\nBoard Member Henneberry noted that a certain amount of industrial space needs to support\nmaritime uses at the Point. He stated he supports submitting the Strategy to Council.\nPresident Zuppan stated that she agreed with other board members who didn't feel like this\nwas a strategy, but a step in the process to develop an economic development strategy.\nShe noted that a lot of hard choices need to be made regarding what to fund. Tenant\nmanagement should also be addressed.\nBoard Member Knox White suggested holding off the presentation of the Strategy until the\nnew Council is seated.\n7-B.\nPublic Hearing on an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Tentative\nMap for 89 Lots at 1551 Buena Vista Avenue (APN72-384-21. The project was\noriginally published as 69 lots. The Planning Board will consider approval of an\nInitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Marina Cove II, 89 residential lots\nand a Tentative Map within the area bounded by Ohlone Street, Buena Vista\nAvenue, Clement Avenue and Entrance Way (currently occupied by the Chipman\nCompany). The site is zoned R-4-PD, neighborhood residential with a Planned\nDevelopment overlay.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief presentation.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified with staff that the six lots fronting Buena Vista would\nhave access from Buena Vista via 3 shared driveways on Buena Vista and not side street\naccess.\nStaff noted that that Parcel Map was approved several years ago for fewer units. Units were\nincreased to meet the City's housing requirements.\nBoard Member Knox White clarified with Staff that Tentative Map is establishing a Parcel 53\nand that dotted lines are adjustable or not necessary if designed in a different way. Project\nwill contain 52 single-family lots and 1 multi-family lot with up to 37 units.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster clarified that the shared driveways are throughout the site and not\njust on Buena Vista. Material for 20-Foot Emergency Vehicle Access will be under future\nconsideration.\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to extend the meeting to 11:30.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster seconded the motion.\nMotion carried, 6-0; no abstentions.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 6\nNovember 26, 2012", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 185, "text": "President Zuppan opened public comment.\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to reduce speaker time to 3 minutes.\nBoard Member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nMotion failed, 3-2-1 K\u00f6ster abstained; no quorum. Speaker time will remain 5 minutes.\nWilliam Smith, resident, noted that the design has improved, although he is still concerned\nabout fulfilling the capacity for the Housing Element.\nHelen Sause, HOMES, spoke against the density of each parcel and suggested that condos\nmight take advantage of the great views over the estuary and relieve the density of each\nparcel. Integrating affordable homes would be a much improved social aspect of the\ndevelopment.\nJohn Spangler, resident, noted that he was not in favor of the Marina Cove I development\nand not in favor of this proposal.\nDiane Lichtenstein, HOMES, concurred with comments made by speakers Sause and\nSpangler. Distressed with lack of number of affordable units and design.\nLaura Thomas, Renewed Hope, commented that more affordable housing units are\nneeded, although pleased with the proposed 37 unit multi-family housing lot.\nKaren Bey, resident, spoke in favor of the project and encouraged approval.\nPresident Zuppan closed public comment.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster r noted concerns about courts, Buena Vista frontage, and emergency\naccess. Staff clarified that decisions on courts A, B and C can be postponed until layout of\nmulti-family buildings is finalized. Multi-unit housing can be increased at a later time. Map is\nbeing addressed tonight and not the architecture. What's referred to as \"Street C\" in report\nshould be \"Street B\". There is no \"Street C\".\nVice-President Burton motioned to extend the meeting to 11:50.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nMotion carried, 6-0; no abstentions.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster commented that he'd like to see more density on Parcel 53, Street B\nconnect through to Arbor Street and rear access to lots facing Buena Vista.\nBoard Member Henneberry supported acceptance of project.\nBoard Member Knox White supported acceptance of project.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft commented on desire to see rear access/back alleys for lots\nfacing Buena Vista and encouraged more multi-family units on Parcel 53.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 6\nNovember 26, 2012", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 186, "text": "Vice-President Burton supported acceptance of project. Proposed adding condition that\ndeveloper provide, at a later date, some sort of distinctive paving to Emergency Vehicle\nAccess.\nPresident Zuppan supported acceptance of project, although concerned that more housing\nunits are not included.\nStaff clarified that rear-access to the Buena Vista fronted lots can be considered at the\nDesign Review stage and concern can be included in the report to Council.\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to accept the Tentative Map as proposed minus\ndotted lines for courts A, B, and C and addition of emergency vehicle access materials\nlanguage and addendum with the correction of typo (53 lots not 52).\nBoard Member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nMotion carried, 6-0; no abstentions.\n8.\nMINUTES:\n9.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\nNone.\n9-A.\nFuture Agendas\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 6\nNovember 26, 2012", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 187, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING\nRevised 6/16/08\nWednesday, May 21, 2008\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nChair Jane Sullwold called the regular meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. in the Ladies'\nLounge at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road,\nAlameda, CA 94502\n1-A.\nRoll Call\nRoll call was taken and members present were: Commissioner Betsy Gammell,\nVice Chair Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill Schmitz and Chair Jane Sullwold. Absent:\nSecretary Bill Delaney and Commissioner Jeff Wood. Also present were Interim\nGeneral Manager Dale Lillard and Assistant Golf Professional Mike Robason.\n1-B\nApproval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 16, 2008:\nThe Commission approved the minutes unanimously.\n1-C\nAdoption of Agenda\nThe Commission adopted the agenda unanimously.\n2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n3.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A\nResponse from the City Auditor.\nChair Sullwold read a letter from City Auditor Kevin Kearney dated May 20, 2008,\npurportedly explaining the accounting procedures concerning the golf cart lease.\nThe Golf Fund is being charged the entire amount of the four-year lease --\n$449,000 -- in this fiscal year. Mr. Kearney did not answer the question of why this\nwas necessary in his letter. He compared the golf cart lease to a home mortgage,\nbut, of course, a home owner is not required to put aside the entire amount due to\nbe paid over the 30-year term of his mortgage during the first year, making the\ncomparison inappropriate. The Commission intends to ask Mr. Kearney additional\nquestions.\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 1\n06/16/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 188, "text": "Prior to the meeting Chair Sullwold asked Interim General Manager Dale Lillard to\nexplain the components of the Services category in the Golf Complex financial\nreports for May, as this figure is substantially over budget this year. Mr. Lillard\nreported that the Services category included the four years of payments on the\ngolf cart lease, payments to the National Golf Foundation for the Operational\nReview and Master Plan, and a charge of $115,063 for Beltline eminent domain\nlitigation expenses. The Golf Commission questioned why the Beltline expenses,\nwhich have absolutely nothing to do with golf or the Golf Complex, are being\ncharged against Golf Complex revenues. [Note: The next day, May 22, 2008, Mr.\nLillard clarified by e-mail to the Golf Commissioners that the Services category\nincluded a charge of $374,794 to date for the golf cart lease, and $79,522 for\npayments to date to NGF. The charge of $115,063 for Beltline expenses was\nattributed to risk management, and was included under the category of Transfers\nto Other Funds.]\n4-B\nScore card advertising.\nAssistant Golf Professional Mike Robason said that he had contacted the\ncompany that offered to prepare free scorecards in exchange for advertising rights\nand had begun negotiations with them to see what they would be willing to do for\nthe Golf Complex.\n4-C Feedback on elimination of complimentary rounds; discussion regarding possible\nchanges to various categories of greens fees.\nCommissioner Schmitz and Commissioner Gammell, neither of whom was present\nat the April meeting, expressed serious disagreement with the April vote by the\nCommission to impose a $15 charge for employees to play golf at the Golf\nComplex. Commissioner Gammell said she considered it embarrassing that Pro\nShop employees would be allowed to play for free at other courses but would be\ncharged to play at their home course. Commissioner Schmitz moved, and\nCommissioner Gammell seconded, that the decision to impose employee greens\nfees be rescinded. Chair Sullwold said she was opposed to the motion as phrased\nbecause it went too far. She stated her opinion that greens fees should be waived\nfor part-time hourly employees who do not receive benefits, and that the amount\nfor others should be reduced from $15 to $10, but she feels that full-time\nemployees should be required to pay a modest fee in these difficult financial times.\nThe motion passed by a 3 to 1 vote. It was noted, however, that Mr. Lillard had\npreviously sent Commissioners an e-mail indicating that he had approval from\nHuman Resources and the City Attorney's Office to impose an employee rate\nregardless of the position of the Golf Commission on that issue, and that he\ntherefore did not intend to rescind the policy.\nChair Sullwold expressed her annoyance that a $15 rate for Golf Commissioners\nhad not been input into the computer at the same time as the charge for\nemployees. Both charges were part of the same motion by the Golf Commission\nat its April meeting, and the Golf Commission had never asked Mr. Lillard to\nreconsider the charge for Commissioners, only for employees.\nGolf\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 2\n06/16/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 189, "text": "Commissioners who expected to pay the $15 rate starting on May 1 were told by\nPro Shop staff that no such rate existed, so they had to ask to be counted as\nemployees in order to be properly charged. She instructed Mr. Lillard to have the\nCommissioner rate set up as soon as possible.\nA general discussion ensued regarding possible ways to enhance Golf Complex\nrevenues by changes to greens fees. The Golf Commission approved a\nrecommendation to City Council to (1) equalize rates on the Clark and Fry courses\nby bring Clark rates up to Fry rates, (2) create a \"super super\" twilight rate of $10\nper round after 6:00 p.m. on a 90-day promotional basis, and (3) raise the\nweekend rate at the Mif Albright course from $7.00 to $9.00. Mr. Lillard was asked\nto present these proposals to City Council as quickly as possible. Chair Sullwold\nasked Mr. Lillard and Mr. Robason if either had any additional revenue-enhancing\nideas for the Golf Commission to consider, but neither could think of any. Both\nwere encouraged to come forward immediately if they had any new ideas, or if any\nnew ideas were suggested to them.\n4-D\nDiscussion on marketing plan by Secretary Delaney.\nChair Sullwold read an e-mail dated May 21, 2008, from Secretary Delaney as\nfollows:\nI have secured an individual who will add a great deal to our marketing\ndiscussions. He is available after June 6th, thus I plan to schedule an input and\nbrainstorming session shortly after that. It would be a 5-hour meeting initially to\ndiscuss issues, characteristics of the course/facility, competitive activities, other\nentertainment facility events, etc. The objective is to find a common ground to\nbegin the brainstorming session. There would be a second meeting to get into\nactual strategic issues, messaging and maybe some creative approaches.\nExecution efforts will come from the second meeting. We'll also want to consider\nhow we measure our efforts (i.e. ROI and impact). All of this will be part of our\ndiscussions. I would think we should have no more than 7 people involved. 3\nCommissioners, 2 course staff (Mike and Dale), one \"friend\" of the course (Tony\nCorica?) and my professional contact (Larry Kurtz). Any more than that and it\nbecomes difficult to manage. As chair, you need to decide if you want to be a part\nof the process or want to be one of the decision makers who reviews the task\nforce recommendations and blesses them. Once that is done, you and I (and the\ncommission) would present our thinking and plans to the council/mayor. We will\nneed someone like yourself to view this effort separately to make sure we are\nthinking correctly and not getting caught up in our own beliefs. If you chose to take\nthat role, I see us communicating to you after each meeting to offer insights to\nwhat we discussed and to give you insight to our next steps.\nThe Golf Commission felt that only one member should be on this committee, and\nthe other three members present felt that the committee member should be Chair\nSullwold. Former Golf Commissioner Tony Corica agreed to serve on the\ncommittee as well. Chair Sullwold will contact Secretary Delaney to get this ball\nrolling.\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 3\n06/16/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 190, "text": "5.\nORAL REPORTS\n5-A\nGolf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Assistant Golf\nProfessional Mike Robason.\nThe Assistant Golf Professional reported that the Taylor Made Demo Day held on\nMay 17, 2008 was very successful bringing in $6,500. The Golf Complex will be\nhosting a Ladies Day on June 11, 2008 in conjunction with the PGA of America's\nWomen's Golf Month. The activities will include a \"Demo Day\" with Titleist/Cobra\nand teaching clinics. The event is free.\n5-B\nGolf Complex Maintenance activities report by Superintendent Doug\nPoole.\nAbsent.\n5-C\nBeautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.\nNo tape transmission available.\n5-D\nGolf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course.\nNo Restaurant representative was present. Mr. Lillard reported that ceiling tiles\nhad been replaced, and plans were in the works to replace the carpet.\n6.\nCOMMISSIONERS' REPORTS\n6-A\nMarketing and Promotions, Commissioner Gammell.\nNothing to report.\n6-B\nGolf Complex Financial Report, Secretary Delaney.\nAbsent. Financial matters discussed earlier.\n6-C\nNew Clubhouse Project, Vice Chair Gaul and Commissioner Schmitz.\nNothing to report.\n6-D Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Commissioner\nWood.\nAbsent.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNone.\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 4\n06/16/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 191, "text": "8.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNone.\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nIncluded in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance\nDepartment showing the surcharge payment for April 2008 was $11,790. The\nyear-to-date total to the General Fund is $112,231 for fiscal year 2007/2008.\n10.\nITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA\nGolf Complex financials.\n11.\nANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT\nThe Meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:00 PM.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 5\n06/16/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 192, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nJune 27, 2005-7:00 - p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:13 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani, and\nPiziali.\nBoard members Kolhstrand and McNamara were absent.\nAlso present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,\nLeslie Little, Development Services Director, Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development\nServices Department, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005.\nVice President Cook advised that page 8, paragraph 9, should be changed to read, \"Vice President\nCook advised that periodic review for a variety of parking issues had been attached to use permits in\nthe past.\"\nM/S Piziali/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as corrected.\nA quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next meeting.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that the Board had requested that all Consent Calendar items with the\nexception of Item 7-E, be placed on the regular agenda.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:None.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 193, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nPDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant proposes a\nPlanned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and\nlot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203. This Amendment would affect\nLots 1-6, 8-12 and14 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots are fronting on or southerly\nof 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned Development Amendment\nwould allow a five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5\nacres. Currently, maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots\nlarger than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum\nlot coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed\nPlanned Development Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by\nfive to ten percent (5 to 10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage\nis required on lots smaller than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for\nparcels larger than 5.5 acres. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would\ndecrease the landscaping requirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of\nsize. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned\nDevelopment.)\nThis item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern\nthat this item would chip away at the rules established for building on Bay Farm Island. He had not\nheard any good reasons for allowing slightly less landscaping or more construction density of\nwarehouse structures on these parcels. He inquired whether further subdivision would then be\nallowed.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Garrison noted that this business park was originally conceived as a campus-like setting with\nlarger office buildings, and some high-rise office buildings as well, with open space between the\nbuildings. He noted that kind of development has not materialized, and the developer found a market\nfor somewhat smaller buildings that focused more on warehousing, distribution and light\nmanufacturing. From their perspective, it was not feasible for convey a larger lot to an individual\nbusiness owner, and then require extensive landscaping. This item was proposed to make things\neconomically feasible for the developer, and to balance that against the public interest.\nMs. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, stated that it was important to note that the\ndeveloper was not just trying to make an economical development, but to respond to a drastic change\nin the office market in the Bay Area. She noted that more density had originally been planned for\nthis park vertically; the floor plate was spread over a greater area, but the buildings would be lower.\nShe added that the applicant overlandscaped in other parts of the park.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 194, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the future possibility of building up, Ms.\nEliason noted that the Final Development Plans would preclude that choice because the applicant\nwould have to meet parking requirements; parking was based on a partial warehouse-type use, which\nwas less dense than office. She noted that the entire lot would have to be redeveloped entirely; they\nwould not be able to just add a second story.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about having a balance in the public interest, including\nsafety for children and traffic. She had been uncomfortable approving these speculative projects\nwithout more information about traffic, parking and other issues. She suggested a potential\nmitigation by allowing 7-B to be approved without also approving all the parcelization and changing\nthe landscaping requirements.\nMs. Eliason noted that the PDA could be limited to only Parcel 14 (Ettore). That would not allow 7-\nC (four flex warehouses) to move forward at this time. The Parcel Map referenced was already\napproved by the Planning Board and will be heard by City Council in July.\nVice President Cook did not feel she had enough information, and needed more environmental\nanalysis and examination of the schools and roads. She believed the business park as a whole was\nexcellent quality.\nMr. Lynch suggested that the 15 parcels be brought back for discussion of circulation, landscaping,\nand building design, and to move the Tentative Map forward.\nMs. Eliason noted that the Tentative Map had been approved, and that the entire business park was\nunder a development agreement, which specified the land uses that may be included in the business\npark. Those uses included Office, R&D, as well as any use in the C-M District, which also included\nwarehouse/light manufacturing. She noted that the Board had limited ability to change the uses.\nVice President Cook would like the parcels, except for Ettore, to return for further analysis and\ndiscussion of compatibility of uses with schools and future plans for the other side of North Loop\nRoad, as well as the impacts associated with trucks and related uses.\nMr. Joe Ernst, applicant, SRM Associates, would like to avoid putting the entire Parcel Map on hold\nbecause portions of that Map would not be affected by the PDA. He noted that transactions were tied\nto those portions that were conforming uses with respect to current development standards.\nM/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-23 to continue\nthis item with the exception of Lot 14.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 195, "text": "proposed for the garage. She noted that it would not staff-intensive, and that there would be no pay\ngate to queue up for at the end of the evening.\nVice President Cook noted that there had been more opposition to the theater than the garage, and\nadded that the Board listened carefully to each public speaker. She noted that some items had been\naddressed previously, such as retail on the ground floor.\nMr. Piziali supported the use of variegated brick to add more detail to the fa\u00e7ade.\nMs. Ott noted that Michael Stanton believed that the symmetry of the pattern with respect to the\nhorizontal openings would look better with a more subtle brick design.\nPresident Cunningham believed that the header courses should be fixed, and he was very concerned\nabout the current brick detail design.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that one of the criteria was that the\nexterior fa\u00e7ade would be consistent with whatever the Planning Board approves. She noted that\nMichael Stanton specified the quality of the materials in a very detailed way, based on the sample\nboard provided.\nVice President Cook noted that the DDA discussed the City's parking operations plan, which would\nbe submitted in a timely manner and examined in detail by the City Council.\nPresident Cunningham addressed Mr. Spangler's comment regarding an exit strategy, and noted that\nthere was no way to tell what would happen in the future. He believed the floor-to-floor heights\ncould be adjusted, and that the conversion of a parking garage was problematic. He noted that\ndesigning structures with an eye towards adaptive reuse before the intended use has begun will\ncompromise the project from the beginning. He hoped that Park Street business would require this\nvolume of parking.\nVice President Cook believed that without the Cineplex, this parking structure would appear too\nmassive on its own.\nMr. Lynch requested the inclusion of the financials at the next presentation. He suggested that with\nthe recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain, that the City Council and City\nAttorney provide information with respect to potential litigation.\nMs. Mariani noted that she agreed with the modifications suggested by the Board. She did not agree\nwith the scale of the parking garage, and agreed that the City needed parking.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-28 to approve a\nUse Permit and Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-\nspace parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video\nManiacs site, with the following modifications:\n1.\nThe size of the poster boxes would be enhanced with contrasting brick detail and\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 22\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 196, "text": "accents;\n2.\nThe header courses would be corrected;\n3.\nA lighting consultant would be utilized;\n4.\nA landscaping plan would be included, and returned to the Planning Board.\nAYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN -\n0\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Cunningham advised that a letter from Sarah [Unavolta], commenting that she was not in\nfavor of Item 8-A.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that their last meeting was held the previous week. Staff will make a\npresentation before the Planning Board to discuss the future of the project, and what kind of regular\nreview the Board would like.\nb. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.\nc. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nBoard Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.\nd. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nBoard Member Mariani advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Eliason advised that the preliminary concept for Alameda Point was distributed to the Board\nmembers. There will be a meeting on that subject in July.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:25 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nPaul Benoit, Interim Secretary\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 23\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 197, "text": "Planning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the July 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio\nand video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 24\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 198, "text": "7-B. FDP05-0001/DR05-0050 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates for Ettore Products\n(DG). 2100 North Loop Road. The applicant requests a Final Development Plan and\nDesign Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and light manufacturing\nfacility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map No 8574).\nThe property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.)\nThis item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.\nThis item was discussed under Item 7-A.\nM/S Lynch/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-24 to approve a\nFinal Development Plan and Design Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and\nlight manufacturing facility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map\nNo 8574).\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 199, "text": "7-C.\nFDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant\nrequests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse,\noffice and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on\n6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative\nParcel Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until\nthe final map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing- -\nPlanned Development.)\nThis item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.\nThis item was discussed under Item 7-A.\nM/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to continue this item, which will be renoticed following discussion\nwith the applicants.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 200, "text": "7-D.\nTM05-0001 - Regency Realty Group, Inc. 2599 Blanding Avenue (AT). Applicants\nrequest approval of Parcel Map 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside\nShopping Center. The site is located within the C-2 PD, Central Business Planned\nDevelopment District.\nThis item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.\nMr. Tai summarized the staff report\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the timing of this action, Mr. Tai replied\nthat it was appropriate because before the public access easements can be recorded on the site, the\nparcels must be recorded first. He noted that should not be affected by any change in public access\neasements. Those easements would be recorded by a separate instrument at a later time. The Broadway\nStreet right of way through the site would be permanently abandoned.\nVice President Cook noted that she was concerned about the current proposed location for the\ntransformers in the view corridors and welcoming area.\nMr. Tai noted that staff was reviewing those issues, which were unrelated to this item.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-25 to approve Parcel\nMap 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside Shopping Center.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 13022, "rank": null}